What Divides Catholics and Protestants?

What Divides Catholics and Protestants?

There are 84626 comments on the www.christianpost.com story from Apr 19, 2008, titled What Divides Catholics and Protestants?. In it, www.christianpost.com reports that:

As Pope Benedict XVI continues with his highly publicized visit to the United States, some may wonder what the major differences are between Catholicism and Protestantism - the two main Christian bodies in the ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.christianpost.com.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#85246 Nov 17, 2012
First...

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Then, later...

Exodus 20:8-11
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days YHWH made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore YHWH blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Allen Richards wrote:
All somewhat interesting but evidently you do not fully understand what you have written. Please read this carefully. "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." and "thy stranger that is within thy gates:"

What you are quoting pertains ONLY to gentiles living among the Jews primarily in the land that God gave them.

This particular expression "from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another," Isaiah 66:23. Means from month to month and from week to week. It does not impose the Sabbath on gentiles.

As I said the Sabbath was given exclusively to the children of Israel.

Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

Lev 24:8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
Both verses you quoted appear after the two I quoted, above. There's not one verse that even implies that 1) the observance of the sabbath was for Israel exclusively, or 2) that the law regarding sabbath-acknowledgement has become null and void. Nor, does one verse exists that implies that the overall expectations of our Godhead have changed.

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Matthew 5:17-19
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

As I stated, our anointed Savior fulfilled the precepts of the sabbath, but not the sabbath itself. The sabbath was instituted long before the law was given to Israel, when our Godhead rested on the seventh day. Now.....

Isaiah 66:22-23
For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith YHWH, so shall your seed and your name remain.
And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith YHWH.

It's easy to dismiss these mentions of "new moon" and "sabbath" as "monthly" and "weekly," but these are obvious mentions to indicate actual times of observances, to worship before our Godhead. Obviously, in the new heavens and earth, all will worship our Godhead from one second to another.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#85247 Nov 17, 2012
The fundamental dogma of Christianity; the concept of the union in one God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three infinite persons. It was the Nicene Council and even more especially the Athanasian Creed that first gave the dogma its definite formulation: "And the Catholick Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Substance." Equalization of the Son with the Father marks an innovation in the Pauline theology: "Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him" (I Cor. viii. 6, R. V.), while in another passage the Holy Ghost is added (ib. xii. 3; comp. Titus ii. 13), thus rapidly developing the concept of the Trinity (II Cor. xiii. 14). Although the Judæo-Christian sect of the Ebionites protested against this apotheosis of Jesus ("Clementine Homilies," xvi. 15), the great mass of Gentile Christians accepted it.

"Fra Pablo asked me in Gerona whether I believed in the Trinity. I said to him,'What is the Trinity? Do three great human bodies constitute the Divinity?''No!''Or are there three ethereal bodies, such as the souls, or are there three angels?''No!''Or is an object composed of three kinds of matter, as bodies are composed of the four elements?''No!''What then is the Trinity?' He said:'Wisdom, will, and power'[comp. the definition of Thomas Aquinas]. Then I said:'I also acknowledge that God is wise and not foolish, that He has a will unchangeable, and that He is mighty and not weak. But the term "Trinity" is decidedly erroneous; for wisdom is not accidental in the Creator, since He and His wisdom are one, He and His will are one, He and His power are one, so that wisdom, will, and power are one. Moreover, even were these things accidental in Him, that which is called God would not be three beings, but one being with these three accidental attributes.' Our lord the king here quoted an analogy which the erring ones had taught him, saying that there are also three things in wine, namely, color, taste, and bouquet, yet it is still one thing. This is a decided error; for the redness, the taste, and the bouquet of the wine are distinct essences, each of them potentially self-existent; for there are red, white, and other colors, and the same statement holds true with regard to taste and bouquet. The redness, the taste, and the bouquet, moreover, are not the wine itself, but the thing which fills the vessel, and which is, therefore, a body with the three accidents. Following this course of argument, there would be four, since the enumeration should include God, His wisdom, His will, and His power, and these are four. You would even have to speak of five things; for He lives, and His life is a part of Him just as much as His wisdom. Thus the definition of God would be 'living, wise, endowed with will, and mighty'; the Divinity would therefore be fivefold in nature. All this, however, is an evident error. Then Fra Pablo arose and said that he believed in the unity, which, none the less, included the Trinity, although this was an exceedingly deep mystery, which even the angels and the princes of heaven could not comprehend. I arose and said:'It is evident that a person does not believe what he does not know: therefore the angels do not believe in the Trinity.' His colleagues then bade him be silent."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14...

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#85248 Nov 17, 2012
Founder of Christianity; born at Nazareth about 2 B.C.(according to Luke iii. 23); executed at Jerusalem 14th of Nisan, 3789 (March or April, 29 C.E.). His life, though indirectly of so critical a character, had very little direct influence on the course of Jewish history or thought. In contemporary Jewish literature his career is referred to only in the (interpolated) passage of Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 3,§ 3, while the references in the Talmud are for the most part as legendary as those in the apocryphal gospels, though in an opposite direction (see Jesus in Jewish Legend). Under these circumstances it is not necessary in this place to do more than to give a sketch of the main historical events in the public career of Jesus, with an attempt to ascertain his personal relations to contemporary Judaism; for the theological superstructure based upon his life and death, and certain mythological conceptions associated with them, see Jew. Encyc. iv. 50a, s.v.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/86...

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#85249 Nov 17, 2012
He maintained that the Jewish religious system, which allowed man to approach as nearly as is possible to perfection, would always exist, and would not be replaced by any other, least of all by the Christian, which transmuted mere abstractions into divine personalities.

More aggressive was Saadia's contemporary, the Karaite Al-Ḳirḳisa ni. In the third treatise of his "Kitab al-Anwar wal-Marakib" (ch. xvi.) he says that "the religion of the Christians, as practised at present, has nothing in common with the teachings of Jesus. It originated with Paul, who ascribed divinity to Jesus and prophetic inspiration to himself. It was Paul that denied the necessity of obeying the commandments and taught that religion consisted in humility; and it was the Nicene Council which adopted precepts that occur neither in the Law nor in the Gospels nor in the Acts of Peter and Paul." Equally violent in their attacks upon Christianity were the Karaite writers Japheth ben Ali and Hadassi—the former in his commentaries on the Bible, and the latter in his "Eshkol ha-Kofer," in which the fundamental dogmas of Christianity are harshly criticized. The assertion of the Christians that God was born of a woman and assumed a human form in the person of Jesus is considered by Hadassi to be blasphemous. Moreover, the reason given by the Church that God willed the incarnation of Jesus in order to free the world from its thraldom to Satan, is declared by him to be absurd; for, he asks, has the world grown any better as a result of this incarnation? are there fewer murderers, adulterers, etc., among the Christians than there were among the pagans?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12...

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#85250 Nov 17, 2012
Considering the three posts above, quoting from Mr. Allen Richard's most cherished "Jewish Encyclopedia," I'd like to also remind us of a most recent statement and question made by Mr. Allen Richards, to TJ Monk.

"Bulk wrap on the encyclopedia. How can anyone expect to get accurate information about Christianity from a secular, non-Christian, encyclopedia?"

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian...

I'm concerned with how easily our beloved Mr. Allen Richards can pick and choose between what's considered acceptable and unacceptable, and when it best suits his purpose. Of a surety and as a believer of our anointed Savior, I'm sure he won't so readily accept what the Jewish Encyclopedia asserts regarding our anointed Savior, the so-called "trinity" doctrine, or Christianity. But, he will and does with certain of this Jewish Encyclopedia's assertions that are in agreement with his own personal beliefs.
frogmann

Pittsburgh, PA

#85251 Nov 18, 2012
youtube.com/watch... … non virgin Tongue divides the matters

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#85252 Nov 18, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Considering the three posts above, quoting from Mr. Allen Richard's most cherished "Jewish Encyclopedia," I'd like to also remind us of a most recent statement and question made by Mr. Allen Richards, to TJ Monk.
"Bulk wrap on the encyclopedia. How can anyone expect to get accurate information about Christianity from a secular, non-Christian, encyclopedia?"
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian...
I'm concerned with how easily our beloved Mr. Allen Richards can pick and choose between what's considered acceptable and unacceptable, and when it best suits his purpose. Of a surety and as a believer of our anointed Savior, I'm sure he won't so readily accept what the Jewish Encyclopedia asserts regarding our anointed Savior, the so-called "trinity" doctrine, or Christianity. But, he will and does with certain of this Jewish Encyclopedia's assertions that are in agreement with his own personal beliefs.
.
How quickly uninformed wannabe scholars agree with each other and howl and snarl like a pack of wild dogs. The jews have been avowed enemies of Jesus and Christianity since Jesus lived. Do any of you make believe, wannabe experts really think that anything they say about Jesus or Christianity can be trusted? That is about like asking Martin Luther or Hitler what they thought about the Jews.
.
However I do think that Jewish scholars are the best source of information about the Jews and Judaism.
.
This is the only reply I will post to this series of garbage brainless posts.
.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#85253 Nov 18, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Um...I made sure to mention that I have the NEW Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.
.
Check the preface you will see that it was published in 1890 as you acknowledge a few sentences below!
.
I can accept that, but I like to retain the vowel sound of His name "Yahh." "Yahowshu'a." "Yehowshu'a." Saul Goode.
.
Who is Saul Goode and what has he got to do with anything?
.
Still an opinion, nonetheless.
.
Bulk wrap! I don’t post opinion. It is the informed consensus of publishers. Even if it was just a publishers opinion that beats the “H” out of your uninformed assumptions/presuppositions. See e.g. this product statement at Christianbooks.com

A trio of eminent Old Testament scholars, Francis Brown, R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, spent over twenty years researching, writing, and preparing this lexicon. Since it first appeared in the early part of the twentieth century, BDB has been considered the finest and most comprehensive Hebrew lexicon available to the English-speaking student. Based upon the classic work of Wilhelm Gesenius, the "father of modern. Hebrew lexicography," BDB gives not only dictionary definitions for each word, but relates each word to its Old Testament usage and categorizes its nuances of meaning. BDB's exhaustive coverage of Old Testament Hebrew words, as well as its unparalleled usage of cognate languages and the wealth of background sources consulted and quoted, render BDB and invaluable resource for all students of the Bible.
.
~sigh~ NEW, Mr. Allen Richards. NEW.
.
~sigh~ Right back at you. If you are quoting the Hebrew and Chaldee dictionary from Strong’s and it shows Jehovah for YHWH it is NOT new and it has not been revised.
.
Did I ever say there was? As I recall, I only stated that "Jehovah" is the transliteration of the Hebrew "Yehoweh." NOTE: I spelled it "Y-e-h-o-w-e-h" and not "Y-a-h-o-w-e-h."[/qu ote]
.
Are you for real?“Yehoweh” is the transliteration of the Hebrew Yod, Heh, Wah, Yod. How can you have a transliteration of a transliteration?
.
[QUOTE]Over 200 years old? Really? It was published in 1890. That's only 122 years, isn't it? And it's been revised since, hence my use of the term "new," which does appear on the cover and within the book.
.
If you are quoting the Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary in Strong’s and it has Jehovah, then it has not been revised. I have the Strongest Strong’s which was published in 2001, it has been fully revised and corrected and the Hebrew-Aramaic dictionary does NOT have Jehovah for the tetragrammaton.
.

“Land of Entrapment”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#85254 Nov 18, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
How quickly uninformed wannabe scholars agree with each other and howl and snarl like a pack of wild dogs. The jews have been avowed enemies of Jesus and Christianity since Jesus lived. Do any of you make believe, wannabe experts really think that anything they say about Jesus or Christianity can be trusted? That is about like asking Martin Luther or Hitler what they thought about the Jews.
.
However I do think that Jewish scholars are the best source of information about the Jews and Judaism.
.
This is the only reply I will post to this series of garbage brainless posts.
.
I claim no authority, just what I feel. And that is that Christian Jews are the most annointed on the planet. They give up their heritage to follow their Messiah. Unsaved Jews, an entirely different story indeed.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#85255 Nov 18, 2012
Nijoni wrote:
<quoted text>
I claim no authority, just what I feel. And that is that Christian Jews are the most annointed on the planet. They give up their heritage to follow their Messiah. Unsaved Jews, an entirely different story indeed.
.
I agree. I should have made it clear that I was talking about traditional Jews not Messianic Jews.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#85257 Nov 18, 2012
Considering the three posts above, quoting from Mr. Allen Richard's most cherished "Jewish Encyclopedia," I'd like to also remind us of a most recent statement and question made by Mr. Allen Richards, to TJ Monk.

"Bulk wrap on the encyclopedia. How can anyone expect to get accurate information about Christianity from a secular, non-Christian, encyclopedia?"

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian ...

I'm concerned with how easily our beloved Mr. Allen Richards can pick and choose between what's considered acceptable and unacceptable, and when it best suits his purpose. Of a surety and as a believer of our anointed Savior, I'm sure he won't so readily accept what the Jewish Encyclopedia asserts regarding our anointed Savior, the so-called "trinity" doctrine, or Christianity. But, he will and does with certain of this Jewish Encyclopedia's assertions that are in agreement with his own personal beliefs.
Allen Richards wrote:
How quickly uninformed wannabe scholars agree with each other and howl and snarl like a pack of wild dogs. The jews have been avowed enemies of Jesus and Christianity since Jesus lived. Do any of you make believe, wannabe experts really think that anything they say about Jesus or Christianity can be trusted? That is about like asking Martin Luther or Hitler what they thought about the Jews.

However I do think that Jewish scholars are the best source of information about the Jews and Judaism.

This is the only reply I will post to this series of garbage brainless posts.
It's painfully obvious that anger and frustration preceded and dictated your most insulting response.

Do you not believe that the Jew's opposition against our anointed Savior, the so-called "trinity" doctrine, and Christianity, aren't, according to them, based on these scholars' supposed, accurate knowledge of the Jews and Judaism?

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#85259 Nov 18, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Considering the three posts above, quoting from Mr. Allen Richard's most cherished "Jewish Encyclopedia," I'd like to also remind us of a most recent statement and question made by Mr. Allen Richards, to TJ Monk.
"Bulk wrap on the encyclopedia. How can anyone expect to get accurate information about Christianity from a secular, non-Christian, encyclopedia?"
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian ...
I'm concerned with how easily our beloved Mr. Allen Richards can pick and choose between what's considered acceptable and unacceptable, and when it best suits his purpose. Of a surety and as a believer of our anointed Savior, I'm sure he won't so readily accept what the Jewish Encyclopedia asserts regarding our anointed Savior, the so-called "trinity" doctrine, or Christianity.
.
I think I have adequately answered your asinine insinuations above. But, unless you are the craven coward you sppesr to be, if you have sany concerns about me, then talk to me, NOT about me in the third person. That is assuming that you are a mature adult rather than the immature juvie you appear to be.
.
But, he will and does with certain of this Jewish Encyclopedia's assertions that are in agreement with his own personal beliefs.
.
A dog puke lie.
.
It's painfully obvious that anger and frustration preceded and dictated your most insulting response.
Do you not believe that the Jew's opposition against our anointed Savior, the so-called "trinity" doctrine, and Christianity, aren't, according to them, based on these scholars' supposed, accurate knowledge of the Jews and Judaism?
.
By all means let's believe everything the Jewish Encyclopedia says about our savior particularly when they call Jesus a "mamzer", that is Hebrew for "bastard," and they call his mother an adulteress. Or when they say that "The issue, i.e. child, of a gentile is as that of a beast." and "Even the best of gentiles are worthy of death." Guess they got all that "based on these scholars' supposed, accurate knowledge of the Jews and Judaism?
.
Got any more idiotic, asinine arguments?
.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#85260 Nov 18, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
Check the preface you will see that it was published in 1890 as you acknowledge a few sentences below!
Check the preface and you should notice, first, that there are four paragraphs. The second thing you should notice is that there's an asterisk at the very end of the first paragraph. The other asterisk is located at the bottom of the page (pg. v). After this second asterisk, it reads; "from the General Preface to the 1890 Edition." The next three paragraphs are the publisher's latest inclusion. The first sentence of this second, leading paragraph reads; "The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible improves upon the original volume in a number of significant ways."
Allen Richards wrote:
Who is Saul Goode and what has he got to do with anything?
Saul Goode is Saul Goode. And when Saul Goode is around, then it's all good. Nao Ming?
Allen Richards wrote:
Bulk wrap! I don’t post opinion. It is the informed consensus of publishers. Even if it was just a publishers opinion that beats the “H” out of your uninformed assumptions/presuppositions. See e.g. this product statement at Christianbooks.com

A trio of eminent Old Testament scholars, Francis Brown, R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, spent over twenty years researching, writing, and preparing this lexicon. Since it first appeared in the early part of the twentieth century, BDB has been considered the finest and most comprehensive Hebrew lexicon available to the English-speaking student. Based upon the classic work of Wilhelm Gesenius, the "father of modern. Hebrew lexicography," BDB gives not only dictionary definitions for each word, but relates each word to its Old Testament usage and categorizes its nuances of meaning. BDB's exhaustive coverage of Old Testament Hebrew words, as well as its unparalleled usage of cognate languages and the wealth of background sources consulted and quoted, render BDB and invaluable resource for all students of the Bible.
The fact that even your most cherished scholars used Strong's lexicon, hence the use of identical reference numbers, then I think it's safe to keep my book. Strong's is only one of a few I use anyway.
Allen Richards wrote:
~sigh~ Right back at you. If you are quoting the Hebrew and Chaldee dictionary from Strong’s and it shows Jehovah for YHWH it is NOT new and it has not been revised.
Actually, it has a capital "Y," then a little tiny "e" toward the top of the script, then a lower-cased "h," a lower-cased "o," a lower-cased "v," a lower-cased "a," and a lower-cased "h." And right next to this, it shows the pronunciation to be "yeh-ho-vaw'."
Allen Richards wrote:
If you are quoting the Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary in Strong’s and it has Jehovah, then it has not been revised. I have the Strongest Strong’s which was published in 2001, it has been fully revised and corrected and the Hebrew-Aramaic dictionary does NOT have Jehovah for the tetragrammaton.
"Jehovah" is only the English rendering, and it doesn't offend me when people use it. Personally, I don't use "Jehovah." But, like I said. I believe the most High appreciates it when a person uses a personal name rather than "God" all the time. And considering that the actual pronunciation has been lost, then I don't think He has a problem with people using "Jehovah," just like I don't believe He has an issue with people pronouncing His only-begotten Son's name "jee-zuhs."

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#85261 Nov 18, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Check the preface and you should notice, first, that there are four paragraphs. The second thing you should notice is that there's an asterisk at the very end of the first paragraph. The other asterisk is located at the bottom of the page (pg. v). After this second asterisk, it reads; "from the General Preface to the 1890 Edition." The next three paragraphs are the publisher's latest inclusion. The first sentence of this second, leading paragraph reads; "The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible improves upon the original volume in a number of significant ways."
.
And do the revisions include a revision of the Hebrew and Chaldee dictionary? Evidently not since, according to you, it is still using the ungrammatical, false transliteration "Jehovah."
.
Saul Goode is Saul Goode. And when Saul Goode is around, then it's all good. Nao Ming?
.
Soak hay.
.
The fact that even your most cherished scholars used Strong's lexicon, hence the use of identical reference numbers, then I think it's safe to keep my book. Strong's is only one of a few I use anyway.
.
My strongest Strong's show the grammatical transliteration Yahweh, with the same reference numbers. Do you really think that a modern revision of BDB would translate YHWH as Yahweh then link to a concordance that used Jehovah?
.
Actually, it has a capital "Y," then a little tiny "e" toward the top of the script, then a lower-cased "h," a lower-cased "o," a lower-cased "v," a lower-cased "a," and a lower-cased "h." And right next to this, it shows the pronunciation to be "yeh-ho-vaw'."
.
Only some C.U.L.T.S. insist on that false and ungrammatical rendering.
.
"Jehovah" is only the English rendering, and it doesn't offend me when people use it. Personally, I don't use "Jehovah." But, like I said. I believe the most High appreciates it when a person uses a personal name rather than "God" all the time. And considering that the actual pronunciation has been lost, then I don't think He has a problem with people using "Jehovah," just like I don't believe He has an issue with people pronouncing His only-begotten Son's name "jee-zuhs."
.
I have aleready explained Jesus. You can keep whining about it like a spoiled child if you want to. I don't have a problem with people using Jehovah unless, like you, they insist that is a correct and grammatical intepretation of the tetragrammaton.
.
The correct translation of YHWH has been determined by Hebrew scholars based on the rules of grammar and transliterations in ancient Greek texts. There are many examples of Greek words similar to Yahweh but none of Jehovah. You would know this if you had bothered to read the Jewish Encyclopedia article, Names of God, which I posted. Instead of making snide juvenile comments about the Jewish Encyclopedia.
.

“Land of Entrapment”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#85262 Nov 18, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I agree. I should have made it clear that I was talking about traditional Jews not Messianic Jews.
cool
:)

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#85263 Nov 18, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
`
You, my friend, are...

~sigh~

I think it's best I take heed to the wise saying at Proverbs 26:4 now.

May the shalowm of our 'Elohiym bless you, Mr. Allen Richards.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#85264 Nov 19, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>What is it you're not understanding?
Of course, when we combine every member and every congregation, it's most understandable and reasonable to consider all "one" rather than individual members and congregations. The fact of the matter is, though, that the Body, being "one," is still a sum of the many members. Isn't it the same with our families?
In my family alone, there's myself, my wife, and our eleven children. Thirteen of us altogether, but one family, right?
<quoted text>The organization isn't figurative. The idea that we call two-or-more "one" is figurative.
<quoted text>What I said was, "It's foolish for you to declare that neither the Church, or 'God,' are figurative, as if I've suggested such a foolish thing!"
My point was, I never even insinuated such a foolish thing. "God" is not figurative. The Church is not figurative. What's figurative is Father and our anointed Savior being "one." They're actually two, but indivisible in all things. What's figurative is the Church being "one." The Church is actually many members, but indivisible in all things.
you are tap dancing. the point is simple. "heis" is a quantitative word meaning "one" and quantity of one. it has nothing to do with being in agreement or unity. so when "these three are one" it is not talking about agreement but the fact that they are one witness or one God. if the word "heis" is employed by it's self, the concentration of the context should be on the "one" thing that the context is talking about.
i am a member of one church that church is singular but certainly not always in agreement.

congratulations on the eleven. hope all is well.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#85265 Nov 19, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Um...I dunno. Perhaps, Matthew 28:19? "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Matthew 28:19 is, most likely, the answer to your question considering that the terminology equates with Cyprian's comment. 1John 5:7 uses "Word" and not "Son."
<quoted text>Okay! Fine! 1John 5:7 has always had "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one" in the text!
I knew you were going to continue on with this minor inconvenience rather than focus on my initial and more important question. For your knowledge and comfort of mind, I accept "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one" in the text. Anyway, to get back to my initial question...
Does 1John 5:7 prove the existence of a so-called "trinity?"
#1 John is the only author to refer to Christ as the "Word" so the attempt to distract with Mathew 28:19 is really just that; a distraction.
#2 yes, it supports the evidence that is found beginning in Genesis 1.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#85266 Nov 19, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, it's written...
First...
Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Then, later...
Exodus 20:8-11
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle..
...nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
And sooner than later...
Isaiah 66:23
And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
Our anointed Savior fulfilled the precepts of the seventh-day sabbath, but not the sabbath itself, and not for Israel exclusively.
<quoted text>I don't challenge the title "Christian," nor anyone's use of the title. I only declare that I prefer another title that bears the same root and produces the same fruit.
I call our anointed Savior as such because that's what he is. He was, indeed, anointed to be our Savior.
when in rome do as the romans do.

Exodus 31:13
Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

Exodus 31:14
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Exodus 31:15
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 31:16
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

Nehemiah 13
16 There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem.

17 Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day?

18 Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath.

19 And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the sabbath day.

God didn't speak to the gentile merchants. he was not angry with the merchants. he dealt with his people.
the sabbath was for the Jews. a sign of a perpetuel covenant between him and them.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#85267 Nov 19, 2012
TJ Monk wrote:
<quoted text>
I have pork ribs on the grill.......any encyclopedia will tell you the origions of trinity, hellfire and immortality of the soul. Gen. 1:21,24....Animals are souls as well, just as humans.........How could a loving God burn an imperfect person forever?? That is a pagan teaching and not one Jesus ever preached about.
really?
Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Mark 9:43
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mark 9:45
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mark 9:47
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Revelation 20:12-14
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

perhaps you need a new Bible. your's apparently is missing theses words of Jesus.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Southern Baptist Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Florida Baptists send additional $500,000 to SB... 16 hr Really 1
News Jerry Falwell Jr. endorses Donald Trump for pre... 16 hr Really 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) Feb 2 Fit2Serve 3,843
News Jerry Falwell Jr. cites his father in Trump end... Jan 31 Lawrence Wolf 29
Can't Get Copy of our Church's By-Laws/Constitu... (Jun '08) Jan '16 Say say 41
Baptists look here! Dec '15 Redeemed 18
Great new Christian book Dec '15 Lawrence Jones 1
More from around the web