???faith???

[b0urgeoisie]

@ b0urgeoisie

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

It is unfortunate that your reply, you ignored my post in order to make ad hominem remarks. I invite you to reread v21; the keywords being "fully convinced". I am sure you will be able to understand this definition of faith given from Scripture without my input lest my comments again fail to meet your standards.

I read your statement the same as this one. It is the cheap arguement of fools to say "You don't agree because you won't understand my genius." If you want to participate than follow the guidelines of the thread. If you want to share scripture with no commentary than perhaps you should reread the rules posted by our brilliant moderator (when is the last time sucking up hurt anyone ) We have the scriptures which I have read and reread many times. If I wanted all of the moving peices of scripture associated with faith I could type in a word and get every verse. I can even search by topic and get scripture passages that contain "trust, hope, belief, love, etc..."
I believe that both Peter and Paul were called of God to teach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. But, in reading the scriptures associated with those men it is clear they had different ideas. They thought for themselves. On the whole they taught salvation through Christ. But, they argued over who deserved salvation. So much so that even today guys like VERN believe that they were at odds. However, Paul honored the position of Peter but learned of God for himself.

 

[Enigma'07]

It don't think good science allows for faith. That does not say a scientist cannot be religious. He just can't use terms like faith or hope when he is developing his art.

Nothing can be absolutly certain, therefore, everything if taken on faith, some just have more evidence than others.

 

[§outh§tar]

I read your statement the same as this one. It is the cheap arguement of fools to say "You don't agree because you won't understand my genius." If you want to participate than follow the guidelines of the thread. If you want to share scripture with no commentary than perhaps you should reread the rules posted by our brilliant moderator (when is the last time sucking up hurt anyone ) We have the scriptures which I have read and reread many times. If I wanted all of the moving peices of scripture associated with faith I could type in a word and get every verse. I can even search by topic and get scripture passages that contain "trust, hope, belief, love, etc..."
I believe that both Peter and Paul were called of God to teach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. But, in reading the scriptures associated with those men it is clear they had different ideas. They thought for themselves. On the whole they taught salvation through Christ. But, they argued over who deserved salvation. So much so that even today guys like VERN believe that they were at odds. However, Paul honored the position of Peter but learned of God for himself.

It is not (necessarily) that you won't be able to understand my genius..

By the tone of your replies, I only doubt whether you await responses to "learn of God" for yourself or whether you simply want to argue.

It is written:

2 Peter 1
19And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[1] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,[2] 21for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[3] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

No private interpretation necessary as you can see. You need not hear from me the Truth which is already known to you, but if you must:

Faith is the offspring of Love. Faith can only grow and mature in the presence of love, even as the sapling matures in strong soil.

Faith rooted in anything else is futile malevolence against God and self. Such faith is not constant and is not preserved. As love, the source of faith does not waver, so faith becomes unshakeable.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

It is not (necessarily) that you won't be able to understand my genius..

By the tone of your replies, I only doubt whether you await responses to "learn of God" for yourself or whether you simply want to argue.

It is written:

2 Peter 1
19And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[1] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,[2] 21for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[3] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

I see this as evidence that God has a living prophet today. A rock of His church. A man like Peter. Is that what it means to you?

 

[§outh§tar]

The verse doesn't mean that there is any living prophet today. It does imply however that there are "holy men of God". Note, not holy "man" of God, as in Peter being the rock of the Church. Peter is certainly great in regard to the circumcision but the Church was never founded upon outward circumcision, as Paul says in Romans.

The Church was not found on one man or even many, but "holy men of God.. moved by the Holy Spirit".

See this article: http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/peterRock.htm

 

[b0urgeoisie]

The verse doesn't mean that there is any living prophet today. It does imply however that there are "holy men of God". Note, not holy "man" of God, as in Peter being the rock of the Church. Peter is certainly great in regard to the circumcision but the Church was never founded upon outward circumcision, as Paul says in Romans.

The Church was not found on one man or even many, but "holy men of God.. moved by the Holy Spirit".

See this article: http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/peterRock.htm

It means exactly that to me and millions of other people. It suggests that perhaps the reason for the great dissent among the religions of the world is they forget that God leads his people through prophets. When they forget his prophet and try to listen to evil men or manipulate the scripture to justify their own wickedness they get crazy ideas. And, truths are lost or twisted. When the last of the men with authority to lead Jesus' church were killed the apostasy began. The truths that Jesus taught were all but swallowed by paganism. The idea that God is three in one was introduced long after the men with authority to teach were killed off. Or something as silly as The virgin was still a virgin after her other children were born. It is clear doctrine of the apostasy.

 

[water]

All people have faith? Interesting.

Yes -- but in very different ways and manners.

It don't think good science allows for faith. That does not say a scientist cannot be religious. He just can't use terms like faith or hope when he is developing his art.

Of course he uses terms like "faith" and "hope"! But what they mean to the scientist is something else than what they may mean to a religious person. In science, to say "I hope" only means that 'I, the scientist, have faith in the scientific laws, and abide to them' -- it's "hope", "faith" in the terms of sheer professional zeal and optimism at work.

Can you imagine lying on a table when the Doctor tells you I hope this works as he puts you under. They would have to change the bedsheets if it was me.

Sometimes, saying "I hope" only tries to say, 'I have a positive attitude, I am optimistic'. Few things are 100% sure -- so when we do something, we go at it with the attitude that it should work, and not with the attitude that it should not work.
However, if it later on doesn't work, even thoguh we hoped it would, this doesn't mean that our good hope was in vain or unjustified. It's a fact of life that things don't work 100% as we wish them.

But I think one of the concerns regarding hope and faith is this: Say for example that you walk by a river, see a person drowning and calling for help, and say "I hope they won't drown." and go your way. Or, if you take an empty pen and say "I hope I will still be able to write with it." In the first case, your not helping in any way would be cruel, and in the second unrealistic. Religious hope and faith often come across like the two examples I described.

I don't think there is a clear and straight line between reasonable and unreasonable acting, or between reasonable and unreasonable faith or hope.

Say that you are a big strong man, an excellent swimmer, and you jump into the river to save that person from drowning. Is it unreasonable to hope that you will save that person? Not at all. Yet, nobody can be sure whether you will really be able to save that person, until you have actually saved them.

Does this mean we should not hope? I think that we cannot but hope. It is just that sometimes, we don't verbalize that hope; sometimes, we have very little hope, sometimes it is an unreasonable hope.

However, I am curious to know what you think faith is. You have made a good argument for why an understanding of faith is important. You established, for the sake of your argument that faith is in everybody. So if you are correct than I must know it to know myself. Please tell me what this faith is that, you claim, is in me.

I think I see where you are aiming at: the *content* of faith, while I offered an explanation of the form, the ability to have faith. I think that faith always has these two inseparatable aspects: content and form/ability, one cannot be without the other. We are all born with the form/ability, but what content this form/ability has depends on our culture, religion.

I can say that you have this form/ability to have faith, but what the content of your faith is -- this I cannot know. Only you can know that.

I am curious to know if you think faith requires action or just leads to action.

There is a nifty equation that says:

POWER = BELIEF X ACTION

and we can replace the term "belief" with "hope" or "faith".
What we are after is some power -- and we can have it only by *acting* on our *belief/hope/faith*. When we do so, our power grows, and in return, our belief/hope/faith grows too.

Your definition of faith should be applicable to things outside of pure religion.

I don't think there is such a general definition of faith that both religious and non-religious people would agree upon. "Faith" is a term that is often connected with religion, and it has therefore become religiously connotated -- but I don't think this is necessary. In the light of my above distinction between content and form/ability, it is easy to see that the content is something that easy to be a matter of dispute.

Religions offer many contents, and they seem ready-made -- and as if they were a matter of course, as if, if one doesn't subscribe to a certain content, this necessarily means that one doesn't have faith. I think this is a hasty generalization religious people sometimes make, and it's wrong. The religious contents of faith are just more handy than many others, but this doesn't make other (non-religious) contents wrong, that's all.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Yes -- but in very different ways and manners.


There is a nifty equation that says:

POWER = BELIEF X ACTION

Is your equation just a feel good equation? How far can you take it?
Can you replace the terms with real numbers? If you can than do you allow for a negative? Describe negative faith. For example if I believe very strongly I will replace my belief with a seven or higher. But, if in spite of my belief I behave very badly; could I have a negative number like -3? My power would be -21. Or rather my faith. If we could describe the inverse of faith than it may open our conversation here. If you know the opposite of something in many respects you will know the positive.
I have always believed that people have an absolute power. My thought is original but I am not the first to see it. Many persons believe that the extreme sociopaths in history could have been much different. Imagine if Hitler was a missionary instead of a shit head. His communication skills, that convinced a nation that genocide was a good idea, could have done great things. Perhaps this is an example of negative faith.
Vern is also a good example of negative faith. If you consider that the teachings of Christ when retold should invite the spirit to confirm. "Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that recieveth the word by the spirit recieveth it as it is preached by the spirit of truth. Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that recieveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together." I believe this says clearly that if it is truth that you seek than that truth will make itself known when you find it.

 

[Cris]

b0urgeoisie,

The term “faith” has multiple definitions and unfortunately they do not mean the same thing but are used in religious circles as if they do. This leads to significant confusion.

In its simplest form faith simply means a belief that something is true despite an absence of factual evidence. The theistic belief that a god exists is a primary example of this type of faith, usually referred to as blind faith since one cannot SEE any evidence.

The other use of faith is when people say they have faith in themselves or faith in their doctor etc. This is generally not blind faith since one usually has some evidence to support the claims. E.g. I would have faith in my doctor because I’ve seen the evidence of his qualification or that he has given me good advice in the past.

Faith in oneself often means that you have confidence to achieve something because you have done it at least once in the past or have come very close and understand what extra effort is needed. In this case you have considerable evidence to support your hopes.

I could also say that I have faith that my car will get me to work tomorrow morning even though the event has not yet occurred. My case is supported by the fact (evidence) that I have made the journey many hundreds of times before. This type of faith is better known as induction reasoning, i.e. it is statistical evidence, but note that there always remains a possibility that the event might fail.

Apart from religious “blind faith” all the other types of faith that are based on some form of evidence could be better substituted by other phrases.

Faith as we see is quite an imprecise term and is never used in science since science is always based on evidential support so the evidence would always be quoted instead.

Faith is heavily emphasized by religionists simply because they have no other choice and cannot quote any evidence. In this respect faith is extremely important and essential to religion. Without faith religions would fail since they have nothing stronger to support them.

In any practical reasoned worldview the use of blind faith is never needed and is a dangerous activity.

 

[Godless]

The Middle Ages were an era of mysticism, ruled by blind faith and blind obedience to the dogma that faith is superior to reason. The Renaissance was specifically the rebirth of reason, the liberation of man's mind, the triumph of rationality over mysticism - a faltering, incomplete, but impassioned triumph that led to the birth of science, of individualism, of freedom. - Ayn Rand

Objectivism teaches that faith designates blind acceptance of a certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof. Ayn Rand.

In other words, ("blind faith" to borrow from Chris) is nothing more than to believe others assertions without evidence or emperical proof.

Other forms of use by the word "faith" is mostly trust. Much of what Chris covered.

Godless.

 

[water]

Is your equation just a feel good equation? How far can you take it?

It is everything but a feel good equation. The power that comes out can be a good, a creative power -- or a destructive one. It all depends on what your belief is and what your actions are.

Can you replace the terms with real numbers?

No. For two reasons:
1. Imagine: This way, a belief that would be regarded as negative and actions that would be regarded as negative would give the same result as if they were both regarded as positive.
2. How are you supposed to measure power, belief, action in numbers? I don't think there can be a criteria for such measuring.

The equation is simply pointing at a relation: the more you act on your blief, the more power you have. Whatever the belief, whatever the action, whatever the power -- good or bad.

If we could describe the inverse of faith than it may open our conversation here.

I see. The inverse of faith is often regarded as "lack of faith". But the practical problem with such a stance is that if one initially has a complete lack of faith -- then how is one supposed to gain any faith? By a miracle? It is a stance that allows for no progress, this is why I propose the "as long as I live, I have hope" stance.

If you know the opposite of something in many respects you will know the positive.

This is true. But ex negativo definitions can be a tricky thing.
(Something like answering the question: "What was not Beethoven's name?" -- the list is long.)

I have always believed that people have an absolute power.

So I take you would rewrite that equation into |POWER| = BELIEF X ACTION.

My thought is original but I am not the first to see it. Many persons believe that the extreme sociopaths in history could have been much different. Imagine if Hitler was a missionary instead of a shit head. His communication skills, that convinced a nation that genocide was a good idea, could have done great things. Perhaps this is an example of negative faith.

What is regarded as negative is the content of this faith, but this faith was definitely strong.

I believe this says clearly that if it is truth that you seek than that truth will make itself known when you find it.

Yes. But, fortunately or unfortunately, there are no shortcuts in this.

 

[Godless]

But the practical problem with such a stance is that if one initially has a complete lack of faith -- then how is one supposed to gain any faith? By a miracle? It is a stance that allows for no progress, this is why I propose the "as long as I live, I have hope" stance.

Why should anyone seek to gain faith? for what? because you lack the knowledge to follow your own reasons? other than take the stans of other's assertions or assumptions.

Hope of what? what outcome? Hope is another word very much related to faith, thus hope that your faith is in the right doctrine, or god, what have you.

Hope in the secular meaning is a desire accompanied by expectation. "Hope best outcome of any given situation.

Hope is having optimistic expectations.

Godless.

 

[§outh§tar]

It means exactly that to me and millions of other people. It suggests that perhaps the reason for the great dissent among the religions of the world is they forget that God leads his people through prophets. When they forget his prophet and try to listen to evil men or manipulate the scripture to justify their own wickedness they get crazy ideas. And, truths are lost or twisted. When the last of the men with authority to lead Jesus' church were killed the apostasy began. The truths that Jesus taught were all but swallowed by paganism. The idea that God is three in one was introduced long after the men with authority to teach were killed off. Or something as silly as The virgin was still a virgin after her other children were born. It is clear doctrine of the apostasy.

The idea that God is three in one is evident in the Bible. The "problem" that most skeptics like to use as a foundation for arguments is that the Bible is never explicit on this matter. Before the epistles, Jesus, in His gospel, had clearly defined the Godhead and shown the distinctions and harmony of the Divine nature.

--
In the Scriptures the three sacred Persons are, in a certain sense, represented as “one” (Dt. 6:4; Jn. 10:30; Gal. 3:20; Jas. 2:19). They are one in nature; each shares the essence of deity. The Father is God (Eph. 1:3); Christ, the Son, is God (Jn. 1:1,14; Heb. 1:8), and the Holy Spirit likewise is Deity (Acts 5:3-4). Any person who subscribes to the notion that neither the Son nor the Spirit is “Deity” in nature is seriously mistaken. The Watchtower cult, for example, is guilty of this error.

On the other hand, there is another sense in which these entities are “three,” that is, they are distinct personalities. The Father is not the Son (Mk. 13:32), the Son is not the Spirit (Jn. 14:16), and the Spirit is not the Father (Gal. 4:6). Those who allege that “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are but three “manifestations” of a solitary Divine Person, are deeply in error. The United Pentecostal Church advocates this false notion.
--

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/godheadTrinity.htm


----

As for your arguments that God leads His people through prophets, it is currently invalid.

Hebrews 1
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

We are obviously therefore no longer under "indirect" revelation, but under the guidance of the Gospel of Christ.

Similarly, see Romans 3:21-22, as the righteousness of God is revealed through faith in Christ, yet witnessed by the Law and Prophets.

It is true however that heretics such as Marcion took advantage of the times, including the absence of any living apostle, to bring conflict between the Scriptures. It almost sounds like you were reading the book on the origins of the Christian Church I was reading on Friday.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

The idea that God is three in one is evident in the Bible. The "problem" that most skeptics like to use as a foundation for arguments is that the Bible is never explicit on this matter. Before the epistles, Jesus, in His gospel, had clearly defined the Godhead and shown the distinctions and harmony of the Divine nature.

--
In the Scriptures the three sacred Persons are, in a certain sense, represented as “one” (Dt. 6:4; Jn. 10:30; Gal. 3:20; Jas. 2:19). They are one in nature; each shares the essence of deity. The Father is God (Eph. 1:3); Christ, the Son, is God (Jn. 1:1,14; Heb. 1:8), and the Holy Spirit likewise is Deity (Acts 5:3-4). Any person who subscribes to the notion that neither the Son nor the Spirit is “Deity” in nature is seriously mistaken. The Watchtower cult, for example, is guilty of this error.

On the other hand, there is another sense in which these entities are “three,” that is, they are distinct personalities. The Father is not the Son (Mk. 13:32), the Son is not the Spirit (Jn. 14:16), and the Spirit is not the Father (Gal. 4:6). Those who allege that “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are but three “manifestations” of a solitary Divine Person, are deeply in error. The United Pentecostal Church advocates this false notion.

By three in one I meant that some persons believe they are all the same person and are only three ways of manifesting the same essence. That is not the gospel Jesus' taught. It looks like we are in agreement. But, you can see what I mean about pagan ideas becoming accepted. The gradual drift from truth was a result of the death of the apostles.

As for your arguments that God leads His people through prophets, it is currently invalid.

I disagree. I believe that God is unchanging.
Hebrews 1

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

This scripture describes the fact that during the ministry of Jesus no other prophet was needed. Just as no other prophet was needed in the time of Moses.

We are obviously therefore no longer under "indirect" revelation, but under the guidance of the Gospel of Christ.

That is absurd because Jesus has left this world. And, as he did so he appointed the prophet to take his place. That was Peter.

It is true however that heretics such as Marcion took advantage of the times, including the absence of any living apostle, to bring conflict between the Scriptures. It almost sounds like you were reading the book on the origins of the Christian Church I was reading on Friday.

No I'm sure that I was not.
You should explain what you mean by cult. Do yo know what a cult is. Because I think you have used the term incorrectly. It seems the only reason you would use the term is from hate. Hate is NOT a virtue of Christianity. I am sure that I do not belong to the group to which you are referring. But, name calling is not right regardless.

 

[SkippingStones]

What is faith to you?

I have faith that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. The fact that I know the sun doesn't "rise" but that the earth is spinning doesn't alter that.
It is because I believe the sun has risen in the east every day of my experience.
But, if the sun did not rise in the east tomorrow in my experience, I would accept that knowledge, I think.

 

[Godless]

The trinity "securlary" explained here

Sounds logical to me!.

Godless

 

[Medicine*Woman]

b0urgeoisie: "...Or something as silly as The virgin was still a virgin after her other children were born. It is clear doctrine of the apostasy.
*************
M*W: We went over this topic a while back about the meaning of the word "almah," referring to Mary, simply means "young woman" and has absolutely NOTHING to do with being sexually active. The mistranslation of "almah" into English became "virgin." Our interpretation of the word "virgin," since it was translated into prim, proper, and prudish English, took on the connotation of a girl or woman of any age who has never had sexual intercourse. Of course, this is a butchered translation. Mary was a young woman of 13 years at the time she conceived. Even after giving birth to Jesus naturally through her birth canal, she undoubtedly was still a young woman, or an "almah." She retained the perpetual title of "Virgin" even though her hymen was no longer intact. However, she was no longer an "almah" or "virgin" when she died an old woman at the age of about 47.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

b0urgeoisie: "...Or something as silly as The virgin was still a virgin after her other children were born. It is clear doctrine of the apostasy.
*************
M*W: We went over this topic a while back about the meaning of the word "almah," referring to Mary, simply means "young woman" and has absolutely NOTHING to do with being sexually active. The mistranslation of "almah" into English became "virgin." Our interpretation of the word "virgin," since it was translated into prim, proper, and prudish English, took on the connotation of a girl or woman of any age who has never had sexual intercourse. Of course, this is a butchered translation. Mary was a young woman of 13 years at the time she conceived. Even after giving birth to Jesus naturally through her birth canal, she undoubtedly was still a young woman, or an "almah." She retained the perpetual title of "Virgin" even though her hymen was no longer intact. However, she was no longer an "almah" or "virgin" when she died an old woman at the age of about 47.

I am familiar with this argument. The word could just as easily mean true virgin. Many scholars agree that the word probably meant both. For a person to argue it must mean virgin in the strictest sense without understanding of other possible meanings is no more irresponsible than to argue because it could only mean young woman that it must mean that. The word has multiple translations and as such is the case we can conclude neither. This becomes a supernatural argument and can not be proved or otherwise. So it is a question of what you chose to believe.
Thomas Hobbes (probably my favorite abstract writer) wrote
"For these words of good, evil, and contemptible are ever used with relation to the person that uses them, there being nothing simply and absolutely so, nor any common rule of good and evil to be taken from the objects themselves."THOMAS HOBBES, Leviathan, 1651
If I and millions of others chose to believe she was a virgin after conception and until her sexually activity began (probably before Jesus was born) than the word and its possible translations do allow for it.

 

[§outh§tar]

By three in one I meant that some persons believe they are all the same person and are only three ways of manifesting the same essence. That is not the gospel Jesus' taught. It looks like we are in agreement. But, you can see what I mean about pagan ideas becoming accepted. The gradual drift from truth was a result of the death of the apostles.

Jesus taught that He and the Father are one. Jesus taught that His Father is God. Jesus taught that He is God and would come back to judge the sins of man. That makes two. Jesus taught that He would send the Holy Spirit to man after returning to Heaven. Now logically, where in the Bible has God sent Someone down for the purpose of guiding mankind in the right path? That's right, when God the Father sent down His Son, God to earth. Now, God the Son sends down God the Holy Spirit, LIKEWISE, to affirm the Trinity. Whatmore, the epistles to the Churches ALL mention to some extent the deity of each of the persons without every straying to polytheism. There is not one place where God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit are described as NOT being God in the entire Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity does stand the test of Scripture. Many, many theologians for over 2000 years have examined the doctrine for themselves and found it to be accurate with Scripture.

I disagree. I believe that God is unchanging.
Hebrews 1

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/changingMindQuestion.htm
www.christiancourier.com/ questions/changingGodQuestion.htm

Since all the scripture I provided did not assure you, perhaps this will.

This scripture describes the fact that during the ministry of Jesus no other prophet was needed. Just as no other prophet was needed in the time of Moses.

That is an unfortunate interpretation of the text. That cannot possibly be logical since that Scripture was written after the death of Jesus and therefore cannot be referring to what happened during His life. Not to mention there is no evidence whatsoever in the context that it is speaking of what happened during His life.

That is absurd because Jesus has left this world. And, as he did so he appointed the prophet to take his place. That was Peter.[/QUOTE]

Peter was never appointed to take the place of Jesus. There is no Scripture that even says that.

No I'm sure that I was not.
You should explain what you mean by cult. Do yo know what a cult is. Because I think you have used the term incorrectly. It seems the only reason you would use the term is from hate. Hate is NOT a virtue of Christianity. I am sure that I do not belong to the group to which you are referring. But, name calling is not right regardless.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. First of all, the article which I posted used the word cult. I did not write that article and therefore it is unfortunate that you are blaming me for writing it. Secondly, there is NO hate whatsoever in calling something by it's true name. See Galatians 3, where Paul calls the Galatians foolish. Obviously, this is NO example of Paul hating the Galatians and it is furthermore NO example of "name calling".

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Jesus taught that He and the Father are one. Jesus taught that His Father is God. Jesus taught that He is God and would come back to judge the sins of man. That makes two. Jesus taught that He would send the Holy Spirit to man after returning to Heaven. Now logically, where in the Bible has God sent Someone down for the purpose of guiding mankind in the right path? That's right, when God the Father sent down His Son, God to earth. Now, God the Son sends down God the Holy Spirit, LIKEWISE, to affirm the Trinity. Whatmore, the epistles to the Churches ALL mention to some extent the deity of each of the persons without every straying to polytheism. There is not one place where God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit are described as NOT being God in the entire Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity does stand the test of Scripture. Many, many theologians for over 2000 years have examined the doctrine for themselves and found it to be accurate with Scripture.



http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/changingMindQuestion.htm
www.christiancourier.com/ questions/changingGodQuestion.htm

Since all the scripture I provided did not assure you, perhaps this will.



That is an unfortunate interpretation of the text. That cannot possibly be logical since that Scripture was written after the death of Jesus and therefore cannot be referring to what happened during His life. Not to mention there is no evidence whatsoever in the context that it is speaking of what happened during His life.

That is absurd because Jesus has left this world. And, as he did so he appointed the prophet to take his place. That was Peter.

Peter was never appointed to take the place of Jesus. There is no Scripture that even says that.



I'm afraid you are mistaken. First of all, the article which I posted used the word cult. I did not write that article and therefore it is unfortunate that you are blaming me for writing it. Secondly, there is NO hate whatsoever in calling something by it's true name. See Galatians 3, where Paul calls the Galatians foolish. Obviously, this is NO example of Paul hating the Galatians and it is furthermore NO example of "name calling".[/QUOTE]
You did use the word cult. It is not the same as Paul rebuking the Galatians. I asked you what it meant. Just because the article used it incorrectly does not make it right for you to do so. So don't pull a Vern and just chose to avoid the question.
Peter was called and set apart to lead the church. That has been doctrine for all of Christianity from the start. If you or some other chose to believe otherwise it won't make it untrue.
If you chose to believe they are all the same person and make Jesus the great magician/ventriloquist than it is your right to do so.
The reformation came about because of the job Catholicism was doing rewriting Christian doctrine. Martin Luther (who refused to start a church of his own because he recognized he lacked authority. It was his brother, after his death, that is responsible.) and others were more than just a little concerned about the changes. Luther posted his concerns and left. It doesn't make sense then that protestants cling to catholic doctrine - like the trinity theory - even today. That is what drove the reformation was the changing of doctrine. The trinity was one of those things that were changed. Jesus did not ever give any indication that he and his father were the same person. Every comment we attribute to Jesus indicates just the opposite. You may believe what you like. You can even pull scripture to support your claims. But on the whole the scripture does not support it.