Choice of Denomination

[Waimahia]

Hi again Iryssa,

Because of time pressure I have put together the briefest explanation over what Matt 28:19 means. We ALL admit don't we that it does not literally state that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead? Matt 28:19 needs to be considered in the light of all scripture not just be read as "Ah, the trinity!"

Actually, there has been considerable controversy over whether the Matthew 28:19 command by Christ is authentic Scripture or an insertion by translators who were trinitarian like I John 5:7. Many who believe in a triune God use this as a proof-text that God, indeed, is a trinity. Extensive research has been done to trace back to the earliest Bible manuscripts, and, although there is still some doubt, the verse appears to be authentic. But does this mean God is a trinity? No, it does not!

How can we explain this Scripture? The original Greek word translated

[ONE WHO WISHES TO LOVE GOD]

One Who Wishes to Love God,

You are being cruel to trinitarians when you ask, "So I am ask, NO BEGGING some one to show only scripturely where in the Bible says that you must believe that God exsists in three persons in order to be a Christian.....PLEASE !!!"

You know it's not there. Please give them a break.

all the best,

Waimahia

You think so, do you?

"Then Jesus came to them and said,

Edited December 24, 2005 by ONE WHO WISHES TO LOVE GOD

[ONE WHO WISHES TO LOVE GOD]

Waimahia,

I think you should check the gospels. There is clear evidence in John 1 that Christ is God.

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying,

Edited December 25, 2005 by ONE WHO WISHES TO LOVE GOD

[ONE WHO WISHES TO LOVE GOD]

This to me makes no sense at all because even they say it is a mystery that can not be understood and also the word trinity it self is equally uninspired since you do not have God nor Jesus not even the Apostles use this word in the describing the nature of God

The apostles never used the word "automobile," either, but I'm fairly sure those exist. You should know that the argument of silence is considered the weakest form of argument.

Just because a term for something doesn't come into existence until later, does not mean that the thing the term describes did not exist. For instance, "what was the largest mountain before Mount Everest was discovered?" It was that same mountain, though no one had a name for it!

See this is what i mean about smoke and mirrors first of your sinasisum is not needed and your exsample is apples to oranges Further more the argument of silence is the point that it seems you are not understanding I believe where God does not speak neither you nor I get to fill in the blanks so I posed my questions because although i dont believe that God is three persons I do believe in Jesus as the Son of God and my only means of salvation

but like so many I have asked what you really get is an attitude a vain attempt to brow beat one by treating them like they are stupid so as to scare them into submision...well guess what it dont fly with me. and another thing i didnt start the issue of the trinity in this discusion however i may end it. I hope some one more mature than you will be willing to help me with my questions since if i am wrong i wont scriptures not some ones fanicfull interpetations or illustrations.

[R.C. Anderson]

I was raised as a Roman Catholic, but as I got older I started questioning the teachings of the Roman Catholic church on numerous issues including Mary, their attempting to change the ten commandments in the "Catholic Bible" the fact that we are to call the priest "Father" when the Bible clearly states not to call anyone on Earth your father ---Matthew 23: 9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

I stopped attending the Roman Catholic church and started attending a Southern Baptist church with friends from my high school. as well as Lutheran, Pentecostal, Methodist and Non-Denominational churches over the next few years. Every one of the denominations out there today was in one way or another a break off from the Roman Catholic church. As I studied each churches beliefs and teachings I came to the final conclusion that each of the denominations have some parts of their core beliefs and teachings that are correct according to the Bible, but over the years they have also added in their own teachings which are not Biblically correct. This is generally where the denominations differ from each other. In many of the denominations it was the "secondary issues" which caused the differences, but in a few it was the "primary issues" which should be the same in any Christian church.

Over the years in my studies of the different denominations I have always wondered why others have not wanted to take their churches back to the Biblical teachings and drop the teachings of man which have crept into their churches, mainly over the past thousand years or so. Including the practice of honoring Sunday as the Sabbath Day, which the Roman Catholic church changed to better fit their schedule over 1,000 years before the first Protestant church was formed. I have included below some quotes from the Roman Catholic church which support the fact that they took it upon themselves to change the Sabbath Day from Sunday to Saturday.

[MrSealedEternal]

In my opinion it does not matter which church a person goes to, as long as it teaches 100% Godly teachings and rejects the teachings and traditions of man. The Church has no business in bending its beliefs and teachings to suit man, or to make men happy. The Church is NOT to conform to us and our will, we are to conform to God and His will. I pray that other churches will do as we have done and gone back to the teachings of God and renounced the teachings of man. Then we will all truly be a Church, one body in Christ.

I agree with many of your conclusions, especially that many of the "churches' have carried on the false teachings of Catholicism. I also agree that no true Christian should participate in "christ'smass, which was founded by the Babylonian Mystery religions to worship Lucifer "the light bearer" or sun god, and later adopted by the Roman "church' which is nothing more than Babylonianism with a Christian veneer.

Christ's "Church" does not consist of denominations, and my experience is that most religious people are not part of His "Church." The word "church" in the English translations is the Greek word"ekklesia." It comes from two Greek words: Ek means "out" and Kaleo means "call", and this is the verb form. When we put the two together and write the noun form of it, it is Ekklesia and means a "called out assembly." This is the way it is always used in the Greek language. It means an assembly of people who are called out for a purpose. All born again Christians are the Church, but most people who profess to be Christian have not been spiritually reborn.

Denominationalism is unbiblical, and is always caused by error. The original church of the apostles was united, and errors were always immediately challenged and refuted in order to maintain the unity of truth. The different denominations are peoples attempt to band together to defend an error, because humans always feel secure when they are in groups, and it is always difficult to challenge a group that is unified, even when they are wrong. This was Satan's brilliant plan to introduce numerous false gospel's, and then play them against each other in a series of dialectic battles. It's been my experience that all false religions defend their own existence by pointing out the blatant errors of the other denominations, which just keeps them in an argument where virtually no one is right.

God doesn't promise to save us by being religious, nor does he want us to join any religion. Religion is man's attempt to cover his own sins, but God says that only He can do that. Just as He did in the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve tried to "cover" themselves with fig leaves, only His covering is acceptable to Him. Every false religion tries to offer a covering by man's own efforts which God never accepts. Christianity is not a religion, and that's why denominationalism has destroyed Christ's true "ekklesia."

Most of the members of denominational so-called "churches" that baptize babies for example, are not born again, because they have a gospel that is different than the Biblical one, which is commonly referred to as "Baptismal Regeneration." Other false "Churches claim you are saved or prove you are saved by other works of human effort such as maintaining a level of holiness, speaking in tongues, keeping the Sabbath, etc. Anyone who believes they are saved by their own efforts has denied Christ and His atonement, and are therefore not saved.

Over time, rather than arguing over who is right, people began saying that we each have our own understanding and each view is equally relevant. This began the view known as moral relativism. They would say "we are all on different paths to the same God, and each worship Him in our own way," and that all Christians are really brothers and sisters in Christ, so there is no sense debating over doctrine.

This gave birth to the ecumenical movement. If we all worship the same God anyway, then why not work together? Now Satan's plan was complete. All the religions are being brought together by eliminating virtually all doctrine, and now the world is prepared for the coming world leader, commonly known as the Antichrist. The Catholic so-called "Church" is the natural uniter of all of these false religious systems, since they all came out of it initially. Slowly, major so-called "christian leaders" are bringing so-called protestants back to Rome.

I have been trying to get this message out for some time, but people love their religion.

Mr SE

[other one]

I grew up in a church that I learned to disagree with much of their doctrine, I trashed everything I learned and about 30 years ago just started learning for myself. Right or wrong this is my personal stand on the relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We can call the three God if we wish for we have no access to the Father without going through the Son, and in this age we access the Son through the Holy Spirit that the Son requested when He asscended to heaven....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

QUOTE

Exod 24 10Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet (15) there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.

QUOTE

John 6:45 "It is written in the prophets, ' AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

46 Not that any man has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.

Moses and friends saw the God of Israel and were not harmed.

Jesus says that no man has seen the father except He that came from Him.

So it seems to me that the Father that Jesus speaks of, is not what that the Nation of Israel interfaced with in the old testament.

Looking further:

QUOTE

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life and the life was the light of men.

QUOTE

John 1:9 There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world and the world was made through Him and the world did not know Him.

John 8:57-59

57 The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

NASB

It seems to me to be saying that Jesus was what the Nation of Israel interfaced with in the old testament days. Jesus in this form was with the Father from the beginning.

It seems to me that the people of the old testament days were not aware of the Father except for what they saw through the Jesus in the form he existed in before he became flesh.

Further:

QUOTE

Philippians 2:5+ Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with god a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

It appears to me that Jesus as the word was that which the Father worked through to manifest Himself to the people of the old testament times. Jesus did not regard himself to want to be the equal to the Father so He took the form of a human to further the works of the Father on earth.

Jesus was deity by being in the form of God, but it was the Father that did the work through Him when he was the Word. It appears that the only thing that has changed is Jesus is now flesh working the same way only as a man. The Father exercises His will through Jesus, now in the fleshly body.

QUOTE

John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me;

QUOTE

John 17:20 Jesus prayed " I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their work: that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me"

It seems to me that Jesus just extended the conduit from Him to us for the Father to do His work through Jesus to us so we could know the Father as the Father knows us. Thus we now can do the work of the Father. I believe this is the path and workings of the Holy Spirit

QUOTE

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also come the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put al His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection, to Him. And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, That God may be all in all.

Jesus, before His ascension told the Apostles that all power and authority had been given to Him. After he has subdued everything Jesus will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him........ The Father.

I don't see the Son always being equal with the Father, either when He was the word nor in the flesh. He will also be subject to the Father after He does the job of bringing the kingdom into it's full power over all and giving it to the Father.

1 Cor 8:5-6

5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

NASB

We have one God

[R.C. Anderson]

Mr. SE,

I completely agree. The Roman Catholic church is now becoming more openly accepting of the Protestant churches and are now, under direction from Rome, working with the Protestant churches in many concerns including the homeless conditions here in Hawaii. This is NOT by chance, it is exactly as you were stating, the pope wants the churches back together but I do not feel that it is for a godly purpose. Through my studies of Revelation and the "end times" I have come to firmly believe that the Antichrist will come out of the Roman Catholic church, I do not believe, as many do, that the pope will be the Antichrist, but he will be envolved in some way with the church of Rome. He will not be able to effectively do this until the churches are working closer together, overlooking each others "faults" as the pope has called them. For the leaders of the world to trust the Antichrist as he ascends into his powerful position he will need the support of more than just one church. If the churches continue the ecumenical movement this could give way to this happening.

A few of the "Protestant" churches are now back in communion with Rome. A denomination that I was previously a member of was approached with this a few years ago and they firmly turned them down. They wanted to "forgive the transgressions which caused the separation of the churches". The pope seems to be really interested in reuniting the churches all of the sudden. A lot of things are coming together which all must be fulfilled before Armageddon. We must be very careful with this philosophy of

Edited December 25, 2005 by R.C. Anderson

[willsmom]

What denomination?

Sometimes I think it is all to easy to get into the mode of thinking that “My Church or Denomination is more right than this other Church or Denomination”.

My opinion on the subject is that different people come to God in different ways. So while I am an Episcopalian and the more traditional and formal liturgical services and the sacrament of communion are what help me in my spiritual life. That does not mean that it suits nearly everyone. Some may be better served in a Charismatic Church like the Pentecostals or Assemblies of God. Others may be better suited to a Baptist Church or a Methodist Church. Others may feel that they are better suited to a non-denominational Church. Others still might be better suited to a Roman Catholicism, or Orthodox Christianity.

Don’t get me wrong, we have to draw the line and clearly say what does is defined as being Christian or not. For example, because of their corruption of the trinity alone, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons would not be considered to be Christian denominations (although I am sure they would completely disagree).

What I am talking about is when you hear a Baptist say that they don’t see how anyone who is Catholic could be saved. Or a Lutheran saying that the Baptists have it all wrong about salvation. Those are just examples, but this kind of thing as we all know is pretty common. My point though is that different people come to God in different ways and different people have a different experience in the walk with God, so just because a Catholic comes to God differently than a Pentecostal or a Calvinist comes to God differently than a Baptist, does not mean that one group is any more or less Christian than the other. It’s the result that matters, not the path.

Anyway, I am curious to hear the opinions of others on this subject.

[willsmom]

This is what I think concerning denomination. PRIDE! If we could all get past pride there would be no denominations.