HISTORIC views of the Trinity: Frank Jamerson Blasphemy of Holy Spirit

B
B

February 23rd, 2013, 11:30 pm #31

Matthew 28:18-20

American Standard Version (ASV)


18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

After all the discussion about long names, short names, non names, grammatical article twisting, singular names, plural names, adding the spirit, removing the spirit, baptismal formula, implicitly blaspheme, and other smoke screens, I have decided to stick with the Words of Jesus.

Jesus commanded us to "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". It's not that complicated and the Word will never change or expire. BTW, it also answers the question "how can God be three and yet one?". The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are "ONE".

JMHO
Whether Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ONE or separate and distinct from each other does not matter. All that matters is that they exist, just as Jesus mentioned them; therefore, they ARE. Yet the debates and arguments about them will continue until Doom's Day.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

February 24th, 2013, 1:41 am #32

Frank Jamerson on Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was offered as the non-institutional view of God as THREE PERSONS. He disputed saying that the NAME of the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ but Scripture says that the another or changed Jesus Christ IS The Name of the Holy Spirit or MIND of Christ as in 1 corinthians 2

http://www.piney.com/Frank.Jamerson.Bla ... pirit.html

Maybe we should unload the "new minister" thread although he/they undoubtedly think that the Spirit OF Christ is another POST-MODERN, POST-CHRISTIAN clear channel directly from God.

Men like C. Leonard Allen thinks that now that the MODERN views have been trashed (your godly ancestors and preachers before apostasy) we can look BACKWARD and understand God by looking at history.

http://www.piney.com/Trinity.Leonard.Allen.html

I don't consider any of these Bible Scholars or even Disciples because they don't believe the Word and therefore cannot understand it.

While Paul Tillich is not an authority, he does know when the neo-trinitarianism (ACU, DLC, Peppperdine) was spawned.

"There is much gnostic Marcionism in them, that is, a dualistic blasphemy of the Creator God. They put the Savior God in such opposition to the Creator God that, although they never fall into any real heresy, they implicitly blaspheme the divine creation by identifying it with the sinful state of reality.

Against this tendency Irenaeus said that God is one; there is no duality in him.
---Law and gospel,
---creation and salvation,
---are derived from the same God."
---(Tillich, Paul, A History of Christian Thought, p. 42)

"This God is never called a person. The word person was never applied to God in the Middle ages. The reason for this is that the three members of the trinity were called personae (faces or countenances): The Father is persona, the Son is persona, and the Spirit is persona. Persona here means a special characteristic of the divine ground, expressing itself in an independent hypostasis.

"Thus, we can say that it was the nineteenth century which made God into a person, with the result that the greatness of the classical idea of God was destroyed by this way of speaking... but to speak of God as a person would have been heretical for the Middle Ages; it would have been to them a Unitarian heresy, because it would have conflicted with the statement that God has three personae, three expressions of his being. (Tillich, Paul, A History of Christian Thought, p. 190)
John said that if you deny the unique One God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ then you are an ANTI-Christ. I would not have you ignorant brethren. Athenagoras one of the UNIVERSAL scholars at

http://www.piney.com/HsTrinityAthen.html

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

February 24th, 2013, 2:18 am #33

Frank Jamerson on Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was offered as the non-institutional view of God as THREE PERSONS. He disputed saying that the NAME of the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ but Scripture says that the another or changed Jesus Christ IS The Name of the Holy Spirit or MIND of Christ as in 1 corinthians 2

http://www.piney.com/Frank.Jamerson.Bla ... pirit.html

Maybe we should unload the "new minister" thread although he/they undoubtedly think that the Spirit OF Christ is another POST-MODERN, POST-CHRISTIAN clear channel directly from God.

Men like C. Leonard Allen thinks that now that the MODERN views have been trashed (your godly ancestors and preachers before apostasy) we can look BACKWARD and understand God by looking at history.

http://www.piney.com/Trinity.Leonard.Allen.html

I don't consider any of these Bible Scholars or even Disciples because they don't believe the Word and therefore cannot understand it.

While Paul Tillich is not an authority, he does know when the neo-trinitarianism (ACU, DLC, Peppperdine) was spawned.

"There is much gnostic Marcionism in them, that is, a dualistic blasphemy of the Creator God. They put the Savior God in such opposition to the Creator God that, although they never fall into any real heresy, they implicitly blaspheme the divine creation by identifying it with the sinful state of reality.

Against this tendency Irenaeus said that God is one; there is no duality in him.
---Law and gospel,
---creation and salvation,
---are derived from the same God."
---(Tillich, Paul, A History of Christian Thought, p. 42)

"This God is never called a person. The word person was never applied to God in the Middle ages. The reason for this is that the three members of the trinity were called personae (faces or countenances): The Father is persona, the Son is persona, and the Spirit is persona. Persona here means a special characteristic of the divine ground, expressing itself in an independent hypostasis.

"Thus, we can say that it was the nineteenth century which made God into a person, with the result that the greatness of the classical idea of God was destroyed by this way of speaking... but to speak of God as a person would have been heretical for the Middle Ages; it would have been to them a Unitarian heresy, because it would have conflicted with the statement that God has three personae, three expressions of his being. (Tillich, Paul, A History of Christian Thought, p. 190)
What you think about the Godhead is a SALVATION ISSUE. When God through Christ taught is almost always the ANTITHESIS of pagan beliefs. ALL pagans believed their gods were much like them and came in families. The musical idolatry of the Egyptian etal trinity was a sin BEYOND REDEMPTION since through the plagues God had discredited all of the Egyptian gods.

The golden Calf(s) representing Apis was connected to Osiris, Isis and Horus. The SUN WAFER marked IHS makes it Isis, Horus and Set.



Jesus made it as CLEAR as can be that whatever you think about the god families, the true God made Himself know as ONE IMAGE which included all of the pagan families.

John says that if you deny the FATHER- SON relationship you are an ANTICHRIST. Never believe anyone who wants to capitulate by saying "it is not important."



Quote
Like
Share

B
B

February 24th, 2013, 4:22 am #34

Jesus never said, "He that believeth that God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, and is baptized shall be saved..."

Jesus never said, "He that believeth that God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each distinct and separate entities, and is baptized shall be saved..."

Whether we believe that God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same or whether they are distinct and separate entities is NOT a salvation issue. How could it be? Regarding the Godhead, Jesus never commanded us to believe in one entity or three separate entities. It IS important, however, that we believe that they all EXIST, just as Jesus mentioned them, and therefore ARE.
Quote
Share

B
B

February 24th, 2013, 4:49 am #35

What you think about the Godhead is a SALVATION ISSUE. When God through Christ taught is almost always the ANTITHESIS of pagan beliefs. ALL pagans believed their gods were much like them and came in families. The musical idolatry of the Egyptian etal trinity was a sin BEYOND REDEMPTION since through the plagues God had discredited all of the Egyptian gods.

The golden Calf(s) representing Apis was connected to Osiris, Isis and Horus. The SUN WAFER marked IHS makes it Isis, Horus and Set.



Jesus made it as CLEAR as can be that whatever you think about the god families, the true God made Himself know as ONE IMAGE which included all of the pagan families.

John says that if you deny the FATHER- SON relationship you are an ANTICHRIST. Never believe anyone who wants to capitulate by saying "it is not important."



Just as God said, "I am that I am," the Godhead IS. As far as the composition of the Godhead is concerned, it matters not if we believe they are three-in-one or three distinct, separate entities.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 24th, 2013, 4:14 pm #36

Whether Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ONE or separate and distinct from each other does not matter. All that matters is that they exist, just as Jesus mentioned them; therefore, they ARE. Yet the debates and arguments about them will continue until Doom's Day.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Sorry to tell you, but you are one of the participants. You're in. It appears that you will continue to be in until Doom's Day.

Your endless participation in the discussion of instrumental music in the assembly has been evident also.

This is a discussion board. There's no restriction as to whether or not discussion of a doctrinal issue is lengthy.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 24th, 2013, 4:24 pm #37

Jesus never said, "He that believeth that God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, and is baptized shall be saved..."

Jesus never said, "He that believeth that God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each distinct and separate entities, and is baptized shall be saved..."

Whether we believe that God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same or whether they are distinct and separate entities is NOT a salvation issue. How could it be? Regarding the Godhead, Jesus never commanded us to believe in one entity or three separate entities. It IS important, however, that we believe that they all EXIST, just as Jesus mentioned them, and therefore ARE.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]NEVER SAID: When did you start agreeing with instrumental music lovers' argument: "God DID NOT say 'NOT TO' use musical instruments in the assembly"?

How do you respond to: "Instrumental music in the assembly IS NOT A SALVATION ISSUE"?[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 24th, 2013, 5:16 pm #38

Just as God said, "I am that I am," the Godhead IS. As far as the composition of the Godhead is concerned, it matters not if we believe they are three-in-one or three distinct, separate entities.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]It's all in the book of John.

Since you refuse to consider or study the details regarding the Godhead as outlined earlier, I'd like to simplify the outline in the order of entities:[/color]
<ol>[*]In the beginning was God [the Father] with the Word. The author explains that worship goes to the Father WHO is a SPIRIT and WHOM we worship in spirit and in truth. (John 1:1,2)

</li>[*]The Son Jesus Christ was God manifest in the FLESH (John 1:14). He DWELT WITH his disciples; he was their COMFORTER [literally]; he was not only the way and the life but also THE TRUTH.

</li>[*]The RESURRECTED Jesus Christ, NO LONGER IN THE FLESH, is that HOLY SPIRIT -- the COMFORTER and THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH. As promised to his disciples: "I will not leave you COMFORTLESS" and "I shall DWELL IN you." {Please study carefully John chapters 14-16. The narrative is plenary -- so long as you don't SPEED-READ it.)</li>[/list]

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]In essence, (1) in the beginning was God the FATHER (SPIRIT); (2) the WORD became FLESH {JESUS in human form -- He died and was buried; (3) the RESURRECTED JESUS is now that HOLY SPIRIT -- no longer in the FLESH.

How significant it is to study that timeline. Jesus Christ is no longer in the flesh. Honestly, there's a colossal difference between: (a) <b>FLESH and (b) SPIRIT.</b> If Jesus Christ is no longer in the flesh, what other conclusion can you have of his nature? [/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

February 24th, 2013, 5:32 pm #39

Frank Jamerson on Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was offered as the non-institutional view of God as THREE PERSONS. He disputed saying that the NAME of the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ but Scripture says that the another or changed Jesus Christ IS The Name of the Holy Spirit or MIND of Christ as in 1 corinthians 2

http://www.piney.com/Frank.Jamerson.Bla ... pirit.html

Maybe we should unload the "new minister" thread although he/they undoubtedly think that the Spirit OF Christ is another POST-MODERN, POST-CHRISTIAN clear channel directly from God.

Men like C. Leonard Allen thinks that now that the MODERN views have been trashed (your godly ancestors and preachers before apostasy) we can look BACKWARD and understand God by looking at history.

http://www.piney.com/Trinity.Leonard.Allen.html

I don't consider any of these Bible Scholars or even Disciples because they don't believe the Word and therefore cannot understand it.

While Paul Tillich is not an authority, he does know when the neo-trinitarianism (ACU, DLC, Peppperdine) was spawned.

"There is much gnostic Marcionism in them, that is, a dualistic blasphemy of the Creator God. They put the Savior God in such opposition to the Creator God that, although they never fall into any real heresy, they implicitly blaspheme the divine creation by identifying it with the sinful state of reality.

Against this tendency Irenaeus said that God is one; there is no duality in him.
---Law and gospel,
---creation and salvation,
---are derived from the same God."
---(Tillich, Paul, A History of Christian Thought, p. 42)

"This God is never called a person. The word person was never applied to God in the Middle ages. The reason for this is that the three members of the trinity were called personae (faces or countenances): The Father is persona, the Son is persona, and the Spirit is persona. Persona here means a special characteristic of the divine ground, expressing itself in an independent hypostasis.

"Thus, we can say that it was the nineteenth century which made God into a person, with the result that the greatness of the classical idea of God was destroyed by this way of speaking... but to speak of God as a person would have been heretical for the Middle Ages; it would have been to them a Unitarian heresy, because it would have conflicted with the statement that God has three personae, three expressions of his being. (Tillich, Paul, A History of Christian Thought, p. 190)
Note that the Jews had been ABANDONED to worship the starry hosts. These were always triads or families of God. To think of a star, planet, sun or moon as a god worshipped the CREATURE and not the Creator. While the Israelites called a bull calf representing their godS as in CalveS their JEHOVAH, the record is clear that they always tried to make the gods about their size and probably a bit more wicked.

The long dissertation of Jesus and all of the New Testament is to prove that the MAN Jesus, singular, was to debunk the trinities: Thomas wanted to SEE the Father.

Ezekiel in Chapter 8 describes the trinitarian worship by the women IN the Temple and the men bowing to the SUN by having to turn their backs on the temple.

A Lipscomb professor wrote a small booklet: his thesis was that ALL PAGANS believed in a trinity, therefore, it was only right that Christians have their own trinity. That was the Catholic's rationale (?) which they also applied to music in the School of Christ.

http://www.piney.com/MuTammuz.html

Last edited by Ken.Sublett on February 24th, 2013, 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 24th, 2013, 5:44 pm #40

The one NAME has three components or entities: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now if there were not three entities, I wonder why Jesus didn't phrase Matt. 28:19 as: "...baptizing them in the name of the Father WHO IS the Son and WHO IS the Holy Ghost," thus equating all three together. But Jesus didn't phrase it like that. He said, "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Three entities. Again, He didn't say they were separate and distinct from one another, but He did mention THREE nonetheless.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Serious,

So, the "ONE NAME" is no longer an issue. That's good. It's progress. It is clear that it is not PLURAL NAMES: (1) in the name of the Father, (2) in the name of Son, (3) in the name of the Holy Spirit.

So, the list of 3 entities is not an issue. That's good. No one has, to my knowledge, rejected the 3 entities.

The issue that remains, then, is what comprises or who the entity is. Let's narrow it all down to: (1) we know about the Father WHO is Spirit; (2) we know about the Son Jesus Christ, God manifest in the FLESH.

So far so good.

The question remains: the entity called the Holy Spirit.

Did Jesus Christ remain in the flesh after his resurrection? I believe that's the crux of the whole controversy. If Christ is not in the flesh now [he lived, died and was buried], what is his nature?

I think that the book of John explains that "mystery." Especially chapters 14-16.

It would really help the discussion, if you were specific about your questions. A good example would be a statement such as: "I do not agree that the resurrected Jesus Christ is the Comforter and Spirit of truth." Then, we can go from there. We do not disagree on general statements and premises. Therefore, we need specific questions and specific answers.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share