[quote]forlife wrote:
Ok, I’ll ask. Chris, what do you believe a person must do in order to be saved? And are there any exceptions to this?[/quote]
Repent and baptized is what will save you now.[/quote]
If that’s truly all you believe it takes to be saved, I don’t see how anyone could consider that to be unbiblical.[/quote]
That’s right now, but the other part if you live passed your baptism is that you need to have faith and good works for justification.
[/quote]
Chris, please, just be consistent with what you write. When you were going after the Witnesses, especially when I was saying that works were required, you said that works can’t save you. We said ultimately they don’t save you but they are required to be saved. You were making a very firm stand (you can look it up in the threads discussing it) that works weren’t required, but just faith in God. Well, you have changed that. It is OK to be wrong; to change your views based on information you haven’t considered before. But just have the humility to admit it. People may be more willing to listen to you, and, guess what, YOU may even learn something along the way. You come in here spewing doctrine that, at times, you don’t understand yourself.
BTW, humility or admitting your wrong is never a sign of weakness. I have, on many occasions in my ministry, told the person at the door that I didn’t know the answer to something and would have to come back after doing some research. Makes me more sure of my faith and the person at the door more often than not respects me for that.
[quote]brandonk87 wrote:
<<< Saying Chris isn’t “saved” because he’s catholic is limiting God. >>>[/quote]I have never said this and salvation IS limited. [quote]brandonk87 wrote: The true issue of salvation is when there isn’t any change in that persons life. You can confess your a Christian till the day you die but if your lifestyle doesn’t reflect it then you are not, its that simple. >>>[/quote]Truth. If nobody suspects you love Jesus without you telling them, you don’t. No more time again at the moment
[/quote]
Yet you condemn Catholics for being good a Charity, when we know that true acts of charity are because of faith in God.[/quote]You’re relentless Chris. I’ll give ya that. I’m at work again so not much time. I condemn nobody for anything least of all charity. I simply reiterate what I, and millions of other Christians see in the pages of scripture. Works of “charity” are evidence of exactly zero. A heart at war with it’s own sin IS. A person living with public open sin and or fatally heretical doctrine has displayed no fruits of the presence of the Lord in their life. God doesn’t care how much time and or money they give. This ranges from unmistakably clear to not so much with both life and doctrine. Maybe more later. I cannot keep up.
[/quote]
You have condemned Catholics because they are focused on Charity because of what the Charity means, when Jesus says that treating people badly is the same as treating him badly. Really and how do you show “fruits” of being His slave to righteousness? Last time fruits came from works. Faith, Hope, and Charity.
Of course, who said it saved anyone? Faith, Hope, and Charity. We have the faith that Jesus will save us, we hope this to be true, and we are charitable because Jesus tells us to. And, we are taught that works of charity through the power of Jesus makes us righteous and justified. Let me remind you that the Catholic Church holds that these works are done through Christ, and that without his power nothing could be done.
Jas 2:14 Can his faith save him?: The form of the question in Greek implies a negative answer. It makes explicit what James teaches implicitly throughout the rest of the chapter: that our willingness to put faith into action has a direct bearing on whether or not we will saved in the end (CCC 162).
James and Paul seem to be in contradiction but they are not, Luther thought they were and put it in the appendix of his 1552 NT, but for Catholics that is not an option.
We have Protestants that use Romans 3:28 where James 2:24 is supposed to be, conclude that faith is all that is needed.
But let’s I’ll reconcile them. 'Paul talks about justifying faith in Rom 3:28, he is speaking on the faith that leads converts to Baptism. Paul is making a general statement about how man is brought from sin to salvation. The process begins with faith and leads the believer to Baptism, which Paul says is the sacrament of out Justification in Christ (1 Cor 6:11; Gal 3:25-27; Tit 3:5-7). James is writing from a different situation. He is writing, not about the faith of the convert, but about the faith of the professing Christian. James makes a general statment about those who already “hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 2:1). Paul and James discuss about the role of justifying faith in two different contexts namely, before and after the believer is incorporated into Christ.
‘On works, you need to pay attention that Paul, when he denies justification by works in Rom 3:28, is speaking very specifically about works of the Mosaic Law. Paul’s point is that nobody can earn or merit the free gift of grace by obedience to the Torah. Whether that be its moral commandments, such as those of the Decalogue, or its ritual and cermonial obligations, such as circumcision, dietary laws, or Sabbath observance, none of these works-apart from the grace of Christ-can bring about the justifications of the sinner. No reason to think that James would disagree with this. After all, when james affirms justification by works, he is talking, not about works of the Mosaic Law performed apart from grace, but about works of mercy performed by those who already established in grace (Jas 1:27; 2:15-16). Again, Paul and James are discussing different scenarios. Paul denies the saving power of Mosaic works, performed on the strength of human nature, while James affirms the value of Christian works, performed by the grace and power supplied by Jesus Christ.’
The two, Paul and James, when it comes to Justification are talking about two different things of course. Paul in Romans 3:28 is addressing issues related to conversion, it would make sense that Paul is talking about initial justification in Christ, the exact moment when God makes the believer righteous by an infusion of his Spirit and life. Apart from God’s divine action in the believer, human works are just unable to merit the grace of our first justification in Christ, which is rather the free gift of his grace. James, is in another context from Paul, as I have pointed out, he is not contradicting Paul’s teaching when he writes that believes are “justified by works” (Jas 2:24). Unlike Paul, James is not talking about Baptism or initial justification of the sinner…AT ALL. Neither is he referring to the works of the Mosaic Law undertaken to establish one’s standing before God. James is talking about the believers who put their faith into use and strive to live the gospel in practical and charitable ways.
In this context, after baptism, Christian living is made possible by the grace of God, good works do contribute to our increase in righteousness and justification. The two teachings are in complete union (Rom 2:13; 6:12-19).
[quote]forlife wrote:
Ok, I’ll ask. Chris, what do you believe a person must do in order to be saved? And are there any exceptions to this?[/quote]
Repent and baptized is what will save you now.[/quote]
If that’s truly all you believe it takes to be saved, I don’t see how anyone could consider that to be unbiblical.[/quote]
That’s right now, but the other part if you live passed your baptism is that you need to have faith and good works for justification.
[/quote]
Chris, please, just be consistent with what you write. When you were going after the Witnesses, especially when I was saying that works were required, you said that works can’t save you. We said ultimately they don’t save you but they are required to be saved. You were making a very firm stand (you can look it up in the threads discussing it) that works weren’t required, but just faith in God. Well, you have changed that. It is OK to be wrong; to change your views based on information you haven’t considered before. But just have the humility to admit it. People may be more willing to listen to you, and, guess what, YOU may even learn something along the way. You come in here spewing doctrine that, at times, you don’t understand yourself.
[/quote]
If I ever wrote that you didn’t need works, I am sorry. I made a big, enormous mistake. I do not believe I did that, I know I don’t believe it, so if I let anybody think I thought that. I am quite sorry. Works are required, however only through Jesus those works save you, grace of God is what saves you. So, if you can find where I said that, I am completely sorry. I will retract that from my statement or reconstruct my statement to make better sense.
I don’t spew doctrine that I don’t have a handle on. I may not understand it all, but I usually can explain which over all usually helps me learn it better by working out the details and having to go back and do research.
[quote]
BTW, humility or admitting your wrong is never a sign of weakness. I have, on many occasions in my ministry, told the person at the door that I didn’t know the answer to something and would have to come back after doing some research. Makes me more sure of my faith and the person at the door more often than not respects me for that.[/quote]
I admit all the time I don’t know something. I live with theological majors, so I get questions that I don’t know off the bat. I am wrong a lot as well, but I try to keep my mouth shut until I know what I am talking about.
Again, if you can show me where I said you don’t need works, I will glady correct that.
I know this is going on another topic (well actually back to the original topic) but I wanted to see if we can rehash this again in a logical way to draw a conclusion: Trinity - Bible Teaching or Doctrine of Man.
I have seen some things so far that really have made me surprised that people believe in the trinity. that is not to insult anyone, so please don’t get unreasonable defensive (as others have in the past) it is just an observation.
I just find it so clear what the Bible really teaches and it seems that some don’t feel the issue can even be revisited. I am looking for, if possible, and orderly discussion on the topic, because if you look back through this thread, the topic got derailed pretty hard. Those that don’t want to participate don’t have to, but I would like to at least bring up a few scriptures that, to me, can’t help but point to two separate beings.
The classic example of separateness is when Jesus was baptized, God the Father spoke from heaven, and the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. In my opinion, the biblical interpretation favors unity of purpose but not unity of personhood.
Not that I actually believe it any more, but after so many years of reading the bible, I’m entitled to express an opinion by virtue of veteran status
[quote]forlife wrote:
The classic example of separateness is when Jesus was baptized, God the Father spoke from heaven, and the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. In my opinion, the biblical interpretation favors unity of purpose but not unity of personhood.
Not that I actually believe it any more, but after so many years of reading the bible, I’m entitled to express an opinion by virtue of veteran status :)[/quote]
Thank you for that. That is a very good one. I agree with that.
Seriously though, there’s too many pages for me to read through. I’ve done lots of study on the Trinity and basically have come to think that people have more fun writing about the trinity than they do emulating the example of Christ. The specifics of the metaphysical theology isn’t what interests me at all- people can cite creeds and scripture all day, but I think the ones who know them best are the ones who serve them most.
In other words, I think it’s possible to have saving faith without understanding or even having an opinion on the trinity as outlined in the Nicaean Creed and other creeds of Christendom. I think it would be unlikely, if possible, to have saving faith without believing that Christ was divine in SOME manner, though.
18The LORD is near to all who call upon Him,
To all who call upon Him in truth.
Jeremiah 29:12-13
12’Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you.
13’You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.
The prayer of the saints in Revelation is simply saying God honors the prayers of his people, not that we need dead believers to lift them up to God,
[/quote]
Actually if you read it, it says those that have passed before us sit at the feet of the throne of the Lamb and offer up other saints prayers. Not sure how you do not see that.
Why wouldn’t the dead that are close to the Lord not pray for us? Are they not Christians? Are they not righteous? Answer that.
So since we have all sinned, Jesus sinned. How is it that he hasn’t if WE HAVE ALL SINNED? Is Jesus not human? Did Jesus not have a human will?
[quote]
John 1:14 The Word became flesh
Do you think that people can be saved without acknowledging the Mary was sinless?[/quote]
Lol, in order to be in union with the Pope you have to acknowledge that Mary is sinless. Yes, it is a Dogma. However salvation is more complicated than Mary. And, I will try and find the article, but Mary’s sinless is not for her glory, it is for the Glory of God Almighty, the most powerful, Jesus Christ our Savior and Most Worthy Lord.
I see what you mean, but Scripture also commands us to obey the teaching of the Apostles or Bishops as they are on par with the word of God.
No, because she also had other roles connected to Jesus.
I explained it Immaculate Conception, we just had the feast day the other day December 8th.
I see no specific teaching or the word Trinity anywhere.
I never said the statue saved the people. I just said God’s power which he used the through the statue that they were to look at saved them. The statue itself did not inherently have powers. And, you still have to explain to me, as a Catholic, that I worship a statue, and that I think it is more than a symbol, that I think it is more than the same thing that a statue of Pres. Jefferson Davis is.
Lol. Okay, well which of the 30,000 plus 1 of the Churches today is this Church? They all teach different stuff, and only the Catholic Church teaches the same from the east to the west, from beginning to now. So, I claim it is the Catholic Church, at the latest the Church was established as the Catholic Church before 110 AD, Ignatius of Antioch, a Bishop of the Catholic Church in Antioch, a personal friend of at least one of the 12 Apostles, declared the body of the believers, the visible Church that Jesus established was in fact the “Catholic Church.”
Wow…an insult. Tirib, are you mentoring this kid. He doesn’t even know me, and he’s pulling out the insults. Teaching them fast. I never said a priest says something makes it scriptural looks at my previous posts nope, didn’t say that…continue…oh scruples…so that’s like infant baptism and adult baptism? That’s like Jesus alone, and the Trinity…is that the kind of scruples you’re talking about? How about, that you have to be baptized…and that you don’t? Is that another scruple? How about faith alone…or works and faith? Is that just a scruple? How about women presbyters and men can only be presbyters? Predestination…or free will? I can list more and more.
I’m sorry, the only thing that is unified within the Protestant denominations are that you are unified against the Catholic Church.
Where did I say the Pope is king? I didn’t, trust me. If I had said the Pope is King, Tirib would have been blowing me up. I said he was the chief, I said he was the Captain. The Captain of the ship, which as we know Kings didn’t captain their own ships, they established Captains to follow their directions. Yes, you are misinterpreting.
[quote]
Matthew 16
16Simon Peter answered, “You are (T)the Christ, (U)the Son of (V)the living God.”
17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, (W)Simon Barjona, because (X)flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18"I also say to you that you are (Y)Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of (Z)Hades will not overpower it.
19"I will give you (AA)the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and (AB)whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
Where does that say that theres a pope?? haha… Peter knew who Jesus was prior to it being reveal. The apostles didnt actually know Jesus was God, Peter got a special revelation from God. This is the foundation of the church, that Christ is Lord… so where does this say there need to be a pope? good passage though. [/quote]
Yes, and that is why Peter is the first Pope, Pope is a later terminology. But the meaning is still there, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome (which Peter was), he sits in the office of Peter (which Jesus established and put Peter in). And to the second part, you’re not entirely reading it correctly. Peter is not the proper name, nor is there evidence to the fact that Peter is the proper name of Simon. Jesus renames Simon, with the masculine Greek word meaning rock or stone, which you lay a foundation on…I know blacksheep will pop out soon about out Petros in Greek means lil stone, so we are all part of the ‘foundation of the Church." However, blacksheep forgets that NT evidence suggests that Jesus’ words to Peter were originally spoken in Aramaic. In this language, the word Kepha is the equivalent of Peter and denotes a “sizeable rock”-one suitable as a building foundation. This Aramaic name is preserved as “Cephas” 9 times in the NT (Jn 1:42; 1 Cor 1:12; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9, &c). Simon’s name change calls back to OT times when God would rename people, like Abram to Abraham (Gen 17:5) and Jacob to Israel (Gen 32:28). Peter now in this Biblical tradition where new names signify new God-given roles in salvation history. With Peter, Jesus designates him the foundation stone of the New Covenant Church. Just as the Temples of the OT were built upon a great stone (1 Kings 5:17; Ezra 3:10), so Jesus builds his NT Church upon the foundational rock of Peter (cf. Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14).
[quote]forlife wrote:
The classic example of separateness is when Jesus was baptized, God the Father spoke from heaven, and the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. In my opinion, the biblical interpretation favors unity of purpose but not unity of personhood.
Not that I actually believe it any more, but after so many years of reading the bible, I’m entitled to express an opinion by virtue of veteran status :)[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
The classic example of separateness is when Jesus was baptized, God the Father spoke from heaven, and the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. In my opinion, the biblical interpretation favors unity of purpose but not unity of personhood.
Not that I actually believe it any more, but after so many years of reading the bible, I’m entitled to express an opinion by virtue of veteran status :)[/quote]
Three persons, one God.[/quote]
OK, well there are some scriptures that Trinitarians have showed me that do seem ambiguous and leave open to the possibility of a trinity of sorts.
However, there are scriptures that make the trinity a little hard to swallow:
John 7:16 - Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.”
John 14:28 - "You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
John 1:18 - No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
If I were to honestly look at these scriptures, I couldn’t come to a conclusion that they are the same people. There are many more, but these are the ones that came to my mind the most.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The classic example of separateness is when Jesus was baptized, God the Father spoke from heaven, and the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. In my opinion, the biblical interpretation favors unity of purpose but not unity of personhood.
Not that I actually believe it any more, but after so many years of reading the bible, I’m entitled to express an opinion by virtue of veteran status :)[/quote]
Three persons, one God.[/quote]
OK, well there are some scriptures that Trinitarians have showed me that do seem ambiguous and leave open to the possibility of a trinity of sorts.
However, there are scriptures that make the trinity a little hard to swallow:
John 7:16 - Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.”
John 14:28 - "You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
John 1:18 - No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
If I were to honestly look at these scriptures, I couldn’t come to a conclusion that they are the same people. There are many more, but these are the ones that came to my mind the most.
[/quote]
That’s why I don’t think if I was standing in a sola Scriptura Protestant shoes I could honestly defend the Trinity, although if I was in those shoes and I was honest with myself I wouldn’t be a sola Scriptura Protestant either. Like a weird Catch-22.
What I always ask when coming into these discussions is if you believe that extra-Biblical teachings are allowed in matters of faith and morals. I personally do not hold that belief. So, I have no personal qualms about believing that the Trinity exists.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The classic example of separateness is when Jesus was baptized, God the Father spoke from heaven, and the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. In my opinion, the biblical interpretation favors unity of purpose but not unity of personhood.
Not that I actually believe it any more, but after so many years of reading the bible, I’m entitled to express an opinion by virtue of veteran status :)[/quote]
Three persons, one God.[/quote]
OK, well there are some scriptures that Trinitarians have showed me that do seem ambiguous and leave open to the possibility of a trinity of sorts.
However, there are scriptures that make the trinity a little hard to swallow:
John 7:16 - Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.”
John 14:28 - "You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
John 1:18 - No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
If I were to honestly look at these scriptures, I couldn’t come to a conclusion that they are the same people. There are many more, but these are the ones that came to my mind the most.
[/quote]
That’s why I don’t think if I was standing in a sola Scriptura Protestant shoes I could honestly defend the Trinity, although if I was in those shoes and I was honest with myself I wouldn’t be a sola Scriptura Protestant either. Like a weird Catch-22.
What I always ask when coming into these discussions is if you believe that extra-Biblical teachings are allowed in matters of faith and morals. I personally do not hold that belief. So, I have no personal qualms about believing that the Trinity exists. [/quote]
May I ask, do the extra-Biblical teachings that you accept have to agree with the Bible? I understand information being expounded upon, I have no problem with that.
God is pure spirit and thus invisible to human eyes (4:24; 1 Tim 6:16). Even still, the face of the father can be seen in the face of Christ, who is the visible image of the invisible God (14:9; Col 1:15). Only in eternity will we see God as he truly is (1 Cor 13:12).
the only-begotten Son: A significant textual variant reads “God, the only begotten,” which directly asserts the deity of Jesus. The reading followed in teh translation can 1) refer to the eternal generation of Christ winith in the Trinity or (2) mean “unique” and “precious”, as Isaac was the beloved of his father, Abraham (Heb 11:17) (CCC 444).
You said John 7:16…
Jesus is merely pointing out, which the Jews didn’t recognize him as God, that if anyone there made their will God’s will, they would realise that it was God’s will that Jesus was speaking of, and the Jews pointed out that Jesus never learned any of this stuff, so he would in fact need to be God to know if no one taught him.
You said John 14:28…
The Son is equal to the Father in his divinity but less than the Father in his humanity. Although no one of the Divine Persons exceeds the others in greatness or glory in the eternal Trinity, there is a relational hierarchy among them, where, unlike the Son and the Spirit, the Father alone possesses divine Paternity and has the distinction of being entirely without origin.
God is pure spirit and thus invisible to human eyes (4:24; 1 Tim 6:16). Even still, the face of the father can be seen in the face of Christ, who is the visible image of the invisible God (14:9; Col 1:15). Only in eternity will we see God as he truly is (1 Cor 13:12).
the only-begotten Son: A significant textual variant reads “God, the only begotten,” which directly asserts the deity of Jesus. The reading followed in teh translation can 1) refer to the eternal generation of Christ winith in the Trinity or (2) mean “unique” and “precious”, as Isaac was the beloved of his father, Abraham (Heb 11:17) (CCC 444).
You said John 7:16…
Jesus is merely pointing out, which the Jews didn’t recognize him as God, that if anyone there made their will God’s will, they would realise that it was God’s will that Jesus was speaking of, and the Jews pointed out that Jesus never learned any of this stuff, so he would in fact need to be God to know if no one taught him.
You said John 14:28…
The Son is equal to the Father in his divinity but less than the Father in his humanity. Although no one of the Divine Persons exceeds the others in greatness or glory in the eternal Trinity, there is a relational hierarchy among them, where, unlike the Son and the Spirit, the Father alone possesses divine Paternity and has the distinction of being entirely without origin.[/quote]
The extra-Biblical information, evidently, that you are talking about literally is new insights that are not commented on at all in the Bible. What are you saying with regards the Paternity of Jehovah? That he created the other parts of the trinity? Maybe I didn’t understand that.
However, that being said, the first verse you compared the uniqueness of Isaac to the uniqueness if Jesus. I have reviewed that world only-begotten. It carries the connotation of being created. That Jesus had a beginning. We know God did not have a beginning.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The classic example of separateness is when Jesus was baptized, God the Father spoke from heaven, and the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. In my opinion, the biblical interpretation favors unity of purpose but not unity of personhood.
Not that I actually believe it any more, but after so many years of reading the bible, I’m entitled to express an opinion by virtue of veteran status :)[/quote]
Three persons, one God.[/quote]
OK, well there are some scriptures that Trinitarians have showed me that do seem ambiguous and leave open to the possibility of a trinity of sorts.
However, there are scriptures that make the trinity a little hard to swallow:
John 7:16 - Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.”
John 14:28 - "You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
John 1:18 - No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
If I were to honestly look at these scriptures, I couldn’t come to a conclusion that they are the same people. There are many more, but these are the ones that came to my mind the most.
[/quote]
That’s why I don’t think if I was standing in a sola Scriptura Protestant shoes I could honestly defend the Trinity, although if I was in those shoes and I was honest with myself I wouldn’t be a sola Scriptura Protestant either. Like a weird Catch-22.
What I always ask when coming into these discussions is if you believe that extra-Biblical teachings are allowed in matters of faith and morals. I personally do not hold that belief. So, I have no personal qualms about believing that the Trinity exists. [/quote]
May I ask, do the extra-Biblical teachings that you accept have to agree with the Bible? I understand information being expounded upon, I have no problem with that. [/quote]
Good question. Truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus).
God is pure spirit and thus invisible to human eyes (4:24; 1 Tim 6:16). Even still, the face of the father can be seen in the face of Christ, who is the visible image of the invisible God (14:9; Col 1:15). Only in eternity will we see God as he truly is (1 Cor 13:12).
the only-begotten Son: A significant textual variant reads “God, the only begotten,” which directly asserts the deity of Jesus. The reading followed in teh translation can 1) refer to the eternal generation of Christ winith in the Trinity or (2) mean “unique” and “precious”, as Isaac was the beloved of his father, Abraham (Heb 11:17) (CCC 444).
You said John 7:16…
Jesus is merely pointing out, which the Jews didn’t recognize him as God, that if anyone there made their will God’s will, they would realise that it was God’s will that Jesus was speaking of, and the Jews pointed out that Jesus never learned any of this stuff, so he would in fact need to be God to know if no one taught him.
You said John 14:28…
The Son is equal to the Father in his divinity but less than the Father in his humanity. Although no one of the Divine Persons exceeds the others in greatness or glory in the eternal Trinity, there is a relational hierarchy among them, where, unlike the Son and the Spirit, the Father alone possesses divine Paternity and has the distinction of being entirely without origin.[/quote]
The extra-Biblical information, evidently, that you are talking about literally is new insights that are not commented on at all in the Bible. What are you saying with regards the Paternity of Jehovah? That he created the other parts of the trinity? Maybe I didn’t understand that.
However, that being said, the first verse you compared the uniqueness of Isaac to the uniqueness if Jesus. I have reviewed that world only-begotten. It carries the connotation of being created. That Jesus had a beginning. We know God did not have a beginning.[/quote]
Compare the Godhead to a family. There is five people in one family. The Godhead is the family, and the five people are three persons in the Godhead. The Father is Paternal he has always been, Jesus was created by the Father, and by the Father through the Son, the Holy Ghost.
You can only begot something if it is the same as you. You will begot your children, a stud will begot puppies, a cock with begot chicks, &c. However, only God creates. And, create and begot are two different things.
P.S. on the extra-Biblical information, it isn’t “new” insights, it is “newly” written down as late as 180 A.D. as trias or trinitas in Latin. But, people were not carrying around the Bible (they wrote everything on scrolls back in the day, so picture carrying around 73 scrolls, pain in the neck. Plus until 340 A.D. they didn’t even have officially a “Bible.” On top of that most people weren’t literate, so a lot of teachings weren’t necessarily in the Bible.
When Jesus says “the Father is greater than I” and “do not worship me, but only God the Father” it is because when the preincarnate Son became man he had to submit himself every way that a man would, even though he still retained his divine nature. He had to do it to fulfill the law. It is when Christ was resurrected that he was glorified back into the state that he shared with the Father. Thats why before his resurrection Christ rebuked worship, but after his resurrection he accepted it (when Thomas declared “my Lord and my God”).
