Have people rightly understood the primary doctrine on Father, Son & Holy Ghost?

[Lamb]

Asking questions about the trinity is fine...but coming here to proselytize is not.

 

[BluePrints]

You don't accept (believe in) the Trinity or the Nicene Creed by your own profile

Right. And?

, I do.

Yes. And? Acceptance of an ideology does not validate that ideology as truth.

The Nicene Creed states what I believe

A 4th Cent. "creed" invented by the prevailing catholicism at the time. It is error, and can be shown to be in error from scripture. It is not that difficult.

and it doesn't use a single quote of scripture to do it

Exactly. It violates Isa. 8:20; 1 Pet. 4:11.

... it just states what is believed without trying to justify or confuse it by endless quotes that don't really state what the belief actually is.

What it does is simply make up its own terminology, and in so doing, errs. The Nicaean "creed" is clear in what is to be believed by the adherents in a 'hard logic' (written statements, computer language). All who did not agree with that 'logic' were eventually anathematized.

Can you do the same for what you believe

I present to you and all - the Bible. The Bible is the only 'creed' ever needed. Seventh-day Adventists are non-credal (man's).

, just state your personal Creed

Again, that is your own (personal) chosen way, and not one found in scripture. I have no "personal Creed", as that would violate scripture, and even Jesus' own example.

of beliefs as simply and clearly as the Nicene Creed does for those of us who believe it?

The Nicaean Creed is erroneous, and can be shown from scripture to be so. People "believe" all kinds of things, even as they did in the days of Jesus Christ, as He walked this earth. This did not make their man-made traditions truth. Those man-made statements were found to be in contradiction to Him Who is the Truth (Jhn. 14:6), and His word (Jhn. 17:17).

What is interesting, is that persons (such as yourself, but not only yourself), will point to some man-made document / statement, that has no claim to inspiration from God (such as a Nicaean creed), and look past the heaven inspired words of God that has always been with God's peoples. My suggestion, to you (and all), is to cease from looking to the earthly, and look instead to the heavenly.

Exo_20:22 And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.​

 

[BluePrints]

Asking questions about the trinity is fine...but coming here to proselytize is not.

The point of the OP is to discuss the matter and ask questions of one another. Feel free to ask me about "trinity" at any time. I will be glad to reply to the question.

My question to you (or any) is, Where, in scripture, is the nature of the Holy Ghost / Spirit ever given? (I suggest to you, such is never given therein, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise. See Deu. 29:29) Please be aware of the underlined word. I am not looking for 'personality' or 'existence' or 'titles'. The question is specific to "nature". Thank you, for your consideration of this question in relation to Tertullian's erroneous "una substantia'.

 

[Maranatha]

Have people rightly understood the primary doctrine on Father, Son & Holy Ghost?

I will try and keep my post very short.
Among those who understood it are the those who wrote the Scriptures.
Because what they wrote is God breathed.
We also know that the Apostles layed the foundation.
The Scriptures and the teachings oft the Apostles are the only 100% reliable source.
Neither Constantine nor Ellen White nor anyone else have any God given authority.
On a side note, under Constantine the Early Church was ruined.

The Nicene Creed states what I believe and it doesn't use a single quote of scripture to do it

Then we are not building on the Apostles foundation, we are building on sand

We are expected to just accept what we are told to believe and toe the line, or else...

Most importantly, the Biblical message is first of all about the Gospel.
Paul preached Christ and Him crucified.

 

[Frankj]

I will try and keep my post very short.
Among those who understood it are the those who wrote the Scriptures.
Because what they wrote is God breathed.
We also know that the Apostles layed the foundation.
The Scriptures and the teachings oft the Apostles are the only 100% reliable source.
Neither Constantine nor Ellen White nor anyone else have any God given authority.
On a side note, under Constantine the Early Church was ruined.



Then we are not building on the Apostles foundation, we are building on sand

We are expected to just accept what we are told to believe and toe the line, or else...

Most importantly, the Biblical message is first of all about the Gospel.
Paul preached Christ and Him crucified.

Well, for something built on sand it has certainly stood unchanged for of a long time now, around 1700 years now.


What do you believe in that has stood unchanged for that long?

 

[BluePrints]

Neither Constantine nor Ellen White nor anyone else have any God given authority.

Correct about the first (Constantine), but incorrect about the second (sister White) and third (anyone else). However, this is not the place (this thread) to discuss her (sister White's) God-given authority, or others ('anyone else'). Feel free to start another thread on it, and I will be more than glad to engage with scripture. In very short for the next conversation in another thread:

The Bible is clear:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.​

Not just the written, but also the spoken by the messengers of the LORD (in harmony with the written). Thus Jeremiah (and by extension to the scribe, also Baruch) was being considered in the days of Daniel (Dan. 9:2), and Jeremiah had not yet even been accepted into 'canon' yet as Isaiah had already been.

 

[Frankj]

The point of the OP is to discuss the matter and ask questions of one another. Feel free to ask me about "trinity" at any time. I will be glad to reply to the question.

My question to you (or any) is, Where, in scripture, is the nature of the Holy Ghost / Spirit ever given? (I suggest to you, such is never given therein, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise. See Deu. 29:29) Please be aware of the underlined word. I am not looking for 'personality' or 'existence' or 'titles'. The question is specific to "nature". Thank you, for your consideration of this question in relation to Tertullian's erroneous "una substantia'.

The Holy Spirit is a bit of a mystery in nature, it is best understood by its actions.

BTW, you still haven't given a direct statement of what you actually believe, which makes it difficult to understand where you are trying to go and why you are involved in this discussion. You started it by asking if people have rightly understood, yet you don't seem willing or able to state exactly what you believe so that it can be examined.

Or are you trying to decide what to believe? That would require a different approach to responding to your posts, when you open by using the word people, are you included in that group or is it only meant to apply to others and exclude yourself?

 

[BluePrints]

Well, for something built on sand it has certainly stood unchanged for of a long time now, around 1700 years now.

What do you believe in that has stood unchanged for that long?

The response you provided is a classic example of the logical fallacy of 'argumentum ad antiquitatem / traditionem', or in other words, 'because said thing has existed and continued to exist for some period of time that this exhonorates / proves its validity / factualness / truthfulness'. It does not. Again, as stated before, "error hoary with age does not ever sanctify the error into the truth".

For instance, the devil, at the beginning said, "... Ye shall not surely die:" (Gen. 3:4) and lo, since that time, mankind has likewise taught and repeated this spiritualism, but even for the 6,251-ish years (est. - Age Of The Earth : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive or DL more details here - https://archive.org/download/the-re.../7000 Year Plan Of The Everlasting Gospel.odt ) that it has existed, 'unchanged', it is still error (- Sincerely Dead Dying, To Know Jesus by brother Aaron Earnest : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive and see thread - What does Necromancy have to do in connection with the Gospel? ), and contrary to God's words:

Gen_2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.​

 

[Frankj]

The response you provided is a classic example of the logical fallacy of 'argumentum ad antiquitatem / traditionem', or in other words, 'because said thing has existed and continued to exist for some period of time that this exhonorates / proves its validity / factualness / truthfulness'. It does not. Again, as stated before, "error hoary with age does not ever sanctify the error into the truth".

For instance, the devil, at the beginning said, "... Ye shall not surely die:" (Gen. 3:4) and lo, since that time, mankind has likewise taught and repeated this spiritualism, but even for the 6,251-ish years (est. - Age Of The Earth : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive or DL more details here - https://archive.org/download/the-redemption-of-the-creation-7000-years-and-the-everlasting-gospel_202301/7000 Year Plan Of The Everlasting Gospel.odt ) that it has existed, 'unchanged', it is still error (- Sincerely Dead Dying, To Know Jesus by brother Aaron Earnest : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive and see thread - What does Necromancy have to do in connection with the Gospel? ), and contrary to God's words:

Gen_2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.​

No, it is not a logical fallacy it it a simple statement of historical fact, not a proposition of a formal logical argument. You do believe in history, do you not?

As the famous philosopher Bob Dylan once said, "Don't interpret me".

 

[BluePrints]

The Holy Spirit is a bit of a mystery in nature ...

Indeed, though His nature is more than "a bit", and such is entirely a mystery. Hence, the question.

... it is best understood by its actions.

When you say "it", in reference to the Holy Ghost / Spirit, do you not acknowledge the Holy Ghost's / Spirit's personhood, or are you just utilizing a particular phrasing from scripture? (Asking for clarification.)

You (or any) may also see, if they desire:

"... [page 354] QUESTION 017: Isn’t the Holy Ghost / Spirit just an impersonal ‘force’ or “power” of God the Father, and not a Person / Being? ..." - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive​

​

"... [page 359] QUESTION 018: The Holy Spirit is called “it” (Rom. 8:16,26 KJB) in the Bible, doesn’t that mean the Holy Spirit is not a Person / Being? ..." - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive​

 

[Lamb]

Thread has been locked. We do not allow people to come here and try to convert people to not believe in the Trinity.