Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article <083.48.12.05.901468000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>
>>>First off, we have a clear testimony in the NT, that heresy of the
>>>Apostolic gospel was a problem even during the time of the apostles
>>>themselves. Many of Paul's epistles deal specifically with heretical
>>>teaching. The first 18 verse of John's gospel clearly speak against
>>
>>an
>>
>>>already existing heresy, namely gnosticism and its anti-Trinitarian
>>>teachings.
>>
>>Gnosticism yes. "anti-trinitstianism" no way.
>
>
> Yes, way!
>
>
>>There was no need to
>>defend something that didn't even exist (trinity) within the "church".
>
>
> But it _did_ exist. It just was not yet called by the name, 'Trinity'. But Mt
> 28:19 is a clear proof that it did exist.
>
>
>>The only "trinity" the apostles and so-called "earchy church fathers"
>>knew of was:
>>
>>that the Father, Son and holy spirit were in union.
>
>
> But what _kind_ of union? Do you really expect us to believe the Apostles
> believe they were in some kind of shadowy 'union' without knowing what _kind_ of
> union?
>
>
>>They recognized the Father and God of Jesus (YHWH),
>
>
> Yes...
>
>
>>they recognized the Son of God
>
>
> yes, but what does it _mean_ to be "Son of God"? That is where the contention
> lies.
>
>
>>and
>>they recognized holy spirit as God's force.
>
>
> Oh, no. He was _much_ more than some mere shadowy 'force'. And they _knew_ this.
> The NT frequently refers to the Holy Spirit as a _Person_, which
> anti-trinitarian propagandists claim is mere 'personification'. But there can be
> no 'personification' in Mt 28:19, where we have:
>
> baptizing them in THE name of the Father,
> and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19)
>
> How can anyone believe this is 'personification' here? It is unthinkable that
> the ancient writers would personify ONE of the three, and not the others. Just
> as it is unthinkable that they would ever, EVER speak of baptizing in the _name_
> of anything that is not a Person!
>
>
>
>>Jesus was God only in the sense of being a "mighty one"
>
>
> Oh, no. This is _radically_ inconsistent with the NT revelation. For never
> before had anyone described the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, as
> John does in John 5 & 14. Only two Persons of the Trinity can be described in
> such language.
>
>
>>and because he spoke as if God (no
>>different than Moses in that respect- see Ex. 4:15; 7:1).
>
>
> No, even M