A debate with Reverend Julius Maximus, a Brazilian Baptist Missionary in África about the article:
"I don't believe in a Trinity. I believe in ONE GOD: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."
This is a pseudo scholarship my dear. I have pointed out
that you also use pagan words such as DEUS (ZEUS) in Portuguese and you keep
using it all the time. But thanks for using the example of ecclesia in your text. You might know that, but conveniently forgot
to mention that ecclesia is actually
a Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew word קָהָל “QAHAL” which means
“assembly”. Where is the problem? I must say it again; you must study some
rules of translations before writing an article.
“The
word “apostle” is another word that is not mentioned in the Old Testament…. It
was a military word from the Roman Empire.”
[1]
Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996). New Bible dictionary (3rd ed.) (888). Leicester, England; Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
"I don't believe in a Trinity. I believe in ONE GOD: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."
Africa Central, 27 de Abril de 2013
Dear Salum:
Dear Salum:
Here is my response to your article. I picked up some of
yours “not so quite” biblical teachings. Don’t take my critiques and analyses
on a personal level, please. Look at it as a brother admonishing another
brother, or if you prefer as Attila and Priscilla helping Apollo to understand
the Gospel a bit better. I had put a few hours of work in this job, because I
care for you, but allow me to be totally sincere. Your article is another
example of pop-theology. You don’t care for historicity, continuity or consistency.
You take a little bit of truth and mix it with what seems to be a bit of
passion and then passes it off as “Gospel”.
You try to REDEFINE words: you have problems with words such
trinity, ecclesia, apostle, Christian, Christianity etc. You don’t even follow
your own philosophy. Why do you use words such as “revolution”? Is it a
biblical word? I might be wrong by I believe that “revolution” is a translation
of ἀκαταστασία that only appears in the NIV
Luke 21:19. Isn’t that a pagan word with military purpose?
Sometimes you claim that we use pagan words, sometimes you claim
that we made up words and sometimes you claim that we changed the meanings of
God’s Words. You totally ignored the functions of a language, which is to
communicate ideas. Languages are alive and change all the time. Basically your
article is a mess.
"I
don't believe in Trinity. I believe in ONE GOD: the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit."
YES and NO brother. You have showed little knowledge or
concern for church history and how the church fathers had to deal with these
issues. They had to come up with WORDS that are not BIBLICAL but they were
FULLY loaded of biblical MEANINGS. Biblical Christianity has a clear historical
CONSISTENCY, COHERENCY and CONTINUITY with the teachings of Jesus, but
unfortunately you have decided to follow the heretic teachings of those who
were condemned by the church fathers. Let me ask to you brother: Who were
closer to the time of Jesus, you or the church fathers? Look at the NICEAN
CREED and the ATHANASIAN CREED. Learn a bit from them.
“We
use words today that don’t carry God's meanings.”
Again brother, YES AND NO. You have just thrown the baby
with the bathwater. What your statement actually mean? Nothing! Actually we use
a lot of pagan words with GOD’S MEANINGS. I have pointed out that even you use
pagan and military words and never questioned yourself to why you still use
GOD, DEUS, BIBLIA etc. You fail to understand the process of translation and
interpretation of one language to another. Furthermore, the historical records
and theological researches have helped us to gain a more accurate understanding
of the words that we use.
“The
Bible has its own vocabulary. God communicated His revelation with His words.”
You are half accurate. God communicated not only by WORDS
but also in DEEDS. His words help us to interpret his deeds.
“Many
of these words were pagan; they were not holy, like the word ecclesia… “Pagan
philosophers had used that word before.”
 |
| ZEUS |
This is another example of a pseudo scholarship. Look at the
O.T. background for “one who is sent”. “The NT concept of apostle has a similar
origin to that of the rabbinic šāliah,
an authorized agent equivalent to the sender himself.”[1] What
is the problem? You try to create a problem where there is none.
What
Jesus did? He used the words and gave His meaning to them… Many of Biblical
words are used today, but they don't have the same meaning when they were
proclaimed by that prophet or written at their time.
It seems that it is a good idea to learn some Hebrew and
Greek before writing an article about translations and interpretations. All
your objections have no weight at all.
“We
have to rescue the meaning of these words according to their meaning in the
Scriptures.”
Quite interesting your statement. It seems to me that when
you used the word RESCUE you have put yourself in the position of a SAVIOR of
the truth, or having discovered something that the Church has ignored or lost
and put yourself in a special superior position of authority. BE CAREFUL! This
is a dangerous path, you may create a new cult.
There
are other words that don't communicate the message of the Kingdom. The name “Christian”
and “Christianity” are two words that have nothing to do with what the Bible
teaches and with what Jesus preached about the meaning of following Him.
Look at Act 11:26, Act 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16. All these
verses clearly show that the first Christians identified themselves with this
name. I suggest to you to read this article: http://biblicalmissiology.org/2010/04/06/the-value-in-a-name/
Therefore, just because someone does not live up to the NAME does not mean that
we throw it out.
“Interesting
that Paul never used the word Christian.”
Another example of POOR exegesis. So what? Who is the author
of the Bible? Is Paul or God? The same God inspired Peter and Luke to use the
word “Christian”. Isn’t that enough for you? Did Paul contradict what God said
through Peter or the whole Bible?
“Christian”
according to the Holy Spirit in Peter means the one who suffer with Christ. Christian
means to suffer and die for Christ.
Do you still want to be one?
This is one of the GOOD portions of your article. You
acknowledge that Peter used the word ‘Christian’ and mentioned a lot of Bible
verses. But you try to give your personal meaning to it. Christian literally
means “LITTLE CHRIST” or today means a “follower of CHRIST”. Yes, there is
suffering in the package of being a Christian but suffering is NOT the whole
package.
Today
to be a “Christian” means we are Christ like or we are followers of Christ.
Christ like has a biblical expression for it. It means are like Him and will be
fully like Him. To be a disciple of Christ is to be follower of Christ and has
nothing to do in the Scriptures with the word “Christian”.
You mix a good portion of good thoughts with a good amount
of confusion. To be a follower of Christ “HAS NOTHING to do in the Scriptures
with the word “Christian”? You confuse ‘truth’ with ‘behavior’. Truth doesn’t
change because some behave unworthy of the NAME. What is important is to know
that we are “IN HIM”, we are in union with the Christ.
“Christianity
is simple a term for a religion. Christianity in these terms has nothing to do
with Christ Jesus. He has not found any religion like Buda (Buddhism), Mohamed (Islamism),
Confusion (Confucianism) and a large number of others.”
I guess I know where you want to get. Your phraseology shows
which books you have been reading, brother. This is an old argument:
“Christendom is a political entity, therefore it is not Biblical”. Christianity
has nothing to do with Jesus? Brother you have to admit that the institutional
aspects of “following Christ” such as who should be a pastor, where he should
be trained, where he gets ordained, who cleans the church etc are all fine and
none contradict the teachings of Jesus. As long as these aspects don’t become
the CENTRAL point in the gospel, they are good ways to organize the people of
God.
NEVERTHELESS, I can sense that you have a huge “anti-institutional push”
in your statements. You try to contrast “kingdom” and “church” when the Bible
doesn’t make such contrast: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of
our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.” (Revelation
11:15) The error in your argument occurs from a very basic misunderstanding of
the nature of the Kingdom of God and of the Church. “The Church is in the
Kingdom of God and everyone who resides in the Kingdom has been baptized into
one body by one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13) that is, the Church.” http://biblicalmissiology.org/2012/10/15/kingdom-circles-the-kingdom-and-the-church/
.
To cure your antipathy towards church institution, I also suggest you read
this book: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Love-Church-Institutions-Organized/dp/0802458378
“Go
to any dictionary you will find exactly what Christianism means. Christianity
is not a God's word. It is a man made word. It intends to apply in a good sense
as referring to Christ, but also involves all "Christianism" groups:
Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Menonites, and all
preachers like Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Calvin, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith,
Jim Jones, etc”
There we go again! You are back with the issue of what is
God’s word and what is not. What the
dictionary can teach us? Dictionaries are a historical record of how the words
have been used through time. Words change! The real issue here is that you fail
to distinguish those “who are in Christ” and put no confidence in the flesh,
and those who put confidence on the works of the flesh. I don’t care what the
dictionary says!
They
are not three in one. The Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit are ONE. You
can't separate God like the word Trinity does in three persons…. I don’t use
the word Trinity. I don't believe in Trinity. I believe the Father, the Son and
the Holy Spirit. I believe in ONE GOD.
Dear friend, you have thrown out church history and embraced
a heretic view called Modalism Monarchianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchianism.
It is time for you to review your theology.
The
Father is the Son, the Son is the Father, the Holy Spirit is the Son, the Holy
Spirit is the Father, etc.
The Father IS NOT the Son, the Son IS NOT the Holy Spirit.
You have committed a ridiculous theological mistake. Most of the church fathers
have spent a lot of time and energy explaining the nature of trinity. You tried
to sound like a theologian, but actually you are “costurando” (stitching) bits
and pieces of good and bad theology and putting them together. It sounds good
theology for the amateur eye and ear. I think another book book might help you:
“Delighting in the Trinity An Introduction to the Christian Faith” http://www.amazon.com/Delighting-Trinity-Introduction-Christian-Faith/dp/0830839836
Who
died on the Cross, the Son, the Holy Spirit or the Father? Look what Acts 20:28
says: “…to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
God purchased the Church with His blood” Does God have blood? Of course He has.
God was made flesh and flesh (God made man) has blood.
First of all, Paul didn’t confuse the Person of the Son with
the Person of the Father. The Ephesian Elders knew that Paul was affirming the
full Deity of Christ as well as the union of his two natures in a single Person
when he said that God brought his church with his own blood. This verse indicates the dual nature of
Jesus, since Jesus is both God and man, one may speak of the “blood of God.”
But
they may accuse you of being a Unitarian
which is not accurate, if you affirm what we just share. You believe the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. You believe in One God, the ONLY ONE GOD.
They are not three Gods; they are ONE GOD, ONE PERSON.
You are right! You
look a lot like a UNITARIAN and a MODALIST teacher.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism)
I will not be surprise if one day you become a Jehovah Witness or a Muslim. Therefore,
revisit your theology. Learn from the past so that you don’t repeat the same
mistakes. You sound confused. May the Lord bless you and guide you in the
“doctrine of the Apostles”.
Julius Silva
Julius, Julius, you are not Brutus!
.jpg)
Before proceeding, please, allow me the pleasure of hearing your Reformed Protestant voice:
Biblical Christianity has a clear historical CONSISTENCY, COHERENCY and CONTINUITY with the teachings of Jesus, but unfortunately you have decided to follow the heretic teachings of those who were condemned by the church fathers.
Let me ask to you brother: Who were closer to the time of Jesus, you or the church fathers.
Josimar Salum
Dear Reverend Julius;
Julius, Julius, you are not Brutus!
Wow! Thank you!
As I think if I will be able to respond analytically your letter-article I will have to be able leveling myself with you, I mean, I will try very hard to be a theologian that I am not, a communicator that I not, a "little Christ" that I am not and one with Jesus that according to your fancy Theology I am not.
Free thinking, communication and behavior are prohibited by your Christianity. I know where this BS - Bacharel in Science comes from.
The Nicene Creed and others are your final Authority in matters of faith and practice as you submit to the rule of historical Bible interpretation while you uphold the Confession of Westminster on the Holy Scriptures.
You uphold Creeds which are the reduction of the Scriptures, and at least for me you contradict yourself in your own postulations. as you like a fortune-teller predicted that as I "assume my Unitarian theology, 'I will' become a Jehovah Witness or a cold Muslin."
You will have no surprises as this happens, according to your merciful heart, oh Most Holy Prophet Muhammad.
"Nothing personal", you claimed as you have written in a remarkable effort of spending many hours with this unwary anti-institution freak and post-Stone Age individual who his parents called him once for all "Josimar".
I got your message concerning me though you don't know who I am. But at least you seemed very compassionate with a human being.
You could have written with your own actual words without borrowing any words with their meanings from the Middle Age: "I am just helping this heretic individual who ignores history, writes messed articles and is a pseudo theologian".
I have just one question: Are you a Presbyterian or a Baptist? Because I am not neither one of those and I am not even a "Christian", according what the Dictionaries mean it is today.
As I said I will try to respond your article through my communication skills if I may take the risk again and again to challenge or doubt a so established divine word written in stone: Trinity.
"I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen"
As I officially sign the above Apostolic Creed you may now quite your soul that I am saved and free and not so in danger of any apostasy conversion.
I don't pretend anything "with my pagan revolution" before illuminate guardians of the faith like it seems you are.
I can't do much anyway with "my ignorance and confusion with communication and etymology..."
Etymology:
1 : the history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one
2 : a branch of linguistics.
·
Noble Julius, you pretend yourself to be a Biblical authority which is not quite accurate as much as you are a Judge basing your judgments on HISTORY, THEOLOGICAL TRADITION AND YOUR DEAD FATHERS. Nothing personal:
But I would be really happy if we could have found ourselves only in Jesus as One, and not in Theology, doctrine arguments and "who is right, who is wrong" quarreling.
Before proceeding, please, allow me the pleasure of hearing your Reformed Protestant voice:
Please, repeat after me: I am a "papagaio". I am a "papagaio". I am a "papagaio".
You wrote, I answer:
Don’t take my critiques and analyses on a personal level, please.
Of course, not. Even when it is.
This is another example of a pseudo scholarship. You don’t care for historicity, continuity or consistency. You take a little bit of truth and mix it with what seems to be a bit of passion and then passes it off as “Gospel”.
If I read well I am "anathema."
YES and NO brother
I understood the word brother here as a mere figure of language.
Your article is another example of pop-theology.
So was it a Theology then? Any Theology was not so popular in its introduction in that time. So I presume even if I don't claim writing a theological article that what you called pop is really not popular indeed, but a impersonal way to diminish all importance if it exists of the writer or what he writes.
Biblical Christianity has a clear historical CONSISTENCY, COHERENCY and CONTINUITY with the teachings of Jesus, but unfortunately you have decided to follow the heretic teachings of those who were condemned by the church fathers.
Biblical Christianity? What do you really mean? I know, you meant Christianity according to the Bible. What a funny expression! Judaism according to the Bible. Mormonism according to the Bible. The last two didn't mean the same, because when you wrote Christianity according to the Bible it is like you were saying what Christianity truthfully means.
You are joking, don't you? As much as I was possibly close to Jesus time I would be more faithful to His teachings. Is that right? Your fathers were right because they lived in a time close to the Apostles time.
NO. You have just thrown the baby with the bathwater.
What do yo know about babies? You are an expert in mummies!
You fail to understand the process of translation and interpretation of one language to another. Furthermore...
I failed! What a hell is this? And I am not sorry for using the word hell here...
Theology as it is, for me, Maximus Julius, is like a dissection of a dead body.
You are half accurate.
Semantics, purely semantics. Half accurate is not accurate at all!
BE CAREFUL! This is a dangerous path, you may create a new cult.
Don't really worry. I have no followers. The world is not at risk.
I suggest to you to read this article: http://
So early Christians frightfully and truthfully were the only ones who knew and experienced what the word Christian meant.
As the word Christian changed its meaning etymologically it doesn't mean what it meant by then.
Your phraseology shows which books you have been reading, brother.
Can you name them, please? Wow! I am astonished by your divination skills. Were am reading such books? I am ironically laughing!
“Christendom is a political entity, therefore it is not Biblical”.
Is there such thing called Biblical Christendom?"
Brother you have to admit that the institutional aspects of “following Christ” such as who should be a pastor, where he should be trained, where he gets ordained, who cleans the church etc are all fine and none contradict the teachings of Jesus. As long as these aspects don’t become the CENTRAL point in the gospel, they are good ways to organize the people of God. NEVERTHELESS, I can sense that you have a huge “anti-institutional push” in your statements.
Institutional aspects of following Christ? Organize the people of God? You gotta be kidding me.
Yes, sir, I have serious concerns and distress with what you call "church".
The error in your argument occurs from a very basic misunderstanding of the nature of the Kingdom of God and of the Church.
Please, let me read what do you think what is the nature of the Kingdom of God and of the Church. Please, write to me.
We will leave the Trinity discussion for you and other scholars to talk about. Let us from now on only talk about the nature of the Kingdom of God and of the Church
To cure your antipathy towards church institution, I also suggest you read this book: http://www.amazon.com/
I have told you. What you call church it is not what the Scriptures says about Church, much less what church is for Jesus Christ, I am positive I got what you are trying to convene.
Christianity is not a God's word. Jesus is not a Christian. That's what I meant. You may laugh disdainfully, but that is what I meant.
Dear friend, you have thrown out church history and embraced a heretic view called Modalism.
Let me be very personal once with you. You're nuts.
The Father is the Son, the Son is the Father, the Holy Spirit is the Son, the Holy Spirit is the Father, etc. They are ONE. Deuteronomy 6:4.
They are not three gods, individually they are not three manifestations of God...
Nobody could see God, but they saw Jesus, the God... Let me stop here. I don't want excite your imagination any longer to the point you want to defend the Christian Doctrines against me or like you have suggested just to help a flickering brother in his Faith.
Most of the church fathers have spent a lot of time and energy explaining the nature of Trinity.
I don't really give a damn. This is what I think. Are you going to damn me for writing it. What they thought are not God's Word, so... we are even.
It does mean I did not read them, oh not at all, because I did. But if before knowing nothing about faith in Christ I would be cast away in an island with a Bible I would never be able to know the Truth. I must have to know Church Fathers writings to make sure I am right with my beliefs.
"... actually you are “costurando”(stitching) bits and pieces of good and bad theology and putting them together."
Who says what? Bad theology or theology... This is right, that is wrong.
Please, be my brother in Christ only. Let us eat a bag of salt together first...
I appreciate brothers who became PHDs, Doctors, theologians, Etc. Good for them, but I don't give a damn If they think what they say it is right.
I have the testimony of the Living Holy Spirit. I don't follow Theology, I don't even follow the Bible though I know "all Scripture is God-breathed...
I follow a Living Person, sir, I follow Jesus and i read the Scriptures which testifies about Him.
Not am I. I just think they are One, and being ONE they can not be Three.
You are right! You look a lot like a UNITARIAN and aMODALIST teacher.
I have just been out on fire By Brutus's Holy inquisition.
I have just been out on fire By Brutus's Holy inquisition.
May the Lord bless you and guide you in the “doctrine of the Apostles”. (You called all your above words the doctrine of apostles. Sir, I am not guided by the doctrine of apostles.
You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings (as a Christian) in order that we may also share in his glory. (Romans 8:9, 14, 16, 17 NIV)
Josimar Salum
No comments:
Post a Comment