Just deal with Jesus as created. If he was the firstborn of every creature, the beginning of the creation of God, he's not God. God is. Everything else was created.

Oh now I'm convinced....

/sarcasm

Why does God refer to himself in the plural form in Genesis?

This has nothing to do with "the trinity"

You said that only God can forgive sins. I just showed you, explicitly, that that is not true.

John 20:23 (NIV)If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven

Meh...this is a pretty weak stance. A simple understanding of the culture tells us that 'Firstborn' is a position of inheritance, and really has nothing to do with actual birth.

That is a very good point. You could take that in that sense (as well as the sense I imply). Thank you, kb. You still have the beginning of the creation of God.....

Now you're really reaching. Do you want to discuss the Apostles(capital A)?

There's a whole, long book of the Bible about the Apostles that we can use for clarification: Acts. It'll better explain that the Apostles don't forgive or enforce sin, but God does. So instead of trying to insinuation an entire false belief system from one verse interpretation, let's look at Acts and the rest of the Bible.

Fear not, bro. It applies to you. It ties in with this principle:

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind (ie. not forgive) on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose (ie. forgive) on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Does scripture apply to you also? Or is your divine spark going to override the bulk of scripture that isn't congruent with your beliefs?

[If Your Brother Sins Against You]
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
(Matthew 18:15-20 ESV)

I think the surrounding scripture is very relevant here. Firstly, Jesus is speaking of the way a church is to function in quarrels. Secondly, in Matt 18:19 Jesus says that the authority is executed by God the Father, not the disciples. Lastly, *Jesus affirms that he will be divinely present among his disciples as they seek unity in rendering decisions, which is rightly understood also as an affirmation of omnipresence and therefore of deity.

I also think it should be understood, and seems apparent to me, that Matt 18:18 is without meaning if those gathered aren't in Christ's name, as God(Matt 18:20).

*ESV notes

This is really deceptive at best. Technically one could say there was multiple "traditions" floating around, yes. But how many were actually traced back to the Apostles or those taught directly by the Apostles? It is false to think that just because a "tradition" exists that it should be given any weight. You are passing fringe beliefs off as legitimate without any actual reason as to why they should be given any weight.

Bart Ehrman refers to the doctrines that became part of the mainstream as protoorthodox. Some of the heterodox doctrines that lost out, such as Marcionism, represented a serious challenge to protoorthodox Christianity.

Could you explain the method you use to actually trace back to the Apostles legitimate traditions?

Did Peter the Apostle die in Rome after years of leading the Roman Church?

First of all, let's separate the concept of "apostles". Saul of Tarsus never met Jesus. He stands in a very different stead from Peter or James.

Second, other than Paul, we do not have any authenticated writings of any apostles. It's all secondhand or worse.

Third, many of the claims that try to put words in certain apostles mouths are themselves false. Peter was likely never in Rome at all; he certainly wasn't leading a Christian church there for 30 years. And yet a lot of the claims about Peter's teachings were made by the Roman authorities who won the power struggle and put Peter in rome over a century later.

Similarly, the Book of Acts purports to elucidate all sorts of apostolic teachings, but also makes clearly false claims that Peter and Paul were raising the dead.

So no, there's no actual evidence that the apostles endorsed the factions who won the power struggle and then brutally repressed the other factions.

Ah yes, Acts. The book that claims that Peter and Paul raised the dead. Highly credible.

Your earlier claim was that Jesus claimed he was God in the synoptic gospels. Your citations are mostly not in the synoptic gospels, and the one that is doesn't contain any claim by Jesus that he is God.

Again, no doubt that the unknown author of John, and Saul of Tarsus claim Jesus was God. But the synoptic gospels do not say that. And that suggests that this theological claim came later.

Blacks in the priesthood, polygamy, the Oath of Vengeance, the penalties, etc.

I got confused by your claim that members of other denominations were making fun of the Mormons for making the adjustments. They make fun of letting blacks in, ending polygamy, etc? I would have thought that they would be commended for mainstreaming their doctrines.

In ancient times the conception of the Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit had certain meaning which has adjusted into our epoch.

When the ancient Hebrew spoke of the "Father God" he referred to the Old Testament presentation of the "blood" or origins of the tribal "I' or "Ego". The ancient peoples were all separated by "blood" in which , for example, the ancient Hebrew could state that " I and Abraham are One". Likewise other nations referred to what one might call to an ancestor of reference.

You'll have to give some latitude in this reference to blood as during our times the 'blood" is lifeless and contained within a laboratory petri dish. These ancient peoples literally experienced their ancestor through the "blood" into which they were born or entered earthly life. The "blood" was the physical manifestation of the "Ego" within the ancient cultures.

This in no way denies the presentation of the "Father God" but one might say that the route to the "Father God" was through the "Tribal Ego" or the "blood".

In this we present the mystery of birth or "Ex Deo Nascimur" or "Out of God we are born". Thus, the birth into the earthly sphere. The "Father God" as transition from the supersensible to the material.

The ancient peoples also knew of the "Conqueror of Death", He who was to come and lead mankind from this birth from "Ego Tribes" or "Ego Nations" into the commonality of humanity as "I Human Beings". Seen in all the mystery centers and envisioned by the Gnostic revelations of early Christianity the "Christ Being" was approaching the earth and entered into the body of Jesus of Nazareth at the Baptism at the Jordan, lived in a human physical body for three years, died on Golgotha and entered into the hearts of every human being as guide and template for the overcoming of death or in another sense the transforming of the earth. The sacred revelations of the ancient mysteries revealed that "man can become victorious over death".

From this comes the "In Christo Morimur"; In Christ we die. The "Light" for entrance into the spiritual world at death is the "Christ Being" who without his guidance within the earth, individually perfected, the individual Man would enter into the" Darkness" without realization of his (Man's) spiritual nature.

After death we have the awakening in the Principle what knows neither birth nor death "Per spiritum sanctum reviviscimus", the "Holy Spirit", or awakening within the Holy Spirit.

People speak of "death" and immortality due to our particular egocentric natures but the conceptual realization of "birth" or of "unborn hood" does and will mollify our precipitant egocentricity.

During our abstract intellectual age the meanings have gradually been lost as was necessarily so, but the new beginnings in which realization of the Christ within the earthly sphere comes to realization through the individual effort of each individual man.

If you talk to evangelical Christians (or go to their discussion boards online), you will find lots of them who make fun of the idea of God saying that polygamy was mandated for 40 years and a precondition of obtaining the highest form of salvation, and then turning around and saying "no, I changed my mind". And there is similar mocking of the other doctrines I mentioned.

It's a pretty common critique of Mormonism from that element.

From my secular perch, in contrast, I tend to praise religions that modernize, although I wish they'd be more honest about what they are doing.

But yeah, my broader point about it is that these sorts of doctrinal changes and power struggles and schisms are what EVERY religion does during its formative years. And Christianity is no exception.

Carlo, do you believe the Bible to be God's word?

It's probably the wrong question to ask me. Considering the ever present and continuing debate on this site I have in the past and do again affirm in the present that this is not my approach and will attempt to not enter into the foray.

Your question again, in like style, points to the attributes, powers, lack of powers, etc... of the "G" word and so I won't answer for the question is too strictured.

On a personal note, I read the Bible daily and attempt to comprehend its very evident complexities and imbibe it's enriching nature. I am strengthened through the Bible and view it as an ongoing daily sustenance in my life.

Back again, if the question is as to whether the Bible has a supersensible nature to it, in creation and activity, then the answer is a resounding Yes but one also has to consider that this "nature" has to go through Man and be presented to Man.

My anthroposophical studies have brought a comprehension of the Bible and are ongoing. One thing to note is that the Christ Being is only in the beginnings of His activity and the New Testament will not be fully understood until the end of the days of Man prior to the entrance of Man into another state of consciousness( end of time).

Hows all that for a seeming hedge?

Stu+Stu was right, I can't make it any simpler or shorter for the question, as noted above, is tantamount to a hostile witness in court being asked for a yea or nea. a really expansive answer of the nature of the human being, the heavenly hierarchies and indeed the Trinity can only do justice to the question and this is an ongoing work only to be perceived piecemeal as one views the many sides of a tree in the pursuit of truth.

I am almost tired of listening to myself here and wish you well, the best to you.

I think I'm just going to agree to disagree carlo. Not even going to touch that.

I find your theological stance very interesting. What would you say is the most "correct" interpretation of the Scriptures of today's churches? I think the evangelical movement has tried to not only explain but also deliver (or indwell) that "supersensible nature" of Scriptures to the hearts of the audiences.

I have no idea; its a work in progress, related to the individual man.

I prayed and asked god. He said yes Jesus is divine. I don't really understand why people need to debate on this forum when you can just ask him directly yourself.

hey mate, this is not how it works and i'm sure you know that too. i like the cleverness and sarcasm of your thinking, but prayer comes after humility, research (as humans we all have a will to search for truth) and acknowledgement.