The Trinity

[2Corrie]

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.[/b]

Jesus Christ is come in the flesh...

a) Show us that teaching in the OT

b) Yes, Jesus Christ came in the flesh,   "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" Hallelujah! 

[~TW~]

I was interested in why the writings of someone who had a hand in creating the concept of the Trinity ( which IMO is fairly divisive ) leads some Christians  to want to explore universalist Christianity.

That's not misinformation, unless of course someone is too scared to look at the roots of their religion.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa no less. A church father.

He seems to have thought up the idea of the trinity in the first place.

Mind you I like universalist Christianity so was quite pleased to find a reference to that.

I can't abide all the exclusive stuff where people puff themselves up to look very clever and quote scripture and exclude others, while running away from any exploration of the early church.


If you actually look at it, there is room for a universalist form of Christianity, which IMO is much nicer 🌹

No thanks why dont you join the JW's,they have done away with hell so you should be at home.And no one invented the Trinity.

 ~TW~

[SweetPea]

Rose, the thing is we can't pick and choose what we want to believe re Christianity, just because we think it sounds/feels 'nicer'. God gave us 'His Word' and He meant us to accept it and not try to twist it into something to suit ourselves.

[~TW~]

good day A_O I see that Sass has answered again and got it all wrong,she can be very trying also we have others putting in their mis-information which does not work.

 One does not have to answer all these JW type bullet points to show she is wrong try one question at a time for example

 Who is going to return one day------ answer Jesus =the 2nd coming then quote a scripture like this.

                                            “‘Holy, holy, holy

is the Lord God Almighty,’ Rev 4:8

who was, and is, and is to come.”------------------- so who is coming--- God = Jesus.

       She may choose not to accept that,BUT not our problem.

                                          ~TW~
Modify message

[2Corrie]

People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.

[ad_orientem]

This something he wrote apparently

“My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…The rulers must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs."



http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/martin-luther-hated-jews

Not a man I would trust to tell me about God.
Sounds like one of those nutty Imams that preach hatred.

🌹

Luther was a fanatic, who went from one error to another deeper error. A thoroughly unpleasant man and a glutton to boot.

[ad_orientem]

Rose, the thing is we can't pick and choose what we want to believe re Christianity, just because we think it sounds/feels 'nicer'. God gave us 'His Word' and He meant us to accept it and not try to twist it into something to suit ourselves.

The trouble is SweetPea, Christianity seems to have done that for the last 2000 years.

If you look here in this link, it pretty much tells you why the trinity developed and became church creed in 325 AD.

It also accepts that the bible doesn't explicitly teach the doctrine of the trinity.

Before 325AD Christians were freer to see it their own way which is probably why they had such issues with different ideas being taught.

http://derby.anglican.org/education/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Ideas-booklet-for-Trinity.pdf

What you need to know is how dogma is defined. It is not usually defined when it is not in dispute. Dogma is nearly always defined in response to heresy. You also have to understand that any kind of general council would have been almost impossible to convene before the Edict of Milan.

[~TW~]

People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.

 That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers  that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.

A lot of Christians have a persecution complex, it's sort of built in.  The fact they are often the persecutors they don't see.

It can cover a multitude of sins and can be used as a justification for bad behaviour,
(Not that you have,  apart from being a bit self righteous and exclusive  on a message board.)


There are other reasons for being unpopular some because the person involved behaves badly, and they can also  be someone who reckons they stick with the bible.

Other ways of being unpopular have nothing to do with the bible, but I reckon are probably closer to what Jesus may have been hinting at.

One is standing up for the weak and the vunerable and drawing attention to injustice.

Another is also not following the crowd ( the church is also " a crowd" and has committed atrocities in the past)

People who commit acts which are wrong don't like getting the attention on their wrongdoing, I'd suggest that exposing them is a more valid reason for being unpopular among people who would cover it up.

Some awful things have been committed by followers of the bible in positions of authority.


People who threaten and abuse others with a bible in their hand ought to look elsewhere for the reason for their unpopularity.

Just because someone reckons they live by the bible, doesn't mean they are nice people.

You only have to look at recent history, in cases involving abuse of children where the priest has abused his position of trust.

I have no doubt the person who blew the whistle on that one was very unpopular in some circles, some would have preferred it to be covered up.

IMO if you are always going to try and expose injustice, you are always going to be a bit of a loner.

People don't always like someone who is a bit of a grass who won't allow their integrity to be tarnished , even among religious people who stick with the bible.

Anyhow this is meant to be about the Trinity.

I'm sure one of the mods won't mind putting it on a separate thread if anyone wants to discuss Christian glib answers and their validity 🌹

rose this thread is about the doctrine of the Trinity which one can see in scripture now disprove it.

  ~TW~

[Alien]

People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.

 That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers  that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.

https://barnabasfund.org/news/Syrian-Christian-captives-crucified-for-refusing-to-deny-Christ-but-another-Christian-leader-is-released

[ad_orientem]

People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.

 That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers  that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.

https://barnabasfund.org/news/Syrian-Christian-captives-crucified-for-refusing-to-deny-Christ-but-another-Christian-leader-is-released

That's Isis.

They hate everyone.

They persecute everyone, not just Christians.

Most people have nothing in common with Isis.

You ignore how dogma is defined. The Trinity is not an idea that was made up, despite what some Anglicans on the edge of apostasy might say. Dogma is nearly always defined in response to heresy, in this case Arius' heresy, but the Trinity was there from the beginning, the "faith delivered once to the saints", the Apostolic faith. Of course, if you don't believe in the Holy Spirit then it's probably all the same.

[ekim]

People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.

 That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers  that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.

https://barnabasfund.org/news/Syrian-Christian-captives-crucified-for-refusing-to-deny-Christ-but-another-Christian-leader-is-released

That's Isis.

They hate everyone.

They persecute everyone, not just Christians.

Most people have nothing in common with Isis.

You ignore how dogma is defined. The Trinity is not an idea that was made up, despite what some Anglicans on the edge of apostasy might say. Dogma is nearly always defined in response to heresy, in this case Arius' heresy, but the Trinity was there from the beginning, the "faith delivered once to the saints", the Apostolic faith. Of course, if you don't believe in the Holy Spirit then it's probably all the same.

It is more likely that heresy is defined in response to dogmatism. 'The Trinity was there from the beginning' is likely to be a belief that is laid down by a religious authority as incontrovertibly true.  A heretic's belief is contrary to orthodox religious doctrine.   Heresy implies choice, orthodoxy denies choice and is dogmatic.  It is quite possible that Jesus was seen as a heretic by the Pharisees and Sadducees.

[ad_orientem]

Orthodoxy and dogmatic theology isn't the problem. They are necessary if you happen to believe that there is such a thing as truth and that it matters.

[ad_orientem]

Orthodoxy and dogmatic theology isn't the problem. They are necessary if you happen to believe that there is such a thing as truth and that it matters.

What makes you think the truth could be understood and worked out by human beings?

What if we don't have the imagination or knowledge to come up with the right answer?

That might be true if it were not the case that we have the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in such matters, as our Lord promised.

"But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you"

"But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me"

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth"

[Gordon]

Moderator:

Please note that  number of posts have been removed from this thread as being contrary to the ethos of the Faith Sharing Area (as noted in the 'About this Board' thread.

Could those posting here please bear this point in mind: any points made in this thread (or others on FSA) can be raised elsewhere should members wish to look at aspects that aren't suited to the ethos of this Board.

[BashfulAnthony]

Orthodoxy and dogmatic theology isn't the problem. They are necessary if you happen to believe that there is such a thing as truth and that it matters.

What makes you think the truth could be understood and worked out by human beings?

What if we don't have the imagination or knowledge to come up with the right answer?

Exactly so!  And that is one of the reasons so many atheists struggle to come to terms with Christianity.

Einstein was once asked how he came to formulate his theories:  his answer was, "I used my imagination."

[Alien]

People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.

 That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers  that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.

https://barnabasfund.org/news/Syrian-Christian-captives-crucified-for-refusing-to-deny-Christ-but-another-Christian-leader-is-released

That's Isis.

They hate everyone.

They persecute everyone, not just Christians.

No, they don't. The don't persecute Sunnis for being Sunnis.

Are you saying that the didn't horribly kill those Syrians because they were Christians?

Most people have nothing in common with Isis.

Indeed. Thankfully. What has that got to do with whether people that stick to the word of God not being popular? Would you say that biblical Christians are popular these days in this country?

[Alien]

People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.

 That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers  that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.

https://barnabasfund.org/news/Syrian-Christian-captives-crucified-for-refusing-to-deny-Christ-but-another-Christian-leader-is-released

That's Isis.

They hate everyone.

They persecute everyone, not just Christians.

No, they don't. The don't persecute Sunnis for being Sunnis.

Are you saying that the didn't horribly kill those Syrians because they were Christians?

Most people have nothing in common with Isis.

Indeed. Thankfully. What has that got to do with whether people that stick to the word of God not being popular? Would you say that biblical Christians are popular these days in this country?

It depends what you call a biblical Christian. 

Is there a different sort? Are they in contrast to unbiblical ones?

Someone who gives themselves the title of " biblical " Christian as opposed to just a Christian is probably not popular because it probably means they are a pain in the neck and drive everyone in their vicinity nuts.

( other Christians included)

Perhaps I should have used 2Corrie's term of "people that stick to the word of God", but "biblical Christians" was easier to type quickly.

[ad_orientem]

Zzzzzz!

[Sebastian Toe]

Zzzzzz!

There's that annoying little insect again! 

[~TW~]

People that stick to the word of God have never been popular, from the Biblical prophets, to the current day. Even the Lord Himself.

 That is just one of those standard Christian glib answers  that means not a lot, and is self fulfilling regardless of how you behave.

https://barnabasfund.org/news/Syrian-Christian-captives-crucified-for-refusing-to-deny-Christ-but-another-Christian-leader-is-released

That's Isis.

They hate everyone.

They persecute everyone, not just Christians.

No, they don't. The don't persecute Sunnis for being Sunnis.

Are you saying that the didn't horribly kill those Syrians because they were Christians?

Most people have nothing in common with Isis.

Indeed. Thankfully. What has that got to do with whether people that stick to the word of God not being popular? Would you say that biblical Christians are popular these days in this country?

It depends what you call a biblical Christian. 

Is there a different sort? Are they in contrast to unbiblical ones?

Someone who gives themselves the title of " biblical " Christian as opposed to just a Christian is probably not popular because it probably means they are a pain in the neck and drive everyone in their vicinity nuts.

( other Christians included)

Perhaps I should have used 2Corrie's term of "people that stick to the word of God", but "biblical Christians" was easier to type quickly.

Except no one sticks to the word of God because it's all subjective, which is why you have so many different versions.

In different denominations you are basically told which subjective views to adhere to or not, one being considered orthodox and the other heresy.

It's like moving the sabbath from a Saturday to a Sunday.  No where in the bible does it say God rested on a Sunday, Saturday was all ways the sabbath biblically speaking.

The trinity is the same, someone came up with an idea that appeared to solve the issue of worshipping more than one God, the church having lots of people with their own ideas thought " that's a good idea, we'll teach that then" , so they did.

Then they looked backwards in the bible and found little phases and bits and pieces and told the laity that's how it was meant to be read.

They used it to justify their claims.

The whole Old Testament is like that, Christians looked back on it and forced their new understanding on various passages which had never been intended to be interpreted like that.

Some saw the trinity in bits of it, others saw the songs of Solomon and parallels with Israel and the church and Christians made up their own mythology based on the ideas of random individuals and tried to insist it was fact.

It isn't.

The trinity is just one idea that explains the relationship between God and Jesus.

You only see it, if you have been taught to believe in it and you really want to.

Somewhere I have a 16th century book about the history of the church and it tells you all about where the different ideas came from.

The history of the church is actually quite interesting.  It does make you realise how subjective it all is and driven by events and different POV's.

The trinity is just a way of explaining a difficult problem for the church, which was that they claimed they worshipped one God, but had to explain the deity of Jesus.


It's amazing how the beliefs of the various churches actually holds more importance that what it actually says in the bible.

They have all added so much to what it actually says.

  It would be interesting to know what Rose is on she seems to be an x-spert on mis-information.

        ~TW~

[Outrider]

Zzzzzz!

Is that you're asleep because you've heard all this before - in which case I'm surprised that you needed to hear it again.

Or is it you're asleep because you tune out when you hear things that you don't like?

To ignore the point just makes it look as though you don't have a rebuttal.

O.

[ad_orientem]

Zzzzzz!

Is that you're asleep because you've heard all this before - in which case I'm surprised that you needed to hear it again.

Or is it you're asleep because you tune out when you hear things that you don't like?

To ignore the point just makes it look as though you don't have a rebuttal.

O.

I've heard it all before and it's bollocks.

[Outrider]

Zzzzzz!

Is that you're asleep because you've heard all this before - in which case I'm surprised that you needed to hear it again.

Or is it you're asleep because you tune out when you hear things that you don't like?

To ignore the point just makes it look as though you don't have a rebuttal.

O.

I've heard it all before and it's bollocks.

There aren't many new arguments here - as my signature points out - so why avoid responding to this particular one?

O.

[ad_orientem]

Zzzzzz!

Is that you're asleep because you've heard all this before - in which case I'm surprised that you needed to hear it again.

Or is it you're asleep because you tune out when you hear things that you don't like?

To ignore the point just makes it look as though you don't have a rebuttal.

O.

I've heard it all before and it's bollocks.

There aren't many new arguments here - as my signature points out - so why avoid responding to this particular one?

O.

I have repeatedly answered it in this thread. Rose seems to think that someone one day woke up and made up the Trinity because the Church didn't define it until Nicaea. I replied on numerous occasions that she obviously doesn't understand how the Church defines its dogmas, which is nearly always in response to heresy and even that would have been difficult before the Edict of Milan. So yes, I was just showing what I thought of the post.

[Outrider]

I have repeatedly answered it in this thread. Rose seems to think that someone one day woke up and made up the Trinity because the Church didn't define it until Nicaea. I replied on numerous occasions that she obviously doesn't understand how the Church defines its dogmas, which is nearly always in response to heresy and even that would have been difficult before the Edict of Milan. So yes, I was just showing what I thought of the post.

Firstly, that's a reasonable response - certainly more respectful than what you put.

Secondly, that completely fails to recognise those sections of the Christian faith for whom the Trinity isn't orthodoxy - the Mormons Christian Scientists etc. Your orthodoxy is their heresy, and vice versa, so to depict it as 'declared heresy' is simply to pick a side, it's not to explain why.

O.