Christians..."Trinity"?

[Shermana]

The Arians didn't even have power over the Orthodox. Both sides functioned under completely independent hierarchies and had nothing to do with each other in Gothic lands. It wasn't like the situation in the Empire where Arians and Orthodox were fighting for control of the same episcopal sees.

They had power over them in the GOTHIC LANDS. What we see is how the Arians acted when they HAD INDEPENDENT POWER. Why would there even be "episcopal sees" that had to be fought over in the first place? Who was doing the first striking? Who tried to run out who first?

Also, the Arian Vandals did in fact dissolve Orthodox monasteries, exile or kill Orthodox clergy, and barred Orthodox laymen from holding any kind of office.

Source please, I'd like to see the context. Was this after the Byzantines tried to eradicate them and it became a matter of getting rid of collaborators and actual active threats? Or was it like the way the Trinitarians simply wanted to stamp out those who didn't tow the party line?

No, they weren't. The Semi-Arians weren't "vastly different" from the hardline Arians. The Semi-Arians held that the Son and Holy Spirit were created in time, and were not of one essence with the Father. The only difference between the Arians and the Semi-Arians were that the Semi-Arians compromised and said that the three Persons were alike or similar in essence, which really isn't any different than the hardline Arian different in essence. Because at the end of the day, alike and similar still mean "different." In point of fact, Eusebius of Nicomedia (Arius's biggest ally) headed both the Arian and Semi-Arian factions together.

Depends on your perspective. The Semi-Arians were mostly just "heretical Trintarians". Being created in Time doesn't mean that they weren't still "united" as part of that Trinity. As they tried to explain to the Orthodox Trintiarians who rejected them "It makes not one iota of difference". Apparently the being created part was enough of an iota of difference despite the fact that the concept of the three being one was still intact. Or at least the two being one depending on if you view them being Binitarian.

Tell that to the 26 Gothic martyrs.

Source please. Let's see the specifics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_persecution_of_Christians

Apparently that wasn't by Arians, it was by the Goths against converts. Please show that these 26 Gothic martyrs were not Arians themselves.

Also, what's your point? I said the Goths were not saints! This should prove it. They executed converts before they became Arian. Then they didn't execute those of a different belief afterward.

If by "the most part" you mean "three years when Genseric's relations with the Romans and Byzantines were good," then yeah, "for the most part."

Hmmm, perhaps the downgrade may have to do with political and warfare issues rather than just cementing religious control over the territory.

Oh, the irony...

Why? We know how Trinitarians ALWAYS have acted.

 

[Shiranui117]

Huh? The Arian Goths were mostly independent. Now what's this 'fighting for control" about? Why would there even be "episcopal sees" that had to be fought over in the first place? Who was doing the first striking? Who tried to run out who first?

The Arian Goths functioned under their own separate bishoprics, had their own priesthood, and had their own churches, while the Orthodox Goths had their own bishoprics, their own priesthood, and their own churches. They were independent of each other, and each stayed out of the politics of the other in the Gothic lands. You didn't have the two factions competing over the same territory or the same believers or the same bishoprics. Do you understand how church hierarchy works?

"Episcopal see" refers to a bishopric. It's the seat of a bishop. The bishop is the spiritual leader of all Christians in a given area. The bishop has the authority to ordain and depose priests and deacons, give antimensia allowing for divine services, and promulgate teaching. If you have an Arian bishop, then he will favor Arianism. If you have an Orthodox bishop, he will preach Orthodoxy. In the Empire, you didn't have parallel hierarchies and flocks like you had in lands controlled by the Goths. Arians and Orthodox had to compete with each other for the same congregations and the same bishoprics.

Source please, I'd like to see the context. Was this after the Byzantines tried to eradicate them and it became a matter of getting rid of collaborators and actual active threats? Or was it like the way the Trinitarians simply wanted to stamp out those who didn't tow the party line?

It seems like the latter.

Vandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See for yourself.

Depends on your perspective. The Semi-Arians were mostly just "heretical Trintarians". Being created in Time doesn't mean that they weren't still "united" as part of that Trinity. As they tried to explain to the Orthodox Trintiarians who rejected them "It makes not one iota of difference". Apparently the being created part was enough of an iota of difference despite the fact that the concept of the three being one was still intact. Or at least the two being one depending on if you view them being Binitarian.

Having different (even if alike) essences precludes them being "one" in any sense of the word. The Semi-Arians believed that the three Persons were "one" about as much as the JW's believed that the three Persons were "one." IOW, not at all.

The "not one iota of difference" is a play on the word used by the Semi-Arians, homoiousion, which means "alike in essence/substance," in comparison to the Trinitarian homoousion, which means "consubstantial/of the same essence." The Semi-Arians, then, didn't truly believe in the Trinity; their Christology and theology was still Arian in character, but nuanced in a way that they hoped would be more appealing to the Orthodox.

Source please. Let's see the specifics.

Gothic persecution of Christians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Saint Bathusius was one of twenty-six martyrs who were killed by the Goths around the year 375 under Jungerich, a persecutor of Christians. Ancient synaxaria of the Gothic Church recount the martyrdom of twenty-six Christians in the time of the emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian. The historian Sozomen says that King Athanaric was enraged to see his subjects embracing Christianity because of the preaching of the Arian bishop Ulfilas. So, he ordered many of them to be tortured and executed, often without a trial.
King Athanaric’s ministers placed a statue in a chariot and paraded it before the tents which Christians used for church services. Those who worshiped the idol and offered sacrifice were spared, the rest were burned alive in the tent. Jungerich gave orders to burn down a church during divine services. In the fiery inferno 308 people perished, of whom only twenty-one are known by name. There was also an anonymous man who came to the tent and confessed Christ. He was martyred with the others. Different manuscripts give variants of their names.
In the reign of Valentinian and Theodosius (383-392), the Gothic king’s widow Gaatha (who was an Orthodox Christian) and her daughter Duclida gathered up the relics of the holy martyrs and brought them to Syria with the help of some priests and a layman named Thyellas. Gaatha later returned to her native land, where she was stoned and died as a martyr, along with her son Agathon.
The relics of the holy martyrs were left to Duclida, who went to Cyzicus in Asia Minor and gave some of the relics for the founding of a church. St Duclida died in peace.
The holy martyrs were commemorated on October 23 on the Gothic calendars."

That was from the Orthodox Church in America's website.

Hmmm, perhaps the downgrade may have to do with political and warfare issues rather than just cementing religious control over the territory.

I think both political/warfare and religious concerns were key factors.

Why? We know how Trinitarians ALWAYS have acted.

You mean like St. John Chrysostom telling his flock to dialogue with the Arians and Jews in all kindness, for one teeny, tiny example? Or Basil the Great making a wager with the Arians? Or the Arians and Orthodox jointly electing Ambrose as bishop of Milan, even though Ambrose was Orthodox?

 

[Shermana]

The Arian Goths functioned under their own separate bishoprics, had their own priesthood, and had their own churches, while the Orthodox Goths had their own bishoprics, their own priesthood, and their own churches. They were independent of each other, and each stayed out of the politics of the other in the Gothic lands. You didn't have the two factions competing over the same territory or the same believers or the same bishoprics. Do you understand how church hierarchy works?

I am not entirely familiar with how orthodox church hierarchy works.

"Episcopal see" refers to a bishopric. It's the seat of a bishop. The bishop is the spiritual leader of all Christians in a given area. The bishop has the authority to ordain and depose priests and deacons, give antimensia allowing for divine services, and promulgate teaching. If you have an Arian bishop, then he will favor Arianism. If you have an Orthodox bishop, he will preach Orthodoxy. In the Empire, you didn't have parallel hierarchies and flocks like you had in lands controlled by the Goths. Arians and Orthodox had to compete with each other for the same congregations and the same bishoprics.

Okay. So as we can see, when the Arian Goths had political power, they were pretty much tolerant, and the Vandals were intolerant based on political and warfare considerations. In the Byzantine lands they had no choice but to get along.

It seems like the latter.

Vandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See for yourself.

As we can see, this tension may very well have been a necessity due to the political climate. Trinitarians very well may have been colluding with the enemy. The Vandals accepted peaceful relations with Orthodoxy under Hidelric probably for such purposes of maintaining peace, and his brother's uprising was probably based more on political than religious reasons.

Having different (even if alike) essences precludes them being "one" in any sense of the word. The Semi-Arians believed that the three Persons were "one" about as much as the JW's believed that the three Persons were "one." IOW, not at all.

I think this is a matter of no True Scotsmen. They weren't entirely Arian either, and this works both ways as the official Arian position was that the Son was not like the Father at all.

The "not one iota of difference" is a play on the word used by the Semi-Arians, homoiousion, which means "alike in essence/substance," in comparison to the Trinitarian homoousion, which means "consubstantial/of the same essence." The Semi-Arians, then, didn't truly believe in the Trinity; their Christology and theology was still Arian in character, but nuanced in a way that they hoped would be more appealing to the Orthodox.

The "Similar" essence is much closer to the Trinitarian side than the "not at all alike" idea of the Arians. Why would the Wiki even say that they were "heretical Trinitarians"? Just because they weren't TRUE Trinitarians didn't make them Arian!

Thus, to call Semi-Arians "Arians" is fallacious. This is why the Wiki article says "even though they are referred to as Arians", they are not Arians.

Gothic persecution of Christians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently those Gothic Martyrs were not necessarily Trinitarians or Arians. They were Gothic converts of one type or another being persecuted by the non-Christian Goths. The persecutors were NOT Arians however.

That was from the Orthodox Church in America's website.

I wonder if they acknowledge that it doesn't specify what type they were.

I think both political/warfare and religious concerns were key factors.

I think the religious concerns were purely secondary, and if the Vandals did persecute them, it was only during a time of tension, those like Hidelric obviously were quite nice. It was those like his brother who saw the political collusion that wanted to end that.

You mean like St. John Chrysostom telling his flock to dialogue with the Arians and Jews in all kindness, for one teeny, tiny example? Or Basil the Great making a wager with the Arians? Or the Arians and Orthodox jointly electing Ambrose as bishop of Milan, even though Ambrose was Orthodox? ]

I'm talking about once they had mostly uncontested political power like the Arian Goths did.

 

[Windwalker]

My group historically is behaved better than yours, therefore we are right and you are clearly wrong. Your group is inferior.

:thud:

Ethnocentric thinking at its finest.

 

[Shiranui117]

I am not entirely familiar with how orthodox church hierarchy works.

Oh dear. This certainly does explain a lot. How can you hope to be able to discuss Church history on a meaningful level without having even a basic understanding of how Church hierarchy works? Without understanding Church hierarchy, you cannot very well hope to understand Church history. You can either do your own research, or I can give you one heck of a start. Once you've become better acquainted with that, then you can have a good conversation about church history and the dynamics of the Arian controversy.

Okay. So as we can see, when the Arian Goths had political power, they were pretty much tolerant, and the Vandals were intolerant based on political and warfare considerations. In the Byzantine lands they had no choice but to get along.

As we can see, this tension may very well have been a necessity due to the political climate. Trinitarians very well may have been colluding with the enemy. The Vandals accepted peaceful relations with Orthodoxy under Hidelric probably for such purposes of maintaining peace, and his brother's uprising was probably based more on political than religious reasons.

I'm afraid his father Huneric was quite a different story.

Huneric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Victorian, Frumentius and Companions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently those Gothic Martyrs were not necessarily Trinitarians or Arians. They were Gothic converts of one type or another being persecuted by the non-Christian Goths. The persecutors were NOT Arians however.

I didn't say they were.

I wonder if they acknowledge that it doesn't specify what type they were.

They do. I believe even an Arian who was martyred by the pagans is held as a Saint by the Church, even though he was a heretic (I think someone said that he was converted to Orthodoxy, though I can't be sure; most seem to be saying that he was Arian). His name is Artemius of Antioch.

 

[Shermana]

Oh dear. This certainly does explain a lot. How can you hope to be able to discuss Church history on a meaningful level without having even a basic understanding of how Church hierarchy works? Without understanding Church hierarchy, you cannot very well hope to understand Church history. You can either do your own research, or I can give you one heck of a start. Once you've become better acquainted with that, then you can have a good conversation about church history and the dynamics of the Arian controversy.

All this means is that we cannot discuss the specifics of the orthodox structure, this does not mean I don't understand the greater political history regarding the Arians. By all means tell me what my lack of understanding the full aspects of Church Hierarchy has to do with the conversation of the history of the conflict itself. Do I need to know who had the authority to authorize hunting down heretics or something? I know how the Catholic hierarchy works with their Cardinals electing the Pope and Archbishops having their mostly autonomous dioceses so surely the Orthodox structure can't be too difficult to understand in a few sentences. And the relevance should be easy to explain as well.

I'm afraid his father Huneric was quite a different story.

Sounds like it's the same thing with him, I'd have to see whether he just flat out changed his mind and reversed his friendly opinion or whether it had to do with active threats to his regime from within. We're talking about a guy who cut off the nose and mutilated the ears of his daughter merely on a suspicion she was trying to poison him. This sounds like it purely had to do with politics, not a basis of religious zeal. And his successor Gunthamund returned to the former times of being nice to the orthodox.
.

Although Huneric was a fervent adherent to Arianism, his reign opened with making a number of positive overtures towards the local Roman population. Following the visit of a diplomatic mission from the Eastern Roman Empire led by Alexander, Huneric restored properties seized by his father from the merchants of Carthage.[1] He also lifted the policy of persecuting the local Catholics, allowing them to hold a synod wherein they elected a new Catholic bishop of Carthage, Eugenius, after a vacancy of 24 years.[2] However, not long after the ordination of Eugenius Huneric reversed himself and began to once again persecute Catholics.[3] Furthermore, he tried to make Catholic property fall to the state, but when this caused too much protest from the Eastern Roman Emperor, he chose to banish a number of Catholics to a faraway province instead. On February 1, 484 he organized a meeting of Catholic bishops with Arian bishops, but on February 24, 484 he forcibly removed the Catholic bishops from their offices and banished some to Corsica. A few were martyred, including the former proconsul Victorian along with Frumentius and other wealthy merchants, who were killed at Hadrumetum after refusing to become Arians.[4]

Huneric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Victorian, Frumentius and Companions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't say they were.

So why do you bring them up? Is this a play on what I said about the "Goths not being saints"? I meant "saints" as in "perfectly nice and tolerant".

They do. I believe even an Arian who was martyred by the pagans is held as a Saint by the Church, even though he was a heretic (I think someone said that he was converted to Orthodoxy, though I can't be sure; most seem to be saying that he was Arian). His name is Artemius of Antioch.

[/QUOTE]

Thus, this example has nothing to do with Arians doing the persecuting.

 

[Shermana]

My group historically is behaved better than yours, therefore we are right and you are clearly wrong. Your group is inferior.

:thud:

Ethnocentric thinking at its finest.

Being right and wrong based on the overall better behavior is not what we're discussing. The point I made is that a group which is not based on a belief which is "Too much for the Human mind to understand" has less of a need to keep that belief in check with the sword.

As we can see from the examples so far such as with Huneric, the Arian Vandal persecution of orthodox may stem mostly from political reasons, not religious, whereas Catholic and Orthodox persecution of "heretics" has hardly been due to much active Political threat. Persecution of Protestants however is another story.

 

[james2ko]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

The apostles didn't believe in a trinity either. So you're in good company.

 

[Windwalker]

Being right and wrong based on the overall better behavior is not what we're discussing. The point I made is that a group which is not based on a belief which is "Too much for the Human mind to understand" has less of a need to keep that belief in check with the sword.

This is a wild speculation on your part. In a heartbeat, without hesitation, doctrine of Trinity included or excluded, pretty much any mystic will say that God is "too much for the human mind to understand". It even says it in the Bible, "my thoughts are not your thoughts... as far as the heavens are above the earth...." God is incomprehensible. Does this mean mystics pull out swords and kill themselves and others because they wish to defend this understanding? Ludicrous. If anything it means they understand we can't define God, or expect others to either!

How do you justify this argument?

 

[Shermana]

This is a wild speculation on your part. In a heartbeat, without hesitation, doctrine of Trinity included or excluded, pretty much any mystic will say that God is "too much for the human mind to understand". It even says it in the Bible, "my thoughts are not your thoughts... as far as the heavens are above the earth...." God is incomprehensible. Does this mean mystics pull out swords and kill themselves and others because they wish to defend this understanding? Ludicrous. If anything it means they understand we can't define God, or expect others to either!

How do you justify this argument?

I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference between a formal doctrine of Christology and the concept of God's thoughts themselves.

 

[Shiranui117]

All this means is that we cannot discuss the specifics of the orthodox structure, this does not mean I don't understand the greater political history regarding the Arians. By all means tell me what my lack of understanding the full aspects of Church Hierarchy has to do with the conversation of the history of the conflict itself. Do I need to know who had the authority to authorize hunting down heretics or something? I know how the Catholic hierarchy works with their Cardinals electing the Pope and Archbishops having their mostly autonomous dioceses so surely the Orthodox structure can't be too difficult to understand in a few sentences. And the relevance should be easy to explain as well.

The entire office of "cardinal" is itself a relatively modern invention, as a side note.

In the Orthodox Church (both in the early Church at the time of the Arian controversy and in the modern Church), bishops are elected by the laypeople and clergy, and installed by bishops from surrounding dioceses. The bishops are able to ordain or refuse to ordain priests and deacons, provide the authority of churches to celebrate divine services, are responsible for promulgating and safeguarding Church teaching against heresy, and work together with the rest of his brother bishops to maintain the peace and unity of the Church.

You have bishops of a diocese (typically a city and the surrounding area), a metropolitan (a bishop who administers a large region called a metropolitanate, with several or many bishops within his jurisdiction) and a Patriarch who rules several metropolia, and governs an entire particular church (i.e. the Church of Rome, the Church of Antioch, the Church of Constantinople, etc.) Metropolitans regularly convoke synods with the bishops within his territory, and they all make group decisions about how to regulate church life and how to deal with issues and heresies that come up in their region and among their flocks--it is also here that offending clergy are put on trial and are either vindicated or deposed.

The Patriarch does a similar thing with the Metropolitans and the various other bishops, and institutes canons and policies that govern the entire particular church.

So, if you have an Arian bishop, then he is going to promote Arianism among his flock, and work within his synod to make canons and promote policies and vote to forgive or depose clergy all in accordance with his particular agenda to promote Arianism. If you have an Arian metropolitan or an Arian Patriarch, it can become very easy for these people to really start to do damage to the Church, because of their influence.

This is why the struggle between the Arians and the Orthodox was so important and so bitter within the Empire; you had established hierarchies and established Church structures within which everyone worked to try and gain or maintain control. Arians did whatever they could to try to elect clergy and promote policies/canons in favor of their position, and depose the Orthodox who got in their way. The Orthodox had to do the same thing in order to ensure that the Orthodox Faith was maintained.

Sounds like it's the same thing with him, I'd have to see whether he just flat out changed his mind and reversed his friendly opinion or whether it had to do with active threats to his regime from within. We're talking about a guy who cut off the nose and mutilated the ears of his daughter merely on a suspicion she was trying to poison him. This sounds like it purely had to do with politics, not a basis of religious zeal. And his successor Gunthamund returned to the former times of being nice to the orthodox.

Huneric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Victorian, Frumentius and Companions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does killing bishops for refusing to become Arian sound "purely political" to you? Or killing loyal servants for being Orthodox?

So why do you bring them up? Is this a play on what I said about the "Goths not being saints"? I meant "saints" as in "perfectly nice and tolerant".

Unfortunately, that is not the definition of "saint."

Thus, this example has nothing to do with Arians doing the persecuting.

Then you missed my point. You say that we Orthodox are basically bloodthirsty, irrational savages who hate with our entire beings anyone who isn't like us. I provided counterexamples of Fathers who preached to the contrary of what you claimed, and named Saints honored in our Church that were even Arian.

 

[jtartar]

Exactly.

Why do you think he is called "The god of the gods"? Who are these "gods" in the Divine council who is he THE god of?

It's not so much they are "false" gods, it's that they are not THE god. In this case, the word "True god" doesn't imply lesser gods are false gods. It's like saying "The TRUE Basketball Champion was Michael Jordan" doesn't imply Larry Byrd or Kobe weren't champions, they were just lesser champs.

Are you familiar with the Deuteronomy 32:8 issue in the Septuagint? Every nation has their own "son of god" set over them, this was apparently edited out by the Masoretic translators to something nonsensical.



Abraham apparently never got the memo when he worshiped the angels.

The commandment is to not worship AND SERVE any other deity. Thus by worshiping a "deity" in the chain of command, one is not serving them, they are serving God. Likewise for when David and Saul are "worshiped".

Shermana,
There is so much information, both in the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures about who is the ONE true God, that it seems to me that anyone who cannot understand who the only true God is, is either willfully blind or is a complete skeptic, and will not believe anything.
Have you ever looked into a concordance to find out all the places that God's Personal or Proper name is used?? In many Bibles every place the words LORD and GOD are uses, in all capital letters, the original ward, in Hebrew was YHWH. This Hebrew combination of letters, called The Tetragrammaton, is, in English YHWH, or JHVH, which is translated Jehovah, in English. God Jehovah, inspired His writers to record His name over 7,000 times, in His Bible, 2Tim 3:16,17, 2Pet 1:20,21.
The Hebrew Language is a consonantal language, having no vowels. There were vowel points put above words to show how they were to be pronounced.
There was a system called Kere, later Perpetual Kere, where Lord and God were inserted instead of Jehovah. The vowels used to speak the Hebrew words lord or god were used to show how the word Jehovah was to be pronounced. As time went on the practice of using lord or God in the place of God's name became so prevalent that it became called perpetual kere.
This system of Kere was used because the Jews became superstitious about pronouncing God's sacred name, thinking that their imperfect lips should not pronounce Jehovah's sacred name.
Keep in mind that Bibles use the system of putting in the Bible, where God's name was, LORD and GOD in all capital letters. Then look up Isaiah 42:8, which says, " I am Jehovah, that is my Name, and I will not give my glory to another"
Consider Isa 9:6,7. Here we are told about the Christ child, which was Jesus. Notice that in verse 6, Jesus is called a mighty god. Now, there is a huge difference between a mighty god and The Almighty God, who is Jehovah. Think about it, you could put up an unnumbered zillion mighty gods and they would be as nothing to the power of The Almighty God. Jesus is God's SON as he said many times. Consider John 20:17, where Jesus said the GOD, his Father was their Father and Jesus' God and their God. Jesus prayed to his Father and God many times, while on earth.
While Jesus was on earth, God Jehovah spoke to him, three times, from heaven, Matt 3:17, Mark 9:7, John 12:28.
Jesus said that he lives because of the Father, John 6:57. A Father is the giver of life, Ps 36:9, Prov 23:22.
Jesus said that there were things that he did not know, but only the Father, Matt 24:36. Also, that some things do not belong to Jesus, Matt 20:23.
Jesus said that the Father is GREATER than he is, John 14:28. Could you pass a Kindergarten pupil on to first grade, if they did not know what GREATER means???
Most religious leaders and teachers do not!!!
Consider the discussion between Jesus and his Apostles at Matt 16:13-17.
Jesus called his Father The Only True God, John 17:3.
If you really want to see the difference between The Almighty God and the ones around Him, notice how they saw Him, Ps 86:8-10, 89:6,7,8, 95:3,6,, 96:4,5,, 97:9.
It seems to me that if anyone cannot understand these scriptures, they may be the ones that the Bible speaks about, Dan 12:10, Isa 26:10, Prov 28:5, Matt 13:13,14,15,16, 2Pet 3:15,16, Matt 7:15,16, Titus 1:16.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana,

There is so much information, both in the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures about who is the ONE true God, that it seems to me that anyone who cannot understand who the only true God is, is either willfully blind or is a complete skeptic, and will not believe anything.

And it seems there's a lot of people who have a problem interpreting correctly what those verses mean exactly who think it says what they think it says. Did you not understand what I meant by "TRUE" god? I think you stumbled over yourself here since you didn't actually address what I said, so why don't you try going over it line by line.

Have you ever looked into a concordance to find out all the places that God's Personal or Proper name is used??

Yes. Have you even read what I said to address what I said correctly? Because it looks like you did not even discuss what I said at all, and you even end up agreeing with my anti-Trinitarian sentiments.

In many Bibles every place the words LORD and GOD are uses,

In some cases the word "GOD" is capitalized to break from the pattern of "LORD" when it's used as "Adonay YHWH", yes.

in all capital letters, the original ward, in Hebrew was YHWH.

Do you honestly think this is something I don't know?

This Hebrew combination of letters, called The Tetragrammaton, is, in English YHWH, or JHVH, which is translated Jehovah, in English. God Jehovah,

I prefer Yahuah. Thanks for the refresher of what I learned 20 years ago.

inspired His writers to record His name over 7,000 times, in His Bible, 2Tim 3:16,17, 2Pet 1:20,21.

I must have missed where his name is used in 2 Tim 3:17-17, or 1 Peter 1:20-21. Who taught you that the word "God" was equivalent to the use of the name in the NT? It may reference the same being, but the word "LORD" is only ever used, when it's not being used as "lord". Not Theos.

The Hebrew Language is a consonantal language, having no vowels. There were vowel points put above words to show how they were to be pronounced.

NO KIDDING? Wow, it's like I didn't learn this 20 years ago!!

There was a system called Kere, later Perpetual Kere, where Lord and God were inserted instead of Jehovah.

Okay, and what's this got to do with what I said about the article use of "The god"?

The vowels used to speak the Hebrew words lord or god were used to show how the word Jehovah was to be pronounced.

WRONG! The Masoretes never used the word "God" as a replacement for "LORD". Back your claim with a link that proves that use of "God" is a substitute for the Divine name or kindly stop babbling absolute rubbish.

As time went on the practice of using lord or God in the place of God's name became so prevalent that it became called perpetual kere.
This system of Kere was used because the Jews became superstitious about pronouncing God's sacred name, thinking that their imperfect lips should not pronounce Jehovah's sacred name.

Kere only applies to the use of "LORD" in the text, and even then, the word "LORD" is hard to tell when it simply means "lord" in lower case in the NT, which it often does.

Keep in mind that Bibles use the system of putting in the Bible, where God's name was, LORD and GOD in all capital letters. Then look up Isaiah 42:8, which says, " I am Jehovah, that is my Name, and I will not give my glory to another"

And this is an English language thing (later with the Greek Septuagint) but still, the word translated is only LORD, when it's "GOD", it's because "Lord" is used as Adonary like "Lord YHWH". And yes, he does not share his glory with any other, which is why he is THE god, "the god of the gods".

Consider Isa 9:6,7. Here we are told about the Christ child, which was Jesus. Notice that in verse 6, Jesus is called a mighty god. Now, there is a huge difference between a mighty god and The Almighty God, who is Jehovah.

Well I'll give you a point of credit for this, most Christians don't know that Isaiah 9:6 is "a mighty god" but think it's "Mighty God". Justin Martyr even read it as "Angel of Mighty Council".

Think about it, you could put up an unnumbered zillion mighty gods and they would be as nothing to the power of The Almighty God.

Did I give any indication that I indicated otherwise? Did you even read what I posted correctly? I don't think you did.

Jesus is God's SON as he said many times. Consider John 20:17, where Jesus said the GOD, his Father was their Father and Jesus' God and their God. Jesus prayed to his Father and God many times, while on earth.

Right. Where's the issue?

While Jesus was on earth, God Jehovah spoke to him, three times, from heaven, Matt 3:17, Mark 9:7, John 12:28.
Jesus said that he lives because of the Father, John 6:57. A Father is the giver of life, Ps 36:9, Prov 23:22.
Jesus said that there were things that he did not know, but only the Father, Matt 24:36. Also, that some things do not belong to Jesus, Matt 20:23.
Jesus said that the Father is GREATER than he is, John 14:28. Could you pass a Kindergarten pupil on to first grade, if they did not know what GREATER means???

Sounds like you're anti-Trinitarian too, so why are you arguing with me?

Most religious leaders and teachers do not!!!
Consider the discussion between Jesus and his Apostles at Matt 16:13-17.
Jesus called his Father The Only True God, John 17:3.
If you really want to see the difference between The Almighty God and the ones around Him, notice how they saw Him, Ps 86:8-10, 89:6,7,8, 95:3,6,, 96:4,5,, 97:9.
It seems to me that if anyone cannot understand these scriptures, they may be the ones that the Bible speaks about, Dan 12:10, Isa 26:10, Prov 28:5, Matt 13:13,14,15,16, 2Pet 3:15,16, Matt 7:15,16, Titus 1:16.

What is your contention? Did you even read what I said correctly? No.

 

[e.r.m.]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

No one should disagree over a word that's not in the Bible, much less make a determination of a person's christianity over a word that's not in the Bible. What you need to compare is what you believe about the unity of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit with what they believe about unity of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, purely from a scriptural standpoint and see which, if any, holds up to scripture.

 

[SageTree]

The Holy Trinity expressed in Orthodox Christianity.

I found that those reading really increased my experience of the Trinity,
Through living it, not trying to tack it down systematically.

May those who wish read and find some illumination in it.

Glory be to God :namaste

SageTree

 

[captainbryce]

I don't think it has to do with the Trinity doctrine itself, as it is more symptomatic of fundamentalist mentality itself.

How do you define "fundamentalist"? Would this include all Christians who accepts the doctrine of Trinity?

I'm not sure picking on the Trinity doctrine itself is the right target.

It's not a matter of me picking on the trinity doctrine. It's a matter of Trinitarians judging me as "un-Christians" because I don't accept their doctrine.

That's like criticizing whether Christ hangs on the cross or off the cross on the altar of a church that is the cause of their respective behaviors.

Whether or not Christ hangs on or off the cross is not claimed to be one of the central tenets of the faith by any denomination. Whether or not he is part of a holy trinity is! Therefore, I'd say the two things are hardly comparable.

My point is, concrete-literal traditionist belief itself tends to be very right/wrong, good/evil, black/white thinking, which lends itself towards intolerance. Abstract thinking tends to see a lot more grey, and hence less quick to judge.

But their are certain things that are black/white, right/wrong. Not everything has a gray area. Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder". There's no black or white there!

I see the Trinity as highly abstract and esoteric in nature, hence it's certainly nothing you can judge someone by! Traditionalists themselves miss the point of it, thinking of it very concretely. Should they be judged in thinking of it in their literalist way? That pretty much sums it up.

You're more generous than they are (or frankly than I would be) in your evaluation. I see trinity as nothing more than false doctrine at best, blasphemy at worst. But I don't judge other people as being "non-Christian" because they happen to go along with a tradition of man, I just judge them as ignorant. The irony is that it is these individuals who tend to judge someone else as a "non-Christian", because they do not subscribe to a belief that isn't remotely central to one's salvation.

 

[captainbryce]

No one should disagree over a word that's not in the Bible, much less make a determination of a person's christianity over a word that's not in the Bible.

I agree. Yet, I find that most trinitarians don't take this approach when it comes to judging me.

What you need to compare is what you believe about the unity of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit with what they believe about unity of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, purely from a scriptural standpoint and see which, if any, holds up to scripture.

Why? Why do you assume I haven't done this already?

 

[Windwalker]

How do you define "fundamentalist"? Would this include all Christians who accepts the doctrine of Trinity?

Of course not all Christians are fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is a black and white mentality that cannot see anything but itself as true and everyone else false. And that can exist surrounding any belief structure.

Whether or not Christ hangs on or off the cross is not claimed to be one of the central tenets of the faith by any denomination. Whether or not he is part of a holy trinity is! Therefore, I'd say the two things are hardly comparable.

Well, some would consider you following the devil for having an empty cross on your altar. Seriously, I think any Christian denying anyone's faith because they have different ways of understanding and approaching God makes they themselves really missing the point and in the wrong.

But their are certain things that are black/white, right/wrong. Not everything has a gray area. Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder". There's no black or white there!

Except in trying to define what murder is, for instance. Is killing someone in war because your government wants their land for themselves murder? Is killing someone because they slept with someones wife murder? What about killing someone who is trying to kill your wife? What if they are trying to kill you? What if they got off in court after raping and killing your children?

The list could go on, but that's a few for starters. That black and white line begins to grey when we start asking questions in terms of context.

You're more generous than they are (or frankly than I would be) in your evaluation. I see trinity as nothing more than false doctrine at best, blasphemy at worst.

Well, see now? Aren't your judging them in the same way you see them judging you? I don't see one iota of difference here. Who's wrong then? Both of you, perhaps?

But I don't judge other people as being "non-Christian" because they happen to go along with a tradition of man, I just judge them as ignorant.

And many of traditional Christians would say the same thing. Only those that need you to agree with them because they feel insecure in their faith use bullying tactics to drive out heretics from their midst so they can feel secure in their beliefs.

The irony is that it is these individuals who tend to judge someone else as a "non-Christian", because they do not subscribe to a belief that isn't remotely central to one's salvation.

Well, I would agree how one conceptualizes God is not a matter of one being 'saved' or not, but rather a matter of being useful to them or not. A lot of people aren't comfortable with those who have a different point of view than themselves, because they aren't very secure in themselves. They cling to beliefs as defining them as 'in' or 'out', saved or lost, right or wrong. It leads to that black and white thinking I was speaking of.

 

[SageTree]

of course not all christians are fundamentalist. fundamentalism is a black and white mentality that cannot see anything but itself as true and everyone else false. and that can exist surrounding any belief structure.


well, some would consider you following the devil for having an empty cross on your altar. seriously, i think any christian denying anyone's faith because they have different ways of understanding and approaching god makes they themselves really missing the point and in the wrong.


except in trying to define what murder is, for instance. is killing someone in war because your government wants their land for themselves murder? is killing someone because they slept with someones wife murder? what about killing someone who is trying to kill your wife? what if they are trying to kill you? what if they got off in court after raping and killing your children?

the list could go on, but that's a few for starters. that black and white line begins to grey when we start asking questions in terms of context.


well, see now? aren't your judging them in the same way you see them judging you? i don't see one iota of difference here. who's wrong then? both of you, perhaps?


and many of traditional christians would say the same thing. only those that need you to agree with them because they feel insecure in their faith use bullying tactics to drive out heretics from their midst so they can feel secure in their beliefs.


well, i would agree how one conceptualizes god is not a matter of one being 'saved' or not, but rather a matter of being useful to them or not. a lot of people aren't comfortable with those who have a different point of view than themselves, because they aren't very secure in themselves. they cling to beliefs as defining them as 'in' or 'out', saved or lost, right or wrong. it leads to that black and white thinking i was speaking of.

I read all that as basically saying,

''You are black-and-white or you are not''.....

heh.....

 

[Windwalker]

I read all that as basically saying,

''You are black-and-white or you are not''.....

heh.....

A performative contradiction? Actually, I think it's fair to say someone's average mode of thinking can tend to be more black and white, or the average mode tends to be more relativistic. In other words they either mostly think this way, or mostly don't. I don't think it's absolutist to recognize dominant features and address them when problematic. If someone lives in an absolutist world, then black and white thinking is part and parcel with that. It serves a function. In a relativistic world, it's a problem.