Should we believe in the Trinity Doctrine?

[DavyCrocket2003]

Or it won't matter.

P.S. But wait, that's not fair. 'cause if there really is an afterlife, all the believers will say "told you so." But if there is no afterlife, all the atheists will never get the respect they deserved. lol. J/K.

 

[sojourner]

I can. What if God, seeing how the doctrine of his Gospel was changed and obscured decided to restore it to its original purity? Could he not call a prophet today and reveal the truth through said prophet? That would clear things up wouldn't it?

It doesn't seem to have done that so far...

 

[sojourner]

I do not believe that there is any way at this point to arrive at the absolute truth in this manor.

Nor do the Jesus Seminar. But their methodology is at least no worse than others, and at best better than others.

If there is any consensus among world religious teachers it is the rejection of religious scholars who are just that, “scholars”.

the best, most reliable religious teachers are scholars. Otherwise, they wouldn't be teaching.

Jesus called the scholars of his day white washed sepulchers.

The gospels say he did that. Did he? Why? In what context? I don't think you can help your argument here by making such a blanket statement.

I would trust the writings of the early church mystics over today's religious pundit class on the subject of the intent of the folks who wrote the bible.

If you're approaching the scriptures from a purely theological standpoint, perhaps. But what about an historical criticism standpoint?

From a Hindu point of view I think it's great. It's just that most christians fundamentalists seem to want some kind of consensus.

I don't see where "consensus" = "right." Why can Xy not exist pluralistically? It certainly started out that way.

From that point of view, Sola Scriptura will not work.

Sola Scriptura will not work from any POV.

 

[sojourner]

God works through all religions and peoples.

Good.

No one is better just because they have one doctrine or other.

Better.

However,

Here's where the train leaves the tracks.

there are thousands of different descriptions of God.

There are thousands of different kinds of people looking at God.

If there is only one God, as I believe, he cannot be a thousand contradicting things at once.

Why not? There is only one human race with a thousand contradicting perspectives...

So which is he?

"I AM what I AM."

Which represents his doctrine?

God doesn't have doctrine. people have doctrine.

There are some things which are universal to almost all religions.

Almost all religions, for example, express Divinity in some way. Almost all religions espouse a system whereby salvation, or reconciliation with the Divine may be effected.

But on the points that they disagree, they cannot all be right.

Sure they can. Because all religion really is, is a way to tell a spiritual story. All the crucial elements are there -- the story is just told differently.

But I believe God would want to manifest himself to us.

We believe that God has been made manifest in humanity.

I'm with you that religion and scripture is meaningless unless it leads to personal "mystical experience".

Or, it can foster communal expression of common spiritual experience.

 

[sojourner]

If anyone here does believe in the Trinity I would love for them to contact me. I have some land for sale. Good land, I am sure its going to dry out sometime.

Problem is, the Trinity has nothing to do with real estate.

 

[sojourner]

because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then,

Actually, the canon wasn't "settled" until the 400s. If you want to call it "settled." There is RCC canon, Eastern canon, Ethiopian canon, Coptic canon, Protestant canon, LDS canon. What has really been settled thus far???

His early disciples wrote the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures,

BZZZZZZT!!! Thanks for playing!

and with few exceptions all were accepted early on.

We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

All the writers of the canonical Christian scriptures had direct association with the Apostles.

Including the home version of our game.

Jehovah's spirit has produced the sacred Scriptures and has preserved it despite the endless attacks by apostates and opposers.

I doubt that the Spirit is capable of either holding a pen, wearing garters and a visor, or operating a printing press.

 

[sojourner]

God does NOT work through all religions.

That's why no other religion has as its object of devotion the Divine.

The Bible gives repeated warnings of false religions and false worship.

it also gives repeated warnings of standing in judgment of others.

Paul wrote concerning those who worship idols "The things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to become sharers with the demons" (1 Corinthians 10:20)

Placing the Bible and Xy on such a high pedestal is tantamount to idolatry.

Jesus said "Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth." (John 4:23,24)

Context is far more helpful than proof-texting.

1. there are true worshipers (and by extension, false worship)

Just what do you suppose Jesus meant by "true worshipers?" Do you think it had to do with their doctrine, or with their heart?

2. God requires worship based on truth.

What, exactly, does that look like?

3. God is very interested in those who worship him.

God is, likewise, interested in those who do not.

When the Israelites worshipped the calf Aaron made, Jehovah destroyed them. Time and again, Jehovah disciplined his people when they turned to false worship. False worship is ultimately given to demons and not to God.

And yet, God doesn't seem to have destroyed the Greeks, or the Romans, or the Babylonians.
Or the Israelites, for that matter. The point is not to find "the 'right' system." The point is to be true to who one is.

Jesus showed that people of his day who believed they were worshipers of God were actually servants of Satan.
"You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie]. Because I, on the other hand, tell the truth, your do not believe me. Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it you do not believe me? He that is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.” (John 8:44-47)

Jesus also showed us that judgment lies within God's purview -- not ours.

We need to find the Truth in order to please God and worship him acceptably. Saying God would accept any worship is as illogical as saying an employer would accept any kind of work we do for him. Good intentions are necessary but not enough. We need to find the truth and hold fast to it.

There are many different types of employment that constitute "work." I suspect that there are, likewise, many different types of spirituality that constitute "worship."

 

[sojourner]

This is incorrect.

Without Constantine setting up the Council of Nicea to determine the properties of the living Christ the "canon" as it is couldn`t have been determined.
The definition of what Jesus actually was was necessary to determine which texts would be considered legitimate.
Constantine set the standard for what "Christianity" was to become.


I can`t believe I just posted in a Trinity thread.
:areyoucra

Except that the canon wasn't discussed or set at Nicea.

 

[sojourner]

Xantians, ya gotta luv em.

They can't agree among themselves WHAT they believe but whatever it is they are D* sure the rest of us better believe it also.

Or burn forever. And rightly so.

I would prefer the term "wacko fundigelicals" instead of "christians."
Many of us don't do that. Many of us are comfortable with disagreement, and don't really care what everyone else believes.

 

[linwood]

P.S. But wait, that's not fair. 'cause if there really is an afterlife, all the believers will say "told you so." But if there is no afterlife, all the atheists will never get the respect they deserved. lol. J/K.

You have no idea how much this irks me.

 

[linwood]

Except that the canon wasn't discussed or set at Nicea.

No it was not but Nicea did set down standards for what was to become the canon to eventually be measured by.

 

[sojourner]

Oh, I see what you're saying.
Yes. Nicea made a definitive statement as to what was "orthodox" and what was "heresy." The canonical books all reflect the orthodox.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

You have no idea how much this irks me.

Indeed it irks me also. Almost as much as the fact the bible thumpers will never know how wrong they were.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Oh, I see what you're saying.
Yes. Nicea made a definitive statement as to what was "orthodox" and what was "heresy." The canonical books all reflect the orthodox.

I was taught yea these many decades past, that the Creed established the basics of the faith. That no one could be a proper Christian who did accept all of it. And I have neither read nor heard anything since that changes that.

 

[idea]

I was taught yea these many decades past, that the Creed established the basics of the faith. That no one could be a proper Christian who did accept all of it. And I have neither read nor heard anything since that changes that.

Were the people who write this creed apostles? prophets? No, they were not. They voted on things, they argued over things.
God’s words are not given through some bureaucracy. That is like a bunch of people getting together and voting on the color of the sky – is the sky blue? Let’s vote vote on it. 6 people say it is blue, 2 people say it is white (cloudy), and 2 people say it is black (night) but 6 say it is blue, the 6’s have it…. ???!!! Truths are not something to be voted on.

God reveals His truths through prophets, apostles, angels, through revelations, not through bureaucracy – not through a council of Pharisees/Sadducees. Pharisees/Sadducees – these are theones who killed Jesus – these are the type of people who form councils and vote on things rather than receiving guidance from revelations, from prophets, from angels.



from elder Holland - an apostle of God who recieves revelation from Him.
LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent

Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”2 We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.
....
We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.”5 How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”?6

John 17: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The entire point is to “know God”.
The trinity confuses who God is, makes it impossible to know Him and His Son.



Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with G-d and man.
G-d does not increase in wisdom, He is and always has been all knowing. G-d does not increase in favor with Himself.

John 7: 16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
If Jesus was G-d the doctrine would be his own.
“My doctrine is my own, I sent myself here” This is how it would read if the trinity were true.

John 17: 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my G-d, and your G-d.
Jesus ascended to his Father indicating that His Father was at a different place that Jesus was.

Acts 2:3 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
If Father and Son and Holy Ghost were numerically one, how could Jesus be at the right hand of God? How would He be exalted? And why would He need to have received a promise of the Holy Ghost?


Mark 15: 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me?
G-d does not forsake Himself. He does not cry out to Himself. He is not schizophrenic… If they were all one person, it would be impossible to separate/forsake wouldn’t it?


Luke 22: 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
In this instance, the will of Jesus is different than the will of the Father – two different people with two different wills.

from Jess Lindsey
Mormons and Mormon Beliefs: An Introduction to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) - Mormon Truth

So what do the scriptures mean when they speak of Christ and the Father being one? Recall the great prayer of Christ in John 17. There, in verse 21, Christ prayed that His followers "all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me; that they also may be one in us." In verse 22, He again prayed "that they may be one, even as we are one." A related concept of oneness is also expressed by Paul in 1 Cor. 3: 6-8: "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.... Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." In my view, this kind of oneness is a unity of purpose, intent, and heart, not a blending of substance into one being.

When Christ prayed (many times) to His Father in Heaven, we believe that He was doing exactly that - communicating with His Father, another Being, of whom Christ said,

"My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), contradicting, for example, the Athanasian Creed.

Likewise, In Acts 7:55,56, before being killed by hateful critics, Stephen looked up towards heaven "and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." He saw two Beings.

Further, in the creation story in Genesis 1, God (Elohim, a plural noun) says in verse 26: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

We feel inclined to take that literally. (Note that the same wording is used to describe the physical similarity between Adam and one of his sons in Genesis 5:1-3; see also Heb. 1:3 and James 3:9.) I know that goes against what most churches teach and is certainly open to debate, but taking the Bible too literally should not be sufficient cause to say we are not Christians.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Nor do the Jesus Seminar. But their methodology is at least no worse than others, and at best better than others.

From my simplistic point of view. The way to know the truth of any religion is what affect it has on your life. If it makes you more kind and fills your heart with love then keep you beliefs. If not its rubbish, it matters not if you are a Christian, Atheist or Hindu. How someone lives is the judge of there faith. Not how smart they are. Being smart is always better, sometimes I wish that I was smart.

the best, most reliable religious teachers are scholars. Otherwise, they wouldn't be teaching.

I like the old Jewish saying, I don't go to the rabbi to learn the scriptures, but how to tie my shoes.

Scholars have there place. I enjoy reading them to put any belief system in context. It is my personal opinion, learning about religion its best to go to a mystic as you Christians say. A Buddhist would call her a Buddha and a Hindu would say go to a seer or rishi. Now some seers are also scholars . The Islamic teacher Seyyed Hossein Nasr is one of these teachers. If I wanted to become a Sufi I would go to him to study.

 

[sojourner]

Were the people who write this creed apostles?

Yes -- all within the Apostolic Succession.

They voted on things, they argued over things.

Read the NT. So did the Twelve...

 

[sojourner]

Were the people who write this creed apostles? prophets? No, they were not. They voted on things, they argued over things.
God’s words are not given through some bureaucracy. That is like a bunch of people getting together and voting on the color of the sky – is the sky blue? Let’s vote vote on it. 6 people say it is blue, 2 people say it is white (cloudy), and 2 people say it is black (night) but 6 say it is blue, the 6’s have it…. ???!!! Truths are not something to be voted on.

God reveals His truths through prophets, apostles, angels, through revelations, not through bureaucracy – not through a council of Pharisees/Sadducees. Pharisees/Sadducees – these are theones who killed Jesus – these are the type of people who form councils and vote on things rather than receiving guidance from revelations, from prophets, from angels.



from elder Holland - an apostle of God who recieves revelation from Him.
LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent





John 17: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The entire point is to “know God”.
The trinity confuses who God is, makes it impossible to know Him and His Son.



Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with G-d and man.
G-d does not increase in wisdom, He is and always has been all knowing. G-d does not increase in favor with Himself.

John 7: 16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
If Jesus was G-d the doctrine would be his own.
“My doctrine is my own, I sent myself here” This is how it would read if the trinity were true.

John 17: 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my G-d, and your G-d.
Jesus ascended to his Father indicating that His Father was at a different place that Jesus was.

Acts 2:3 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
If Father and Son and Holy Ghost were numerically one, how could Jesus be at the right hand of God? How would He be exalted? And why would He need to have received a promise of the Holy Ghost?


Mark 15: 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me?
G-d does not forsake Himself. He does not cry out to Himself. He is not schizophrenic… If they were all one person, it would be impossible to separate/forsake wouldn’t it?


Luke 22: 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
In this instance, the will of Jesus is different than the will of the Father – two different people with two different wills.

from Jess Lindsey
Mormons and Mormon Beliefs: An Introduction to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) - Mormon Truth

Utter nonsense. Utter.

 

[sojourner]

Scholars have there place. I enjoy reading them to put any belief system in context. It is my personal opinion, learning about religion its best to go to a mystic as you Christians say. A Buddhist would call her a Buddha and a Hindu would say go to a seer or rishi. Now some seers are also scholars . The Islamic teacher Seyyed Hossein Nasr is one of these teachers. If I wanted to become a Sufi I would go to him to study.

In terms of discovering a historiological hermeneutic and methodology, scholars are your best bet. That is what we're dealing with here.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Read the NT. So did the Twelve...

Good point.