Should we believe in the Trinity Doctrine?

[Man of Faith]

I didn't know anything about the trinity when I got saved, all I believed was Jesus came and died for my sins and I repented, had faith, and accepted it, so I don't believe it is essential to get saved but it is essential in understanding who God is.

Johnn 1:1 In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

 

[sojourner]

I didn't know anything about the trinity when I got saved, all I believed was Jesus came and died for my sins and I repented, had faith, and accepted it, so I don't believe it is essential to get saved but it is essential in understanding who God is.

Johnn 1:1 In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

I don't think it's essential in understanding who God is. Muslims and Hindus don't understand God in the Trinitarian formula, but they have a pretty good take of their own.

It is essential for the orthodox Christian, though.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

In Mark 1:9-11, we see the concept of the trinity. We have Jesus being baptised, the Holy Spirit descending like a dove and God's voice in the clouds.

What about

Matthew 28:19 (New International Version)

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,



This seems to be a direct hint at your Christian view of the Trinity.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What about

Matthew 28:19 (New International Version)

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,



This seems to be a direct hint at your Christian view of the Trinity.

I suspect this passage of Matthew is inaccurate as the Trinity had not been invented at that time. not were all three linked elsewhere in this way. As it appears at the very end of Matthews Gospel, It might well have been an addition.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I suspect this passage of Matthew is inaccurate as the Trinity had not been invented at that time. not were all three linked elsewhere in this way. As it appears at the very end of Matthews Gospel, It might well have been an addition.

There are many areas in your New Testament that are in dispute. What are you going to do act like the Jesus seminar who scholars uses votes with colored beads to decide their collective view of the historicity of Jesus. This is a absurd way to find out the truth of any ones faith. With out acceptance of the early church councils all the important christian doctrines are up for grabs. The Trinity, the Nature of Christ and even the the Cannon of the bible are all based on authority of the early church councils.

With out the findings of the Church Councils you end up with a belief system that has an open ended structor of beliefs. Much like the early Church of the first few centures. Were you find some Gnostics who believe that Jesus was some type of holograpic projection of God., not a part of mankind at all. And, the Ebionites who believed that Jesus was man and not God.

I can not see how today's Christianity can hold its shape philosophically and still have a logical frame work with out acceptance of the early church councils. Not that I mind an open belief system I follow Hinduism after all.

 

[sojourner]

What are you going to do act like the Jesus seminar who scholars uses votes with colored beads to decide their collective view of the historicity of Jesus. This is a absurd way to find out the truth of any ones faith.

But it is a good way to arrive at scholarly consensus where issues of historicity are concerned.

With out the findings of the Church Councils you end up with a belief system that has an open ended structor of beliefs. Much like the early Church of the first few centures. Were you find some Gnostics who believe that Jesus was some type of holograpic projection of God., not a part of mankind at all. And, the Ebionites who believed that Jesus was man and not God.

There's something wrong with that???

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

There are many areas in your New Testament that are in dispute. What are you going to do act like the Jesus seminar who scholars uses votes with colored beads to decide their collective view of the historicity of Jesus. This is a absurd way to find out the truth of any ones faith. With out acceptance of the early church councils all the important christian doctrines are up for grabs. The Trinity, the Nature of Christ and even the the Cannon of the bible are all based on authority of the early church councils.

With out the findings of the Church Councils you end up with a belief system that has an open ended structor of beliefs. Much like the early Church of the first few centures. Were you find some Gnostics who believe that Jesus was some type of holograpic projection of God., not a part of mankind at all. And, the Ebionites who believed that Jesus was man and not God.

I can not see how today's Christianity can hold its shape philosophically and still have a logical frame work with out acceptance of the early church councils. Not that I mind an open belief system I follow Hinduism after all.

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?

 

[Katzpur]

I can not see how today's Christianity can hold its shape philosophically and still have a logical frame work with out acceptance of the early church councils.

That could have been quite a problem for the earliest Christians then. Seriously, do you think the fourth century Christians had a better grasp of the nature of God than the first century Christians did?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

But it is a good way to arrive at scholarly consensus where issues of historicity are concerned.

I do not believe that there is any way at this point to arrive at the absolute truth in this manor. If there is any consensus among world religious teachers it is the rejection of religious scholars who are just that, “scholars”.

Jesus called the scholars of his day white washed sepulchers.

Mohammed said that they were asses with books strapped to there back.

Ramakrishna said the pundits are like vultures they fly very high with there eyes focused on rotting flesh.

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.

Then again since I am not a Christian why should anyone even care what I say about this subject. I just hope I have added to the conversation.

There's something wrong with that???

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

Sojourner I like what you have to say and I was not taking aim at you comments.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

That could have been quite a problem for the earliest Christians then. Seriously, do you think the fourth century Christians had a better grasp of the nature of God than the first century Christians did?

Once more who am I ( A Hindu ) to tell you a christian what to believe on the nature of God in the christian faith.

Butttt.... just for fun.

There is very little written in the first century. The Christian were to busy being fed to lions to spend much time writing

I like to pick out the people who I like to read that make sense to me.

Origen was counted as one of the most important church fathers. I think he is one of the great thinkers/mystics you guys have produced. He is also very Hindu like.

I also like the following Christian thinkers.

St. John of the Cross
The Quaker founder George Fox
The book written by a 6th century Monk, The pseudo-Dionysius
Meister Eckhart ( Oprah Winfrey all time fav Mystic )
Just a few of the Christians I like to read.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

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?

From my personal Hindu point of view. A prophet or a scripture's use is only to motivate us to have or own mystic experiences, to keep us on the right track and stop us from sinking in to darkness. God is not the property of any one person or sect.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

God is not the property of any one person or sect.

That is true. God works through all religions and peoples. No one is better just because they have one doctrine or other. However, there are thousands of different descriptions of God. If there is only one God, as I believe, he cannot be a thousand contradicting things at once. So which is he? Which represents his doctrine? There are some things which are universal to almost all religions. This must certainly be true. But on the points that they disagree, they cannot all be right. This doesn't require that one is. But I believe God would want to manifest himself to us. However, I'm with you that religion and scripture is meaningless unless it leads to personal "mystical experience".

 

[Godless Ray]

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.

 

[rusra02]

This is the belief of many christians post reformation. Before Luther most Christians gave the church councils equal importance with the Bible. In fact why do you not believe that the “Shepherd of Hermas” and the "Memoirs of the Apostles” are scripture, many early orthodox christians seemed to view them as Gods word also. You do know that it was the wishes of the Roman Emperor Constantine that put you cannon in stone. If the councils of early christian leaders pick what your bible should be, should not there views be seen as authoritative.


If this doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true why did the early christians not follow it.

I strongly disagree with your statement above. The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.

Jesus came to teach the truth about God. (John 18:37). His early disciples wrote the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, and with few exceptions all were accepted early on. All the writers of the canonical Christian scriptures had direct association with the Apostles.

The evidence for inspiration of the Bible does not derive from any man-made authority, but rather the One who inspired it. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) Jehovah's spirit has produced the sacred Scriptures and has preserved it despite the endless attacks by apostates and opposers.

 

[rusra02]

That is true. God works through all religions and peoples. No one is better just because they have one doctrine or other. However, there are thousands of different descriptions of God. If there is only one God, as I believe, he cannot be a thousand contradicting things at once. So which is he? Which represents his doctrine? There are some things which are universal to almost all religions. This must certainly be true. But on the points that they disagree, they cannot all be right. This doesn't require that one is. But I believe God would want to manifest himself to us. However, I'm with you that religion and scripture is meaningless unless it leads to personal "mystical experience".

God does NOT work through all religions. The Bible gives repeated warnings of false religions and false worship. 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)

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)

These verses show:
1. there are true worshipers (and by extension, false worship)
2. God requires worship based on truth.
3. God is very interested in those who worship him.

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.

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)

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.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

quote=rusra02;1634628]I strongly disagree with your statement above. The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place.
[/quote]

History contradicts your statement. I will bring up only the orthodox christians collection of sacred texts. If you look at church history you will find that the fight was both long and hard to come up with now what you call the New Testament.

Here are just some of the Christian Cannons.

-The Cannon of Origin of Alexandria. Origen was the most influential christian author of the 1st 3 centuries of the church. Origen said that a least Gospels and Paul's Epistles one letter from John and Peter went into the cannon with Revelation.

-Eusebius who is called the father of Church History (311 ad)
he disputed that James and Jude were written by the apostles. Hid did not believe they were scripture.

-Athanasius in 367 ad was the first Christian leader to put all the 27 books of the New Testament together. Never before was this Cannon used in any Church. We know that many Bishops and even people in Athanasius church was upset that he did not add books like the Shepherd of Hermas.

The facts of History are very clear there was not one Sacred Text for all Christians in the early Church.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

God does NOT work through all religions. The Bible gives repeated warnings of false religions and false worship. 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)

This is were I differ with the standerd Evangelical line that Christ provides the only path to the truth. For me if something is true in scripture it must be true in our day to day life. I see no reason in my life experience to believe that Born Again Christians are the soul key holders to the kingdom of God.

I became a born Again Christian from the age 11 ( When I converted from from my catholic roots.) I went to bible college, became a Baptist Minister
and lost my faith ( In God )by my early 20’s. ( I got my faith back in my late 20s in the form of Hinduism ) Christians have the same divorce rate. In fact in bible college I read a study that showed the Christians who got married in bible college or seminary actually had a higher devorce rate then the nation average. Since I use to work with abused kids I can’t tell you how many children I saw from “good” church families. I had contact with many christian denominations, famous bible scholars and people who are well know for there faith. I see no difference between them in the areas of morality or their state of neurosis, they seem to be plagued by the same demons as the common person on the street.

Philosophy and religion are just mere intellectual masturbation if it is not made real in our lives.I am not talking about a feeling of bliss or being happy at church.When the bible talks about becoming a new creature I don't think Its telling us just to become a different type non self actualized person. that has the same ethical disabilities that are so common in our species.

I do know some “Real Christians” who love there fellow man, and there lives are a refection of the life the Lord Jesus. The funny thing is none of these people judge others and tell them they are going to Hell. They are two busy helping there fellow humans.

 

[logician]

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.

I wonder what the difference is between a Holy ghost, and an UnHOly ghost.

 

[linwood]

I strongly disagree with your statement above. The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.

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

 

[logician]

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

What was Jesus, actually?