Taken me a lifetime to believe as I do and I still have questions

[RestlessSoul]

RF is hardly representative of the general religious population. How can you believe in the Trinity without believing Jesus is God? That's the whole point of the doctrine. It loons like the Christians you know are heretics or don't know what they're talking about.

I’m a heretic then, because that’s not really how I interpret the mystery of the trinity, or the nature of Christ’s divinity; “I am in the Father, as the Father is in me” is not the same as saying “I am the Father”. To me it means that the Son is at one with the Father, and that the Father was working through the Son. But that they are distinct entities, made one through the unity of the Holy Spirit.

And heretic or not, I’m certainly not alone among Catholics and Anglicans I have spoken to, in having that perspective.

 

[Rival]

Christians in the pews believe all kinds of things. They aren't theologians. Actual belief is more diverse than you think it is.

But surely they recite the Creeds? We recited at least one at every Anglican service.

 

[Rival]

I’m a heretic then, because that’s not really how I interpret the mystery of the trinity, or the nature of Christ’s divinity; “I am in the Father, as the Father is in me” is not the same as saying “I am the Father”. To me it means that the Son is at one with the Father, and that the Father was working through the Son. But that they are distinct entities, made one through the unity of the Holy Spirit.

And heretic or not, I’m certainly not alone among Catholics and Anglicans I have spoken to, in having that perspective.

Jesus and the Father are not the same person but they are both God. Hence why the Trinity Doctrine was created to explain how that works. So technically yes, you would be/are a heretic. Jesus is God, God the Son not God the Father. The Athanasian Creed is good for this, albeit complex.

 

[Orbit]

But surely the recite the Creeds? We recited at least one at every Anglican service.

Protestants don't necessarily recite creeds. When I was Presbyterian we didn't recite creeds, and neither did the Southern Baptist Church that I attended as a youth. Both recited the doxology every service, but that's it.

 

[Rival]

Protestants don't necessarily recite creeds. When I was Presbyterian we didn't recite creeds, and neither did the Southern Baptist Church that I attended as a youth. Both recited the doxology every service, but that's it.

Then no wonder they have bad theology

 

[Quintessence]

What do I hope to gain from RF? Affirmation and confirmation I am not alone in thoughts and reasons

In this case, I doubt that you are, but even if you are alone in your thoughts and reasons, I hope you find yourself and your own thoughts to be pleasant enough company.

 

[Rival]

@RestlessSoul

This is from my Catholic Encyclopaedia:

'Trinity, Doctrine of the: The doctrine of the Trinity elaborates the concepts in which the New Testament revelation of the triune God can be formulated as a profession of faith, presents this revelation in its interconnectedness, and renders its meaning recognisable as the centre of Christian belief.
(1) Biblical Background: Holy Scripture has no theology of the Trinity in the sense just described. It is, however, the foundation of such, because it speaks, in the New Testament on the basis of Old Testament monotheism, of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and also contains first approaches to discourse about this mystery when it makes statements about the relationship of the Father and Son and of both to the Spirit.
(2) History of Theology: Theology of the Trinity, in the proper sense, starts out historically from the problem of how Old Testament (and philosophical) monotheism can be brought into harmony with the biblical revelation that God is Father, Son and Spirit. Above all the teaching about the Trinity attempts to represent Jesus' distinctness from the Father in such a way as to preserve the oneness of God, and it has sought to differentiate that different teaching from inadequate conceptual positions. [...]'

 

[Secret Chief]

What do I hope to gain from RF? Affirmation and confirmation I am not alone in thoughts and reasons

Then perhaps you will find more fertile ground in the Christian sub-forums on this website?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Jesus and the Father are not the same person but they are both God. Hence why the Trinity Doctrine was created to explain how that works. So technically yes, you would be/are a heretic. Jesus is God, God the Son not God the Father. The Athanasian Creed is good for this, albeit complex.

In this day and age, is there even a problem with being a "heretic," which seems to be synonymous with "not conforming to traditional or prevalent theology"?

Then no wonder they have bad theology

Bad or just different from the prevalent forms?

My own experience of seeing traditionalism and appeals to mainstream thought being used to suppress differing interpretations and curtail the rights of believers in minority interpretations makes me significantly cautious about calling a non-mainstream interpretation "bad theology," "heretical," etc., or otherwise casting it in a bad light merely on the grounds that it doesn't conform to prevalent views. I think it's good that there's room for different interpretations and evolution of thought in all major world religions.

 

[Rival]

In this day and age, is there even a problem with being a "heretic," which seems to be synonymous with "not conforming to traditional or prevalent theology"?



Bad or just different from the prevalent forms?

My own experience of seeing traditionalism and appeals to mainstream thought being used to suppress differing interpretations and curtail the rights of believers in minority interpretations makes me significantly cautious about calling a non-mainstream interpretation "bad theology," "heretical," etc., or otherwise casting it in a bad light merely on the grounds that it doesn't conform to prevalent views. I think it's good that there's room for different interpretations and evolution of thought in all major world religions.

It's bad theology. If you believe Jesus is God, which most Christians do, and get the Trinity wrong your faith is illogical. You're then put in the unenviable position of explaining how you are a monotheist whilst also worshipping Jesus. The Trinity deals with this and was hammered out over centuries to conform to decent philosophical and theological principles. It's a good example of Theo-logia, God-science, in action. Abandoning it is in religious terms the same as abandoning a well-known treatment for an illness because you have a hunch something else might work. You'd tie yourself in knots (as this thread demonstrates many do) trying to make sense of the NT canon. The Trinity is the best explanation the Church came up with and it wasn't seriously questioned even at the Reformation. Non-Trinitarian forms of Christianity are largely 18th-19th-20thc. creations that have little to do with how the Church Fathers (accepted by 90% of Christians) understood their faith and writings. It's to say that the past 1700 years of Christians didn't know what they were talking about. So yes, I'd just call it bad theology.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why do Christians primarily follow Jesus instead of god? While god may be in the house, most prayers and worship services praise the good news of Jesus from the new testament. During my days at church I felt praying to Jesus was a waste of time there praying to god made better sense to me.

People repeat word for word scripture from the bible if it say pray this in my name and god will hear you. At the end prayer it is said, "in Jesus name" because the bible told me so.

Christians are charged to live life as Jesus did. The bible states Jesus was a perfect man, without sin. How is that relevant today, knowing according to the. bible everyone has sinned and come short of god's glory?

Church and religions are in the business of providing godly services, prayer, support, worship and other activities. These things cost money so tithing is made by attendees and supporters to ensure the longevity and prosperity of the church and religion.

Church leaders are ordinary men and women. They are not any different than you or me, so they do not deserve to be set on a pedestal, even though they may consider themselves better, holier etc.

Baha'u'llah has given some clarity to your question. Lots of things to consider, I will offer some thoughts wo what I have found.

God is beyond our comprehensive capacity. The only knowledge we have of God is by the life and messages given by the Prophets/Messengers, who were Annointed by God, so they are our focal points for God.

So for us, the Messengers/Manifestations of God, such as Jesus Christ, become a focal point that we see God through, and our prayers have greater effect by praying through those Messengers.

Consider our prayer is like focusing the sun through a magnifying glass. If we do not use the focal point, the prayer is dispersed and has not as much energy.

Regards Tony

 

[Orbit]

It's bad theology. If you believe Jesus is God, which most Christians do, and get the Trinity wrong your faith is illogical. You're then put in the unenviable position of explaining how you are a monotheist whilst also worshipping Jesus. The Trinity deals with this and was hammered out over centuries to conform to decent philosophical and theological principles. It's a good example of Theo-logia, God-science, in action. Abandoning it is in religious terms the same as abandoning a well-known treatment for an illness because you have a hunch something else might work. You'd tie yourself in knots (as this thread demonstrates many do) trying to make sense of the NT canon. The Trinity is the best explanation the Church came up with and it wasn't seriously questioned even at the Reformation. Non-Trinitarian forms of Christianity are largely 18th-19th-20thc. creations that have little to do with how the Church Fathers (accepted by 90% of Christians) understood their faith and writings. It's to say that the past 1700 years of Christians didn't know what they were talking about. So yes, I'd just call it bad theology.

But where what you call "bad theology" is prevalent (U.S. Protestants), it's nevertheless prevalent. As I said before, people in the pews may have a more mystical interpretation of the Trinity than orthodoxy allows for. But in my experience as an American Protestant for 53 years, diversity of interpretation of the Trinity is a thing.

 

[Rival]

But where what you call "bad theology" is prevalent (U.S. Protestants), it's nevertheless prevalent. As I said before, people in the pews may have a more mystical interpretation of the Trinity than orthodoxy allows for. But in my experience as an American Protestant for 53 years, diversity of interpretation of the Trinity is a thing.

This is why reading the creeds is mandatory for Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox. Otherwise you end up being a heretic. Historical Presbyterians and others were Trinitarians who would have made sure their congregations understood this. The US has historically had bizarre Christian sects but very few have outright rejected Jesus as God the Son, that I'm aware. That's why I'd just call it bad theology. If they were espousing Arianism, for instance, and made good theological arguments, I'd have more sympathy.

 

[Orbit]

This is why reading the creeds is mandatory for Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox. Otherwise you end up being a heretic. Historical Presbyterians and others were Trinitarians who would have made sure their congregations understood this. The US has historically had bizarre Christian sects but very few have outright rejected Jesus as God the Son, that I'm aware. That's why I'd just call it bad theology. If they were espousing Arianism, for instance, and made good theological arguments, I'd have more sympathy.

Just as an FYI, there's an entire branch of Pentecostals who don't believe Jesus is God, because they don't believe the Trinity is scriptural and therefore is invalid as doctrine, being sola scriptura in their beliefs. They are commonly referred to "Oneness" churches.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's bad theology. If you believe Jesus is God, which most Christians do, and get the Trinity wrong your faith is illogical. You're then put in the unenviable position of explaining how you are a monotheist whilst also worshipping Jesus. The Trinity deals with this and was hammered out over centuries to conform to decent philosophical and theological principles. It's a good example of Theo-logia, God-science, in action. Abandoning it is in religious terms the same as abandoning a well-known treatment for an illness because you have a hunch something else might work. You'd tie yourself in knots (as this thread demonstrates many do) trying to make sense of the NT canon. The Trinity is the best explanation the Church came up with and it wasn't seriously questioned even at the Reformation. Non-Trinitarian forms of Christianity are largely 18th-19th-20thc. creations that have little to do with how the Church Fathers (accepted by 90% of Christians) understood their faith and writings. It's to say that the past 1700 years of Christians didn't know what they were talking about. So yes, I'd just call it bad theology.

Most of the world doesn't believe in Christianity, though. Non-Christians don't just reject the Trinity; they reject the very foundation of Christianity in the first place and reject what is, from a majority scholarly perspective, an ahistorical belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Even scholars and historians who believe that Jesus was God don't try to argue that their belief is historically evidenced, unless they want to open themselves up to an onslaught of criticism and subsequent lack of credibility.

Is rejection of the belief that Jesus is God equivalent to saying that Christians throughout the past 1,700 years didn't know what they were talking about? Conversely, is saying that Jesus is God or that there's a "New Testament" also a statement that Muslims in the past 1,400 years or Jews in the past 2,000+ years didn't know what they were talking about?

I don't see a reason to treat differences in individual belief under the umbrella of one religion in a significantly different way from differences in individual belief across different religions. In that light, non-Trinitarian interpretations of Christianity are, to me, as much of a valid variation in personal belief as the variations between dharmic and Abrahamic religions are, or the variations between each Abrahamic religion and the others. If we strictly stick to logic and historical evidence as the standards by which to judge theology, it seems to me that it's quite arguable that the entire belief in Jesus' divinity will have a difficult time passing muster too, not just non-Trinitarian varieties thereof. I see theological beliefs as too complex and diverse for those two metrics alone to fairly or accurately assess whether they're "good" or "bad," though—and the same goes for using tradition or prevalent belief as a metric to assess theology as being either.

Unlike with treatments for illnesses (as in the example you gave) that can be measured against observable results, I don't think there's any testable or measurable standard for determining whether a belief about a strictly theological matter is valid. It ultimately comes down to a combination of interpretation and personal belief—just as acceptance of Christianity's premise of a "New Testament" does.

 

[Rival]

Most of the world doesn't believe in Christianity, though. Non-Christians don't just reject the Trinity; they reject the very foundation of Christianity in the first place and reject the ahistorical, academically unevidenced belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Even scholars and historians who believe that Jesus was God don't try to argue that their belief is historically evidenced, unless they want to open themselves up to an onslaught of criticism and subsequent lack of credibility.

Is rejection of the belief that Jesus is God equivalent to saying that Christians throughout the past 1,700 years didn't know what they were talking about? Conversely, is saying that Jesus is God or that there's a "New Testament" also a statement that Muslims in the past 1,400 years or Jews in the past 2,000+ years didn't know what they were talking about?

I don't see a reason to treat differences in individual belief under the umbrella of one religion in a significantly different way from differences in individual belief across different religions. In that light, non-Trinitarian interpretations of Christianity are, to me, as much of a valid variation in personal belief as the variations between dharmic and Abrahamic religions are, or the variations between each Abrahamic religion and the others. If we strictly stick to logic and historical evidence as the standards by which to judge theology, it seems to me that it's quite arguable that the entire belief in Jesus' divinity will have a difficult time passing muster too, not just non-Trinitarian varieties thereof. I see theological beliefs as too complex and diverse for those two metrics alone to fairly or accurately assess whether they're "good" or "bad," though—and the same goes for using tradition or prevalent belief as a metric to assess theology as being either.

Unlike with treatments for illnesses (as in the example you gave) that can be measured against observable results, I don't think there's any testable or measurable standard for determining whether a belief about a strictly theological matter is valid. It ultimately comes down to a combination of interpretation and personal belief—just as acceptance of Christianity's premise of a "New Testament" does.

I was talking just about Christians. There are orthodoxies in it that aren't comparable to other faiths.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I was talking just about Christians. There are orthodoxies in it that aren't comparable to other faiths.

Would you say that rejecting Muhammad as a prophet while calling oneself a Muslim would be a comparable rejection of orthodoxy within Islam? I think that would require an extreme amount of mental gymnastics, so something on that level would strike me as hard to defend but still not necessarily as "bad" theology per se.

 

[sun rise]

Why do Christians primarily follow Jesus instead of god?

To me, it's helpful to bring in Eastern religion. Specifically Ramakrishna who was asked a question similar to the one you've asked. The questioner was asking about idols but to me the question you asked and this are cousins. Two excerpts:

1. God with form is just as true as God without form:
...
M: Sir, I like to think of God as formless.

MASTER: Very good. It is enough to have faith in either aspect. You believe in God without form; that is quite all right. But never for a moment think that this alone is true and all else false. Remember that God with form is just as true as God without form. But hold fast to your own conviction.

4. God Himself has provided different forms of worship to suit different men:
MASTER: You were talking of worshipping the clay image. Even if the image is made of clay, there is need for that sort of worship. God Himself has provided different forms of worship. He who is the Lord of the Universe has arranged all these forms to suit different men in different stages of knowledge. The mother cooks different dishes to suit the stomachs of her different children. Suppose she has five children. If there is a fish to cook, she prepares various dishes from it - pilau, pickled fish, fried fish, and so on � to suit their different tastes and powers of digestion.

 

[Rival]

Would you say that rejecting Muhammad as a prophet while calling oneself a Muslim would be a comparable rejection of orthodoxy within Islam? I think that would require an extreme amount of mental gymnastics, so something on that level would strike me as hard to defend but still not necessarily as "bad" theology per se.

It would be akin to rejecting him as a prophet, basically. You'd definitely be playing twister trying to make it work. It would be bad theology because it simply wouldn't work unless you turned Islamic doctrine into a pretzel. I would call it bad theology; this is a phrase perhaps more used in Anglican and Catholic circles but it does have a meaning, and is usually applied when the theology is ill thought out, usually on the basis of a bad reading of scripture or something that would violate philosophical norms universally held within the faith (in this case monotheism and the writings of the Fathers).

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm not sure that's universally true, is it? Though it may be the official church doctrine, in Orthodox and Catholic theology. How about the many Protestant sects? I honestly don't know, but I think the question of the divine nature of Christ is unresolved in the hearts of many Christians, especially those who wear their faith loosely.

Trinitarianism implies a distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; and Christ prayed to the Father in the garden, and called out to Him in despair on the cross. The Jesus of the Gospels was no ordinary man, but he undoubtedly was a man, and as a man he prayed to God in his darkest moments.

Personally I do pray to Jesus, but then I also pray to the Virgin Mary, and I'm not entirely sure why. When I pray to God, that's like reaching out directly toward the source.

" The Jesus of the Gospels was no ordinary man, but he undoubtedly was a man, and as a man he prayed to God in his darkest moments. "

I agree with your above words/sentence.

Regards