Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But He couldn't guide the Fathers etc?

It all seems very convenient, really.

The Fathers didn't open their hearts to Jesus enough, apparently.

Some of them - e.g. a former roommate of mine - make a big deal out of distinguishing what they do from "religion," which they consider bad.

They have a dim view of anyone who, in their eyes, tries to make themselves into an intermediary between God and individual believers. This includes the Church hierarchy for most of its history.

 

[Firenze]

The descriptive title "el" (or its plural "elim") is used without reference to the one true living God in Exodus 15:11 and 11:36.

'El' can also describe humans: Job 41:25; Ezekiel 32:21 are examples of instances in which the word 'el' is used to describe human beings.

We can see that the word 'el' is not a name of God but is a descriptive term denoting either deity (true or pagan) or strength.

All mostly true if you limit yourself to the Hebrew. The fact still remains that El is the proper name of the head of the Canaanite pantheon. The Ugaritic texts mention 'El and his Asherah' multiple times. Canaanite languages included Moabite, Punic, and Phoenician as well as Hebrew.

El, God of the Canaanites | Meaning & Religion | Study.com

Learn about El, the god of the Canaanites. Read about how the word El is used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to the Hebrew God Yahweh and as well as...

study.com

 

[YoursTrue]

Christendom’s leaders deviated from following Jesus, when they began encouraging Christ’s sheep to engage in warfare. In direct opposition to Christ’s command to ‘love your enemy’ (Matthew 5:44), and “love among yourselves.” (John 13:34,35. See John 14:15 & 15:14)

That was early in Christendom’s development!

This is one reason why I chose to study the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, since I learned the Witnesses do not engage in warfare As a result, I felt they were true Christians and accepted a Bible study with them. I have never been sorry or turned back. P.S. A good and complete study of the Bible shows that God is not a trinity.

 

[YoursTrue]

All mostly true if you limit yourself to the Hebrew. The fact still remains that El is the proper name of the head of the Canaanite pantheon. The Ugaritic texts mention 'El and his Asherah' multiple times. Canaanite languages included Moabite, Punic, and Phoenician as well as Hebrew.

El, God of the Canaanites | Meaning & Religion | Study.com

Learn about El, the god of the Canaanites. Read about how the word El is used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to the Hebrew God Yahweh and as well as...

study.com

It seems 'el' was a takeover/transfer to Hebrew. That's fine since languages have words assimilated in them from various sources. It still means God in Hebrew and relates to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not any other God for the Israelites when used in that sense. One of the Hebrew words that is translated “God” is 'El," and can have the meaning of Mighty One, or Strong One. (Genesis 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. Hope that helps to define it.

 

[YoursTrue]

If God is spirit, but the Kingdom of God is “not some spiritual place,” I have to ask: Does God reside in the Kingdom of God?

Also @IndigoChild5559 --
Kingdom is primarily meaning a royal government and the territory and peoples under that rulership. Often sovereignty was hereditary, as we see from various governments.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure, God is a spirit. But am I? I don't know if there is actually some kind of "immortal soul" that survives death. Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. But I know that right here, right now, I definitely have a body. So when I worship God, it is not in some spiritual sense.

The Bible, insofar as I understand it, does not explain that we as humans (or animals) have an "immortal spirit" which survives death of the body. Although resurrection is involved, but that is because God knows everything about us.

 

[InChrist]

What it does is contradict basic logic. Something cannot be X and not X at the same time. You can say God is one if you want. Or you can say God is three if you want. But you cannot rationally say that God is one and three at the same time.

Maybe limited human logic, but does that mean it’s not possible with God? One egg has three components, but it’s still one egg. Water can be liquid, vapor, or ice; still one chemical compound. One family can have mom, dad, child. The scriptures reveal One God; Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
I see no reason not to accept this revelation and information about God.

 

[InChrist]

... and some disciples...

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
John 17:20-23

Sure, God adopts believers into His kingdom and family and they become spiritually one with the Father, Son/Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Yet, humans will never become God…as the One Creator, who alone is God.
I think to believe or teach that anyone can become God is a heretical twist of the scriptures.


Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6


For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. Isaiah 45:18

 

[InChrist]

I think the entire Bible, OT and NT, gives the full picture of Who Jesus Christ is. One book reveals certain aspects, others different or further information, and the whole Bible the big picture.

 

[Ella S.]

So you guys are saying you know better than the men closer to the Apostles, the men who drew up the creeds and wrote the theological texts?

The men who read the Bible in its original languages?

You know better?

I would argue that modern scholarship understands the Bible better than the church fathers did, yes. Part of that is, ironically, because we now know that the apostles did not write the gospels, which is something the church fathers assumed somewhat erroneously.

We also have a better grasp on the ancient language than they did, because they lived several centuries removed from the texts' original context. It's only through putting the texts in their proper historical context that we can begin to fully understand them, and this means that we can't make the same assumptions that the church fathers did from their perspective that was tainted by several generations of constantly morphing early Christian tradition.

We can read the Bible in its original languages today, too.

The only argument that can be had in favor of these creeds and doctrines is the one about tradition. There are many religious arguments in favor of a unified church tradition, centered around apostolic succession, guidance from the Holy Spirit, and divine providence. Without an affirmation of these supernatural elements, which are later constructs that are not really Biblical themselves, the idea that these creeds have any serious weight begins to dissolve rapidly.

I think we should press even further and ask why such a supposedly enlightened counsel canonized forgeries, such as the fake letters from Paul or the illegitimate Gospel of John. When we realize that this canonicity isn't based on a solid understanding of these texts and their origins, we also have to ask what other early Christian texts we're glossing over simply because they weren't canonized. How many modern Christians have read the Apocalypse of Peter? How many have read the Gospel of Thomas?

Once you start pulling that thread, everything unravels. The entire legitimacy of a Christian religion in general begins to flounder. Do we even know how much of the gospel accounts actually resemble something a historical Jesus taught? There's no academic consensus on the matter.

The church fathers weren't even aware of most of these issues. They didn't have the information and tools available to modern scholars and they were more concerned with preserving a genuine Christianity, which unfortunately assumes that there is a genuine Christianity to preserve. There isn't.

 

[Ella S.]

This works as a 'gotcha', only if you are using binary logic, whereby a proposition has only two possibilities; a thing either is, or it is not.

In four cornered logic, the same proposition has 4 possibilities.

In particular, the catuṣkoṭi is a "four-cornered" system of argumentation that involves the systematic examination of each of the 4 possibilities of a proposition, P:

1. P; that is being.
2. not P; that is not being.
3. P and not P; that is being and that is not being.
4. not (P or not P); that is neither not being nor is that being.

This is an abuse of paraconsistent logic. Paraconsistent logic was designed to help navigate around apparent contradictions in datasets as a temporary fix until the underlying contradiction could be remedied through deeper understanding. It does not allow true contradictions in a metaphysical or ontological sense. It doesn't allow for contradictions in reality; it only accepts that there are multiple possible truths.

 

[Rival]

I would argue that modern scholarship understands the Bible better than the church fathers did, yes. Part of that is, ironically, because we now know that the apostles did not write the gospels, which is something the church fathers assumed somewhat erroneously.

We also have a better grasp on the ancient language than they did, because they lived several centuries removed from the texts' original context. It's only through putting the texts in their proper historical context that we can begin to fully understand them, and this means that we can't make the same assumptions that the church fathers did from their perspective that was tainted by several generations of constantly morphing early Christian tradition.

We can read the Bible in its original languages today, too.

The only argument that can be had in favor of these creeds and doctrines is the one about tradition. There are many religious arguments in favor of a unified church tradition, centered around apostolic succession, guidance from the Holy Spirit, and divine providence. Without an affirmation of these supernatural elements, which are later constructs that are not really Biblical themselves, the idea that these creeds have any serious weight begins to dissolve rapidly.

I think we should press even further and ask why such a supposedly enlightened counsel canonized forgeries, such as the fake letters from Paul or the illegitimate Gospel of John. When we realize that this canonicity isn't based on a solid understanding of these texts and their origins, we also have to ask what other early Christian texts we're glossing over simply because they weren't canonized. How many modern Christians have read the Apocalypse of Peter? How many have read the Gospel of Thomas?

Once you start pulling that thread, everything unravels. The entire legitimacy of a Christian religion in general begins to flounder. Do we even know how much of the gospel accounts actually resemble something a historical Jesus taught? There's no academic consensus on the matter.

The church fathers weren't even aware of most of these issues. They didn't have the information and tools available to modern scholars and they were more concerned with preserving a genuine Christianity, which unfortunately assumes that there is a genuine Christianity to preserve. There isn't.

It doesn't sound as though you've read them. They're more than familiar with issues in the scriptures. Origen takes them on. They dispute who wrote what. This is basic stuff for them.

 

[Ella S.]

It doesn't sound as though you've read them. They're more than familiar with issues in the scriptures. Origen takes them on. They dispute who wrote what. This is basic stuff for them.

They were aware that some of the letters of Paul weren't actually written by him and that the Gospel of John was a forgery? No, they weren't. If they were, they wouldn't have canonized a Bible with those texts in them.

Furthermore, the Catholic Bible (the one that goes alongside the Trinitarian doctrine) is only one of several Biblical canons. Protestants have their own Bibles with different books. So does the Ethiopian Church. And so do Gnostic Christians.

We know that the Catholics got their Bible wrong, so who cares what they thought it said?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is an abuse of paraconsistent logic. Paraconsistent logic was designed to help navigate around apparent contradictions in datasets as a temporary fix until the underlying contradiction could be remedied through deeper understanding. It does not allow true contradictions in a metaphysical or ontological sense. It doesn't allow for contradictions in reality; it only accepts that there are multiple possible truths.

First of all, at least one of the scriptures used to say that God is a Trinity has been ascertained to have been inserted and not in the earliest manuscripts. God is not a Trinity of three persons each said to be God and equal to the other two.

 

[Sargonski]

I've noticed on RF there are a lot of heretical (that's the technical term) Christians who disbelieve in the Trinity.

Why?

We've had the creeds since Late Antiquity (Apostolic, Nicaean, Athanasian) and they all include the Trinity, especially the latter, which is all about it. These creeds are regularly read in churches and have been for hundreds of years. If the Trinity were so easily disproven, why would it have held out and been accepted by the orthodox Christians? Why spend so much time fighting the Arians? And why, I'm sorry to ask, is it almost always Protestants? Do you think you know something that everybody in the early orthodox Church failed to grasp?

Why is there so much of this around lately? How do you explain how Jesus is God without the Trinity?

How do you explain the worship of Christ?

And why is it treated in such a light manner?

"Trinity Bashing" "Heretical Christians" "How is Jesus God without the Trinity"

For the first 250 years of Christianity .. the suggestion that Jesus was The Father .. that Jesus was the God that Jesus so often refers to .. was heresy.

Now we are supposed to believe some man made dogma .. having little to do with the Bible .. tells us that Jesus and "The Father" .. Hallowed be thy name (which is not Jesus) .. are the same person .. same God that forsakes Jesus at the end of the earliest Gospel .. Jesus now forsaking himself .. and forgetting who he is in some masochistic delerium ?

"How is Jesus God without the Trinity" - assumed premise fallacy question ? Jesus isn't "The Most High God" according to the Bible .. and there certainly is not only One if we are deifying the "sons of God" as does the Bible in certain places.

So .. Trinity Bashing .. is heresy bashing . the bashing of Heretical christians who wish to claim what Jesus himself denied .. blaspheming the Hallowed name of the Most High. Which is Who friend ? what is the name of the God of Jesus ? that is supposed to be Jesus ?

 

[Ebionite]

No, El is the proper name of the head of the Canaanite pantheon of gods, as documented in the texts discovered in Ugarit long ago.

How would anyone distinguish between a proper name and a title if no challenge for supremacy was ever successful?

 

[Ebionite]

.. are the same person ..

No, accroding to Anglican doctrine they are different persons.

Thirty Nine Articles of Religion
1. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

 

[Firenze]

How would anyone distinguish between a proper name and a title if no challenge for supremacy was ever successful?

Well, my proper name is Steve, which is distinguished from a title by the English language - and no one ever challenged my supremacy. It's why my pronouns on Linked In are Lord/Master.....

 

[Sargonski]

No, accroding to Anglican doctrine they are different persons.

Thirty Nine Articles of Religion
1. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

According to Anglican Trinity Doctrine they are the Same Person - Get it .. Got it .. Good

The doctrine also states that they are Different Personages .. welcome to the Contradiction in this nonsensical man made dogma.

Either Jesus is "homoousios" or Jesus is not. You can't be Homoousious "of the same substance" and not be the same person - same mind - same will at all times ... as if this is the case .. we are talking separate Gods .. with separate minds .. and separate will ..

"Unity in the Godhead" -- a Gnostic approach that is in of itself is deemdd a heresy by the Church .. Unity of What... not of mind .. will .. or purpose .. that all these are various emanations "Father .. Son..Spirit from a single Godhead .. Not my opinion that this is heresy but that of the Church.

but all this Anglican doctrine is silliness in any case .. as the stated position that there is only one God is wrong according to the Bible .. which speaks of many Gods .. urging the worship of only one .. whose name you do not know.

Hard to "Hallowed be thy name" when you don't now what the name of your God is Friend. What name did you think Jesus was referring to .. Himself ?

 

[Ebionite]

Sure, God adopts believers into His kingdom and family and they become spiritually one with the Father, Son/Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Yet, humans will never become God…as the One Creator, who alone is God.

That's a straw man, since humans have a security relationship with Rome, not with deity.

I think to believe or teach that anyone can become God is a heretical twist of the scriptures.

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are theoi?
John 10:34


I have said, Ye [are] Elohim; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Psalms 82:6-7