Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 17 posts ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:42 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 12:30 am
Posts: 4607
Location: The carrefour of ignorance is bliss & knowledge is power.
Religion: The One with All the Marks.
I have no idea who the writer is, but it is filled with Bible verses that "prove" the Doctrine of the Trinity cannot be biblical.

What it tells me is that we need more than the Bible to understand the Bible.

Source: Heaven.Net: Is the Trinity Doctrine taught in the bible?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:10 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:54 pm
Posts: 534
Religion: Evangelical
Greg wrote:
I have no idea who the writer is, but it is filled with Bible verses that "prove" the Doctrine of the Trinity cannot be biblical.

What it tells me is that we need more than the Bible to understand the Bible.

Source: Heaven.Net: Is the Trinity Doctrine taught in the bible?


OK? This person is a heretic. Why are you giving them the time of day?

I've never said it's "just me and my Bible". Any Christian that says all they use is the Bible must not go to church and hear their pastor preach. Because then they'd be listening to a man instead of just reading their Bible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:29 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 4124
Location: Tennessee
Religion: United Methodist
Quote:
OK? This person is a heretic.

How do you know?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:48 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13082
Location: Inverted Cross domain
Cyprian wrote:
Quote:
OK? This person is a heretic.

How do you know?


Because the Catholic Church told him that. Wether he realizes it or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:12 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 12:30 am
Posts: 4607
Location: The carrefour of ignorance is bliss & knowledge is power.
Religion: The One with All the Marks.
Calvinist wrote:
I've never said it's "just me and my Bible". Any Christian that says all they use is the Bible must not go to church and hear their pastor preach. Because then they'd be listening to a man instead of just reading their Bible.


I don't quite understand what you are getting at here. Could you expand on this a bit? (I don't want to jump-the-gun and say you are saying things that you aren't saying :) .)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:17 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 5357
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
What I wonder is if he can back up these claims. (PS! Most of my questions here are rhetorical.)

Some heretic who thinks he can toss out a lot of claims without backing them up wrote:
1. The Trinity Doctrine is not taught anywhere in scripture, but trinities were common in Paganism and were prominent in Egypt and Babylon.
What, exactly, does he mean by there being ‘trinities’ in Paganism, especially in Egypt and Babylon? ‘Trinity’ is a Christian word, so ISTM that he, like many scholars of relgion in the 18th and 19th centuries, utilize Christian terminology when explaining what he finds in ‘paganism’ (as if that is a coherent whole). One of my pet peeves is the misuse of this term. ISTM that ‘paganism’ most often mean something I don’t like but which kinda looks like something that might be pagan. Therefore I apply this term without backing this up with reference to atual pagan beliefs. What this author does is that he sees three pagan gods who has come kind of connection, and he applies the distinctively christian term ‘Trinity’ to them.

Some heretic who thinks he can toss out a lot of claims without backing them up wrote:
2. The beginnings of recognition of this doctrine started at the Council of Nicea approximately 325 AD. Hundreds of years after the last book in the Bible was written.
Proof numero uno that this person haven’t studied Church history.

Some heretic who thinks he can toss out a lot of claims without backing them up wrote:
3. The Council of Nicea was organized by the Roman Emperor Constantine and he had the final say on matters that he had little understanding of.
So he, being a kind of semi-arian, managed to produce a anti-arian creed?

Some heretic who thinks he can toss out a lot of claims without backing them up wrote:
4. Creed followed creed, and eventually idols were accepted as forms that we can worship God through, and Mary was exalted to be the Mother of God and worship of the saints was sanctioned.
Can he back this up?

Some heretic who thinks he can toss out a lot of claims without backing them up wrote:
5. The organized church was built on top of these creeds. The creeds were and are the foundation for many of today’s churches/denominations. These denominations are different to the Body of Christ spoken of in the scriptures. This shows us that most denominations are still rooted in a creed and in particular the Trinity Doctrine. Most denominations still have the Trinity Doctrine as a foundation and this doctrine originally came from Babylon.
Interestingly most of what he writes here is true, but then – at the end – he comes with his ‘Babylon’ idea. Can he back this up?

Some heretic who thinks he can toss out a lot of claims without backing them up wrote:
6. The mother of these denominations the Roman Catholic Church murdered approximately 50 million people, had armies and banned access to scripture to Christians. This time is known today as the Dark Ages.
Can he back this up?

Some heretic who thinks he can toss out a lot of claims without backing them up wrote:
7. Some relief came during the Reformation where the teachings and authority of the Catholic Church were challenged. The Reformation restored many truths back to the Body of Christ.
Yet they failed to toss out the Trinity.

Some heretic who thinks he can toss out a lot of claims without backing them up wrote:
8. As a result many new denominations started up and unfortunately they held onto some of the creeds and in particular the Trinity Doctrine.
Oh, the humaity!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:13 am 
Offline
Highness
Highness
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:20 am
Posts: 8793
Location: West Virginia
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: Knights of Columbus 4th Degree
Well, it's quite evident this character does NOT form his doctrine from the Bible alone. He gets it from the Bible plus bad history. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:35 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:54 pm
Posts: 534
Religion: Evangelical
beng wrote:
Cyprian wrote:
Quote:
OK? This person is a heretic.

How do you know?


Because the Catholic Church told him that. Wether he realizes it or not.



Imagine a Baptist in the year 1950. Imagine this guy goes to sleep and wakes up 1500 years later. Do you think the Baptist church would be the same? It might be...it might not be. The question would be if the leaders actually read and taught the Bible.

That's my problem with the idea that the catholic church today is the same one that existed 1800 or 2000 years ago. It might be the same shell of a church....but there is a lot of stuff going on today that just didn't happen 2000 years ago and can't be supported from the Bible. Being old doesn't guarantee it's correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:03 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 4124
Location: Tennessee
Religion: United Methodist
Suppose I planted a 3 foot tree...then fell asleep for 20 years. When I woke up would it be the same tree? Or would I say it's a different tree because it is much much bigger and has now much fruit, and is shaped very differently?

Yet, it still has its roots in the same place.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:04 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 4124
Location: Tennessee
Religion: United Methodist
Quote:
Being old doesn't guarantee it's correct.


True, it's the Holy Spirit that guards its truth, not its age.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:46 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 12:30 am
Posts: 4607
Location: The carrefour of ignorance is bliss & knowledge is power.
Religion: The One with All the Marks.
Just to clarify. Catholics do believe in the Trinity. The reference in my OP was from a non-Catholic source.

Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs on the Trinity:

as the central mystery of the faith, 232, 234, 237, 261
divine economy as the common work of the three divine persons, 257-60
family as image of the Trinitarian communion, 2205
Filioque, 246-48, 264
God one and three, 202
"hypostasis" or person, 252
liturgy as the work of, 1077-109
notion of substance, 252
prayer as communion with, 2655
presence of Trinity in man, 260
"theology" and "economy," 236
unity of the Trinity and the unity of the Church, 813
See also Christ; Father; God; Holy Spirit

divine persons in the Trinity, 252
consubstantial, 242, 253
distinct from one another, 254, 267
in unity, 255, 689

expression of the Trinity
articulating the dogma, 251
in Baptism, 233, 265
m the liturgy, 249, 1066

Revelation of God as Trinity
the Father, 238, 240
the Holy Spirit, 243-48
the Son, 240, 242
of the Trinity, 244, 684, 732


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:01 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 12:30 am
Posts: 4607
Location: The carrefour of ignorance is bliss & knowledge is power.
Religion: The One with All the Marks.
Calvinist wrote:
Imagine a Baptist in the year 1950. Imagine this guy goes to sleep and wakes up 1500 years later...


SIDEBAR. If you think that people who held Baptist-like beliefs have been around for 2,000 years I recommend that you read Baptist Successionism by James McGoldrick. You will find that there is absolutely no evidence for Baptists prior to the 1600’s. The available evidence shows that either (1) there is not enough information to make any decision about what a particular group believed; (2) the data indicates that the group held Catholic beliefs and was schismatic; or (3) the group appear to be what today we might call New Age, or Pentecostal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:04 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:54 pm
Posts: 534
Religion: Evangelical
Greg wrote:
Calvinist wrote:
Imagine a Baptist in the year 1950. Imagine this guy goes to sleep and wakes up 1500 years later...


SIDEBAR. If you think that people who held Baptist-like beliefs have been around for 2,000 years I recommend that you read Baptist Successionism by James McGoldrick. You will find that there is absolutely no evidence for Baptists prior to the 1600’s. The available evidence shows that either (1) there is not enough information to make any decision about what a particular group believed; (2) the data indicates that the group held Catholic beliefs and was schismatic; or (3) the group appear to be what today we might call New Age, or Pentecostal.

Complete non-issue. My point was that simply belonging to the right club is irrelevant if the club changes. But at least you can still claim membership.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:03 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Calvinist wrote:
beng wrote:
Cyprian wrote:
Quote:
OK? This person is a heretic.

How do you know?


Because the Catholic Church told him that. Wether he realizes it or not.



Imagine a Baptist in the year 1950. Imagine this guy goes to sleep and wakes up 1500 years later. Do you think the Baptist church would be the same? It might be...it might not be. The question would be if the leaders actually read and taught the Bible.

That's my problem with the idea that the catholic church today is the same one that existed 1800 or 2000 years ago. It might be the same shell of a church....but there is a lot of stuff going on today that just didn't happen 2000 years ago and can't be supported from the Bible. Being old doesn't guarantee it's correct.


Which is why I provided you with the ancient Liturgy of Saint James the Apostle. The holy Sacrifice of the Mass remains the same as it was in the very beginning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:15 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13082
Location: Inverted Cross domain
Calvinist wrote:
beng wrote:
Cyprian wrote:
Quote:
OK? This person is a heretic.

How do you know?


Because the Catholic Church told him that. Wether he realizes it or not.



Imagine a Baptist in the year 1950. Imagine this guy goes to sleep and wakes up 1500 years later. Do you think the Baptist church would be the same? It might be...it might not be. The question would be if the leaders actually read and taught the Bible.

That's my problem with the idea that the catholic church today is the same one that existed 1800 or 2000 years ago. It might be the same shell of a church....but there is a lot of stuff going on today that just didn't happen 2000 years ago and can't be supported from the Bible. Being old doesn't guarantee it's correct.


Let me offer you two points.


First, EVEN IF the Catholic Church of today is not the same as that of the ancient one, DO YOU THINK PROTESTANTISM IS? Your argument cuts both way.

In grade you school your teacher must've taught you the different between historic and pre-historic. Pre-historic is a period where there's no written account of it. What we know from that period we gather from ancient ornament, relics, ancient statues etc. Historic is a period where we have a written account of that age. Jesus was born in the historic period. Meaning, there were written accounts of Him and His followers. The bible is one such account. There are others. Not all Christians are simple illiterate peasants. Some writes, even if not under divine inspiration. These written account are useful to learn what early Christian were like.

So you read those accounts from Early Christian and you would find which modern Church is more akin to the ancient one. You would then learn that it's nothing like Protestantism.




Second, the Church could change accidentally but not substantially. So, of course the Church of today wouldn't be the exact same as the Church of ancient time. It's for the better. Such accidental development also happens within the New Testament. The gospel of John, the first chapter of the gospel of John is consider to be a development of the trinitarian theology. Not to mention the letter Hebrews which scholars consider to be the most complex book in the bible (because it's trying to put a coherent link between the Old and the New to the Jews).

Even Protestantism enjoy this development. That is why you guys don't have to re-invent the wheel. That is why with confident you could believe in homoousion, hypostatic union, diophysite, and... the canon of the Bible. You just took the fruit without even bothering to plant the seed and grow it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:37 am 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
beng wrote:
You just took the fruit without even bothering to plant the seed and grow it.


Actually, Protestatism stole the fruit from the rightful tenants of the Vineyard, and then let the fruit rot and are now drunk on its fermented juices.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Trinity is NOT Biblical (an example)
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:26 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13082
Location: Inverted Cross domain
That is a far better analogy I might say :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 17 posts ]   


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: