Trinity - True or False?

[Amos Terrapin]

I am a professing Christian with slightly different theology than most. I'm not Jehova's Witness or anything I just feel that the scriptures are pretty straight forward on the identity of Christ. He was the Son of God. Not part of a co-equal trinity. I don't mean any offense by this. I just wanted to see what other Christians thought about the trinity doctrine and if anyone can relate to what I wrote.

[PacSubCom]

The pope says trinity is true.

Is the pope infallible? Yes.
Are you infallible? No.

Not much to discuss here then. In the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost. Makes sense. Absolutely. Now really.

[DarkKnight]

The pope says trinity is true.

Is the pope infallible? Yes.
Are you infallible? No.

Not much to discuss here then. In the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost. Makes sense. Absolutely. Now really.

Don't forget though. Even though the past Popes have been infallible in saying that the trinity is true, the current Pope still is infallible if he says that it isn't.
*cough*limbo*cough*

[Sétanta]

I don't really think it matters that much. I believe in God, believe that Jesus was the savior of mankind, that Jesus was the messiah. Was he a human form of God, probably. Do I regularly think about these things? No. Does it matter according to Christian doctrine. Probably not. If you profess a belief in God and that Jesus died for mankind, then you are Christian.

[PacSubCom]

Don't forget though. Even though the past Popes have been infallible in saying that the trinity is true, the current Pope still is infallible if he says that it isn't.
*cough*limbo*cough*

And your point is? Of course he is still infallible, he is infallible always. No matter what he says now, or what he said yesterday. A little like Condi Rice. Only much more infallible per definition.
*cough*Forget Limbo, it never existed.*cough*

[Manji]

Don't forget though. Even though the past Popes have been infallible in saying that the trinity is true, the current Pope still is infallible if he says that it isn't.
*cough*limbo*cough*

That has been discussed elsewhere and you are only showing your lack of knowledge there mate: no pope ever claimed that limbo even existed so there is nothing to retract from.

Anywya, I think that Trinity is true for Catholic Christians, as well as Trinity is false to say Jehova's Witnesses; as long as their dogma dictates it therefore it is true, at least for them.

Personally I always found the whole concept flawed and the God = Jesus argument also flawed; how could Jesus call out to God if they are the same entity? How could Jesus refer to His Father if he IS the father? Makes no sense unless you throw a bunch of theological excuses in front.

[MaximiIian]

The trinity concept makes absolutely no sense, even in the context of something as senseless as abrahamism. I mean, does thier god have split-personality disorder or something?

[Sidus Preclarum]

I am a professing Christian with slightly different theology than most. I'm not Jehova's Witness or anything I just feel that the scriptures are pretty straight forward on the identity of Christ. He was the Son of God. Not part of a co-equal trinity. I don't mean any offense by this. I just wanted to see what other Christians thought about the trinity doctrine and if anyone can relate to what I wrote.

AN ARIAN ! GET HIM ! GET THE HERESIARCH!

[Zenith Darksea]

Well, according to the Oecumenical Councils, which were made up of bishops from all of Christendom, and according to the vast majority of early Christian writings, the Holy Trinity is true and perfectly sound. I tend to think that the Oecumenical Councils would know best.

[Zenith Darksea]

Well Limbo was never actually an infallible decree, to be fair. It was simply, as I understand, a commonly held theory. The Pope had never pronounced on it ex cathedra. Having said that though, the whole concept of Papal Infallibity is alien to Christianity and doesn't do anyone any good.

[Amos Terrapin]

Mudd, I appreciate your take on the matter. I view it the same way. It is sort of a detail about God. Many people get offended if they find out I don't adhere to the traditional view of a trinity.

I'm not familiar with the Oecumenical Councils. When I read the scripture I don't see the trinity in it. I don't see where any of the early apostles taught it. Later on, church councils and the like seem to have piece together this doctrine. There is some truth in it, I just don't find it all in scripture. Though I don't think the Bible is infallible (in its original form - yes), I find it a better guide than the doctrine developed by councils ect...

Ultimately, Mudd is right though.

[DarkKnight]

That has been discussed elsewhere and you are only showing your lack of knowledge there mate: no pope ever claimed that limbo even existed so there is nothing to retract from.

The whole thing is messed up. The Pope does not have to indicate, confirm, or even comment on whether or not a statement he makes is ex cathedra. There is no structure that an ex cathedra statement must follow. So how do you know whether or not a teaching was ex cathedra? For all we know when a past Pope was refering to limbo existing it could have been ex cathedra.

And anyways, what does that do to your belief structure. I thought they were supposed to have faith that what they believe is the truth. Well I guess now it just shows that what you believe in is a theological hypothesis except for the stuff that was explicitely announced ex cathedra.

[Manji]

Well, it's not a matter of ex cathedra or dogma it's a matter of Catechism. The whole concept of limbo is not part of the catechism therefore it is theological speculation. Being speculation isn't bad in itself because one can have informed and sensible speculation (this case) and wild speculation.

[Ummon]

As Socrates says in the Timaeus:

"One, two, three, where is my dear Timaeus the fourth of those whom yesterday I invited to the banquet?"
"He's a bit indisposed, Socrates, as he wouldn't have missed voluntarily this banquet".

The problem is not the three, but the fourth.

[MasterOfNone]

The Trinity concept of the Godhead (three beings in one) has never made much sense to me. I think it is important. If eternal life is coming to know the only true and living God, and if we seek to follow the example of the Saviour, then we ought to know the nature, identity and attributes of the same.

I do not believe Christ prayed to himself whilst in his earthly ministry. I do not believe he (Christ) spoke from heaven at his own baptism whilst simultaneously being baptised by John. The baptism is a good example because here we find the third member (the Holy Ghost / Holy Spirit) in attendance too! Nor do I believe stephen saw God standing next to himself. These are just some quite superficial observations. Jesus often referred to both himself and his Father. I think it is important we understand our relationship to both of them. One in mind and purpose they may be (as the scriptures affirm), but one in body is another thing entirely.

[drak10687]

where does it say in the Bible that the Pope is infalible, where does it mention in the bible that there should be a Pope, nd if it does not say so in the bible, who said it?

[Zenith Darksea]

Oh, for goodness sake...

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was laid down at the Oecumenical Council of Nicaea. The Pope of Rome doesn't come into the equation, save for the fact that he was one of the Bishops who voted for it. Come on, we Eastern Orthodox believe in the Holy Trinity and no Pope ever told us to believe it.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is what the Holy Spirit revealed to all the assembled Bishops of Christendom at the Oecumenical Councils. Frankly, you can't be a Christian and not believe in the Holy Trinity. Not only are there numerous passages from the Bible to back it up (whilst those 'opposing' it are extremely flimsy when taken in context), but the very fact that this is what God revealed to His Church in the early centuries shows the correctness of this doctrine. If the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was wrong, then it would be a pretty poor show if God let His Church believe it for another fifteen hundred years! It was never the decision of the Pope - it was the decision of the whole Church.

[DarkKnight]

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was laid down at the Oecumenical Council of Nicaea. The Pope of Rome doesn't come into the equation, save for the fact that he was one of the Bishops who voted for it. Come on, we Eastern Orthodox believe in the Holy Trinity and no Pope ever told us to believe it.

I believe any references to the Pope were intended for the Catholics.

Frankly, you can't be a Christian and not believe in the Holy Trinity.

Why not? Isn't the definition of a Christian one who believes Jesus was the son of God embodied in man? One could easily believe that God the father and God the son are two separate entities yet still fit this definition. Or did you mean to say that one cannot be on Orthodox Christian and not believe in the Holy Trinity? Christian's tend to be a bit closed minded when it comes to other denominations beliefs. Because of course when God "tells" an Orthodox what to believe it has to actually be the true word of God. But when God "tells" another denomination what to believe it really isn't.

Not only are there numerous passages from the Bible to back it up (whilst those 'opposing' it are extremely flimsy when taken in context)

Now that sounds like a subjective statement. Another person could easily see the evidence for the trinity as being flimsy and make the converse statement equally as valid. For example you view evidence that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra as flimsy. However there are billions of catholics out there who would argue the opposite.

but the very fact that this is what God revealed to His Church in the early centuries shows the correctness of this doctrine.

Again, what if they don't accept that this was the word of God. Do you believe that God tells the Pope what to say (ex cathedra) so that the Pope's statement is the infallible testimony of God? There is no biblical evidence that the Council of Nicea is the true word of God. Why should anyone believe it is?

If the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was wrong, then it would be a pretty poor show if God let His Church believe it for another fifteen hundred years!

God obviously isn't a logical being. Like Christians love to say, "God works in mysterious ways".

It was never the decision of the Pope - it was the decision of the whole Church.

The whole church being a congregation of fallible human beings.

[bdh]

Book 43 John

43:001:001 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God.

43:001:002 The same was in the beginning with God.

43:001:003 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing
made that was made.

43:001:004 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

43:001:005 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness
comprehended it not.

Guess who the word is?

43:001:014 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the
Father,) full of grace and truth.

43:001:015 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of
whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me:
for he was before me.

43:001:016 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

43:001:017 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by
Jesus Christ.

That passage is pretty definative (biblically that is). Jesus=God

[DarkKnight]

"Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

Those passages make it pretty clear that Jesus is not the same entity as the Father.