Home Bible Doctrine The Trinity Doctrine is an unnecessary stumbling block Page 7

The Trinity Doctrine is an unnecessary stumbling block

, , Bible Doctrine, , , , 907

In scripture we never read about people preaching the Trinity or insisting that people believe it in order to have true faith in God.

Over the centuries many Christians have diverged and insisted that people believe in the Trinity as the foundation of true faith in God. While this belief indeed is the Roman Catholic Faith, Christians should never make this doctrine a requirement as it only proves to alienate people from the way.

In scripture we are told that stumbling blocks are inevitable, but woe to the them that lay them. Think about it, if you insist on this doctrine and it keeps a person from receiving the son of God, then you have contributed to blocking the way of salvation to that person.

We should be wise and stick to teaching what is written. God sent his son into the world to save men. He died for our sins, rose from the dead, and is seated at the right-hand of God and interceding for us. This is written.

Keep it simple. Simplicity in Christ. He is the son of the living God, the messiah, and the one whom God made Lord. There is no point in insisting on things that are not written, especially if they become the deal breaker from them receiving the son of God.

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 20 posts - 121 through 140 (of 907 total)
123…678…444546
  • Author
    Posts
  • June 19, 2016 at 4:19 pm#815042
    hoghead1
    Participant

    No, I most certainly do not think so.  What he was blasting them for was being a bunch of legalists where law mattered more than love, where principles mattered more than persons.

    June 19, 2016 at 4:41 pm#815043
    hoghead1
    Participant

    Actually, the real problem here is how to use commas.  Going on strict usage, the KJV puts a comma between Lord and king.  That is because the translators do not want them considered equivalent, i.e., that the Lord is also the king. Today, the use of commas has somewhat changed.  For example, it’s now OK to write  a sentence  such as, ” I conducted the strings, woodwinds, percussion and brass.  Now, the author here does not mean the percussion are also the brass.  In strict usage, however, you should write, “I conducted the strings, woodwinds, percussion, and brass.  So both translations of teh passage have the same idea in mind, just a different usage of commas.  Some modern editions, just to be super-careful here, , do retain the comma, others no.  Some writers would feel that simply saying “the Lord and the king” should make it sufficiently  the two are not to be taken as identical. If they wanted to write that the Lord is also the king, they would write “the Lord and king.”

    I don’t mean to be picky about punctuation here.  However, it is important to consider.  Ask me how I know.  I have done a lot of publishing, plus worked as a professional editor for dissertations.  I go through these issues all the time. Just don’t talk to my wife.  She hates it when I go into all this.  She’s a bright social worker, but can’t punctuate worth  a damn.  I tried helping her, editing her writing once.  Only once. She though I was th4e greatest fusspot ever.  I mention this, because many intelligent people today completely ignore proper punctuation, have no idea what it means.  Just don’t get me started on this one.  I could tell war stories all night long.  One time, I made some real bucks, working with a bright Westinghouse engineer who did a brilliant dissertation that Westinghouse needed, as his graduate work and degree were all funded by that corporation.  Although American born and education, he wrote a dissertations hundreds of pages long without absolutely any punctuation, no periods, commas, nothing.  My job was to go over it with him to  insert proper punctuation.  It took hours and hours, working with him,  as I had no idea whether  certain clauses were restrictive modifiers (requiring no comma before them) or restrictive ones (requiring a comma). When we finally got it done, he told me he still didn’t care a hoot what how to use punctuation, as Westinghouse will provide him with a secretary who will edit all future manuscripts he writes.  Oh, well,, I resign myself to the fact we live in a world where punctuation means nothing.  I’m not surprised at how many persons send me posts, here and elsewhere with at  an inkling of how to use punctuation or what it means.  Oh, well,  as Heraclitus once wrote , “Of these considerations which hold eternal men  prove uncomprehending.”

    June 19, 2016 at 4:50 pm#815044
    hoghead1
    Participant

    Hello, Andrew,

    No, I never ate hoghead cheese.  Actually, truth is, I chose the nym “Hoghead” because   I’m one of the very few lucky train buffs who gets to run a real, historic steam locomotive. That’s where I was all day today, firing our engine on its special Father’s Day run. “Hoghead” is old-fashioned railway slang for engineer. Actually, I should call myself “Ashcat,” as I spend most of my time firing.     The reason for the term “hoghead” is that the very early steam  locomotives were lubed with pig grease, not oil.  It is said that locomotives all smelled strongly of pork cooking.  So the steam locomotive  got nicknamed the “hog,”  and the engineer the “hoghead.”

    I think its self-explanatory why locomotive fireman got nicknamed the “ashcat.”

    June 19, 2016 at 5:01 pm#815045
    hoghead1
    Participant

    Hello, Andrew,

    I am inclined to agree with you.  Many people mistakenly think that Christianity is a monolithic religion, just one way.  Truth is, Christianity has always been a rick plurality of divergent POV’s which often conflict. Many people, however, find such diversity to be quite unnerving.  Today, psychiatry recognized “spiritual confusion” as an actual diagnostic entry, in teh DSM-IV and V. But I like it, I love it, I want some more of it.  To me, it is all positive.  It means we have real freedom, real choices.  If you church does not work for you, don’t despair; there may well be another, right down the street, that does.  Different strokes for different folks.

    June 19, 2016 at 5:07 pm#815046
    hoghead1
    Participant

    I hear you, Gene.  However, it was never the intention of Trinitarian belief to affirm anything but strict monotheism. Indeed, that is the express purpose of all Trinitarian formulations. As I have pointed out several times in other posts here, the Bible is in fact ambiguous on the Trinity. I think I just addressed why, in  another post here I just wrote this evening. I would encourage you, then, to read all my posts today.  After firing a locomotive all day, I am simply too tired to repeat myself again.

    June 20, 2016 at 12:48 am#815047
    kerwin
    Participant

    hoghead,

    No, I most certainly do not think so.

    I believe we agree that calling names serves a righteous function at times.

    June 20, 2016 at 1:09 am#815048
    kerwin
    Participant

    hoghead,

    I don’t put up with any flaming. When you sounded off above, saying that I embraced foolishness and told untruths, you are unduly attacking my character,

    Those things are true of humanity in general so I am essentially saying your character is human. It would be an insult if you had already learned all things. If you have done that then you way ahead of me.

    I also used the word untruth to avoid the word lie as some assume it means it is a conscious lie. Sometimes we are just ignorant of the truth and so come to embrace an untruth. We just cannot hold on to it no matter how fond we have grown of it. We are to supersede the flesh, i.e human nature, with the Spirit.

    Mind that I was tired and therefore weaker and so exceeded my patience which is usually more resistant. Patience is a virtue and just because I am convinced something is a truism does not mean you understand that it is.

    June 20, 2016 at 1:24 am#815049
    kerwin
    Participant

    hoghead1,

    There should be no comma between as we do not put a comma between two nouns. It is to short of a list and the conjunction is sufficient by itself.

    I just ignore it since it does not change anything except for being an example of poor punctuation use.

    I believe that changing the definition of worship from “to honor or respect (someone or something) as a god” to ” to love or honor (someone or something) very much or too much” resolves the situation and still fits the ESV’s choice to use homage instead of worship.

    June 20, 2016 at 1:47 am#815051
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    hoghead…..THE very word trinitarian clearly proves it is not monotheism, the very symbols they use proves it clearly. THERE is one God, and he “Only’ is “true” God ,there is no other GOD, ANY BELIFE of JESUS as a God i IDOLATERY. AND John the apostle said clearly “to keep ourselves from IDOLS. 2 THS 2 SHOW THAT IT IS JESUS who is the only man who sit in the temple of God being desplayed as a God, which turns the “IMAGE” OF HIM, INTO A MAN OF SIN, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE DOCTRINE OFTHE TRINITY DOES, IT changes our perceptions of Jesus from a man to a God, that turns Jesus’ “IMAGE” INTO A “MAN OF SIN”, BECAUSE IT BREAKES THE FIRST COMMANDMENT, “you shall have “NO’ other God besides me”. So this man created “IMAGE” OF JESUS IS PURE “IDOLATRY’, and not IDOLATAR’S WIL GOD ACCEPT. HE ONLY IS GO AND THERE ARE NO OTHER GOD’S, He said himself that he looked for another God,and found none, now if GOD LOOKED AND FOUND NONE, WHY SHOULD ANYONE TRY TO PRODICE MORE THE ON GOD, AS THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY DOES. A DOCTRINE WHICH JEZUS HIMSEF BY HIS OWN MOUTH WILL DESTORY WHEN HE RETURNS, JUST AS STATED IN 2THE 2.

    Hoghead1 you can’t have it both ways brother. IMO

    peace and love to you and yours……..gene

    June 20, 2016 at 9:14 am#815060
    hoghead1
    Participant

    Hello, Gene,

    OK, I her what you re saying.  However, it do not think this  is an at all an curate  account of Trinitarianism.   Ttrinitarianism   is arguing the three are actually one God.  Granted, some of  the formulations may not bring  this off well at all.  However, affirming one God is the basic intent of Trinitarian thinking. That’s why the Nicene Creed starts off by saying, “We believe in one God…”  That is why the Westminster Confession  of Faith, Chapter II,  “Of God and of the Holy Trinity,” starts off, “There is but one only living and true God…”   That is why the Westminster Confession of Faith, Shorter Catechism, says, page 1, “Q. 5.  Are there more Gods than one? A. There is but one only the living and true God. Q. 6.  How many Persons are there in the Godhead?  A.   There are Three Persons in the Godhead:  The Fat4ehr, , teh Son, and the Holy Ghost; and there three are one God…” That is why the Second Helvetic Confession of Faith, Chapter III, “Of God, His  Unity and Trinity,’ starts  off by saying, “GOD IS ONE. ”  It goes on to say, “Truly we detest many gods because it is expressly written; ‘The Lord besides me  (Ex.20-2-3).  I am the Lord and there is no other god beside me. Am I not the Lord, and there is no other god beside me? A righteous God and a Savior; there is none beside me (Is. 45:5, 21).’ ”

    So, it is  all too plain that your claims  simply do not at all fit the facts of traditional Trinitarian thinking.

    June 20, 2016 at 11:17 am#815061
    hoghead1
    Participant

    Hello, Kerwin,

    If you are convinced that something is true, then you should focus on presenting your case why it is so.  Attacking the character of someone who doesn’t agree with you does anything but that.  It happens  because someone may find the other guy’s arguments so powerful that they  cannot present a rational rebuttal.  So they  decide to cheat and win by downing the opponent’s character instead. That’s name-calling and that is never righteousness and has no real place in serious theological discussion.

    Also, I am still puzzled why you think that 1 Chorn. 29  presented either way, with or without the comma, in English, equates  God and David as one and the same? If is say, “They  say the dog and the cat, does that mean the dog and cat or one?  Doesn’t that mean two separate beings?

    June 20, 2016 at 12:58 pm#815063
    kerwin
    Participant

    Hoghead,

    It happens because someone may find the other guy’s arguments so powerful that they cannot present a rational rebuttal. So they decide to cheat and win by downing the opponent’s character instead

    As an all statement these words combined with the ones previous are false because obviously that is not why Jesus called the Pharisees a brood of viper and it is also human nature to deny the truth or falsehood that threatens their mental or spiritual equilibrium. In some cases it may be true for the same reason self denial occurs.

    June 20, 2016 at 1:40 pm#815064
    kerwin
    Participant

    hoghead,

    I believe that words “the Lord, and the king” are speaking of two different individuals though it could be the same individual by two titles. The fact the translators chose not capitalize king leads me to believe they thought it meant two individuals the king of which is obviously David. That also led to me deciding what the appropriate definition of worship is as a synonym of homage.

    June 20, 2016 at 1:47 pm#815065
    hoghead1
    Participant

    Kerwin, Jesus and the Pharisees is one thing, people sending out flaming posts is something else altogether. There is absolutely no comparison  between the two, none, zero. Anyone who would try and  equate  himself or herself with Christ and then try use this  as an excuse for their flaming posts is seriously abusing Scripture.

    June 20, 2016 at 1:52 pm#815066
    hoghead1
    Participant

    I agree with you on that one, Kerwin.  There I no doubt the passage means two separate personages.

    June 21, 2016 at 3:01 am#815086
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    hoghead1….THE trinitarian creed is, 1, God the Father, 2, GOD the Son, 3, God the spirit, these limit GOD TO A GROUPING OF THREE, right?, Firist of all that is in error, because GOD the father himself IS SPIRIT, AND AS SPIRIT CAN INDWELL “ALL”, OR HAVEN’T YOU EVER READ WHERE IT SAY THIS, “THAT GOD MAYBE “ALL’ AND “IN” YOU ALL”, and again, “know you not that your bodies “are”, the temple, of the living God’, and again ‘that GOD MAY BE “in’ ALL, and through “ALL”. NOW IF IT IS EVERYTHING that GOD CAN BE “IN”, then why does the trinity limit him to just three?, why does it even TRY TO imply that GOD IS “LIMITED”, IN THE FIRST PLACE, to a grouping of three.

    THE doctrine of the trinity, limits God to a group of three destinct beings, and denies God’s ability to be in ” all his creation equally” just as he was IN JESUS BY his anointing spirit. The trinity doctrine also works in subtile ways to moves JESUS away from the rest of humanity how?, by making an “IMAGE” OF HIM different the we are. 2Ths2.

    GO READ MY POST ON “SATAN’S DOCTRINE OF SEPERATION”. FOR MORE ON THIS, IT WAS SATAN HIMSEL WHO CREATED THE DOCTRINE that moves Jesus’ exact idenity with mankind AWAY FROM MANKIND, by making him into a GOD. Anything that is worshiped as “A” God as JESUS is IDOLATRY, AND John the apostle said little childern keep youself from “IDOLS”.

    WE HAVE “ONE” GOD, and “ONE” MEDIATOR between that “ONE” GOD, and mankind, the “MAN” Jesus, WHO IS THE ANOINTED one, or CHRISTO’S of That, “ONE” God. WE, that is (those who do not try to seperate) JESUS FROM their “EXACT”, IDENITY with them , as the FALSE teachings of the trinity does. it moves Jesus away from his human idenity by making him into a God himself.

    peace and love to you and yours. ………gene

    June 21, 2016 at 5:16 pm#815091
    hoghead1
    Participant

    Hello, Gene,

    Yes, I have read I Cor. 15:28.  It is one of my favorite passages, as it addresses the omnipresence and all-inclusiveness of God.   I think I may have mentioned earlier to you or perhaps some other member that I have a doctorate in theology.  My research and writings focus  on pneumatology, the Holy Spirit, and mystical experiences, which I address n the framework of contemporary process metaphysics.  I Cor. 15:28 is of particular interest to me because it fit so well my process metaphysic, where the universe is the body of God.

    I’m not particularly prone or fond of what is sometimes called the school-girl style of writing:  using caps, whereby you are shouting at the reader, etc.  I try and avoid personal, derogatory attacks on opponents, accusing them of being possessed by Satan, etc.  I wantto focus exclusively on the rationale of teh other guy’s arguments and how I can support it or shoot down.

    In my process view, God is a synthesis of all personalities, and so certainly cannot be limited to just three.  God is a social-relational being, arising out of his or her personal relationships with others, just as you and I do. I view reality as relative or all interconnected.  Every entity is an item in the real internal constitution of every other. God, as ch9ief exemplification of relativity, means that every entity in the universe is present in God in its full completeness and that God is omnipresent in the fullest sense of the term.  God literally is everywhere present and enjoys a direct, empathic reaction to any and all creaturely feeling.  That is the transcendence of God, as we can hardly even begin to fathom sensitivity on that grand of scale.

    I am not interested in making Trinitarian distinctions just for teh sake of going with tradition. However, I do see a threefoldness to God. I think that the Father can be understood as referring to God as the primordial imagination, the storehouse of all creative  potentiality for the universe.  The Son represents God present as the initial creative aim for occasions, the temporal objectivications of the primordial  imagination, entering into physical, finite reality.  The Spirit represents God as the ultimate companion, friend, and, most importantly, empathic one.  The Spirit is God as the supreme effect.   Because I stress the passive, receptive, empathic dimension of God, I sometimes think of God as She, and/or talk of God as the Mother/Father of all being.

    Because I think of God as the synthesis of all personalities, I have no trouble with certain Trinitarian formulations where the members of the  Trinity are described as unique personalities. However, I would put in a major qualification here.  I have no problem whatsoever with the notion of three divine  personalities, provided it is understood these are understood to constitute a kind of group personality or meta-God.  Otherwise, the Trinity collapses into tritheism or polytheism.

    I don’t think of teh fathers or other Trinitarians as possessed by the Devil or anything like that.  I do fault them, however, for relying on Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection. I argue these latter, these concepts of perfection, are all lopsided, unduly enshrining the  immune, the immutable, and the wholly simple. Hence, traditionally, God has been pictures as a wholly simple, immaterial, immutable, nonrelational being, a monad.  Then the fathers tried to introduce to complicated, relational machinery of the Trinity into this monad.  The result was all sorts of contradictions.  All too easily these were written off to the “mystery” of God, when, in point of actual fact, they are rooted in the muddled thinking of the fathers, who followed substance metaphysics, which is outmoded today.

     

    June 22, 2016 at 3:08 am#815101
    kerwin
    Participant

    hoghead1,

    I believe in the teaching that human nature is “totally depraved”. The label is misleading as it essentially means mere humans are slaves to sin and so do its bidding. It is only by receiving the Spirit through faith Jesus is the Christ that one can be truly freed of that bondage.

    June 22, 2016 at 9:09 am#815104
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    hoghead1….Sorry for the upper case letering, i see your point,kerwin also mentioned that to me before ,and i do agree with you both on that, my only excuse is that i am using a tablet with touch lettering, and some time i hit the wrong tab and before i realize it it is printing in upper case when i did not alway intend it,so sorry again, i’ll try to do better.

    Now to what i wrote and your response about the trinity “doctrine”, that doctrine does not leave open for more openexplanation of GOD at all, but does limit God to a grouping of three, and to me it is trinitizem and polytheism, called the godhead. your views as far as i can tell does not go along with that assumption, even if you invoke a metaphysical description, i apsolutly agree we can limit God to any single grouping of living matter, but also agree the atributes of God can be seen in those things physically created by him.

    Right now i don’i know if we agree or disagree or perhaps some of each, clearifications are in order, i believe, i tend to believe GOD is what life itself is, so this make him all present in every thing existing with life. so spirit is in all thing livings, and Jesus told us God is a spirit.

    The word God, from the original Hebrew which was a pictorial language was a drawn as a head of an ox, with a sheppards staff leaning toward it. so this shows two things, one is power (the ox) the other a support they trusted in (sheppards staff) . so with this we can come to see that the word God is a relative word, which shows a relationship with something it is not about a person himself but about our relation to that something. Our God is the power (ox) we trust and lean on (staff). The person is not himself God but the LORD who “is” our God.

    Just as the shamma says “The LORD “our” God is “one” LORD. Notice it did not say, the Lord our God is one God, but the LORD our God is “one” LORD., why because word God is relationship term, and is describing the way a persons relates to that person, in this case the LORD himself.

    peace and love to you and yours. ……….gene

    June 22, 2016 at 10:14 am#815105
    hoghead1
    Participant

    Hi, Kerwin,

    Yu brought up an interesting and important subject: original sin.  However, it seems a bit off topic, doesn’t it?

    I don’t hold with original sin.  I don’t find it to be biblical and I find it to be an overly pessimistic assessment of ourselves.  We have had , for too long, a religion of sickness; now, we need a religion of health. I also find it contradictory.  If we are born totally corrupt through and through, if our  nature is essentially evil, then let’s be as evil as we can; it’s a sad, sick thing to do to go against your own nature.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 121 through 140 (of 907 total)
123…678…444546
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
POPULAR TOPICS
ACTIVE TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
 Log in with Facebook
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

 Log in with Facebook
or

Create Account