• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Non-Trinitarians: What's wrong with the Trinity?

iam1me

Active Member
The biggest problem with the Trinity is its adherents. They don't simply say: "oh, we think this is the best model for understanding God and here's why..." Instead they elevate this unscriptural doctrine to the level of being a "defining" doctrine of Christianity (completely ignoring the first several hundred years of Christians who didn't even have such a doctrine), and blindly ignore its faults - defending them as "a mystery." Even if it were the best explanation, it most certainly isn't a defining doctrine of what it means to be a Christian - nor is it salvific. Hence none of the scriptures even discuss such a doctrine.

The next problem is the great amount of extra-biblical assumptions required to uphold the doctrine. These must be read into scripture in order to dismiss the many many passages that so clearly contradict it. Example:

John 14:28 “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.

Under the Trinity, the Father and Son are supposed to be equals. Yet the scriptures are quite clear that the Father is greater and the Son subservient. Trinitarians will blindly assert - based upon absolutely nothing in the scriptures - that this is only speaking of the Son in his temporary descended state. Through such additions they attempt to twist the scriptures into not disagreeing with them at every turn.

And, finally, there are much simpler and more biblical answers to the questions that the Trinity attempts to answer. Angels are called God, Moses is called God, and those who have the Word are called gods. Ie, those who do God's will and serve as his mediators are called God because they act and speak on God's behalf. Jesus is the sole mediator between God and men under the New Covenant - and thus he is similarly addressed as God in places, though he has a God (Heberws 1:8-9)
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The biggest problem with the Trinity is its adherents. They don't simply say: "oh, we think this is the best model for understanding God and here's why..." Instead they elevate this unscriptural doctrine to the level of being a "defining" doctrine of Christianity (completely ignoring the first several hundred years of Christians who didn't even have such a doctrine), and blindly ignore its faults - defending them as "a mystery." Even if it were the best explanation, it most certainly isn't a defining doctrine of what it means to be a Christian - nor is it salvific. Hence none of the scriptures even discuss such a doctrine.
I would suggest that most Trinitarians do not actually do that. It is a series of "theological concepts" about the relationship of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father, whereas the basic teachings of Jesus deal with his Two Commandments.

If I use myself as an example, I teach Catholic theology to adults, and yet my priest well knows that I question pretty much everything (effects of a science background). But he well understands my commitment to try and do my best to help others within and outside of the Church.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The biggest problem with the Trinity is its adherents
The biggest problem with the Trinity is the number of clowns who don’t know jack about Christian theology, and yet think they can refute a doctrine that has stood at the core of apostolic teaching for 1700 years.
Instead they elevate this unscriptural doctrine to the level of being a "defining" doctrine of Christianity
Instead, these self-appointed “Trinity police” buy into the heresy of sola scriptura in some sort of flimsy defense of an argument that has no theological underpinning.
The next problem is the great amount of extra-biblical assumptions required to uphold the doctrine. These must be read into scripture in order to dismiss the many many passages that so clearly contradict it. Example
The apostles were quite clear that doctrine and theological understanding were based upon both scripture and tradition.

And, finally, there are much simpler and more biblical answers to the questions that the Trinity attempts to answer
The Trinity doesn’t “answer questions.” It provides a theological understanding of the nature of God.
 

iam1me

Active Member
The biggest problem with the Trinity is the number of clowns who don’t know jack about Christian theology, and yet think they can refute a doctrine that has stood at the core of apostolic teaching for 1700 years.

At least you acknowledge that it wasn't at the core of Christianity for the first 300 years. Now you need to answer this question: if it wasn't at the core of Christianity for the first 300 years, then why should it serve as the core of Christianity today?

Even if correct, it wasn't important enough for Jesus, the disciples, or Paul to lay out in their ministries.

Instead, these self-appointed “Trinity police” buy into the heresy of sola scriptura in some sort of flimsy defense of an argument that has no theological underpinning.

The apostles were quite clear that doctrine and theological understanding were based upon both scripture and tradition.

I never asserted anything concerning sola scriptura. I'm all for starting one's theological research from a traditional perspective. Everyone's gotta start somewhere, and there's surely much wisdom to be found in traditional thought. However, one must study such traditions to not only understand what those traditions are, but also why they believe as they do - what are the arguments and evidence behind it? And then you move onto the next phase, and question if the traditional conclusions are really the best solution or not.

However, if you ever bothered to read the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, you will find scripture at the core of their writings. They very heavily referenced scripture, and some even explicitly demanded that the heretical sects that they argued against try to defend themselves from scripture.

You are of course welcome to try and defend the Trinity without scripture, but your sources will most likely simply end up being an interpretation thereof. Also, any tradition outside of scripture must still be consistent with teachings thereof.

The Trinity doesn’t “answer questions.” It provides a theological understanding of the nature of God.

The doctrine was developed to address theological concerns concerning the relationship of the Son to the Father (and secondarily the Holy Spirit). Many in the Early Church - like the very well known and respected Justin Martyr - maintained that Jesus was a second, lesser god. Others said Jesus was only a man. Still others that he was the Father himself. It isn't difficult to find in scripture points of conflict with any of these (though some more than others). In Justin Martyr's case, the obvious objection is that there is only supposed to be one God according to scripture.

The Trinity was another such attempt to develop an answer. In attempting to both have Jesus be God but not the Father, the doctrine of the Trinity goes against scripture and divides the notion of God from the person of the Father. God, under this doctrine, ceases to be a person - and is rather reduced merely to the common substance that metaphysically makes up the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit. Of course, this completely goes against the biblical usage of the terms God and Father - which are one in the same. One of many anti-biblical inventions that accompanies the Trinity doctrine.
 

iam1me

Active Member
I would suggest that most Trinitarians do not actually do that. It is a series of "theological concepts" about the relationship of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father, whereas the basic teachings of Jesus deal with his Two Commandments.

If I use myself as an example, I teach Catholic theology to adults, and yet my priest well knows that I question pretty much everything (effects of a science background). But he well understands my commitment to try and do my best to help others within and outside of the Church.

I suppose that is debatable depending upon who you include under the umbrella of Trinitarian. Of course, many in the churches today don't really care about theology at all - let alone the highly abstract and complicated doctrine of the Trinity. Speaking of these individuals you might be right to a degree, though I would consider them Trinitarian in name only. Even if we include them, the churches they attend are still adamant on the Trinity doctrine.

For instance: you yourself might be more open to hearing my views on the matter and maybe willing to accept me (which is definitely appreciated). Nevertheless, could I be a proper Catholic? Could I ever hope to be in the priesthood via the Catholic Church? No. They might not force the matter, but under their teachings I wouldn't even be permitted to partake of the Eucharist.

There are more enlightened individuals in the Church as well, of course. They are just in the minority. We need only look at the large number of Trump supporters in the churches to understand that o_O
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
At least you acknowledge that it wasn't at the core of Christianity for the first 300 years. Now you need to answer this question: if it wasn't at the core of Christianity for the first 300 years, then why should it serve as the core of Christianity today?
Christianity was in MUCH greater flux in the early days, both doctrinally and organizationally. The doctrine (which is what we're discussing here) wasn't formulated or formalized until the mid-300s. How could the doctrine possibly be at the core of Xy when it hadn't been formalized?? But that doesn't mean that the theology and thought weren't at the core of Xy from very early on -- possibly from the beginning.

Even if correct, it wasn't important enough for Jesus, the disciples, or Paul to lay out in their ministries.
Actually, it was. As a Jew, Paul would have known that the story of the resurrection was a very dangerous one for the monotheism of Judaica. Yet he defends and maintains just that in his writings, which means that it was important enough for him to write down, and to write down in permanent fashion. And since Paul was a Jew, he, too, was staunchly monotheistic, so for Paul, Jesus was, in some manner … God.

Jesus wasn't concerned so much about who he was, so much as he was concerned about who we are. His "job" wasn't to reveal his Divinity. Had he revealed his Divinity, it would have completely overshadowed his mission to help us understand our own relationship to Divinity. Jesus' mission wasn't to explain the existential aspects of himself, which is what the doctrine seeks to do.

I never asserted anything concerning sola scriptura. I'm all for starting one's theological research from a traditional perspective. Everyone's gotta start somewhere, and there's surely much wisdom to be found in traditional thought. However, one must study such traditions to not only understand what those traditions are, but also why they believe as they do - what are the arguments and evidence behind it? And then you move onto the next phase, and question if the traditional conclusions are really the best solution or not.
Every "Jesus not God" construct I've ever dealt with goes straight down a rabbit hole of just plain twisted theology. Every single one of them have to make the scriptures and the apostles' teaching do gymnastics that are completely unnecessary. The Trinity may be hard to understand, but at least it reconciles biblical stories and theological constructs.

However, if you ever bothered to read the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, you will find scripture at the core of their writings.
Of course scripture is at the core. But it's not the ONLY consideration. And it's not remotely cogent to the topic at hand. the Trinity, while not explicitly biblical, is biblical in its foundation, if you've "ever bothered to read the doctrine."

The doctrine was developed to address theological concerns concerning the relationship of the Son to the Father (and secondarily the Holy Spirit).
"Addressing theological concerns" and "answering questions" are two different things. It was developed as a firewall against heresy, and to provide a theological uniting factor for disparate churches.

The Trinity was another such attempt to develop an answer. In attempting to both have Jesus be God but not the Father, the doctrine of the Trinity goes against scripture and divides the notion of God from the person of the Father. God, under this doctrine, ceases to be a person - and is rather reduced merely to the common substance that metaphysically makes up the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit. Of course, this completely goes against the biblical usage of the terms God and Father - which are one in the same. One of many anti-biblical inventions that accompanies the Trinity doctrine.
In fact, God is community -- just as humanity is a community -- just as Israel was a community. The Trinity expresses God as three Persons, so it does not "reduce" God. You've got the tail wagging the dog. The doctrine does not say that "God is just the glue." That's heretical. If you really understood the doctrine, you would know that.

For Jews, "God" and "Father" are necessarily the same. For Christians, though, "God" and "Father" are necessarily the same. It's YOU who is misrepresenting the doctrine to have it say different.
"God" and "Father" are synonymous. "God" and "Son" are likewise synonymous. "God" and "Holy Spirit" are also synonymous -- according to the doctrine.

Perhaps a seminary course in theology and another in Trinitarian thought would be helpful for you? One in Paul might also be useful for you.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
At least you acknowledge that it wasn't at the core of Christianity for the first 300 years. Now you need to answer this question: if it wasn't at the core of Christianity for the first 300 years, then why should it serve as the core of Christianity today?
Christianity was in MUCH greater flux in the early days, both doctrinally and organizationally. The doctrine (which is what we're discussing here) wasn't formulated or formalized until the mid-300s. How could the doctrine possibly be at the core of Xy when it hadn't been formalized?? But that doesn't mean that the theology and thought weren't at the core of Xy from very early on -- possibly from the beginning.

Even if correct, it wasn't important enough for Jesus, the disciples, or Paul to lay out in their ministries.
Actually, it was. As a Jew, Paul would have known that the story of the resurrection was a very dangerous one for the monotheism of Judaica. Yet he defends and maintains just that in his writings, which means that it was important enough for him to write down, and to write down in permanent fashion. And since Paul was a Jew, he, too, was staunchly monotheistic, so for Paul, Jesus was, in some manner … God.

Jesus wasn't concerned so much about who he was, so much as he was concerned about who we are. His "job" wasn't to reveal his Divinity. Had he revealed his Divinity, it would have completely overshadowed his mission to help us understand our own relationship to Divinity. Jesus' mission wasn't to explain the existential aspects of himself, which is what the doctrine seeks to do.

I never asserted anything concerning sola scriptura. I'm all for starting one's theological research from a traditional perspective. Everyone's gotta start somewhere, and there's surely much wisdom to be found in traditional thought. However, one must study such traditions to not only understand what those traditions are, but also why they believe as they do - what are the arguments and evidence behind it? And then you move onto the next phase, and question if the traditional conclusions are really the best solution or not.
Every "Jesus not God" construct I've ever dealt with goes straight down a rabbit hole of just plain twisted theology. Every single one of them have to make the scriptures and the apostles' teaching do gymnastics that are completely unnecessary. The Trinity may be hard to understand, but at least it reconciles biblical stories and theological constructs.

However, if you ever bothered to read the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, you will find scripture at the core of their writings.
Of course scripture is at the core. But it's not the ONLY consideration. And it's not remotely cogent to the topic at hand. the Trinity, while not explicitly biblical, is biblical in its foundation, if you've "ever bothered to read the doctrine."

The doctrine was developed to address theological concerns concerning the relationship of the Son to the Father (and secondarily the Holy Spirit).
"Addressing theological concerns" and "answering questions" are two different things. It was developed as a firewall against heresy, and to provide a theological uniting factor for disparate churches.

The Trinity was another such attempt to develop an answer. In attempting to both have Jesus be God but not the Father, the doctrine of the Trinity goes against scripture and divides the notion of God from the person of the Father. God, under this doctrine, ceases to be a person - and is rather reduced merely to the common substance that metaphysically makes up the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit. Of course, this completely goes against the biblical usage of the terms God and Father - which are one in the same. One of many anti-biblical inventions that accompanies the Trinity doctrine.
In fact, God is community -- just as humanity is a community -- just as Israel was a community. The Trinity expresses God as three Persons, so it does not "reduce" God. You've got the tail wagging the dog. The doctrine does not say that "God is just the glue." That's heretical. If you really understood the doctrine, you would know that.

For Jews, "God" and "Father" are necessarily the same. For Christians, though, "God" and "Father" are necessarily the same. It's YOU who is misrepresenting the doctrine to have it say different.
"God" and "Father" are synonymous. "God" and "Son" are likewise synonymous. "God" and "Holy Spirit" are also synonymous -- according to the doctrine.

Perhaps a seminary course in theology and another in Trinitarian thought would be helpful for you? One in Paul might also be useful for you.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
At least you acknowledge that it wasn't at the core of Christianity for the first 300 years. Now you need to answer this question: if it wasn't at the core of Christianity for the first 300 years, then why should it serve as the core of Christianity today?
Christianity was in MUCH greater flux in the early days, both doctrinally and organizationally. The doctrine (which is what we're discussing here) wasn't formulated or formalized until the mid-300s. How could the doctrine possibly be at the core of Xy when it hadn't been formalized?? But that doesn't mean that the theology and thought weren't at the core of Xy from very early on -- possibly from the beginning.

Even if correct, it wasn't important enough for Jesus, the disciples, or Paul to lay out in their ministries.
Actually, it was. As a Jew, Paul would have known that the story of the resurrection was a very dangerous one for the monotheism of Judaica. Yet he defends and maintains just that in his writings, which means that it was important enough for him to write down, and to write down in permanent fashion. And since Paul was a Jew, he, too, was staunchly monotheistic, so for Paul, Jesus was, in some manner … God.

Jesus wasn't concerned so much about who he was, so much as he was concerned about who we are. His "job" wasn't to reveal his Divinity. Had he revealed his Divinity, it would have completely overshadowed his mission to help us understand our own relationship to Divinity. Jesus' mission wasn't to explain the existential aspects of himself, which is what the doctrine seeks to do.

I never asserted anything concerning sola scriptura. I'm all for starting one's theological research from a traditional perspective. Everyone's gotta start somewhere, and there's surely much wisdom to be found in traditional thought. However, one must study such traditions to not only understand what those traditions are, but also why they believe as they do - what are the arguments and evidence behind it? And then you move onto the next phase, and question if the traditional conclusions are really the best solution or not.
Every "Jesus not God" construct I've ever dealt with goes straight down a rabbit hole of just plain twisted theology. Every single one of them have to make the scriptures and the apostles' teaching do gymnastics that are completely unnecessary. The Trinity may be hard to understand, but at least it reconciles biblical stories and theological constructs.

However, if you ever bothered to read the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, you will find scripture at the core of their writings.
Of course scripture is at the core. But it's not the ONLY consideration. And it's not remotely cogent to the topic at hand. the Trinity, while not explicitly biblical, is biblical in its foundation, if you've "ever bothered to read the doctrine."

The doctrine was developed to address theological concerns concerning the relationship of the Son to the Father (and secondarily the Holy Spirit).
"Addressing theological concerns" and "answering questions" are two different things. It was developed as a firewall against heresy, and to provide a theological uniting factor for disparate churches.

The Trinity was another such attempt to develop an answer. In attempting to both have Jesus be God but not the Father, the doctrine of the Trinity goes against scripture and divides the notion of God from the person of the Father. God, under this doctrine, ceases to be a person - and is rather reduced merely to the common substance that metaphysically makes up the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit. Of course, this completely goes against the biblical usage of the terms God and Father - which are one in the same. One of many anti-biblical inventions that accompanies the Trinity doctrine.
In fact, God is community -- just as humanity is a community -- just as Israel was a community. The Trinity expresses God as three Persons, so it does not "reduce" God. You've got the tail wagging the dog. The doctrine does not say that "God is just the glue." That's heretical. If you really understood the doctrine, you would know that.

For Jews, "God" and "Father" are necessarily the same. For Christians, though, "God" and "Father" are necessarily the same. It's YOU who is misrepresenting the doctrine to have it say different.
"God" and "Father" are synonymous. "God" and "Son" are likewise synonymous. "God" and "Holy Spirit" are also synonymous -- according to the doctrine.

Perhaps a seminary course in theology and another in Trinitarian thought would be helpful for you? One in Paul might also be useful for you.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
At least you acknowledge that it wasn't at the core of Christianity for the first 300 years. Now you need to answer this question: if it wasn't at the core of Christianity for the first 300 years, then why should it serve as the core of Christianity today?
Christianity was in MUCH greater flux in the early days, both doctrinally and organizationally. The doctrine (which is what we're discussing here) wasn't formulated or formalized until the mid-300s. How could the doctrine possibly be at the core of Xy when it hadn't been formalized?? But that doesn't mean that the theology and thought weren't at the core of Xy from very early on -- possibly from the beginning.

Even if correct, it wasn't important enough for Jesus, the disciples, or Paul to lay out in their ministries.
Actually, it was. As a Jew, Paul would have known that the story of the resurrection was a very dangerous one for the monotheism of Judaica. Yet he defends and maintains just that in his writings, which means that it was important enough for him to write down, and to write down in permanent fashion. And since Paul was a Jew, he, too, was staunchly monotheistic, so for Paul, Jesus was, in some manner … God.

Jesus wasn't concerned so much about who he was, so much as he was concerned about who we are. His "job" wasn't to reveal his Divinity. Had he revealed his Divinity, it would have completely overshadowed his mission to help us understand our own relationship to Divinity. Jesus' mission wasn't to explain the existential aspects of himself, which is what the doctrine seeks to do.

I never asserted anything concerning sola scriptura. I'm all for starting one's theological research from a traditional perspective. Everyone's gotta start somewhere, and there's surely much wisdom to be found in traditional thought. However, one must study such traditions to not only understand what those traditions are, but also why they believe as they do - what are the arguments and evidence behind it? And then you move onto the next phase, and question if the traditional conclusions are really the best solution or not.
Every "Jesus not God" construct I've ever dealt with goes straight down a rabbit hole of just plain twisted theology. Every single one of them have to make the scriptures and the apostles' teaching do gymnastics that are completely unnecessary. The Trinity may be hard to understand, but at least it reconciles biblical stories and theological constructs.

However, if you ever bothered to read the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, you will find scripture at the core of their writings.
Of course scripture is at the core. But it's not the ONLY consideration. And it's not remotely cogent to the topic at hand. the Trinity, while not explicitly biblical, is biblical in its foundation, if you've "ever bothered to read the doctrine."

The doctrine was developed to address theological concerns concerning the relationship of the Son to the Father (and secondarily the Holy Spirit).
"Addressing theological concerns" and "answering questions" are two different things. It was developed as a firewall against heresy, and to provide a theological uniting factor for disparate churches.

The Trinity was another such attempt to develop an answer. In attempting to both have Jesus be God but not the Father, the doctrine of the Trinity goes against scripture and divides the notion of God from the person of the Father. God, under this doctrine, ceases to be a person - and is rather reduced merely to the common substance that metaphysically makes up the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit. Of course, this completely goes against the biblical usage of the terms God and Father - which are one in the same. One of many anti-biblical inventions that accompanies the Trinity doctrine.
In fact, God is community -- just as humanity is a community -- just as Israel was a community. The Trinity expresses God as three Persons, so it does not "reduce" God. You've got the tail wagging the dog. The doctrine does not say that "God is just the glue." That's heretical. If you really understood the doctrine, you would know that.

For Jews, "God" and "Father" are necessarily the same. For Christians, though, "God" and "Father" are necessarily the same. It's YOU who is misrepresenting the doctrine to have it say different.
"God" and "Father" are synonymous. "God" and "Son" are likewise synonymous. "God" and "Holy Spirit" are also synonymous -- according to the doctrine.

Perhaps a seminary course in theology and another in Trinitarian thought would be helpful for you? One in Paul might also be useful for you.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Speaking of these individuals you might be right to a degree, though I would consider them Trinitarian in name only.
In order to understand the concept of the Trinity, one needs to understand the use of the Greek concept of "essence", especially since the NT was written in Koine Greek, thus reflecting the idiosyncrasies of the culture as well, especially that of Aristotle and Plato in scholastic and religious articles.

Nevertheless, could I be a proper Catholic? Could I ever hope to be in the priesthood via the Catholic Church?
Jesus called 12 Apostles only, thus he obviously had in mind that only some were to lead his Church. OTOH, there are so many things those of us whom are not priests can do.

They might not force the matter, but under their teachings I wouldn't even be permitted to partake of the Eucharist.
That depends on what you do or don't believe. Obviously, if there's not much of a match, yes, the Church can say you shouldn't partake of the Eucharist within a Catholic church,.

We need only look at the large number of Trump supporters in the churches to understand that
There I agree with you.

BTW, a study done of Catholic voters in the 2016 election found that only 20+% of Catholics who attend mass weekly voted for Trump. The largest group of Catholics who voted for Trump were elderly white Catholic men who rarely or pretty much never attend mass. Source: "America" magazine.
 

iam1me

Active Member
In order to understand the concept of the Trinity, one needs to understand the use of the Greek concept of "essence", especially since the NT was written in Koine Greek, thus reflecting the idiosyncrasies of the culture as well, especially that of Aristotle and Plato in scholastic and religious articles.

Indeed, an in-depth understanding of the writings of Church Fathers like Origen and the arguments of many in the 4th century require knowing Greek Philosophy intimately. I've taken classes in Ancient Greek myself in college, as well as courses on the classic philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Fun stuff, and always more to learn.

Of course, reading Plato and the like into scripture is itself a red-flag - and was the source of many heresies in the early church. The Gnostics in particular drew heavily from Plato's Timaeus and his concept of the Demiurge. One must first objectively establish that particular Greek Philosophical Frameworks are being employed in scripture before you can justify incorporating said philosophies into your exegesis. Else what you are doing is simply eisegesis.

Jesus called 12 Apostles only, thus he obviously had in mind that only some were to lead his Church. OTOH, there are so many things those of us whom are not priests can do.

Heartily disagree with you here. The 12 were only the starting point. Under the New Covenant, we are intended to be a kingdom of priests. Peter's epistles in particular do a great job painting this picture.

1 Peter 2:4-10 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual housea]">[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”b]">[b]

7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”c]">[c]

8 and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”d]">[d]

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

God originally intended to have the first-born child from all the tribes of Israel be dedicated to serving God. However, as a consequence of the Golden Calf incident, God changed his mind and took the tribe of Levi in their place. One of the things that is fixed under the New Covenant is this very thing: we are now all called to be his "chosen people, a royal priesthood, and holy nation, God's special possesion." We are all like "living stones" (just as Peter is said to be a/the rock), "being built into a spiritual house."

That's not to say there shouldn't be hierarchy and order in the church, of course. But the intention wasn't for only some people to be priests - but for us all to be priests.

BTW, a study done of Catholic voters in the 2016 election found that only 20+% of Catholics who attend mass weekly voted for Trump. The largest group of Catholics who voted for Trump were elderly white Catholic men who rarely or pretty much never attend mass. Source: "America" magazine.

Yea I've got a several Catholic friends from college (I actually primarily went to the Catholic college nights and "Theology on tap" nights while in college :p). From my experience there is definitely a bit more variety concerning politics among Catholics vs Protestants, which I appreciate. Of course, I've also encountered that 20%. I get see some of the stupidest pro-Trump non-sense on my Facebook feed thanks to them >.> I'm all for Bernie myself.
 
Last edited:

iam1me

Active Member
Christianity was in MUCH greater flux in the early days, both doctrinally and organizationally. The doctrine (which is what we're discussing here) wasn't formulated or formalized until the mid-300s. How could the doctrine possibly be at the core of Xy when it hadn't been formalized?? But that doesn't mean that the theology and thought weren't at the core of Xy from very early on -- possibly from the beginning.

If it were truly core to Christianity, then it would have been laid out in the beginning by Christ, the disciples, or Paul. The fact that it wasn't taught by them, the fact that the church was around for 300+ years before the doctrine was even formulated should tell you the obvious point I am making here: it isn't a core doctrine at all. Or, I should say, you are left with the hefty burden of objectively establishing just how it can be considered a core doctrine post-formulation when for hundreds of years Christians didn't even have the concept of the Trinity? If Jesus, the disciples, and Paul neither taught nor believed it, why do I require it today?

Actually, it was. As a Jew, Paul would have known that the story of the resurrection was a very dangerous one for the monotheism of Judaica. Yet he defends and maintains just that in his writings, which means that it was important enough for him to write down, and to write down in permanent fashion. And since Paul was a Jew, he, too, was staunchly monotheistic, so for Paul, Jesus was, in some manner … God.

Lolz, have you ever read Paul? He never posits that Jesus is God. To the contrary, he wrote some of the most troubling passages for the Trinity, continually establishing over and over again that Jesus is not God but subordinate to him. I'll provide a few examples here, but you should really just take a day and read through Paul (and the rest of the NT) and really pay attention to what they say concerning Jesus with respects to God.


Romans 8:34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Colossians 3:1Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 For he “has put everything under his feet.”c]">[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

(technically the following is from Paul's disciple):
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus

Jesus wasn't concerned so much about who he was, so much as he was concerned about who we are. His "job" wasn't to reveal his Divinity. Had he revealed his Divinity, it would have completely overshadowed his mission to help us understand our own relationship to Divinity. Jesus' mission wasn't to explain the existential aspects of himself, which is what the doctrine seeks to do.

Jesus taught what was important to his ministry, to the Gospel. He did teach some things in private to his disciples vs his public sermons, but there is nothing essential to the faith which Jesus did not pass along. Saying that a doctrine that was developed 300+ years after the fact should be considered a "core" doctrine of the faith is nonsensical. At most you can argue that the Trinity is the best attempt at explaining these existential aspects of Christ.

Every "Jesus not God" construct I've ever dealt with goes straight down a rabbit hole of just plain twisted theology. Every single one of them have to make the scriptures and the apostles' teaching do gymnastics that are completely unnecessary. The Trinity may be hard to understand, but at least it reconciles biblical stories and theological constructs.

My position is well-established in scripture and requires no gymnastics. Angels are addressed as God, Moses is said to be God, and all those who have received the Word are said to be gods by the scriptures. IE, those who are sent to speak and act on God's behalf are said to be God. Who spoke to Moses through the burning bush? Who wrestled with Jacob? These were angels, but they are spoken of as if God himself. It is no different for Christ: he was sent by God to us to act and speak on his behalf, to fulfill his will. As such he is at times referred to as God just as Moses and the angels were - and just like them it is clear this is not literal, that he has a God over him (Hebrews 1:8-9).

Of course scripture is at the core. But it's not the ONLY consideration. And it's not remotely cogent to the topic at hand. the Trinity, while not explicitly biblical, is biblical in its foundation, if you've "ever bothered to read the doctrine."

The Trinity must be consistent with scriptures (approached through objective exegesis). When you start requiring the insertion of fictions into scripture in order to change its meaning to avoid conflicts - you aren't being objective. When you redefine terms in scripture to avoid conflict - like divorcing "God" from "Father" which are interchangeable in scripture - you aren't being objective. You are being intellectually dishonest. Not to lay these faults at your feet, but if you hope to meaningfully discuss this topic, you can't fall back to these obvious errors.

In fact, God is community -- just as humanity is a community -- just as Israel was a community. The Trinity expresses God as three Persons, so it does not "reduce" God. You've got the tail wagging the dog. The doctrine does not say that "God is just the glue." That's heretical. If you really understood the doctrine, you would know that.

For Jews, "God" and "Father" are necessarily the same. For Christians, though, "God" and "Father" are necessarily the same. It's YOU who is misrepresenting the doctrine to have it say different.
"God" and "Father" are synonymous. "God" and "Son" are likewise synonymous. "God" and "Holy Spirit" are also synonymous -- according to the doctrine.

Perhaps a seminary course in theology and another in Trinitarian thought would be helpful for you? One in Paul might also be useful for you.

No, under the doctrine "God" is not synonymous with "Father," "Son," or "Holy Spirit." If it were as you describe, then saying that the "Son is God" would be synonymous with saying that the "Son is the Father." Of course, this is the heresy known as Patripassianism. You are, thus, clearly in error.

Perhaps a seminary course in theology and another in Trinitarian thought would be helpful for you? One in Paul might also be useful for you.

Ah, yes. The ultimate defense of one who doesn't know what they are talking about: referring the other person to a third party authority figure who isn't even present to discuss the topic.

PS: You created duplicate posts. You might want to delete those to tidy up the thread.
 
Last edited:

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
The Trinity must be consistent with scriptures (approached through objective exegesis).

The most obvious formulation is: "The Word was with God and the Word was God." (Jn 1:1)

I was reminded of The Three Hermits parable (by Tolstoy):

A bishop and several pilgrims are travelling on a fishing boat from Archangel to the Solovétsk Monastery. During the voyage, the bishop overhears a discussion about a remote island, nearby their course, where three old hermits live a spartan existence focused on seeking "salvation for their souls." Inquiring about the hermits, the bishop finds that several of the fishermen claim to have seen the hermits once.

The bishop then informs the captain that he wishes to visit the island. The captain seeks to dissuade him by saying, "the old men are not worth your pains. I have heard say that they are foolish old fellows, who understand nothing, and never speak a word." The bishop insists and the captain steers the ship toward the island. The bishop subsequently sets off in a rowboat to visit. He is met ashore by the three hermits.

The bishop informs the hermits that he has heard of them and of their search for salvation. He inquires how they are seeking salvation and serving God, but the hermits say they do not know how, only that they pray, simply: "Three are ye, three are we, have mercy upon us." Subsequently, the bishop acknowledges that they have a little knowledge but are ignorant of the true meaning of the doctrine and how to pray properly. He tells them that he will teach them "not a way of my own, but the way in which God in the Holy Scriptures has commanded all men to pray to Him" and proceeds to explain the doctrines of the incarnation and the Trinity. He attempts to teach them the Lord's Prayer, the "Our Father", but the simple hermits blunder and cannot remember the words. This compels the bishop to repeat the lesson late into the night. After he is satisfied that they have memorized the prayer, the Bishop departs from the island leaving the hermits with a firm instruction to pray as he has taught them. The bishop then returns to the fisherman's vessel anchored offshore in the rowboat and continues his voyage.

While on board, the bishop notices that their vessel is being followed. At first he thinks a boat is behind them but he soon realizes that the three hermits are running across the surface of the water "as though it were dry land." The hermits catch up to the vessel as the captain stops the boat, and inform the bishop, "We have forgotten your teaching, servant of God. As long as we kept repeating it we remembered, but when we stopped saying it for a time, a word dropped out, and now it has all gone to pieces. We can remember nothing of it. Teach us again." The bishop is humbled and replies to the hermits, "Your own prayer will reach the Lord, men of God. It is not for me to teach you. Pray for us sinners." After this the hermits turn around and walked back to their island.

The Three Hermits - Wikipedia
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
If it were truly core to Christianity, then it would have been laid out in the beginning by Christ, the disciples, or Paul
Not necessarily. For both of them, the Parousia was imminent, so no need for either to formulate some kind of understanding that would help those who did not know Jesus, or were not directly acquainted with those who did. The passage of time has distanced us from such an existential understanding of Jesus as Jesus revealed God to the Jews. Cultural distance has done the same thing. WE need such formulations, since we were not part of the story, and do not hold the same theological understandings as the ancient Jews.

The fact that it wasn't taught by them, the fact that the church was around for 300+ years before the doctrine was even formulated should tell you the obvious point I am making here: it isn't a core doctrine at all
Wrong. See above. It wasn’t until it became clear that the Parousia was not imminent that the church began to formulate such doctrine.

If it were truly core to Christianity, then it would have been laid out in the beginning by Christ, the disciples, or Paul
Nope. See above. The references to Jesus’ Divinity in the gospels as well as in Paul make clear that he was thought of as Divine, as a revealer of God, and yes, as God-With-Us by the proto-church. That there was no formalized doctrine speaks more to the nature of the protocol-church than it does to whether a certain theological construction is “core” to the Faith.

Or, I should say, you are left with the hefty burden of objectively establishing just how it can be considered a core doctrine post-formulation when for hundreds of years Christians didn't even have the concept of the Trinity
That’s not true. The very fact that Jesus was resurrected was a HUGE leap theologically, for that very act makes Jesus ... God.

If Jesus, the disciples, and Paul neither taught nor believed it, why do I require it today
Because you are part of a faith for whom the Parousia is not imminent, and because you are not of the same culture as any of the above. You didn’t see Jesus, know Jesus, talk to Jesus.

Lolz, have you ever read Paul? He never posits that Jesus is God. To the contrary, he wrote some of the most troubling passages for the Trinity, continually establishing over and over again that Jesus is not God but subordinate to him. I'll provide a few examples here, but you should really just take a day and read through Paul (and the rest of the NT) and really pay attention to what they say concerning Jesus with respects to God
ROFLMAO. I’ve read Paul inside out, upside down, and sideways. And I’ve exegeted the gospels with some of the most eminent NT and Greek scholars. I do know what I’m about here.

You?

Jesus taught what was important to his ministry, to the Gospel. He did teach some things in private to his disciples vs his public sermons, but there is nothing essential to the faith which Jesus did not pass along
Correct. No need for existential teachings with an imminent Parousia just around the corner. And yet, they are there, if you look. Take, for example, the parable of the leaven. It is a Q passage, which places it very early in the gospel source material — possibly less that 10 years following the Jesus Event itself. The theological message in a very brief nutshell is that we cannot clean ourselves up enough for God, so God became filth for us. That’s core to the Faith. And it assumes that God became Incarnate.

Saying that a doctrine that was developed 300+ years after the fact should be considered a "core" doctrine of the faith is nonsensical
Perhaps to the Underinformed...

At most you can argue that the Trinity is the best attempt at explaining these existential aspects of Christ.
And it does so about as well as anything can. If God weren’t too big for us to wrap our heads around, God wouldn’t be God. But an existential statement about God is at the core fo the faith precisely because the faith deals with our existential nature. And we can’t know who we are unless we know who God is. Jesus is God in a form simple enough for us to see, touch, and hear.

My position is well-established in scripture and requires no gymnastics
You go ahead and pretend that you stuck that landing.

Who spoke to Moses through the burning bush? Who wrestled with Jacob? These were angels, but they are spoken of as if God himself. It is no different for Christ: he was sent by God to us to act and speak on his behalf, to fulfill his will. As such he is at times referred to as God just as Moses and the angels were - and just like them it is clear this is not literal, that he has a God over him (Hebrews 1:8-9).
Your exegesis is woefully, woefully off here. Of course Jesus had a God over him; he was fully human, just like you and I, after all. Which is part and parcel of the doctrine, BTW.

The Trinity must be consistent with scriptures (approached through objective exegesis).
And so it is.

When you start requiring the insertion of fictions into scripture in order to change its meaning to avoid conflicts - you aren't being objective
I’m not doing that.
When you redefine terms in scripture to avoid conflict - like divorcing "God" from "Father" which are interchangeable in scripture - you aren't being objective.
Not exactly true. All speech with regard to God is necessarily metaphorical. Metaphors change to fit the understanding.

You are being intellectually dishonest
My graduate work says otherwise.

No, under the doctrine "God" is not synonymous with "Father," "Son," or "Holy Spirit." If it were as you describe, then saying that the "Son is God" would be synonymous with saying that the "Son is the Father
You clearly don’t understand what the doctrine is saying, so your argument is a straw man.

Ah, yes. The ultimate defense of one who doesn't know what they are talking about: referring the other person to a third party authority figure who isn't even present to discuss the topic
Where did you go to seminary, and what is your graduate degree?
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Of course, reading Plato and the like into scripture is itself a red-flag
But it's not really "read Plato and the like into scripture", but instead is an analysis of numerous verses dealing with Jesus' relationship to God, as well as the Holy Spirit of course, and trying to make sense of it. Therefore, the Trinitarian concept is what we call a "theological construct" that really doesn't appear in black & white in the scriptures themselves but is an analysis of something in particular.

Now, truth be told, I neither believe nor disbelieve in that concept myself, but I do believe it was at least an honest attempt to try and possibly explain that relationship.

Heartily disagree with you here. The 12 were only the starting point. Under the New Covenant, we are intended to be a kingdom of priests.
The "kingdom of priests" reference is really dealing with the fact that each of us can spread the gospel and serve as a witness to Christ. At no point in Church history, including from the get-go, could just anyone be a priest just because they said they were. Women, for example, were prohibited from being presbyteros.

Also, the presybyteros could only be appointed by an eposkopos ("bishop" in English), and all bishops in the Church had to be able to show that they were appointees of appointees... going all the way back to the Twelve-- what we call "apostolic succession", which is another "theological construct". That was the "mark" of the Church, thus not the scriptures themselves, and it had to be as such because there were other groups claiming they were the "true church" claiming they had the "true scriptures". If you are using the Bible that most Christians use today, that canon was chosen by that succession of bishops during the 4th century. And, according to Dr. William Barclay (Anglican), there were roughly 2000 books/papers that they had to choose from, which is why the process took over 1/2 century, and then they still couldn't decide on what we now call the "Apocrypha".
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
But it's not really "read Plato and the like into scripture", but instead is an analysis of numerous verses dealing with Jesus' relationship to God, as well as the Holy Spirit of course, and trying to make sense of it. Therefore, the Trinitarian concept is what we call a "theological construct" that really doesn't appear in black & white in the scriptures themselves but is an analysis of something in particular.

Now, truth be told, I neither believe nor disbelieve in that concept myself, but I do believe it was at least an honest attempt to try and possibly explain that relationship.

The "kingdom of priests" reference is really dealing with the fact that each of us can spread the gospel and serve as a witness to Christ. At no point in Church history, including from the get-go, could just anyone be a priest just because they said they were. Women, for example, were prohibited from being presbyteros.

Also, the presybyteros could only be appointed by an eposkopos ("bishop" in English), and all bishops in the Church had to be able to show that they were appointees of appointees... going all the way back to the Twelve-- what we call "apostolic succession", which is another "theological construct". That was the "mark" of the Church, thus not the scriptures themselves, and it had to be as such because there were other groups claiming they were the "true church" claiming they had the "true scriptures". If you are using the Bible that most Christians use today, that canon was chosen by that succession of bishops during the 4th century. And, according to Dr. William Barclay (Anglican), there were roughly 2000 books/papers that they had to choose from, which is why the process took over 1/2 century, and then they still couldn't decide on what we now call the "Apocrypha".
And there is A. Lot. Of Platonic thought inherent in the Greek texts.
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
That’s not true. The very fact that Jesus was resurrected was a HUGE leap theologically, for that very act makes Jesus ... God.
a dead god resurrecting him self ?? why would he do that ?? he would not be dead to be able to resurrect him self ! are you sure you have thought this through ?
 
Top