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

[cataway]

Yeah, but you don’t understand how the ancient Judaic people regarded the dead.

are you someone that believes something of man lives on after the death of the body ?

 

[sojourner]

are you someone that believes something of man lives on after the death of the body ?

Yes.

 

[cataway]

Yes.

your answer does disagree with scripture

 

[sojourner]

your answer does disagree with scripture

No. It doesn’t. It may disagree with your interpretation, but it’s well within the Apostles’ teaching, which the Bible tells us to remain in.

 

[cataway]

No. It doesn’t. It may disagree with your interpretation, but it’s well within the Apostles’ teaching, which the Bible tells us to remain in.

do you believe all scripture or just the parts you agree with ?

 

[sojourner]

do you believe all scripture or just the parts you agree with ?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. What do you mean: “Do I believe all scripture?” Do I believe it exists? Do I believe it’s all scripture? Do I believe it’s inspired? Do I believe God wrote it? Do I believe it’s all inerrant? Do I believe it’s all factual? Do I believe it all speaks truth? Do I believe it speaks to me? Do I believe it’s a seamless, single story? Do I believe it’s part of the apostolic Tradition? Do I believe it has power? Do I believe it’s complete? Do I believe it’s incomplete? Do I believe it has a single right interpretation? Do I believe it’s multivalent? Do I believe that only the KJV is correct? Do I believe it’s been correctly translated? Do I believe a particular exegesis or critical analysis? Do I believe that non-canonical texts are scripture too? What do you mean?

And what do you mean: “Just the parts I agree with?” Are you insinuating that I don’t agree with all of it? Or that I should? Or shouldn’t? Are you saying that disagreement equals non-belief in some way? Are you saying that there’s no room for doubt in belief? Are you saying that there’s just one “proper” belief? And “agree with” what? The veracity of facts? The theology? The scope of the canon? The mythic imagery? A particular translation? A particular interpretation? A particular historical perspective? A particular provenance? What do you mean?

Why do you ask? Is one answer “better” or “more honest” or “more correct?” Is it important that I agree with your particular take? Does salvation history hinge on my answer? is my answer important, or does it significantly impact the milieu of biblical criticism?

I don’t know what you want, why you want it, what you hope to gain from or prove by it, or why it’s important to our discussion of how the ancient Judaic people viewed the dead.

Perhaps you could be a little less vague? Perhaps you could define your terms more tightly? What is “believe?” What is “agree?”

 

[Milton Platt]

(This is for people who consider themselves some kind of Christian but who reject the trinity)

Many find it mind-boggling and consider it a mystery, and leave it as that

Others are quick to dismiss it as non-sensical rubbish

Some have a major problem with "The Son" part of it

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

And why are some people so quick to reject it?

It makes perfect sense to me, I have no problem accepting it

Each element of God (each part of the trinity) is a dimension of God which is distinct from any other dimension/element, although all these (Father, Son, Spirit) are consubstantial with the central emergent property - "God"

I understand God as being triangle shaped, as having three equal sides, neither of which make sense alone

So, non-Trinitarians - what's wrong with all this? (pic related)

What are your problems with it?

Why are you non-Trinitarian?

Please tell

View attachment 35880

I do not know Latin, so your chart doesn't mean much to me.
My problem is that nobody can explain it in a fashion that is coherent. Can you do that?

 

[cataway]

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. What do you mean: “Do I believe all scripture?” Do I believe it exists? Do I believe it’s all scripture? Do I believe it’s inspired? Do I believe God wrote it? Do I believe it’s all inerrant? Do I believe it’s all factual? Do I believe it all speaks truth? Do I believe it speaks to me? Do I believe it’s a seamless, single story? Do I believe it’s part of the apostolic Tradition? Do I believe it has power? Do I believe it’s complete? Do I believe it’s incomplete? Do I believe it has a single right interpretation? Do I believe it’s multivalent? Do I believe that only the KJV is correct? Do I believe it’s been correctly translated? Do I believe a particular exegesis or critical analysis? Do I believe that non-canonical texts are scripture too? What do you mean?

And what do you mean: “Just the parts I agree with?” Are you insinuating that I don’t agree with all of it? Or that I should? Or shouldn’t? Are you saying that disagreement equals non-belief in some way? Are you saying that there’s no room for doubt in belief? Are you saying that there’s just one “proper” belief? And “agree with” what? The veracity of facts? The theology? The scope of the canon? The mythic imagery? A particular translation? A particular interpretation? A particular historical perspective? A particular provenance? What do you mean?

Why do you ask? Is one answer “better” or “more honest” or “more correct?” Is it important that I agree with your particular take? Does salvation history hinge on my answer? is my answer important, or does it significantly impact the milieu of biblical criticism?

I don’t know what you want, why you want it, what you hope to gain from or prove by it, or why it’s important to our discussion of how the ancient Judaic people viewed the dead.

Perhaps you could be a little less vague? Perhaps you could define your terms more tightly? What is “believe?” What is “agree?”

my but that's a long winded way of saying you don't agree with all scripture .

 

[sojourner]

my but that's a long winded way of saying you don't agree with all scripture .

I didn’t say that. I merely asked for clarification of what you meant. Assumption is not part of the exegetical process.

It would be lovely if you’d simply clarify what you mean, rather than toss around baseless accusation.

 

[cataway]

I didn’t say that. I merely asked for clarification of what you meant. Assumption is not part of the exegetical process.

It would be lovely if you’d simply clarify what you mean, rather than toss around baseless accusation.

ahhhh so you are saying you do agree and follow all scripture

 

[sojourner]

ahhhh so you are saying you do agree and fallow all scripture

See my post above. Rather than playing these clandestine games with what I posted, why not just clarify what it is, exactly, that you want to know.

And, what does “fallow” mean in this context?

 

[cataway]

what about this thought "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" agree or disagree ?

 

[metis]

There's a wide variation of opinions on the issue of "Divine inspiration" amongst Christian theologians.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I can hardly fault @iam1me for getting that wrong, since the doctrine of the Trinity is self-refuting.

What you've just said implies that "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" are all synonymous with each other, but Trinitarianism holds that this isn't the case.

I think the self-contradictory nature of Trinitarian doctrine is why we have so many Christians who say they believe in the Trinity but actually don't (despite sincerely believing that they are): as they try to understand and accept it, they adjust it so that their version is at least internally consistent, but in doing this, they end up believing in something that isn't the Trinity.

(AFAICT, modalism seems to be the most common position arrived at this way, in my experience)

 

[sojourner]

What you've just said implies that "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" are all synonymous with each other, but Trinitarianism holds that this isn't the case.

No, it doesn't imply that. It states that the term "God" applies equally to each Person. I never said that "Father" and "Son" are synonymous.

I think the self-contradictory nature of Trinitarian doctrine is why we have so many Christians who say they believe in the Trinity but actually don't (despite sincerely believing that they are): as they try to understand and accept it, they adjust it so that their version is at least internally consistent, but in doing this, they end up believing in something that isn't the Trinity.

You're probably correct.

(AFAICT, modalism seems to be the most common position arrived at this way, in my experience)

Yes, it does.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it doesn't imply that. It states that the term "God" applies equally to each Person. I never said that "Father" and "Son" are synonymous.

You said that "Father" and "God" are synonymous and that "Son" and "God" are synonymous. This implies that "Father" and "Son" are synonymous.

 

[sojourner]

You said that "Father" and "God" are synonymous and that "Son" and "God" are synonymous. This implies that "Father" and "Son" are synonymous.

No. It doesn’t. That’s the common misunderstanding which the doctrine addresses clearly. The terms “God” and “Father” are synonymous. The terms “God” and “Son” are synonymous. The persons of Father and Son are not interchangeable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. It doesn’t. That’s the common misunderstanding which the doctrine addresses clearly. The terms “God” and “Father” are synonymous. The terms “God” and “Son” are synonymous. The persons of Father and Son are not interchangeable.

If "God" and "Father" are synonymous, then you can replace one term with another and the meaning of the statement won't change.

So then when we say "'God' and 'Son' are synonymous," we can replace "God" with "Father" and the meaning won't change. This gives us "'Father' and 'Son' are synonymous."

... unless you mean something other than "synonymous" when you say "synonymous."

 

[sojourner]

If "God" and "Father" are synonymous, then you can replace one term with another and the meaning of the statement won't change.

So then when we say "'God' and 'Son' are synonymous," we can replace "God" with "Father" and the meaning won't change. This gives us "'Father' and 'Son' are synonymous."

... unless you mean something other than "synonymous" when you say "synonymous."

Perhaps I do. At any rate, “Father” and “Son” are not interchangeable terms. I’d like to expand on this, but I’m on my iPad at the mechanic’s. I’ll expound further later.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps I do. At any rate, “Father” and “Son” are not interchangeable terms.

Okay... but then either:

- "Father" and "God" are not interchangeable terms, or
- "Son" and "God" are not interchangeable terms

(Or both)