• 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!

Poll: Who Believes in the Trinity?

Do you believe in the Trinity?

  • Yes, as this doctrine is described in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

    Votes: 13 21.7%
  • No, but I do believe in divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

    Votes: 11 18.3%
  • No. I believe that Jesus, while a great teacher, can in no way be considered "God."

    Votes: 17 28.3%
  • Other. Please explain.

    Votes: 19 31.7%

  • Total voters
    60

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Since "ThisShouldMakeSense" had wanted to start a poll and wasn't quite sure how to go about it, I thought I'd go ahead and do so. Obviously, I can't say who may and who may not vote, but since the doctrine of the Trinity is obviously a Christian one, I would prefer to see only individuals who actually consider themselves to be Christians do the voting. That way, I think the results will be more representative of the variations in "Christian" belief. Non-Christians' comments, of course, are welcome.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
I voted other because, firstly, whilst I do believe in the Trinity I don't do so because of any Creeds but because it is the Truth taught by the Church from the beginning and evidenced in Scripture and the early Church Fathers. The main reason I couldn't accept option one, though, is that you included not just the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed but also the later (and western) so-called Athanasian Creed. This has never been accepted in my Church and seems to reinforce the filioque insertion in the Creed which we consider a distortion of the Trinity. As you also don't specify whether the wording of the Nicene Creed you have in mind is the original or that altered uncannonically at Toledo, I can't even assent to that. Which version did you have in mind?

James
 

Dayv

Member
I voted other because I believe that either Jesus never existed in any form and is merely a myth, or if he did exist, he was probably just a good guy that a bunch of stuff other people did got tacked onto and blown way out of perportion. Or maybe he started out as just a good guy and then got a little full of himself and so decided he was the son of god. The first seems the most likely to me.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
IacobPersul said:
I voted other because, firstly, whilst I do believe in the Trinity I don't do so because of any Creeds but because it is the Truth taught by the Church from the beginning and evidenced in Scripture and the early Church Fathers. The main reason I couldn't accept option one, though, is that you included not just the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed but also the later (and western) so-called Athanasian Creed. This has never been accepted in my Church and seems to reinforce the filioque insertion in the Creed which we consider a distortion of the Trinity. As you also don't specify whether the wording of the Nicene Creed you have in mind is the original or that altered uncannonically at Toledo, I can't even assent to that. Which version did you have in mind?

James
Interesting. I learned something new today. I didn't realize that the Eastern Church does not accept the Athanasian Creed. And I have never heard of the Constantinopolitan Creed. Would you mind explaining what it is about the Athanasian Creed you don't believe and what about the Constantinopolitan Creed the Western Church doesn't accept? (I don't accept any of them as being divinely inspired, so I'm just trying to get educated!)

Also, the way I phrased the choices in the poll may have confused you. I probably should have worded the first choice as follows" "Yes, I accept the Trinity which is described in the various Christian creeds."

Kathryn
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Katzpur said:
Interesting. I learned something new today. I didn't realize that the Eastern Church does not accept the Athanasian Creed. And I have never heard of the Constantinopolitan Creed. Would you mind explaining what it is about the Athanasian Creed you don't believe and what about the Constantinopolitan Creed the Western Church doesn't accept? (I don't accept any of them as being divinely inspired, so I'm just trying to get educated!)

Also, the way I phrased the choices in the poll may have confused you. I probably should have worded the first choice as follows" "Yes, I accept the Trinity which is described in the various Christian creeds."

Kathryn
There's no such thing as the Constantinopolitan Creed.

I was referring to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is usually called just the Nicene Creed in the west but that's not a good name given that the Creed was begun at Nicea but not completed until Constantinople. Originally, it just ended with 'And in the Holy Spirit'.

The western churches do accept the Nicene Creed, as I'm sure you're aware, but they don't accept it as originally worded. Rome unilaterally added the filioque (and the Son) to the Creed, signifying that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from both Father and Son. To us this is heresy and was condemned at our eighth Ecumenical Council (which was accepted as the eighth Ecumenical by Rome also for about 200 years). The 'Athanasian Creed', which has absolutely nothing to do with St. Athanasios was not rejected in the East as such, it just never had any impact because we weren't looking for a new Creed. We tend to be suspicious of the Orthodoxy of this creed, however, because it appears to reflect (unsurprisingly given its late western origins) the filioquist position previously condemned.

Our issue with the filioque is this: it distorts the Trinity. According to Holy Tradition, Scripture and the Church Fathers, God the Father is the source of the Godhead, eternally begetting the Son and eternally proceeding the Holy Spirit. The main distinction between the Persons then is that one is Unbegotten, one is Begotten and one is Proceeded. The filioque serves to confuse the Persons by granting to the Son also that which is unique to the Father and has the added effect of making the Holy Spirit ontologically subordinate to the other two Persons (I really hate that translation of Hypostases but am using it to make it simpler for those unused to the Greek). This to us is both contra-Scriptural and a gross distortion of the Trinity as revealed to the Church and the filioque remains, along with Roman Catholic claims for the Pope's universal jurisdiction and authority, probably the main reason why reunification with the Roman Catholic Church is impossible for Orthodox Christians.

James
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Katzpur said:
Since "ThisShouldMakeSense" had wanted to start a poll and wasn't quite sure how to go about it, I thought I'd go ahead and do so. Obviously, I can't say who may and who may not vote, but since the doctrine of the Trinity is obviously a Christian one, I would prefer to see only individuals who actually consider themselves to be Christians do the voting. That way, I think the results will be more representative of the variations in "Christian" belief. Non-Christians' comments, of course, are welcome.
Katzpur; You can, you know: If ever you want a post limited to be answered only by one 'group' - by religion, you can always use the 'Same faith debates' section :- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=63 however, after reading your last line, I gather you mean that you want the poll restricted to Christians, although you don't mind input, as comments by non-Christians. Hope that helps.:)
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Hi Polyreverend;

In answer to your question ? IMO-no; the trinity describes the three aspects of God - it does not relate to different and separate personalities.

As I answer this, I notice that this is your first post here, and I therefore wanted to welcome you to the forum.

You might like to have a look at :- Articles for New Members ; from there, there is a link to the forum rules, which you ought to see.

You might also wish to introduce yourself to the forum, by posting on:-
Are you new to ReligiousForums.com?

Hope you enjoy it here!:)
 

Todd

Rajun Cajun
PolyReverend said:
Out of Curiosity:

Would not the Trinity make Christianity Henotheism?
From my understanding, Christians that believe in the trinity believe that the father, son, and holy spirit are one. Henothiesm by definition is a devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of other gods. Hope this helps.

By the way, welcome to the forum.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
www.religioustolerance.org defines Henotheism:
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Henotheism.
belief in many deities of which only one is the supreme deity. This may involve:
[/font]
topbul2d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]One chief God and multiple gods and goddesses of lesser power and importance. Ancient Greek and Roman religions were of this type.

[/font]
topbul2d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]One supreme God, and multiple gods and goddesses who are all simply manifestations or aspects of the supreme God. Hinduism is one example; they recognize Brahman as the single deity. Some Wiccans believe in a single deity about which they know little. They call the deity "The One" or "The All." They recognize the God and Goddess as the male and female aspects of that supreme deity.

[/font]
topbul2d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]One supreme God who rules over a country, and many other gods and goddesses who have similar jurisdiction over other territories. Liberal theologians believe that the ancient Israelites were henotheists; they worshipped Jehovah as the supreme God over Israel, but recognized the existence of Baal and other deities who ruled over other tribes.[/font]
Please note the bold is added by me.
Since Henotheism includes many aspects of one deity being seen as seperate, I would think that Christianity would be Henotheism.
 

blueman

God's Warrior
Katzpur,

I do believe the in the Trinity as I have mentioned in other posts pertaining to this subject. Although the Holy Bible never mentions the word Triniy, the Bible is a book of concepts and throughout the Word of God, there are references to the three-person God-Head (God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit), all of who posess the same attributes, power and standing and were here from the beginning (The famous qoute in the book of Genesis prior to the creation of man "Let us make man in our own image"). :)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
blueman said:
Katzpur,

I do believe the in the Trinity as I have mentioned in other posts pertaining to this subject. Although the Holy Bible never mentions the word Triniy, the Bible is a book of concepts and throughout the Word of God, there are references to the three-person God-Head (God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit), all of who posess the same attributes, power and standing and were here from the beginning (The famous qoute in the book of Genesis prior to the creation of man "Let us make man in our own image"). :)
And I believe every word the Bible has to say about God (i.e. the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). What I don't believe are the expansions and extrapolations described in the 4th and 5th century Creeds.

Incidentally, I don't know where in the Bible the physical attributes of the three are defined, but I don't believe they are the same. I do believe they all have the same divine powers and spiritual attributes, but only because the Son and the Holy Ghost received theirs from the Father.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
PolyReverend said:
www.religioustolerance.org defines Henotheism:
Please note the bold is added by me.
Since Henotheism includes many aspects of one deity being seen as seperate, I would think that Christianity would be Henotheism.
Hi, Poly!

(Polyreverend is my internet buddy, everyone! I told him what a great forum this is. :jiggy: )

Well, you know I'm not a Trinitarian, but I've never actually heard those who are describe the Trinity in these terms. Although I will admit that Michael (among others) has used the word "aspects." Other people have told me that's modalism, though. I get so confused just trying to make sense out of their different interpretations that I think I'll just stick to the Bible.

Kathryn
 

blueman

God's Warrior
Katzpur said:
And I believe every word the Bible has to say about God (i.e. the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). What I don't believe are the expansions and extrapolations described in the 4th and 5th century Creeds.

Incidentally, I don't know where in the Bible the physical attributes of the three are defined, but I don't believe they are the same. I do believe they all have the same divine powers and spiritual attributes, but only because the Son and the Holy Ghost received theirs from the Father.
It's not phyisical attributes, but spritual and the Jesus and The Holy Spirit did not receive them from the Father, but possessed them from the beginning. They were not created by God, as some would think, but were there from the beginning and always existed, just like God The Father always existed. :)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
blueman said:
It's not phyisical attributes, but spritual and the Jesus and The Holy Spirit did not receive them from the Father, but possessed them from the beginning. They were not created by God, as some would think, but were there from the beginning and always existed, just like God The Father always existed. :)
I agree, but again, this is stated in the Bible. The Bible tells us that they are "one," but it doesn't tell us the way in which they are one -- at least not clearly enough that Christians have been able to agree on it for 2000 years. The Creeds attempt to explain how they are "one," and it's this that I object to, since I believe they came to the wrong conclusion!
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Katzpur, does this disagreement lie on a matter of interpretation difference? Or is there more? Just curious.

~Victor
 
Top