The debate "The Trinity doctrine is not even scriptural" was started by
October 9, 2015, 10:42 pm.
18 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 14 arguments, PsychDave posted 12 arguments, Alex posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
Alex posted 41 arguments, Hitmenjr posted 3 arguments, historybuff posted 15 arguments, goldfox1987 posted 3 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
shawnster, Alex, stevenchen, sloanstar1000, zarinshafiqa99, vivek, AlenaMaisel and 11 visitors agree.
Hitmenjr, historybuff, PsychDave, goldfox1987, joeithn and 3 visitors disagree.
And what did he say that challenged the Bible?
Galileo's problem that people claimed he was a heroic was challenging the bible and interpreting it.
cause he suspected of heroic beliefs and the church wanted him under close watch.
Then why was he placed under house arrest until his death?
Dave LISTEN, READ, LOOK IT UP PLEASE!!!!!
Galileo was never called a heroic.
me, and others have this many times.
Then since the church felt that this was a matter of faith, as that is what heresy means, he cannot, by definition, be infallible.
um... the Pope was wrong about Galileo. not sure why I have to restate that fact.
Again you say it was his mistake to tell the church it was wrong when IT WAS WRONG! If you are mistaken, why am I at fault for telling you so?
sun, not sin
He was not 100% right he thought the sin was still, and the center of the universe.
The church, like many others were very traditional, and the new idea came slowly, they would probably agreed with him after a few years, if Galileo had not been so rash and interpreted the bible. That was the issue, using the bible and telling the church what the Bible means.
You seem to equivocate a lot to avoid admitting that he was right and the church was wrong. He tried to force the church to admit that his scientifically tested theory better explained the world than their dogma and they condemned him and placed him under house arrest for it. I know the church would have preferred if he had abided by their rules and not claimed he was right, but he was.
Again, he was not declared a heretic, his theory was condemned because he chose to take science and try ti force the church to interpret the Bible his way. if he would have stuck to science he would have been fine.
infallibility was never named before that time in history because it wasn't needed. all the Church fathers spoke of rhe primacy of the Bishop of Rome and if you abandoned him you were abandoning the Church. there was no challenge to this primacy for almost 1500 years, which is why the definition and riles had to be laid out, because the reformers, thought it wise to separate themselves from the Church Jesus founded on St. Peter.
Is heresy not a matter of faith?
Pope's also are not perfect, unless under faith or morals. He most likely did nothing exept go with the traditional view of the earth being the center. He should have stopped Galileo from being arested.
Of the Pope is infallible, why did he not simply tell them Galileo was not a heretic? It would have saved them a lot of effort, saved Galileo from being under house arrest until his death, and saved the church from the embarrassment of having to apologize to one of the most respected scientists in history.
He was not called a heroic, he was suspected of being one and kept under close watch, he was alowed to return to his home.
The church apologized for suspecting him of being one, putting him on trail, and putting under house arest.
The church doctrine that Galileo challenged was that the Earth was fixed in the heavens and the sun revolved around it. For daring to oppose the church and claim that the earth orbits the sun he was deemed a heretic and placed under house arrest until his death.
If someone is called a heretic, that would indicate that what they have opposed is a matter of faith. If not, they cannot be a heretic.
If one Pope had Galileo arrested for heresy, and another Pope apologized for how he was treated, one of these Popes is wrong. If one is wrong, they are not infallible even when it comes to declaring something heretical. With this in mind, what proof do you have that the people the deemed heretics and banished were not right?
Infallibility of the church dates as far back as possibly the 13th century. before that no one believed the church was infallible. no Pope officially claimed to be infallible for about 600 years after that. claims of infallibility were, as far as anyone can tell, unheard of before that. at the council of nicea, where these things were decided, no one on the planet thought the church was infallible.
1. infallibility only applies to faith and morals and there are rules regarding infallibility.
2. that theory was commonly held during the time and was not a Church doctrine.
3. the reason Galileo was declared a heretic was not because of his science, but because of his challenge of Church doctrine (see http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy)
So when the church and Pope declared it heresy to say that the earth revolves around the sun, that was the truth?
First, as to the trinity, it is based in scripture, but codified by the Church, and as such is seen as real and infallible. The idea was already held and agreed upon since the ascension of Jesus, and only was codified by the Church in response to heresy.
The primacy and thus the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope, was accepted as truth and was unchallenged until the 16th and again in the 18th centuries (I.e. the reformation and the council codifying the infallibility of the Pope. it should be noted that there were rules laid out for infallibility). as proof we have the Church Fathers dating back to 110AD speaking about the primacy of Rome and the unified Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome (see "letter to the romans" by St. Ignatius of Antioch, "against heresies" by St. Irenaeus, and "the unity of the Catholic Church" by St. Cyprian of Carthage).
as a final note, Jesus gave us a Church, THE Church, not a Bible. so when that Church makes a decision, its important and truth.
Yes, but what is a matter of faith is something you refuse to pin down. Is the story if creation being a literal thing a matter of faith? Previous popes thought so, the current Pope does not. Is the sun revolving around the earth a matter of faith? For hundreds of years the Popes said yes, then the church apologized for how Galileo was treated and the Pope admitted the earth orbits the sun. Some of these Popes were wrong, even though they felt it was a matter of faith. It is convenient to hide behind that statement, but it doesn't hold up to history.
No the Pope believes in God creating all things, and then by God evolution happened, also man is created in God's image. I belive God created everything and created us in his image, and did not evolve stuff. The Faith here is God created everything, and us in his image. the pope is only infallible in matters of Faith and morals. I've said this many times.
So you believe the Pope is wrong about the creation of life? That would seem to indicate that even you realize the Pope is fallible.
Also I think for myself I do not blindly follow the church, or all of the scholars at my school, we have debates on different views of the church that are not doctrine. I do not. believe in evolution, but the Pope does.
You have never proved the Pope is not infallible. Trinity is scriptural as I have already pointed out. You can disagree that scripture is correct, but the trinity is scriptural. You can keep twisting the verses any way you want. What if I say "I didn't say you stole the money" what does that sentence mean? it could mean "I said he stole the money" it could mean "I said you borrowed the money" there are many different ways to interpret one verse, the Pope has never been proven not infallible.
well since he just falls back on "the Pope is infallible" every time I prove him wrong (even when we disprove the Pope being infallible) I may as well be arguing with the wall.
in answer to your question, it is saying there is one true God. there is also his son. and the holy spirit he gave to mankind. this is the literal reading if the Bible.
It's interesting that you fail to account for the many biblical scholars who disagree with you. It is not historybuff and the church in this debate, it is you and him.
And as long as you don't blindly follow the church because you think they are infallible I'm fine with people thinking for themselves. men are corrupt. the church is made up of men. they have altered Christianity to suit themselves over millennia.
I'm going to bed now I will answer your questions about infallibility tomorrow if I have time.
how do you know your translation is not flawed, general the first translation is correct. The Catholic bible and the Catholic Church is the first.
So...my question is...why does the bible say many times I am the one true God but then references the holy spirit and the son...I think that God gave us two ears, two eyes and a brain to create inferences with...I have a theory that he wants us to think for our selfs and not follow the corruptions of man.
And I explained those mistranslations to you. you're right if you told an ignorant person a mistranslation you could convince them. but that would be intellectually dishonest since the translation is flawed. as highlighted by the other uses if the exact same words to mean a Babylonian kind, a Roman governor, or Satan.
so the Bible meant that the Pope was infallible but no one realized it for over 1000 years? because no one wrote about it till around the 13th century. you would think if the Pope was infallible he would know about it. he didn't say he was officially until the 1800's. no Pope officially claimed to be infallible for the better part of 2000 years. if they were infallible why wouldn't they have said so?
It all comes down to either trusting HistoryBuff or the Pope.
"The gates if hell will not prevail against the church" This means the church cannot say something false because then Saten would have successfully tempted the church and prevailed. So the church was infallible from the beginning.
Constantine did not force anything on anyone. He may have gotten a council together, but all he wanted was for a decision to be made, he did not have a strong view either way.
Okay if you think "I and the Father are one" does not mean one then you need help.
If you think Thomas and Isiah calling Jesus God means Jesus is not God then you need help.
if I went to a person who knows no religion and read them those two verses what would they say? they would say Jesus is God, one with the father. You choose to take the less logical translation, but claim we have no logic. use logic.
What you are using is the church is wrong.com or some site like that. you see the church is being logical, so you serch for any other possible translations.
for that matter. no one thought the church was infallible at the council of nicea. that idea came centuries later.
Not one of your quotes says they are one being. not one of them. the only reason it is church doctrine is because a sun worshipping Roman forced the church to. the church is not infallible. it was only declared so in 1870. with some references dating back to the medieval period. which means the Catholic church existed for like 1000 years before anyone said the Pope was infallible.
There are hundreds of ways to interpret the bible. that is why there are so many prodestants denominations. The Church way is right because the Pope is infallible on teachings of faith.
Once again it is all how you interpret it. I choose to believe the infallible church over you.
so there you go. I've explained all your examples again.
John 20:28 the answer to this one is more complicated. I would encourage you to read the site I linked. but it is similar to before. the original word was theos. which can mean many powerful or divine beings. The Roman governor(acts 12:22) and Satan(2 cor 4:4) were both described using the same word. neither of those were translated as God.
John 10:30 Jesus is saying that he and his father had one purpose. it was a common expression. Paul wrote to the Corinthians that he who plants and he who waters are one. they aren't the same person. they have the same purpose. in john 11:52 Jesus says he must die to make all God's children one. he wasn't turning them into one person. the context of john 10:30 reinforces this. he is discussing his ability to keep his "sheep". no one could take them from his hands or his father's hands. they were of one purpose.
Son of God AND God. Just because one verse only has one does not disprove the other. other verses say Jesus is God. What about Jesus saying I and the Father are one. or him saying I am I AM.
john 8:24 it is saying if you don't believe he is Christ, the son of God then you will die in your sins. you can see this in john 20:31. "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of god, and that by believing you may have life in his name." son of God. not part of God.
again you can look at http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses it explains all of these better than I can. Mathew 1:23. it's not literal. Jesus is the son of God. he represents God and his teachings. In Corinthians he says God is IN Christ. not God IS Christ.
Isaiah is a mistranslation. in Hebrew anyone acting on behalf of God can be called god (note the lower case) it is better translated as mighty hero. For example in Ezekiel 31:11 the same word (el) is used to describe the king of Babylon. obviously they were not calling him God.
clearly you do not know the bible.
Scripture says Jesus is God pretty clearly.
Matthew 1:23 ?Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel? which means ?God with us.
they mean Jesus is God is with us. So won't Jesus be God.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace
literally calling Jesus God.
John 8:24 - ?Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM , you will die in your sins.
I AM is another name for God. if Jesus is I AM and God is I AM that makes Jesus God.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.
John 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said to Him, ?My Lord and my God!?
Thomas calls Jesus God.
I am not saying that he is not, I am saying that the Bible does not explicitly say that he is. My son is not me, therefore saying that Jesus is the son of God and therefore God himself is not necessarily true. By gospel I meant it is mentioned in the gospel (which would be the religious scripture). I apologize for using a different word as there are different connotations.
Scripture mentions Jesus being God several times. We've already established according to scripture Jesus is the son of God so the bible says.
Jesus=son of God=God.
so the trinity consists of God the son, also being God.
Are you saying Jesus is not God, so therefore he cannot be in trinity with God?
By the way the doctrines do not have to be scriptural to be doctrine in the Catholic Church. The trinity is scriptural though.
The Son of God is God.
Peter said "you are Christ" Christ is God.
did I say the creed was Gospel?
The site seems to agree with me, the church shut down heresies in councils. I do not believe Constantine was a saint or even a catholic. He was a good emperor because he legalized Christianity (edict of Mulan)
You are the SON of the living God, not you are God. And no, the church Creed is not gospel.
Historybuff read the Athanasian Creed. This explains the 3 on 1. It is an official creed of the church.
He said to them, ?But who do you say that I am?? Simon Peter said, ?You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.? [Mathew 16:15-16]
Peter says Jesus is God.
Historybuff I will look at your source now, I have been busy working.
and if you refuse to look at the sources I provide what is the point of asking for them?
also you can look at this. http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/the-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine the Trinity was a minority view that was forced on the church by the Roman emperor who wasn't exactly Christian in the first place. it was enforced ever after as Gospel.
where did Peter say this? you have yet to provide a source that actually says they are one being.
Seriously what are your sources?
No, God is still one God. Jesus and the spirit were always there, because they are God. Peter said many times Jesus is God.
before nicea there was one God. God. Jesus was the son of God. a separate entity. not a god himself. the holy spirit the spirit god gave to man. not a part of God himself. after nicea even saying otherwise was grounds for excommunication.
What are your sources that before Nicea everyone believed in 3 gods? that is false.
everyone besides the heresies believed the trinity because that was the teaching of the church.
They altered the Bible to reinforce their opinion. they excommunicated many people for daring to believe what was previously believed.
Whoa there. Before Nicea Christions believed in one being, there were however heresies that disagreed and went against the church. The council of Nicea changed nothing to do with the trinity, they condemned the false doctrines, and made the churches teaching of the trinity clear.
Those things are mentioned. it never says they are the same being. the interpretation before the council of nicea was that they were separate beings. changing the evidence to suit you doesn't make your interpretation right.
Did you read my fist 2 posts with the verses about God the father, God the son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit? You are arguing the unarguable. You can say that you disagree with the church and bible but to say it is not in the bible is like saying the sky isn't blue.
And the reason the church believes that is because they changed the Bible to say it. there is very strong evidence they changed that verse. so how can you trust any of the verses you quote?
You believe something the Bible doesn't say. you may interpret it that way but the scripture does not say that. therefore it is not scriptural.
so it is a matter of who I belive your interpretation or the churches. I'm going to have to go with the church on this. Your right the bible can be interpreted many ways, that is why we have the church.
I've already explained that your posts don't prove anything. one was altered at the council of nicaea. the others don't say it is one being. they imply they are separate beings. you only read it that way because the church tells you to and you won't question anything they say.
Look at my first two posts again.
Except it isn't in the Bible. it was an interpretation of it several hundred years later. it is a human attempt to explain the story of Jesus.
ok. our human minds then. happy now.
Don't put "your" instead put "our"
it doest make perfect sense to your human mind. it can be understood that there are 3 in 1.
That's because the Trinity doesn't make sense. it was made up and then enforced by council of nicaea. before that it was not the dominant belief.
just as 1(1)1 is 1, the three persons make up one God.
They describe separate persons in one God. I cannot explain the trinity to you, nor can anyone.
All your examples describe separate beings. your last one. God says this is my son whom I love. if it was a part of himself why would he say that? you would say that about another person. none of your examples describe the Trinity as a single entity.
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ?This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.? [Mathew 3:16-17]
another example of the trinity on the bible. There are a lot.
by the way I did not use that site.
Corinthians says God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Peter describes the work of the 3 persons in one God.
For all the old testament ones you quote please see http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/genesis-1-26. now that I've explained all your points, anything else?
Again the verse from Peter does not say that they are one being. in fact it kind of days they are separate. it says the foreknowledge of God and obedience to Jesus. it is implying that they are separate beings. it also is not a defense if the Trinity.
The Corinthians verse never claims the three are the same entity. He is just blessing people. it is not a defense of the Trinity being one God.
not that I really care, but showing the Bible was altered is kind if fun. take a look at http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/matthew-28-19. Mathew 28-19 was altered at the council of nicea to fit their version of the Trinity. before that it said to baptize then in my name.
Could of just droped the mic you know...
lucky you I just wrote a paper on this.
if you need any of those verses explained just ask.
Then God said "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth [Genesis 1:26]
Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil. and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" [Genesis 3:22]
"Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they not understand one another's speech." [Genesis 11:7]
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" [Isaiah 6:8]
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19].
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all [2 Corinthians 13:14].
who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood [1 Peter 1:1-2].