Is the Trinity Doctrine Biblical? (Page 6)

Zanjan: Leonora: " The Bible says if they have to write all that Jesus has done, there isn't enough place to put all the books in the world."

Even so, the Apsotles chose which stories to write. There weren't many books in the world at the time. Only spiritual truths remain constant and these were given to the ancients in small measure, according to their capacity.

It's not possible for any dispensation to fit the needs of any other age. This is why, as time marches on, people fall asleep, lose understanding, stop believing and become spiritually sick.

The intellect of man must be stimulated with new knowledge. As the old maxim goes, 'even a potato, if planted and replanted in the same worn-out soil, will cease to flourish'. Thus, a new Light must come into the world. For this reason, God sends a new Revelator to breathe new life into humanity, advancing civilization.


One's chosen carriage doesn't feed the soul - a solid relationship with God does. We live in perverse times so it takes a LOT of suffering to awaken people and build that relationship with God once again.

edmund_carey: It isn't hard to see where the doctrine of the Trinity came from. In the Gospels Christ teaches the will of God, and refers to God as the Father, Christ himself being represented as Divine and referred to as the Son. The Gospels, and occasionally Christ himself, speak of a "Holy Spirit" who is unmistakably in the role of the Deity.

Early Christians concluded that the Gospels must be teaching them that there are three persons somehow comprising God, or that God manifests himself in three ways. The term Trinity isn't there, but the fact seems to be. So they formed the concept of the Trinity to grasp that.

The New Testament isn't a theological study. It is the fact that theology tries to understand - as the sciences try to understand nature. That God is comprised of three persons is obviously beyond human comprehension, so it is referred to as a mystery of faith. It is one of the mysteries that human beings know about because Scripture, in its own way, speaks of it.

Campion: The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title of the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299

Holy Trinity is not a description of God, but a description of a human experience of God. The Holy Trinity is a doctrine, adopted by the Christian Church in the 4th century CE, as a way of processing and understanding their experience with God. It is a product of dualistic Greek thinking which separated God from humanity; the holy from the profane; the flesh from the spirit, and the body from the soul. That was a cultural mindset and no one in that era of history knew how to step outside that frame of reference. However, that frame of reference died in that period of history we call the Enlightenment, leaving modern Christians with the impossible task of fitting a 4th century doctrine into a 21st century world view out of which it does not come and to which it cannot speak. Does that mean that the Trinitarian experience is wrong? No, I don’t think it means that, but it does mean that the Trinitarian language, which we use as we to seek to relate the Trinitarian experience is simply irrelevant. ~ John Spong

edmund_carey: John Spong is anything but a spokesperson for traditional Christian belief. And the New Testament speaks of God himself when it refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Not to the human experience of God. I think.

Campion: Ed --- all of scripture speaks in a human voice. All of it is an interpretation which people then seek to interpret. Any claim of authority is very questionable. John Spong is as qualified as anyone and is far more qualified than most.

Blackshoes: There's little to interpret for the majority of God's word. It's clear as a bell, Jesus is alive and coming again to judge the living and the dead. The only real problem is whether those that know no better can accept the facts and evidence in time to repent, believe, and be saved.

edmund_carey: John Spong is by all means a Biblical scholar. So is Bart Ehrman, and he rejects everything to do with Christian belief and doctrine.

Blackshoes: Just because someone claims to be a biblical scholar? Doesn't make them correct in anything they state or believe, especially when they obviously reject what every other Biblical scholar has stated throughout history

Some people reject gravity!

edmund_carey: Who are you referring to there, Blackshoes?

Blackshoes: Bart Ehrman,John Sprong

edmund_carey: Oh! Both of them! Well, I don't know much about Spong, except that he is so liberal and secularist that by far most Christians would reject him as any sort of spokesperson for their faith, whether he's living on a pension from the Episcopal Church or not.

Bart Ehrman is an academic scholar. Many other academic scholars are in agreement with him. But he makes no claim to speak for Christianity as a belief system. He has no religion.

Blackshoes: If a Biblical scholar does not hold to the historical viewpoints held by the majority of Holy and upright Jewish and Christains scholars over the last 4000 years', it's pointless to accept anything they claim.

Zanjan: Edmond wrote: "so it is referred to as a mystery of faith"

I get that's what they call it. However, if a thing is a mystery, it follows they don't know anything about it. If this mystery must be also be taken on faith, then it most certainly is blind faith. Under no circumstances can one accept that as "knowledge".

True faith is trust in that which is known and understood - meaning, the thing has to be manifest to the individual from the get-go and needs no facilitator. Had the concept of the trinity been a reality, that would have been reflected in the scriptures of all of the religions of God. It isn't.

Blackshoes: Again we disagree on definitions. True faith is not blind .

Hebrews 11:1

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Zanjan: Evidence is seen. Smoke is evidence of combustion - while I don't yet see any flames, the smoke informs me that, without intervention, there will soon be some. I can trust that.

Perhaps my hope is that something will burn, maybe I'm hoping it won't. You can't fly on nothing but hope. For the ancients, hope was just something that made them feel good when they couldn't attain the things they desired.

Blackshoes: The evidence Is within the Bible. Of course, those that reject the Bible, will reject the evidence!

Zanjan: "The evidence Is within the Bible."

Wisdom is in it. The evidences of its truths are in the environment around you. For example, the ancients hoped for permanent world peace but were told that wasn't to be achieved in their day. Does that mean it was hidden?

No, it means the tools required to achieve it were hidden; meanwhile, they had the vision. So, why should they have faith that vision would be realized, in due time? It wasn't merely because God said so. They had evidence in hand and it was a matter of scale.

The *evidence* was they could achieve it in bubbles and bubbles can merge. They saw peace and order within their own communities when outside those communities there wasn't anything but chaos. If this could survive in such a hostile setting, it must be immensely strong.

They had faith in what they'd achieved. They just had to wait for the day when all the peaceful bubbles would merge and become one, too mighty to push apart again.

Zanjan: Back to the trinity issue. By the 4th century, the clergy had lost sight of the importance of building strong, peaceful communities. Their focus switched to expansion by all possible means.

In their view, the scripture wasn't enough to acheive that so they tried to make it more attractive to the pagans by appealing to their own storymind. This is the evidence of a change in aim and the first evidence of division.

Blackshoes: I repeat, The evidence Is within the Bible. Of course, those that reject the Bible will reject the evidence!

prairwarur: Some people talk about Jesus. Some people talk to Him.

Blackshoes: God speaks to all those that have received the Holy spirit

1 Kings 19:12
“And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.”

edmund_carey: Belief in the Trinity predates the fourth century by about three centuries.

Campion: The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title of the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

edmund_carey: Belief is where Christianity began. Theology and doctrine took time. Read John Henry Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine". As doctrine, even redemption took generations to become "solidly established" and "fully assimilated".

Zanjan: "Belief is where Christianity began"

Belief got swept away with the traditions of their forefathers. Christianity began with souls who trusted in God and were born again, quickened and imbued with the Holy Spirit of selfless love for God and fellow man. Agape.

Pure love was the magnet; when you love, you know what to do. Logos. In the heart of every righteous man, lives nothing but courage and the light of perfect understanding.

"The essence of love is for man to turn his heart to the Beloved One, and sever himself from all else but Him, and desire naught save that which is the desire of his Lord."
(Baha'u'llah)