If your criteria for evidence for the trinity is a “mention of a trinity” in the Bible, then I’m sure you’d agree it’s a waste of time for anyone to debate this topic with you.
If you look at @Christy initial post, this was her point. In all of my posts I have shown that biblical evidence is against the trinity, thus making it man made. Therefore, not believing in the trinity should not put me and others outside of the core Christian message, that Jesus died for our sin and only through A belief in Him can we achieve eternal life. We need to love God, our neighbors and our enemies as ourself.
I hope I have shown that the trinity gets in the way of this core goal by taking to focus off of Jesus.
Best wishes, Shawn
I can appreciate the desire to keep the focus on Jesus. Christians are all capable of letting otherwise valuable doctrinal discussions take center stage, so thank you for that clarification.
We can all agree that the word “trinity” is not in the Bible, but if your position is that “the word ‘trinity’ is man made” is equal to “biblical evidence is against the trinity,” then I’d have to agree to disagree, as one does not follow from the other.
It takes more than being “an interpretation of the Bible” to qualify as Christianity. Christianity is a confessional religion. It has established doctrines and established boundaries.
It’s great that you embrace the “core Christian message.” But when you add a bunch of other stuff about the seven eternal beings that are the pagan gods, and Jesus is one of them, and pre-existent souls waiting to be born, and all the other extra-biblical stuff you believe, and you re-interpret central Christian doctrines to mean something other than what the Christian Church has always held based on the mystic experiences of some 20th century medium, you don’t have any room to criticize “man-made” doctrines.
The Christianity that you are saying is established wasn’t done so until the 4th century AD. What I present here has no single source, just those that were and are rejected by established religions. Yes, some of the sources are “mystical” as you may call, but Origen of Alexandria was the most prolific biblical scholar who specifically showed that Jesus is independent of God and denied the trinity. He and his followers were destroyed by the roman empire, the same power that gave us the inquisition.
Best Wishes, Shawn
I am very familiar with Church history and very comfortable with the process that was used to canonize the Bible and formalize the creeds.
Origen was a great scholar of the early church. His belief on the preexistence of souls was deemed unorthodox. And he never taught half the other the nutty stuff you believe. It is news to me that Origen “denied” the Trinity. He is considered a pioneer of Trinitarian theology, being the first to speak of three hypostases in one God and the first to use the term homoousios to speak of the relation between the Father and the Son, which was later incorporated in the Nicene creed.
The stuff about spirit beings who existed since the creation of the world and were imprisoned in material bodies because of the cooling of their love, or whatever, is not found in his extant writings and certainly was not considered Christian doctrine by those who came after him. All the church fathers were fallible people and no one of them is the measuring stick for truth.
Yes, little of Origen’s work survived his anathema, so there is little supporting material remaining for the Apocatastasis. But Jesus did say that His Word would never die, and this is what you label as coming from mystic sources. You would do the same if an OT Prophet appeared today and said they were speaking the world of God. But this is what Jesus promised! It is our responsibly to see if they come from God. (1 John 4) Why else would this have been written?
Best Wishes, Shawn
I believe in prophetic gifts. But when God speaks through people today, the message is tested by the Church against what has already been revealed and established. I don’t believe that the Bible promises new revelation that will overturn the teaching of the apostles. Quite the contrary actually. We are instructed to reject false teachers who come in the name of God with some other message.
Let me add that there is nothing in this tradition to say that God cannot speak to us with a personal message that adds to what is in the Bible. It is only that no authority has been given by God for us to preach these things to the world as something everyone must believe and follow – not in Christianity. Nor is this to say we cannot teach things upon a different authority such as objective evidence of science. In Christianity, the Bible is the only authority given into our hands for Christian belief and thus this is our standard and measure of what is acceptable for teaching Christianity to others.
Of course in a free society you are free to preach whatever religion you want, provided it meets some minimal standards of doing no measurable harm to others or in any other way violates the same liberties of others. But this includes the freedom to call out others for deception when they seek to subvert the religion of others by teaching their own beliefs under that name.
This is in conflict to what @Christy says above, which I totally agree with. It is not the church’s interpretation which Christy refers to because the Bible tells us how often the priests have corrupted the Word. The only reason for modern prophets is therefore to correct the false interpretations of the Words of Jesus made by men.
The portion you quoted
Was to underline Christy’s words…
Though to be sure, there is technically a dispute between Catholicism and Protestantism. The former giving authority to the church and the latter to the Bible alone. I have also made it clear elsewhere that I do not think the Bible is sufficient for the definition of “Christianity” but for that there is also the decision of the ecumenical council of Nicea 325 AD.
As for “corrections” to the interpretation of the Bible by modern day “prophets” like you have in the LDS and JW, that is what puts them outside of Christianity. If these were simply how they chose to understand the Bible and the Nicean creed instead of as a correction to them then I don’t think there would be any separation. This is not to say they would not be criticized as the denominations of Christianity do criticize each other.
But to be Christian, the Bible has to be accepted as the word of God requiring no corrections whether you call them “correct interpretations” or additional revelations and scriptures. In Christianity (defined by the early ecumenical councils), the only thing with authority for the teaching of Christian beliefs is the text of the Bible alone.
So it seems that this has all been a charade. You don’t really care what the Bible says, just what your mythology claims.
Roger, this comment came after the 14 verses that I posted that show Jesus is not God and was given no biblical proof of the trinity. Also, 7 and 12 are the perfect numbers, not three. Three is a pagan number. That is where the comment came from.
Best wishes, Shawn
I teach math at a Christian school, and I was never warned about this! I may have to revise my curriculum now. What about ten? I’ve heard it said that the metric system is from Satan; but on the other hand … there are the ten commandments. There should be an indexable handbook of all this for future reference.
More seriously, though, I’m curious what the more orthodox-minded readers here think of Richard Rohr’s view of the “Cosmic Christ” as he describes in this 30-minute youtube interview. Science (and the age of universe question) come up tangentially, which is frosting on the cake; but the main reason this connects in here for me is Rohr’s insistence that there is nothing that is not under Christ’s Lordship. “Everything belongs”, so to speak. Leaving theodicy issues around that to the side, it seems to me to be a solid answer to the nonsense of thinking that some numbers are special, others pagan, or that any kind of group is some how excluded from this universal reach.
But what do all of you think? Does Rohr miss the mark on how you view Christ or “Trinity”?
10 is the number of horns on the great dragon, the 10 fallen Elders and the 10 ribs we have not connected with the sternum (Jesus).
I knew it! And Dewey was a godless man too from what I hear - this explains his use of the decimal system. It’s all beginning to make sense.
If you do not understand the context then the answer would be no. But I think the truth is that this and the Catholic church in general is a great example of the freedom of personal diversity of thought within a fixed authoritative theological framework. This in particular is part of the more mystical traditions in Catholicism and the Franciscans in particular. There are a couple of parts which sound quite heretical…
- The idea of Christ incarnate in the cosmos from the big bang sounds an awful lot like a kind of Christianized pantheism. Though this isn’t the only line of thought in Christianity which goes in this direction. There is also the idea from scripture that God sustains our existence which puts us in mind of everything being a dream in the mind of a dreamer God. Perhaps we would need to ask Rohr directly to be sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a way of conforming what he says to orthodox doctrine and thus distinguishing what he means from pantheism which has some severe difficulties when it comes to theodicy.
- When Rohr said Jesus became the Christ, which sounds an awful lot like the adoptionism of the Moonies. But we must remember this is spoken rather than written and so that may not have been meant quite like that… not that Jesus changed at some point of His life to become God but that in being born the babe became that same Christ that Rohr sees incarnate in the cosmos.
On the whole there is much in what Rohr says which is very attractive to me, especially this idea of the universe being our first revelation from God. Though there is a couple of scientific inaccuracies such as a universe which is 14.5 billion years old rather than 13.8 billion – but this may simply be out of date information on his part. And there is the claim that the speed of light is the only physical constant which certainly isn’t correct. But perhaps you can say this just proves that science has issues with an orthodoxy of own too.
I’m not sure about that. Christ is a Messianic term. Jesus, God incarnate, had to step into and fulfill the role of Messiah that he was born to fulfill. Peter says God made Jesus Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36) The anointing of Jesus as the Messiah was an event in history tied to Jewish prophesy and history, not an ontological reality related to his divinity.
It doesn’t sound like a role or messianic when Rohr talks of Christ incarnate in the universe from the big bang. And even as a role, it still sounds funny to say that Jesus becomes the messiah, doesn’t it? Especially since Rohr contrasts Jesus as historical human rather than the always existing person of God.