And I find it humorous when it happens XD Its a funny type of innocent ignorance when people don’t know the what “catholic” really means and assumes the Roman Papacy.
1 Like
I try to help them understand.
1 Like
I’m more like: 
just learn church history lol
In your humble opinion.
I agree with you that it is humility to recognize that the Messiah, God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, is not something that we humans can fully understand.
I hope you are sincere in your post.
That’s not what you said, you said:
You are essentially saying “my niche theological position is right and anyone who doesn’t agree with me is naive and arrogant.” Some might say that is itself a rather arrogant positron to hold, no? Which you somewhat demonstrated by replying to me by saying, “I’m glad you recognise my humility”.
So I may have intended my previous post to be taken with a smidgen of irony… 
It is exactly what I said:
- it is humble to think we can’t fully understand Jesus
- it is arrogant to think we can fully understand Jesus
I am struggling to see why you are so slow to understand this. I suspect you have biases that are blinding you.
I give people the courtesy of assuming their posts are straightforward and honest. I don’t regret doing that, as any fault lies elsewhere
I would say that the doctrine of the Trinity defines Christianity. But the doctrine of the Trinity is simply that while Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, they are but one God. This is not in the Bible, but I do think it is the understanding of God most consistent with all of the Bible together. But the number three doesn’t come into it. God is one… or I would also say that God is infinite. But God is not three – not in the Bible and not in any rational way of thinking. We are talking about a necessary being. And there is nothing necessary about a number of three persons – NOTHING! The only way of justifying such a thing is to move into some sort of modalism heresy with these three persons somehow being functional roles, aspects, or something.
And as for the creeds… I would stick to those actually agreed to by an ecumenical council - the earlier the better. So the best remains the Nicean creed as it was agreed to in 325 AD. After that it just becomes narrower and narrower declarations by smaller and smaller portions of Christianity.
1 Like
How about this… we can give these creeds a Trinitarian rating.
Apostles creed : 33% Trinitarian.
Nicean creed 325 AD 67% Trinitarian.
Athanasian creed 125% Trinitarian.
Only the Nicean creed was actually approved by an ecumenical council.
Oh and the Bible? I would give that a 79-87% Trinitarian rating.
How do I calculate these?
- 25% mentions all three.
- 8% Says the Father is God.
- 9% Says Jesus is God.
- 8% Says the Holy Spirit is God.
- 25% Says these are distinct persons.
- 25% Says these are only one God.
- 25% Uses the word Trinity or Triune.
In the case of the Bible, I give #5 a 12% since there are indications that these are distinct persons but it doesn’t actually say the words. And I think #4 would be disputed so we have the range over the 8 points on this one. Some would say that #3 is disputed but I think there are a number of verses which nails that one down pretty good.
1 Like
I’m sure all the people who love numbers will appreciate your math. 
2 Likes
I am Trinitarian. I believe the Bible is Trinitarian as well. Or maybe…trinitarian. I’m not sure that “orthodox western trinitarian formulae” would necessarily be what Paul intended (moreso, probably, as a factor of differences between eastern and western thought–scripture is primarily Jewish, despite Greek influence and the writers (I don’t believe) found it necessary to put things in neat tidy boxes the way we expect).
I have a problem with much of “our” historical rejections of huge swaths of Christians because of their lack of agreement on minutiae which huge swaths of Christians don’t even understand or even recognize today. Especially when they started killing one another over some of these minutiae. Seems like a whole lot of camel swallowing.
1 Like
89% of statistics are made up
But 112% of those are actually correct.
1 Like
I would say that Christianity is the religion of following Jesus, and the doctrine of the Trinity tries to define God, not Christianity.
1 Like
No… might need another term for that like Jesus religions, because this covers a number of religions including Islam, Hari Krisha, and Bahai. And this is why most don’t include LDS, Jehovah Witness, and Moonies in Christianity either. Because it is hard to include these while excluding Islam, Hari Krishna, and Bahai. But remember this is JUST an issue of definitions for human words not any claim about salvation or good people like we can claim some ownership of God and heaven for Christianity alone.
here is an interesting comparison oversimplified a bit in some areas but interesting
1 Like
I am not sure of the intention of this statement. On some reflection my guess is that you are questioning the accuracy of the stance of the church that Jesus is one Person with two natures, He is both God and Man as opposed the view of Nestorius that Jesus was two persons, one human and the other Divine who shared as human body.
I do not think that one has to know the full nature or to understand Jesus fully to say that his understanding of Jesus is not correct. Based on the Bible the Church says that Jesus Christ is perfectly God and perfectly human. Neither God nor human beings are a combination of two persons.
I do not think that I understand the full nature of Jesus Christ, but then I do not think that I can understand the full nature of anything or anyone. However the problem with such statements is that some people use them to deny the validity of the theological project, which is to be4st understand God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit so we humans can be in harmony with God. In some sense that is not a big problem, because Gods is Love and the only way to be in harmony with God is to Love God, love3 others, and to love ourselves. That is what we need to do to understand God.
1 Like
On your first paragraph, your guess is off the mark. Instead, I question the wisdom of people who think they can define Jesus or God.
On your second paragraph, I agree we cannot fully understand the Lord.
On the third paragraph, I think we should be less concerned with defining God and more interested in following Him.