[Serious] The Trinity

[The Grand Nudger]

Because creedal authority and anti-trinitarianism are combined in evangelical christianity as part of it's thematic grievance with the church of rome.

[Drich]

Because creedal authority and anti-trinitarianism are combined in evangelical christianity as part of it's thematic grievance with the church of rome.

what makes the church at Rome the ultimate authority? because they are older? because they say so? what puts the church at Rome in charge? the claim peter, but it is not the teaching of peter they center around (Christians don't have to first convert to Judaism and get circumcised then convert again to Christianity) those are Paul's teachings as per the book of romans which the only out reach to Rome/Italy (who would become the Vatican) they had from the original Apostles. until Rome had them executed. even then they basterized paul's teaching by leaving cannon open. which is how we get priest who can not marry when paul says those who restrict marriage are not of God. purgatory and paying the church for 'indulgences' to pay your way out of purgatory, when paul teaches absent from the body is to be present with the lord. if anything the evangelical movement is a push back in worship to how the bible teaches to worship God without all the catholic add ons. which is why they have an illogical paradox and we have title rather than one deity's name.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have no interest in any dispute over what church, if any, has any authority or the right set of doctrines.

I was pointing out that your explanation for how trinitarianism made sense, was that trinitarianism was wrong. That this was an anti-trinitarian belief ..and wondering whether you were aware.

[Drich]

not all churches worship via creed. the whole nondenominational movement do not surrender their minds nor hearts to a traditional creed. not to say they can not have one, they simply do not honor tradition for the sake of tradition. for instance they may take and accept 90% of the Nicene creed but leave out the bits the surrenders mind and thought to bind interpretation that we now know is wrong.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Because creedal authority and anti-trinitarianism are combined in evangelical christianity as part of it's thematic grievance with the church of rome.

what makes the church at Rome the ultimate authority? because they are older? because they say so? what puts the church at Rome in charge? the claim peter, but it is not the teaching of peter they center around (Christians don't have to first convert to Judaism and get circumcised then convert again to Christianity) those are Paul's teachings as per the book of romans which the only out reach to Rome/Italy (who would become the Vatican) they had from the original Apostles. until Rome had them executed. even then they basterized paul's teaching by leaving cannon open. which is how we get priest who can not marry when paul says those who restrict marriage are not of God. purgatory and paying the church for 'indulgences' to pay your way out of purgatory, when paul teaches absent from the body is to be present with the lord. if anything the evangelical movement is a push back in worship to how the bible teaches to worship God without all the catholic add ons. which is why they have an illogical paradox and we have title rather than one deity's name.

He didn’t say the Church Of Rome was the ultimate authority. He said evangelicals have a problem with the Church of Rome. Which you just demonstrated.

What do you gain by arguing against a point you agree with?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

not all churches worship via creed. the whole nondenominational movement do not surrender their minds nor hearts to a traditional creed. not to say they can not have one, they simply do not honor tradition for the sake of tradition. for instance they may take and accept 90% of the Nicene creed but leave out the bits the surrenders mind and thought to bind interpretation that we now know is wrong.

Of course.  Cafeteria christianity is part of the rise in functional non-trinitarianism in contemporary evangelical beliefs.  In this case, in your case, it's history repeating itself - but the position of orthodoxy is no longer as capable of enforcing it's own vision on you as it was in the past.

A christianity unburdened by doctrine and creed may end up being the predominant form in two hundred or two thousand years as a matter of orthodoxy rather than functionality - and just imagine the question of this thread repeated then.

---

-and I suppose it's worth pointing out that your own position is not free of creedal authority but premised on it. You'd be a representative of some halfway point between orthodoxy and that future christianity. Beyond an illogical compromise or self referentially false doctrine, beyond any need to entertain them, even. Where no christian truth is premised on the factual truth of any specific article, item, or invocation of the faith.

[Drich]

I have no interest in any dispute over what church, if any, has any authority or the right set of doctrines.

I was pointing out that your explanation for how trinitarianism made sense, was that trinitarianism was wrong.  That this was an anti-trinitarian belief  ..and wondering whether you were aware.

again right or wrong makes no difference as trinitiarism as you represent it in a doctrinal form is not once presented in the bible. meaning the doctrine of trinitarism is not taught scripturally. it is a doctrine of the church and as such is not subject to or protected under the umbrella of infallibility biblical doctrine is..

So again, so what if my explanation does not coincide with the religious doctrine of trinitarism? these are church/religious appologetics and not religious/god breathed scripture. which is why i might suggest the premise is based on an illogical paradox some 3 century priest tried to figure out based on the info he had.

[The Grand Nudger]

The so what, is that your explanation of how trinitarianism made sense, was that trinitarianism is false. Creedal authority and anti-trinitarian beliefs in a thematic grievance with the church of rome.

How do planes fly? They don't. Who made planes the boss anyway?

[GrandizerII]

Those are all reasons that a much later proto-orthodoxy would refer to when they arrived at trinitarian beliefs - but they're not representative of proto-christian belief as we understand it, and we understand it largely from the works of the proto-orthodox against the various heresies rife in the proto-christian community.

Even imagining jesus to be "divine in some sense" is not trinitarian belief.  We assume so because of our place in history and familiarity with them - but even a cursory glance would disabuse us of this notion.  There were many ideas of how jesus was divine in some way that the proto orthodoxy wfound cause to declare as heresy.

John is a particularly bad example as it's notable for it's fundamental difference from the rest of the gospels.  The shape of a later proto orthodoxy being the main reason for it's inclusion.  Had another proto-christian sect come out on top in the fight for orthodoxy, john would be apocryphal - as so many other proto (and now contemporary) christian claims to jesus divinity are.  I'll let iraneus explain, around 170ad.

The heretics boast that they have many more gospels than there really are. But really they don't have any gospels that aren't full of blasphemy. There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic. These, besides, are written by Jesus' true followers.

So, that's what we're dealing with.  As mentioned in the beginning - it's not a logical puzzle to be solved and resolved to sense..and it's maintained by the doctrine itself to be impossible for man to do so at any rate.  I'll repeat and restress this.  All of my musings about the history of the idea and the institution which leveraged it are irrelevant if the sense that we're looking for is a rational sense in the doctrine.  It makes sense in the context of a social movement - but it is maintained by the doctrine itself to be true that there is no way for man to rationally arrive at this mystery of the faith.

It doesn't and literally can't make sense™ to us, but it is true, and that's yet another demonstration of god's mighty power.  A useful rhetorical device, but it has the effect of reducing any attempt to rationalize the concept to a contrary assertion with respect to items declared true by faith.  If man could rationally arrive at the doctrine, then the doctrine would be false, you see?  It's not non-sense so much as it's explicitly (and intentionally) anti-sense.  Today, we hear something like this and come off thinking that the impossible is probably not accurate (which might explain the non trinitarian context of contemporary christian belief) - but back in the day, doing the impossible was a demonstration that something (in this case a god) could evade what we think of as the rules of the universe.   A compelling assertion of power and authority.

If you ask a historian, an anthropologist, or a sociologist, they'll explain that christian orthodoxy selected those beliefs it held from the smorgasboard available for their utility to the institution or it's people.  Apologists - because it's twue, it's twue, it's twue - for reasons exactly as obvious as Iraneus' reasons above.

You write so many things that I don't even contest instead of focusing on the stuff that we do disagree with. The fact is you made one wrong statement about Jesus not being a god in the first two centuries of Christianity, and the evidence is there to show that the statement is wrong.

If you want to ignore John because it's not representative of Christian thinking at the time or whatever, you still have Paul anyway. It's wrong to dismiss John as evidence, though.

Here's the next video lecture to back this up:





It's ok to say you made a false statement, but you stand by your overall point or whatever.

As for how the Trinity doctrine exactly came about, I'll get to that later.

[The Grand Nudger]

Except that I made no false statement, and however hard it may be for you to follow my lead, I don't lie about this christian bullshit and how it came to be.

So there's always that......

Nothing that I said is false, misleading, or inaccurate, and it's insulting to field doomed complaints to that end. We can disagree, somehow™, but for fucks sake... retract the flaming garbage bullshit about my lying about this or that. It's fucking insulting, Grand.

Jesus...was not a god....for at least two centuries of christian belief. Fact. Jesus may be a god today, even in christian belief......but jesus was not a god then. He's become a god since, and the one does not affect the other - things are what they were.

: shrugs :

Paul as "evidence", jesus fucking christ................? Evidence of what specifically? What romanized christian people believed, maybe, lol?

It drives me nuts to watch former ( or current) christians try to make sense of christian sense. Had to get that out. People can watch all the lectures that you might post and they wont walk away thinking that I was talking out of my ass, you understand? Ultimately, this doesn't matter as to whether or not christian dogma is true. Maybe god waited a bit. It's true for reasons not elaborated in it's traditional and orthodixic understanding. Fair enough.

You can post and post and post things like the above, but they can only buttress the thing's I've been explaining.

---

+I wont let it go, and you can honestly go fuck yourself for calling me a liar...you liar. I don't vouch for the honesty of christians who have proclaimed this or that, but I do vouch for the honesty of the fact that christianity has proclaimed this and that, and when. If you persist in this idea, it will never be anything other than embarrsing for you, and patently untrue. Heaven forfend, but the doctrine of contemporary christian didn't rise from the sea or anthything else like venus fully formed.

Again, go fuck yourself.