[Serious] The Trinity

[no one]

The true trinity was Mary, Joseph, and some stable boy named Paulo.

[The Grand Nudger]

Virgin birth is another belief that came later and managed to survive to orthodoxy. Many divergent paths from different people in different places at different times (and all of their different needs which produced the religious belief to begin with). Nearly all of them constructed in isolation and therefore not resolved against each other but firmly held as an article of faith. This was the stage set and the work to be done in creating a universal, or catholic, church.

I remember catching a poll years ago that indicated three quarters of americans believe in the virgin birth, it has a larger share of the demo than trinitarian doctrine even though trinitarian doctrine is officially part of most of those christians' denominations and the virgin birth is not. Shelby Spong brilliantly described it as the entrance myth to the resurrections exit myth. Neither of these two beliefs, nor trinitarian beliefs, were representative of early christianity. All make demands on the resolution of doctrine to internal consistency.

If jesus was not the product of a virgin birth, who was his father? The virgin birth at least contends to be an explanation of how he could be both god and man. It's essential to incarnation theology, which had (very literally) beaten the shit out of exaltation theology - the stable middle point between jews who believed in a very human jesus as a prophet (a belief that persists to this day and made it's way into yet another abrahamic offshoot), and something that we could call christians who believed him to be the savior...even if they hadn't quite worked out all the details yet. Between whatever force or community or impulse created the synoptics, and whatever force or impulse or community created john.

[tackattack]

What do you make of ecclesiastic authorities concern that trinitarian belief has gone the way of the deluge and dodo, from the inside?

I'm not certain what authorities you're particularly referencing, but trinitarian belief is systemically arrived at, not exegetically found. This has the inherit flaw of being based on man's fallible understanding.

[The Grand Nudger]

Popes, bishops, preachers, and teachers. They've been sounding the horn over the decline in religiosity and adherence to foundational doctrines.... for some time - and demographic studies do seem to confirm their fears.

You mentioned that a trinitarian invocation was in one of your songs, for example - but is it in your congregations heart? It's the latter that concerns the institution, and...essentially...they worry that the songs might not be working as intended. I was wondering where you and yours were on the range, and how you viewed that from the inside as a christian. Is it becoming more or less doctrinal where you're at, and do you see whatever that is as a good or bad thing?

[Drich]

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

clearly i do not have this problem as i have reconciled the apparent paradox. nor is it my contention the rest of Christianity must understand God the way i do. so this leaves the church at rome who has the problems identified. to which one must ask what makes them the authority that their concerns and rules must be met when others are not.

---

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?

isn't that the going premise of all theist argument? if Christianity does not make sense with known science it is false? My argument is Christianity doesn't have to be a mystery it doesn't have to make no sense if you are willing to separate religious doctrine from what the bible says.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure what theists argument is explicitly premised that way, but it captured the form of your response pretty well, I think. Explaining why you believe that some doctrine is false is not an explanation for how that doctrine makes sense. You hold to a different doctrine, which you've rationalized in your own manner.

You agreed with the op suggestion, in effect, that trinitarian beliefs don't make sense, but proceeded further to explain that trinitarian beliefs were also false and yet another example of a slew of bad ideas that you trace to another cult. This is representative of how contemporary christianity is developing - particularly here in the us, and I'd be interested in the same things of your congregation that I was with Tack. Do you find yourself in a group of peers who also believe this, are are you largely a solo act in your community? Arguing for a reformation towards (what you believe to be) the original form of christian belief?

[tackattack]

Popes, bishops, preachers, and teachers.  They've been sounding the horn over the decline in religiosity and adherence to foundational doctrines.... for some time - and demographic studies do seem to confirm their fears.  

You mentioned that a trinitarian invocation was in one of your songs, for example - but is it in your congregations heart?  It's the latter that concerns the institution, and...essentially...they worry that the songs might not be working as intended.  I was wondering where you and yours were on the range, and how you viewed that from the inside as a christian.  Is it becoming more or less doctrinal where you're at, and do you see whatever that is as a good or bad thing?

Yes there have been doommongers, and conservatives constantly railing against the decline in general orthodoxy and precept. As a Christian, this is expected this based on Biblical principles and doctrines. The idea of a decline in religiosity, for me both publicly and personally, is something I would prefer. Religiosity, has at it's core, the concept that there is some earthly authority in charge of how and why we should worship. I believe those answers can be agreed upon communally, but predominantly should be individual based. 

Back to the trinitarian subject. Our congregation believes in it 100% from an acceptance of the creed. The two sides you were mentioning (the head and the heart) is another subject. I believe that congregationally the heart believes in the trinity. I also know that the heads of many individuals in the congregation can't really articulate that feeling well. As I see it from the inside, there has been an increase in apologetics, acceptance and learning to listen. That being said, as more people get their head able to articulate their heart that their belief and faith are stronger. I believe the doctrinal belief is becoming more understood intellectually and able to be communicated in my congregation and that is a good thing. I really couldn't give it a number if I had to say, but since I've been teaching I've seen an increase in whatever number that is.

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you say, then, that a person who can get neither their head nor their heart behind trinitarian belief could still be a christian in a meaningful sense - alongside that decline of religiosity and rejection of the authority of earthly doctrines and institutions? Is the divide between orthodox and heterodox christianity any more than a convention of categorization, from your pov?

[tackattack]

Yes. And correct GN

@OP- do you have any specific questions I can help with? Are you thinking of the trinity as a paganistic like triad?

[The Grand Nudger]

I wonder how much of peoples issues with the trinity boil down to the claims made by competing christian sects, myself. The idea that there's an issue because it doesn't make sense can't really float in light of the fact that the doctrine explicitly includes a claim that it cannot be made sense of by man.

We can't (cogently) say to ourselves "these guys must be wrong because that doesn't make sense" when they themselves are telling us that it doesn't make sense. Is it guilt by association, and who (or what kind of person) connects guilt, complicity, or falsehood, to things that seem pagan?