Do you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I believe in the Trinity because it is in the Bible. Genesis 1. 1 John 5:7. 2 Timothy 3:16. I could go on.

There aren't three hypostases in those verses... or any others.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to admit the inference, deduction, and compilation of terms for the classic Trinity as an implicit formulaic rather than an explicit declaration of scripture?

Arians, Sabellians, Unitarians, Binitarians, and all the rest have to admit the same thing.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So the Bible is not reliable? No need for you to answer. I know your stance on anything that is part of orthodox Christianity. I'm not interested in Judaism or Judaizers like westcott and hort or their jewish masters.

Wouldn't you say the consideration of the Comma Johanneum as potentially spurious is appropriate lower textual criticism? It only appears in three codices and in (scribal) marginal notes of four others.

By the way, Cherubram, I'm not fooled by your lies. Tertullian referenced 1 John 5:7 as early as 200 AD.

Tertullian was also a Subordinationist (Semi-Arian), and fell into Montanism and was considered by many as anathema.

 

[oatmeal]

Given that God is not a liar and has clearly laid out the fact of the Triune Godhead, and that it is God that is doing the saving of His children, it is impossible for there to be a person so regenerated by God that denies the Trinity. This would in effect be a house divided.

All Christians are Trinitarians.
All non-Trinitarians are not Christians.

AMR

Chapter and verse?

 

[Daniel1611]

Wouldn't you say the consideration of the Comma Johanneum as potentially spurious is appropriate lower textual criticism? It only appears in three codices and in (scribal) marginal notes of four others.



Tertullian was also a Subordinationist (Semi-Arian), and fell into Montanism and was considered by many as anathema.

There are still references to the "three are one" as early as the second century. Tertullian isn't the only one. If there are references to it, it is not a new doctrine like cherubram implies that it is.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

There are still references to the "three are one" as early as the second century. Tertullian isn't the only one. If there are references to it, it is not a new doctrine like cherubram implies that it is.

The earliest and most common "three are one" reference would be "God, His Word, and His Wisdom" per Hippolytus and several others.

The real question is... Three "what"? And so few professing Trinitarians have ANY idea of the minutiae of their own purported doctrine, it's no wonder so many are functional Tritheists and Modalists.

No, it's not a new doctrine. But the Comma Johanneum is highly in question as spurious. And it's not really necessary as a proof-text.

I wouldn't want to be approaching non-Trinitarians with certain such proof-texts as a foundation. (And Genesis 1:26 is no better, really.)

 

[oatmeal]

By the way, Cherubram, I'm not fooled by your lies. Tertullian referenced 1 John 5:7 as early as 200 AD.

According to EW Bullinger, in his Companion Bible, in which he supports the trinity, I John 5:7-8 should read


" For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

He states that the words " in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, " do not appear in any Greek text before the sixteenth century. "they were first scene in the margins of some Latin copies.

The ASV reads, "And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one."

 

[oatmeal]

Anyone else care to answer the question? Obviously meshak is theatened by the question for some reason

That would be like me asking you how many persons do you count in Psalm 18:2?

The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

The Lord is

my rock,

and my fortress,

and my deliverer;

my God,

my strength in whom I will trust;

my buckler,

and the horn of my salvation,

and my high tower.

How many do you count? Eight? Nine?

three?

 

[Zeke]

This really is the silliest kind of statement ever.

The Trinity doctrine is extensively formulated, and every detail can be understood from that standpoint whether one affirms or denies the doctrine.

Most don't bother to even know the depths and details of a knowable doctrine formulated by men that can be understood; instead making supercilious over-simplified comments like those from allegedly profound Baptist icons.

When a professing Trinitarian can cogently discuss fontal plenitude/innascibility, paternity/filiation, and spiration/procession with some stewardship of history and applied exegesis for an apologetic, I'll take them seriously enough to argue minutiae of Theology Proper.

This simple pronounced bare assertion of a simpleton preacher is fallacious, and it fosters and condones laziness, lethargy, ignorance, and indoctrination.

I guess all the Trinitarian theologians lost their mind in explaining the Trinity. Denying the doctrinal formulaic of men is not the criteria for "losing one's soul".

(This is not personal about you, just the inane quote.)

The allegorical twins through scripture (wrongly thought to be historic siblings in two separated bodies) being reconciled into one harmonious unit by the Divine Conscience is the point being taught by the lives of those two opposite natures explained by dramatized and symbolic teachings. Galatians 4:26 isn't about a birth of the earthly first born of the flesh Galatians 4:24, which hosts the Divine Seed/Pearl/buried treasure etc... as in ONE that falls from above and dies/sleeps in the field/flesh/whale until the Divine rain awakens it from its intellectually bound mind, stuck in theologies quicksand of literal interpretations chasing historic phantoms.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The allegorical twins through scripture (wrongly thought to be historic siblings in two separated bodies) being reconciled into one harmonious unit by the Divine Conscience is the point being taught by the lives of those two opposite natures explained in those dramatized and symbolic teachings. Galatians 4:26 isn't about a birth of the earthly first born of the flesh Galatians 4:24, which hosts the Divine Seed/Pearl/buried treasure etc... as in ONE that falls from above and dies/sleeps in the field/flesh/whale until the Divine rain awakens it from its intellectually bound mind, stuck in theologies quicksand of literal interpretations chasing historic phantoms.

Wow. You're still smokin' that schtuff? Your brain is gonna rot from that.:jump:

Esoteric mumbo jumbo...

 

[daqq]

The allegorical twins through scripture (wrongly thought to be historic siblings in two separated bodies) being reconciled into one harmonious unit by the Divine Conscience is the point being taught by the lives of those two opposite natures explained by dramatized and symbolic teachings. Galatians 4:26 isn't about a birth of the earthly first born of the flesh Galatians 4:24, which hosts the Divine Seed/Pearl/buried treasure etc... as in ONE that falls from above and dies/sleeps in the field/flesh/whale until the Divine rain awakens it from its intellectually bound mind, stuck in theologies quicksand of literal interpretations chasing historic phantoms.

Hmmm, not sure I would agree with "harmonious" because the one is a son of perdition, (the old man nature or "Esau man", if you will) which is a vessel fitted for destruction and in the end goes into the fire. The other, a vessel fitted for honor to the glory of the Father, is tried in the process and instead brought through the fire, (tried in the fire like the precious metals as described in various passages).

 

[Dan Emanuel]

You say the same thing all trinity believers say. God is trinity because my pastor says so!

But the truth is, God is one because the bible says so.

My pastor is actually in the Bible. Peter.


Daniel

 

[Dan Emanuel]

You as a Jew are not required to believe in the New Testament....

What? Can you back that up with Scripture? Or anything?


Daniel

 

[Dan Emanuel]

...Genesis 1:26 is no better....

What do you think about Genesis 3:22 KJV? When the LORD God speak's, He speak's His Word, correct?


Daniel

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What do you think about Genesis 3:22 KJV? When the LORD God speak's, He speak's His Word, correct?


Daniel

I think we'd have to have an in-depth discussion of the lexicographical definitions of the Hebrew and Greek terms.

Logos (Word) is much more than expression.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

My pastor is actually in the Bible. Peter.


Daniel

Really? Then you better get him out of there before he suffocates. He may already have been crushed to death in there.

:jump:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma
...Genesis 1:26 is no better....

This should help.

Epistle of Barnabas capter 6


11 Since then he made us new by the remission of sins he made us another type, that we should have the soul of children, as though he were creating us afresh.

12 For it is concerning us that the scripture says that he says to the Son, "Let us make man after our image and likeness, and let them rule the beasts of the earth, and the birds of heaven, and the fishes of the sea." And the Lord said, when he saw our fair creation, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth"; these things were spoken to the Son.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Hmmm, not sure I would agree with "harmonious" because the one is a son of perdition, (the old man nature or "Esau man", if you will) which is a vessel fitted for destruction and in the end goes into the fire. The other, a vessel fitted for honor to the glory of the Father, is tried in the process and instead brought through the fire, (tried in the fire like the precious metals as described in various passages).

:thumb:

 

[Dan Emanuel]

I think we'd have to have an in-depth discussion of the lexicographical definitions of the Hebrew and Greek terms.

Logos (Word) is much more than expression.

Is the Word of God present in Genesis 1:26 KJV and in Genesis 3:22 KJV?


Daniel

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Really? Then you better get him out of there before he suffocates. He may already have been crushed to death in there.

:jump:

His upside-down crucifixion is not explicitly depicted in Scripture (John 21:18 KJV), but his cross is the upside-down cross, the Cross of St. Peter, and thats why, because he requested to be crucified upside-down, because he wasn't worthy enough to even die in the same manner as Jesus.

That tradition is as reliable as the Scripture.


Daniel

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Is the Word of God present in Genesis 1:26 KJV and in Genesis 3:22 KJV?


Daniel

The Logos of God is eternal.

What do you mean by "present"? I don't much care for diluted English terms translating Hebrew and Greek terms. Too much ambiguity.

What are you attempting to present as Theology Proper?