God was revealed in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, spotted by messengers, proclaimed with the peoples, trusted in the world/area, received up in the glory.
In the flesh but not the flesh.
Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
In the flesh but not the flesh.
Berean
Well-Known Member
- Feb 29, 2024
- 873
- 453
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
It never stopped "rearing its ugly head" and it will always be a Christian idea/concept.
Berean
Well-Known Member
- Feb 29, 2024
- 873
- 453
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
The creeds were written by men, not by God.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
As a matter of fact you are wrong.
Grailhunter
The Johnny Appleseed of Truth
Be good and do good
Worshiping somebody who is not God is not a Christian idea/concept.
Jesus is God, but He is not Father and there is only one God. Go figure - you will end up with "orthodoxy".
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 20,742
- 8,989
- 113
- 57
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
The whole reason trinitarians must resort to such rationalizations is precisely because there is not a trinity verse* in Scripture. Otherwise they'd just refer to it. We can rationalize what day Eve was created, which is different from simply quoting the verse that says Adam was created on Day 6.
Trinitarians take it many steps further. Despite what Scripture says - and doesn't say on the matter - they invent this threat or rejection criteria (@GodsGrace used the term "allowed." Allow is the language of power, not persuasion.) You're not even a Christian if you don't embrace this rationalization of what day Eve was created. In fact, you are not even saved if you don't embrace this rationalization of what day Eve was created. The hellfires await you if you don't embrace this rationalization of what day Eve was created. It begs the question of why they are so doctrinally invested in their manmade rationalization? (It's because there is not a trinity verse among other reasons)
Such a sentiment is not in Scripture. In fact, it goes against the sentiment in Scripture; 2 Corinthians 3:17 where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. This affirms what an old Pastor observed in a video when he finally came to reject the trinity; the trinity does not produce the fruit of the spirit. They really have no answer to the observation that everyone uses the phrase "I am" - it doesn't make them God and was never a claim of deity. (They merely move the goal post, others thought as they do. It reminds me other Mother's question. If others jumped off a bridge, would you?)
God himself did not use that term to indicate he is God. Rather he used a phrase the VOICE translation succinctly renders "eternal," as his unique and defining characteristic. The Hebrew term strictly translated is cumbersome, "was, am and am becoming." Jesus never applied this cumbersome expression to himself. Eternal is a great translation and certainly does not apply to Jesus, who we know was a man who was born and died - like any other man. Death indicates the precise opposite of being eternal.
It's almost as if trinitarians start with their conclusion and rationalize it at every turn. What would IDOLATRY look like again? Why would Christ followers teach what Jesus did not?
* To be clear, when I write that the trinity is not found anywhere in Scripture, I mean that neither the word nor the concept of the trinity is explicitly in the Bible. To avoid the inevitable Appeal to Strawman, there simply is no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever. If there were such a verse, it would be the most quoted verse in Scripture by those who claim one’s salvation depends on believing it. The concept of the trinity is so important that in 66 books, it is not mentioned once!
No, we do not have to. I am a Trinitarian and I also do not like that kind of "I am" reasoning.
I see no need to forcibly identify Jesus with the Hebrew YHWH. The New Testament proves that Jesus is God without that and explicitly.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 20,742
- 8,989
- 113
- 57
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
Nice to meet you. Rarely do I find a trinitarian who concedes any rationalization for their dogma.
Do you subscribe to the thesis of the OP, that only if a person embraces the trinity can they be allowed to call themselves Christian?
Explicit proof? It's important to point out that the claim that Jesus is God is not what is being discussed. Rather, it is one cannot be saved and cannot be allowed to even call themselves a Christian if they don't embrace the trinity. So, show us what explicit verse reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever?
Otherwise, it's absence shows its not really important as far as Scripture is concerned.
It depends on the definition of the word "Christian". And on what the label is supposed to tell others about the individual. I also find it quite confusing when somebody with the label Christian starts to talk that Jesus is not God etc.
For the safety of newcomers, who come to learn about Christianity, the label is dangerous if used by some sectarian. As I noticed here that Jehovah Witnesses do and hide their true background, even evading direct questions about it. New people could get trapped into some cult this way.
The red text, composed from the Nicene and Athanasian creeds (I guess), is of course not a direct/explicit quote from the Bible.
Last edited:
Marvelloustime
Well-Known Member
Marvelloustime
Well-Known Member
There has been a development in my mind about the supposed Aorist Middle. It is really an Active Voice. God was manifesting him in the flesh. He was justifying him in the spirit. Messengers were seeing him. He was preaching in the tribes (i.e. the masc form is nonforeign). He was trusting him in the world/nation. He was receiving up him in the glory.
I am going to do a study on the so-called Aorist Middle Voice. This has surprised me.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Failing and refusing the Commandment of God to worship Christ is anti-christ
@Berean @Wrangler @MonoBiblical
Check out Heiser on the Two Powers in Heaven as well. It's all OT/Hebrew language stuff. It's worth a watch if only to debunk it.
I am not one to believe that Philo didn't begin the two powers doctrine or that he was part of post-temple Judaism. I can already debunk it, but I will watch as much as needed.
@shepherdsword I notice he uses the debunked variant of Jude 5. He is extremely biased. Name also means reputation in Hebrew and Greek.
- Status
Similar threads
