Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?

[Big Boy Johnson]

Not a christian nor saved, as one must affirm the Cross, and the resurrection

But does one have to walk in the resurrection? (Newness of life)

Or can they keep living after the flesh (sin) and still be saved?

All these people going around saying "I'm still a sinner" think they can live in sin and still be saved.

 

[GodsGrace]

Which is an opinion, not fact.

Lets try it this way:
All orthodox Christians are Christian, but not all Christians are orthodox.

All orthodox christians are christian.

Those that are not orthodox are not Christian.

No, it would be more like a Muslim that believes in Muhammad, but doesn't believe in marrying children.

What??

No.

IF you want to be Muslim,
you must believe the four pillars of Islam.
PRAYER
ALMSGIVING
FASTING
PILGRIMAGE

Also, the most important pillar of all:
The Shahadah
YOU MUST BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD AND THAT MUHAMMAD IS HIS MESSENGER.


If a person does NOT accept the pillars, he cannot be defined as Muslim.

The same is true of ANY religion.

In the Christian religion you MUST adhere to the tenets of that religion.
Which are:

JESUS IS GOD --- THUS THE TRINITY/GODHEAD
JESUS DIED AND RESURRECTED
SALVATION BY GOD'S GRACE
AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
JUDGEMENT

The definition of plural is not "three."

There are 2 Gods in the OT.
How would YOU explain that since you believe there is only one God? (and rightly so).

At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (John 14:12)

That's not a trinity. Neither is this:

I don't believe you mean John 14:12
This is why scripture should be POSTED
but, alas, people think others will do their work for them.

The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? (Mat 10:24-25)

My goodness.
And could you please EXEGETE the above.
No idea what you think it means.

Notice that in Matthew 10 Jesus is sending out the 12 and His instructions to them.

Until the doctor tells you your ulcer has always been there; that your body didn't create it.
It's an eternal ulcer!

Silly reply.

Not so simple anymore is it?

It's VERY simple.

Not good enough to be in your club?
I'm fine with that.

THE CLUB.

I didn't create a club.
There is a religion called CHRISTIAN.

If you do not believe Jesus is God..and thus the Trinity
you do not belong to that religion.

YOU don't get to decide what is Christian and what it is not. It has already been decided by those that
started it...including Jesus.

Christianity is a cohesive religion and it will remain so despite heretical ideas.

 

[GodsGrace]

True Christians go by what God says about this in His Word.

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are One.

Concerning the trinity... the Father, the Son, and the Spirit... are One!

Very good BB !

You're starting to understand !

Pretty hard to explain away something scripture clearly tells us which is... One is Three, and the Three are One.

Glad we got this all settled.
This thread can now be closed! View attachment 78824

What? Closed?
Now that you're beginning to understand what Christians believe ?!

 

[GodsGrace]

true Christianity holds to the trinity

Of course.
Some would like to start their own religion but keep the name CHRISTIAN on it.

The Christian religion is already established and requires no new ammendments.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes.
I would say you are an orthodox Christian.
And no I did not misunderstand your example.

So....
You believe that a person could:

NOT BELIEVE JESUS IS GOD
and
NOT BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION

and they can still be defined as Christian??

So, basically what you're saying is what I've said all along as being the problem Christianity is facing:

Some think Christianity could mean whatever they WANT it to mean.

Which would obliterate Christianity within about two generations.
That's how long it takes for big changes to come to fruition.

So then my question would be :
WHY do you want to change the Christian religion?

If you don't believe what it teaches - why don't you just join a different religion?

You should look into the Baha'i faith. You might really like it. Seriously.

 

[GodsGrace]

It's end where you never answered my post but tell here again and again that is Jesus Christ is the God.

How could that we can be God if Jesus Christ is God ?

We are of God because God created man in His image.
I have been telling you to find out what that means.
I'd tell you but it would be better if you found out for yourself.
You have the internet - use it.

Jesus being God HAS NOTHING TO DO with man being made in the image of God.
I don't understand why this is confusing to you.

Maybe I'm not understanding you and I apologize for that.
Maybe you could say what you mean but in a different way?

Also, you're asking how we could be God.
WE CANNOT be God.
This is because you're not willing to learn what it means to be created in the image of God.
PLEASE find out.

 

[Beebster]

Not a christian nor saved, as one must affirm the Cross, and the resurrection

Do you believe Jesus died.
Or do you think his body died and he was preaching in hades?

Did he die for everyone or just some?

 

[Wrangler]

All orthodox christians are christian.

Those that are not orthodox are not Christian.

All red apples are apples.

Those that are not red are not apples.

 

[Beebster]

True Christians go by what God says about this in His Word.

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are One.

Concerning the trinity... the Father, the Son, and the Spirit... are One!

Pretty hard to explain away something scripture clearly tells us which is... One is Three, and the Three are One.

Glad we got this all settled.
This thread can now be closed! View attachment 78824

Nice try Big Boy.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Pro 30:6)

 

[Wrangler]

Which is an opinion, not fact.

Exactly. She is stuck in Circular Reasoning.

Lets try it this way:
All orthodox Christians are Christian, but not all Christians are orthodox.

Correct. Just like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

 

[GodsGrace]

Greetings again GodsGrace,

The reason why I raised the subject of Catholic, is partly because of your earlier statement:

Do you believe only Catholics believe in the Trinity?

Even though you have moved away from some of the Catholic beliefs you still endorse them as "Christian" and as such you differ from my position where I would limit the use of the word "Christian" to the Bible teaching that the true Christianity are those that share the fellowship, teaching and practises of Jesus and the Apostles.

Yes. We've been through this.
Since you mention Catholics so much you're most probably a JW.
Never understood why they hate Catholics so much.
Maybe your organization teaches this?
Jesus taught that we are to love our neighbor -
Jesus taught that we should not be divided.
Paul too.


Jesus

Matthew 12:25
25 And knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and no city or house divided against itself will stand.

John 17:21
That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you,

Paul:

1 Corinthians 1:10
10I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Philippians 2:2
2Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.


See Trevor...
Russell began a really BIG divide...
while at the same time my JW friend tells me they do everything by the bible.
Doesn't seem like it.

Seems to me that those that want to be united stay with what Paul and Jesus taught and the other writers.

Seeing you like to quote from Daniel 7, have you ever considered what or who is the little horn of the fourth beast who persecutes the faithful for 1260 years. I suggest that this is the Papacy who persecuted many faithful, and the reason for some of this, is that these faithful did not accept the authority of the Catholic Church and some of its teaching, and some of these did not accept the Trinity.

Yes. Hatred for the CC.
But I'm not here to protect them.
Let's give you that some Pope persecuted people for not believing the Trinity.

Does that make it untrue?

Yes, your insistence and judgemental attitude reminds me of this period of time where the Church had power to persecute the faithful. I understand the 1260 years to be from Justinian to the French Revolution, and from Phocas to 1870 when the Papacy lost its Temporal Power.

Kind regards
Trevor

I'm not addressing the CC and I'm not changing this topic.
You could discuss the CC with a Catholic that might be on this Forum and willing
to discuss your hatred of that church with you.
Jesus did say to love your neighbor but you probably just hate the denomination and not the people in it....
At least this is what I hope.

JESUS, PAUL and ALL the writers wrote to show that Jesus is God.
The only way Jesus could be God and not just a mere man is through the Trinity.

I already have mentioned that God is plural in the OT.
We see this in the Burning Bush.
We see this in the destruction of Sodom and Gemmorah.

I like to learn.
I look into ideas.
I never blindly trust any MAN, but only God.

You should look into the plurality of God in the OT.
And I'm going to post this AGAIN.... (also for those reading along).

 

[Justified]

But according to the Lord He is ONE person.

Where does he say this?

There aren't 3 persons. That's like saying there are three Gods. View attachment 78832

No, it isn’t. The doctrine of the Trinity is defined using words that are different—person being distinct from God and being—to avoid such confusion. Words used of God or Jesus are sometimes used in a way that does not or cannot apply to humans.

That is, it doesn’t necessarily follow that because God is one being that he is also one person.

 

[Wrangler]

That is, it doesn’t necessarily follow that because God is one being that he is also one person.

Sure it necessarily follows as person is a synonym for being, including human being and supreme being.

 

[Grailhunter]

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are One.

@GodsGrace
Finally someone mentions this.....

The Comma Johanneum Addition scam. Evidence of how frustrated the 3 in 1 Trinity advocates were,,,,,that they tried to re-write the Bible.

The Comma Johanneum as it is referred to originated as a common literary explanation for the one God Trinity formula. The first discussion against the one God formula may have been around the 3rd century. Some mention a connection with some of the early Church Fathers, like Cyprian which debated the oneness concepts of the Trinity. It first appeared in written form during the 4th century in the Latin homily Liber Apologeticus, which was probably written by Priscillian of Avila. This theological formula was circulated from then on, but was not accepted, or at least was not quoted by most of the Early Church Fathers in which there was a continual disagreement on the construct of the Trinity.

At some point this short summary of the Trinity made its way into the margin notes of some of the manuscripts that were written after the 5th century. Unlike other examples of popular margin notes that made their way into the scriptures, the Comma Johanneum found its way into the verses of the Bible by way of another avenue. After the early 16th century, the Byzantines began to recopy and retranslate the available Greek texts of the New Testament.

At this point some of these copies became known as the “Textus Receptus.” ---Erasmus--- It was in some of these that the formula was added and then later included in some of the Bibles. Most notably the King James Version, which relied heavily on these texts. On the 2nd of June 1927, Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute. The updated " Nova Vulgata" edition of the Vulgate, published in 1979 as a result of the Second Vatican Council, does not include the Comma Johanneum. In the Catholic study Bible I have that was printed around 1960 it includes a combination of these two scriptures, with a side note that explains that it was a re-phrasing of the scriptures by the Holy See, as it was his prerogative. But as such are open to debate.

As it happened the Comma Johanneum Addition was much more than a re-translation, or an addition, but rather a replacement of the original scriptures with a theological statement. They kept the verse numbers in sequence so that it would not be as noticeable, but replaced the words.

The scriptures involved are 1st John 5:6-8. The original scriptures read as follows... (Quoting 6 through 8, so it can be read in context)

“6. This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8. And it is the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

This was replaced with what came to be called the Comma Johanneum Addition.

6: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7: For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8: And there are three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

As one can see there is no chance that this is simply a different translation, but rather a removal of the scriptures and an insertion of a known theological statement for an intended purpose. Of course and again, there is no question that the Trinity exists, just that the Bible does not support the commonly explained formula of THE 3 in 1 description of it. And this is the larger problem, if everybody changes the scriptures to what they believe, then we do not get an accurate reading of the Word of God, but instead a denominational sermon of beliefs and doctrines are free to re-write the scriptures.

The Comma Johanneum Addition is a good illustration of the frustration that some had with trying to promote their beliefs as biblical and to what extent they would go to, to promote their beliefs above and over the Bible. This is not a unique observation but rather the opinion of many scholars and most of the well known reference material explains the Trinity as more of a doctrine than a biblical teaching.

intentionally attempting to deceive Christianity by changing, altering, removal, or inserting is a serious sin and worthy of Hell. Just like those that took God the Father's name out of the Old Testament 6,800 times and replaced His name with the words God or Lord, making people think that the word God is a proper name. And made it easier for people to stuff the word God with 3 people, as if all their names were erased and now they are just called God.

Yahweh, God the Father, God Almighty, the Creator God, the one and only God of the Old Testament as so declared by Yahweh Himself saying, I am the only God and there is no one like me. He sits on a throne in Heaven.

Yahweh had a Son by impregnating Miriam....His only begotten Son....Yeshua....literally the Son of God. Yeshua is a full-fledged God and the Messiah and the Saviour of Mankind. But He said, the Father is greater than I and that Yahweh was His God. He sits on a throne in Heaven to the right of Yahweh.

The un-named God, the Holy Spirit is a full-fledged God that is a grand communicator, helper, guide to faith and understanding that has a strong communitive connection to humanity. The Holy Spirit sits on a throne in Heaven.

 

[GodsGrace]

All red apples are apples.

Those that are not red are not apples.

if we want to define apples as being red.....
then the above would be correct.

And this is theology
not philosophy.
You do conflate the two.

It's all in the DEFINITION
and the definition has already been established.
2 thousand years ago.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again GodsGrace,

Do you believe only Catholics believe in the Trinity?

No, it is also held by most prominent Protestant Churches.

Since you mention Catholics so much you're most probably a JW.
Never understood why they hate Catholics so much.
Maybe your organization teaches this?

No, I am not a JW and I use the Name Yahweh. JWs have many errors in their teaching. I believe that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is the Papacy and also most of the prominent Protestants of the Reformation also believed this.

You should look into the plurality of God in the OT.

Yes, I have considered this at length and have come to a different perspective and different to the conclusion expressed in the video.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[GodsGrace]

I do love this video.
Was Huff is a textual scholar.

Here is how he explains the Trinity:

 

[GodsGrace]

Greetings again GodsGrace,

No, it is also held by most prominent Protestant Churches.

No, I am not a JW and I use the Name Yahweh. JWs have many errors in their teaching. I believe that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is the Papacy and also most of the prominent Protestants of the Reformation also believed this.

Yes, I have considered this at length and have come to a different perspective and different to the conclusion expressed in the video.

Kind regards
Trevor

Since you've considered the plurality of God in the OT...
there are two videos that would be interesting to watch...
but I don't know if I could find them.

One is with David Wood and Alex O'Connor. (a debate of course).

The other is with two jews.
Let's try.

 

[GodsGrace]

@TrevorHL

Here's the one with David Wood.
It's long but I watched all of it.

 

[GodsGrace]

@TrevorHL

Found the other one with the two Jews!
Can't even believe it. (it must be God ! LOL)

Also long but so interesting.
Have also heard other Rabbis that acknowledge this plurality.