Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

You may be. But that does not make you a Protestant or a Christian.

Does your definition of a Protestant and/or a Christian include an individual who possibly attends a Church once a week or less often, or if CofE attends twice a year at Easter and Xmas only, and almost indifferently listens to a paid clergyman and rarely reads the Bible on a personal basis.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[HealthyShape]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

Does your definition of a Protestant and/or a Christian include an individual who possibly attends a Church once a week or less often, or if CofE attends twice a year at Easter and Xmas only, and almost indifferently listens to a paid clergyman and rarely reads the Bible on a personal basis.

Kind regards
Trevor

Christian is somebody who sincerely believes in the basic doctrines of Christianity and who has the Holy Spirit.

Protestant is somebody who is either Lutheran, Calvinist or Reformed (of other various European reformation traditions).

The definitions as such do not require a church service attendance or reading the Bible. And neither do the attendance or reading the Bible make you a Christian or a protestant.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

Christian is somebody who sincerely believes in the basic doctrines of Christianity and who has the Holy Spirit. ... The definitions as such do not require ... reading the Bible.

My assessment of a true Christian is different to your assessment as basically I question your definition of "the basic doctrines of Christianity", I question present possession of "the Holy Spirit" and what range of ideas do you suggest to replace "reading the Bible" or hearing the Word of God?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[HealthyShape]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

Posts are not emails, you do not to greet people several times a day during a discussion. It looks out of place.

My assessment of a true Christian is different to your assessment as basically I question your definition of "the basic doctrines of Christianity", I question present possession of "the Holy Spirit" and what range of ideas do you suggest to replace "reading the Bible" or hearing the Word of God?

Bible is a tool created by the Church to preserve some of the apostolic writings. Private reading of the Bible does not replace the Holy Spirit or the ecumenical teachings of the Church.

As I already said, even atheists can read the Bible. It does not make them Christians, if they do not believe in Christian doctrines.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

Posts are not emails, you do not to greet people several times a day during a discussion. It looks out of place.

That's fine. It is my usual method. It becomes necessary sometimes when there are numerous participants in a thread.

Bible is a tool created by the Church to preserve some of the apostolic writings.

The Bible is the most readily accessible blessing so that we can access ALLof the Word of God as recorded in the OT and NT. We are blessed in this Age that we do not have to visit a local church to read a copy.

Private reading of the Bible does not replace the Holy Spirit

I do not agree that we "have" the Holy Spirit in the sense that you seem to be suggesting. Please compare Munzter and Luther..

the ecumenical teachings of the Church.

I consider that "the Church" is Apostate.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[HealthyShape]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

That's fine. It is my usual method. It becomes necessary sometimes when there are numerous participants in a thread.

The Bible is the most readily accessible blessing so that we can access ALLof the Word of God as recorded in the OT and NT. We are blessed in this Age that we do not have to visit a local church to read a copy.

I do not agree that we "have" the Holy Spirit in the sense that you seem to be suggesting. Please compare Munzter and Luther..

I consider that "the Church" is Apostate.

Kind regards
Trevor

I do not know where do you want to lead this conversation. You are not a Christian according to the rules of this Christian board and according to the ecumenical Christian creeds, because you do not accept even the Trinity.

So, I know you do not agree with me. For you, your private understanding of the Bible is your idol, above all other Christians, above the Church, above the apostolic creeds etc. And? What do you expect me to do with it?

The Church gave you the Bible, you took the Bible and threw away the Church.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

according to the ecumenical Christian creeds

This is not a Biblical phrase and to me it is not relevant to true Christianity. Is this phrase mainly used by Catholics?

The Church gave you the Bible, you took the Bible and threw away the Church.

Did Jesus see the need to fully endorse all the teachings and practices of the Scribes of his day for preserving the Word of God? Many of them with the Pharisees tried to entrap Jesus and contributed to the Crucifixion of Jesus. The Catholic Church persecuted the faithful over many centuries. They sometimes banned the public from reading the Bible. They burnt Tyndale at the stake, mainly for translating the Bible into English so that the plowman could read it.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[HealthyShape]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

This is not a Biblical phrase and to me it is not relevant to true Christianity. Is this phrase mainly used by Catholics?

Did Jesus see the need to fully endorse all the teachings and practices of the Scribes of his day for preserving the Word of God? Many of them with the Pharisees tried to entrap Jesus and contributed to the Crucifixion of Jesus. The Catholic Church persecuted the faithful over many centuries. They sometimes banned the public from reading the Bible. They burnt Tyndale at the stake, mainly for translating the Bible into English so that the plowman could read it.

Kind regards
Trevor

You would not know about Jesus and you would have no words of Jesus without the Church writing it down, preserving it, translating it and publishing it for you.

Taking her gift and in the same time rejecting her is nonsensical. You did not create your own Bible and you also cannot create your own definition of Christianity.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

You would not know about Jesus and you would have no words of Jesus without the Church writing it down,

I consider that there is a strong disconnect between the original manuscripts and their multiplication in the early centuries and the Apostate Church of the 3rd and 4th centuries. The original manuscripts was not even the early Church writing it down. Starting with the first four books, it was the Apostles Matthew and John and other inspired writers Mark and Luke. The veracity of these Gospel records did not need the Apostate Church to verify their authenticity, even as today we do not need the Papacy to instruct us that the words of Jesus are profound.

without the Church .... preserving it, translating it and publishing it for you.

I believe very much in the Providence of God, and despite the Apostasy of the Church and their persecution of the faithful who loved the Word of God throughout the Centuries, we have been given the Bible, and readily available to all today in many versions and many languages. What part has the Church had in the preservation of the complete Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah? Another miracle of Divine preservation.

Taking her gift and in the same time rejecting her is nonsensical.

Perhaps you have not read some of the history of the Catholic Church. Perhaps you have never heard of the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day and the coin minted by the Papacy to celebrate this event.

You did not create your own Bible

No, God preserved the Bible despite the wickedness of the Catholic Church. In parallel thought, Israel persecuted and killed the prophets who denounced their wickedness, but somehow the OT was preserved despite its witness against them. One of the Kings cut Jeremiah's Original Scroll to bits and burnt it in the fire, but we have the Book of Jeremiah in our Bible today.

you also cannot create your own definition of Christianity.

I can certainly determine that the Apostolic Faith is distinct from many of the traditions and teachings of the present Roman Catholic Church. Would you like me to give you a list of some of these?

You are not a Christian according to the rules of this Christian board

This thread and the religious status of the individual in the Avatar is not very helpful. Some forums allow the member to distinguish his particular denomination, whether he is Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist etc. I doubt that Jesus will ask you to be the Judge when he returns.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[amigo de christo]

I do not know where do you want to lead this conversation. You are not a Christian according to the rules of this Christian board and according to the ecumenical Christian creeds, because you do not accept even the Trinity.

So, I know you do not agree with me. For you, your private understanding of the Bible is your idol, above all other Christians, above the Church, above the apostolic creeds etc. And? What do you expect me to do with it?

The Church gave you the Bible, you took the Bible and threw away the Church.

as for me
Sure i know GOD inspired the bible and that the apostels , perhaps namely peter , made sure
they would have a way to have these things in remembrance . So in time they did gather together the letters
of said apostels .
I agree with this .
Now as far as throwing away the church
Lets hold back that horse of an accusation and lets rather say
I cAME OUT OF CHURCHES that though they may have claimed the bible
WERE TEACHING CONTRARY TO IT .
OH yeah , I FLED THEM fast too . Cause we all know there will be prob lems and sins and errors
that will have to b e corrected IN any church . a fact .
BUT WHEN SAID LEADERS of said churches are the promoters of and supports of said sins and errors
AND refuse to repent , HEY ITS TIME TO COME OUT . so , I DID . but dont you worry yourself .
I have some fellowship with those who REALLY DO LOVE THE LORD . its the wolves in wool i can live without .

 

[Seeding Loving]

.
sometimes a very simple question would require many details expressly if the answer is dealing with the supernatural.

i am thankful for the gracious consideration you have given me to answer with a little more detail.

i tried to conclude with the passage in - Col 2:9

:9 For in him dwelled the fulfillment / fulness of the GODNESS - theotēs bodily. - PHYSICALLY IN THE BODY

in Jesus dwelled the fulness = fulfillment - meaning = the completion, accomplishment, performance, complete purposed and full achievement, - of the Godness bodily - the qualities and of God

This is The God - Ness / The God - Ture -

this word " theo - tēs " uses the Greek suffix " tēs " attached to the word = " theo / God "

" tēs " signifies the "-tes" turning of the word "god" into the state of being that quality.

in Jesus was the completion and fullness or fulfilment of God - in the body of a man


===== :10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:


Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, " COME / DONE " / MADE of a woman, made under the law,


i used to make the big mistake of making a direct comparison with the English word "" divinity or divine " used in the New Testament translation with the idea of " divination " as in Omniscience, all knowing - and power of divinization, knowledge of the future discerning, forecasting, foretelling, perceiving and prophesy as fore - knowledge

but i was wrong to do this -

although the English word " divination " or " divine " is always used in the Old Testament in a negative way to indicate divinization, and witchcraft or " divining a spirit " this English word "divine " is never used in the Old Testament to refer to anything relating to God nor anything good.

in contrast the Translators use the word " divine " in the New Testament the word " divine " here is used for the meaning of signifying = being excellent, and special, and the meaning of = exceptional .

 

[HealthyShape]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

I consider that there is a strong disconnect between the original manuscripts and their multiplication in the early centuries and the Apostate Church of the 3rd and 4th centuries. The original manuscripts was not even the early Church writing it down. Starting with the first four books, it was the Apostles Matthew and John and other inspired writers Mark and Luke. The veracity of these Gospel records did not need the Apostate Church to verify their authenticity, even as today we do not need the Papacy to instruct us that the words of Jesus are profound.

I believe very much in the Providence of God, and despite the Apostasy of the Church and their persecution of the faithful who loved the Word of God throughout the Centuries, we have been given the Bible, and readily available to all today in many versions and many languages. What part has the Church had in the preservation of the complete Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah? Another miracle of Divine preservation.

Perhaps you have not read some of the history of the Catholic Church. Perhaps you have never heard of the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day and the coin minted by the Papacy to celebrate this event.

No, God preserved the Bible despite the wickedness of the Catholic Church. In parallel thought, Israel persecuted and killed the prophets who denounced their wickedness, but somehow the OT was preserved despite its witness against them. One of the Kings cut Jeremiah's Original Scroll to bits and burnt it in the fire, but we have the Book of Jeremiah in our Bible today.

I can certainly determine that the Apostolic Faith is distinct from many of the traditions and teachings of the present Roman Catholic Church. Would you like me to give you a list of some of these?

This thread and the religious status of the individual in the Avatar is not very helpful. Some forums allow the member to distinguish his particular denomination, whether he is Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist etc. I doubt that Jesus will ask you to be the Judge when he returns.

Kind regards
Trevor

Why did you switch to attacking the Roman Catholic church? Irrelevant to the issue that you reject orthodox Christianity and are in some cult. Jehovah Witnesses? I forgot, remind us.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

Why did you switch to attacking the Roman Catholic church?

I am not sure of your perspective, but you kept on saying that we received the Bible from the Church. The predominant Church for hundreds of years was the RCC in the period sometimes called the Dark Ages.

The Church gave you the Bible, you took the Bible and threw away the Church.

What "Church" is this? When?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Marvelloustime]

as for me
Sure i know GOD inspired the bible and that the apostels , perhaps namely peter , made sure
they would have a way to have these things in remembrance . So in time they did gather together the letters
of said apostels .
I agree with this .
Now as far as throwing away the church
Lets hold back that horse of an accusation and lets rather say
I cAME OUT OF CHURCHES that though they may have claimed the bible
WERE TEACHING CONTRARY TO IT .
OH yeah , I FLED THEM fast too . Cause we all know there will be prob lems and sins and errors
that will have to b e corrected IN any church . a fact .
BUT WHEN SAID LEADERS of said churches are the promoters of and supports of said sins and errors
AND refuse to repent , HEY ITS TIME TO COME OUT . so , I DID . but dont you worry yourself .
I have some fellowship with those who REALLY DO LOVE THE LORD . its the wolves in wool i can live without .

@amigo de christo

 

[HealthyShape]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

I am not sure of your perspective, but you kept on saying that we received the Bible from the Church. The predominant Church for hundreds of years was the RCC in the period sometimes called the Dark Ages.

What "Church" is this? When?

Kind regards
Trevor

The apostolic Church, created by Jesus Christ through His apostles, through the disciples of the apostles through the disciples of those disciples... i.e. all the Christians in this historical line. It may include Protestants, Orthodox, Roman Catholics.

New sects and cults originated in the 19th century USA (Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Messianic Jews, Seventh Day Adventists) are outside of this historical line.

New denominations originating outside of this line, but at least spiritually/theologically joining the line, upholding the basic creeds and without cultic views and practices would be also called orthodox, though. Some Baptists, Plymouth Brethren, Methodists, various Christian/Brethren assemblies...

 

[TazzJazz]

Jesus Christ , the Son of God is our savior and we follow Him and keep His commandments as told to us in the New Testament .
That should cover it .

Hi.
I'm glad that you posted this, but I have to ask....
Do you really believe that the mainstream religions of Christendom have 'kept Jesus' commandments'?
What about Jesus' command to "love one another"? John 13:34,35; John 15:17
For the most part, Christendom has joined the world and fought in its wars, brother killing brother, loving nationalism more than their spiritual brother.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

The apostolic Church, created by Jesus Christ through His apostles, through the disciples of the apostles through the disciples of those disciples... i.e. all the Christians in this historical line.

I appreciate your clarification. I consider that the faithful usually existed outside this mainstream. Sometimes they were persecuted by the mainstream. A new faithful group could arise and disappear in a few generations due to many factors, sometimes persecution. I consider that my fellowship, that arose initially in the 1840s, is similar to that pattern. No, I am not a JW and I disagree with many of their teachings. I really appreciate those that have dedicated their lives at any time in the 2000 years, so that we have ready access to the Word of God. I do not necessarily endorse all their personal teachings.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[HealthyShape]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

I appreciate your clarification. I consider that the faithful usually existed outside this mainstream. Sometimes they were persecuted by the mainstream. A new faithful group could arise and disappear in a few generations due to many factors, sometimes persecution. I consider that my fellowship, that arose initially in the 1840s, is similar to that pattern. No, I am not a JW and I disagree with many of their teachings. I really appreciate those that have dedicated their lives at any time in the 2000 years, so that we have ready access to the Word of God. I do not necessarily endorse all their personal teachings.

Kind regards
Trevor

As I mentioned, the denominations or even individuals joining the line later at least spiritually (upholding the basic Christian theology, basic Christian views and creeds) can be considered orthodox, too.

Those who just call themselves Christians, may even read/use the Christian Bible, but reject the orthodox Christian teachings, are not orthodox Christians, logically. Many of them originated in the 19th century USA, interestingly. There was something broken about that time and place - many false prophets and prophecies about the end of the world and similar.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again HealthyShape,

As I mentioned, the denominations or even individuals joining the line later at least spiritually (upholding the basic Christian theology, basic Christian views and creeds) can be considered orthodox, too.

The early beginnings of one group has interested me. They were eventually called Anabaptist. I have not studied them in detail, but I have a general overall understanding of what happened. There were initially 25 individuals gathered and they had decided that the Bible taught that the example of the early Church was Adult Baptism. They then were baptised possibly after some confession of their belief in the Gospel. Thereafter they were persecuted by both the Protestants and the Catholics. Out of the original 25 most if not all suffered an untimely death at the hands of the Catholics and Protestants.

Now I believe in Adult Baptism after an affectionate belief of the Gospel of the Kingdom and Name Acts 8:12. I suggest that these Anabaptist and my fellowship are not considered "Orthodox" when considering even this one teaching of Adult Baptism. Many Orthodox and Protestants teach Infant Sprinkling.

This same concept may apply to many of the teachings that I hold dear, based upon a careful consideration of the Apostolic Faith. Without elaborating, as to the full implications, but relevant to the subject of this thread, one of these could be our Pioneer's interpretation of Exodus 3:14 as "I will be". I would be interested in your assessment of what I have stated.

Kind regards
Trevor.

 

[HealthyShape]

I suggest that these Anabaptist...are not considered "Orthodox"

Orthodoxy is judged by the ecumenical creeds, not by adult baptism. If they accept the basic Christian teachings like Trinity, the death and the resurrection of Christ and similar, they are orthodox Christians.

and my fellowship are not considered "Orthodox"....

I have no idea what your "fellowship" is, I think you did not tell.