Barna Poll: Most Americans - Including Church Members - Reject the Trinity

[Eternally Grateful]

Everything must be read thoughtfully and critically.

can it be trusted?

Who wrote church history? Who determined what would be kept and what would be discarded?

 

[Matthias]

can it be trusted?

What in church history do you not trust?

Who wrote church history?

People who lived it and people who examined it.

Who determined what would be kept and what would be discarded?

People who lived it and people who examined it.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

What in church history do you not trust?

where do I start

People who lived it and people who examined it.

Or people who ruled it?

If Hitler won WW2 history would be so different.. He would be hailed as the savior. not the allies.

People who lived it and people who examined it.

no

people who ruled it

They destroyed anything that did not support them, or anything they considered heresy, they not only burned the documents (this is well recorded, only in a positive spin that supports them, but in reality, curses them, because they willingly acknowledge it)

Church history can not be trusted for this very reason

and remember, when Jesus came, who did the jews turn to? Their history. they used their history to crucify their savior

 

[Matthias]

where do I start

From the beginning, and that beginning is found in the New Testament.

Or people who ruled it?

Sometimes, but not always.

If Hitler won WW2 history would be so different.. He would be hailed as the savior. not the allies.

It isn’t different. It’s history.

no

That’s truly an odd denial. You undermine your position with your argument.

people who ruled it

Again, not always.

They destroyed anything that did not support them, or anything they considered heresy, they not only burned the documents (this is well recorded, only in a positive spin that supports them, but in reality, curses them, because they willingly acknowledge it)

That’s true only in part. Your view of the church is blinkered.

Church history can not be trusted for this very reason

Then you are a church of one. I don’t know much about your history and I’m not chomping at the bit to investigate it.

and remember, when Jesus came, who did the jews turn to?

Some of them turned to him. Some of them still do. How do I know this to be true? Church history.

Their history. they used their history to crucify their savior

You have the same problem that many do - you lump all Jews into the same category.

 

[Matthias]

They destroyed anything that did not support them, or anything they considered heresy, they not only burned the documents (this is well recorded, only in a positive spin that supports them, but in reality, curses them, because they willingly acknowledge it)

This is partially true but how do you even know about it? It’s recorded history. It’s part of recorded church history. But it’s only part of the recorded history.

Who wrote it? Can what they wrote be trusted?

Read thoughtfully and critically. You’ve read (at least some) church history. I’ve read church history. Church history should be read. It should be taught, in church and privately in homes. It should be examined but it can’t be unless and until it is first taught.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

From the beginning, and that beginning is found in the New Testament.

yes. and sadly most of what people call church histroy. does not line up with what the NT church did or taught

Sometimes, but not always.

in this case. it did happen that way

It isn’t different. It’s history.

But it is

That’s truly an odd denial. You undermine your position with your argument.

No

I am just saying normal people do not write history. the kings do..

while a normal person may write history. a king can make sure that history is never told. but using the power of his kingdom to wipe out that history

Again, not always.



That’s true only in part. Your view of the church is blinkered.

My view of the church comes from the NT

Not from outside and wrds of men.

Then you are a church of one. I don’t know much about your history and I’m not chomping at the bit to investigate it.

one?

My church in Ohio has 6000 active members. thousands. maybe millions of people reject the church of Rome and its history. Not just me

Some of them turned to him. Some of them still do. How do I know this to be true? Church history.

By the word of God

Not the word of man

The jew put emphasis on history and not the word.. They crucified Christ

lets not make the same mistake they did

You have the same problem that many do - you lump all Jews into the same category.

Actually Jesus lumped them all through paul

the nation rejected him. That does nto mean all jews did.. Some did not. they started the truth church..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

This is partially true but how do you even know about it? It’s recorded history. It’s part of recorded church history. But it’s only part of the recorded history.

Who wrote it? Can what they wrote be trusted?

Read thoughtfully and critically. You’ve read (at least some) church history. I’ve read church history. Church history should be read. It should be taught, in church and privately in homes. It should be examined but it can’t be unless and until it is first taught.

its easy

stop looking at history which can not be trusted

and start looking at the word of God which can be trusted.

if the word and a historical view or event or doctrine are in agreement.

Then you can say history and the word in this aspect are aligned

if however. it does not agree. then you can say it is at odds or apposed

 

[Matthias]

its easy

stop looking at history which can not be trusted

Stop looking at the history of the church?

I’m not particularly interested in the history of your 6,000 member church. Nevertheless, I don’t deny that it has a history. A history written by people who lived it and examined it.

Can it be trusted? I think it can, but your argument is against it.

and start looking at the word of God which can be trusted.

Among other things, I’m a retired pastor. I look at the scriptures (OT and NT) and I look at church history. In my (primitive Christian) worldview, everything must be compared and contrasted with what is written in scripture.

if the word and a historical view or event or doctrine are in agreement.

Then you can say history and the word in this aspect are aligned

if however. it does not agree. then you can say it is at odds or apposed

You can’t say that without first knowing the history. Without the history there is no comparison to be made.

***

Let’s consider this: What would happen if church history was taught in churches?

Would church pews empty or fill?

 

[Matthias]

The jew put emphasis on history and not the word..

That’s false.

They crucified Christ

The Romans crucified Christ.

Actually Jesus lumped them all through paul

Jesus and Paul are both Jews. A distinction is made in scripture - the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament - between believing Jews and unbelieving Jews.

the nation rejected him. That does nto mean all jews did.. Some did not. they started the truth church..

That is part of church history. Church history doesn’t end there.

 

[rockytopva]

I don't want to argue about it.

But I believe in the Trinity. Jesus spoke of His Father, and Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit to indwell believers when He went back to the Father.

Neither do we! This thread is closed!