02 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsYou assume much.
So you think that authority was given only to Peter to bind and loosen, and it all ended at his death, right? How do you make this decision? Do you view anything else that Jesus said as only applying to certain disciples and not to the Church in general??? For example, is the Church supposed to teach the teachings of Jesus to all nations and baptize in th ...[text shortened]... he son, and the Holy Spirit or is that too only for certain disciples and ends with their death.
I'm just saying that the Church has gone far beyond their original commissions. They were not commanded by Christ to molest children either. And that's only the most egregious of the liberties they've taken.
People can think up all kinds of sins to commit when they supposedly have authority over all things. Have you ever heard of the Inquisition? How about the Crusades?
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by divegeesterI don't know if I'd be so proud of that that I'd use it as my argument. It seems all he cares about is "disproving" the Trinity. That should tell you something.
RJHinds, it seems that no one agrees with your view that a person is not a Christian unless they believe in the doctrine of the trinity; even an atheist (void spirit) has correctly pointed out the error of your thinking using scripture.
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by SuzianneSure, I know that they have had some evil leaders infiltrate the Church and I do not agree with the inquistions, forced celibacy of the priests, molesting of children, paying for indulgences, and other things that Martin Luthur had grievances about. However, I am talking about the Christian creeds agreed upon by the church and the Lutheran Church and other Christian Churches accept as revealed truth. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
You assume much.
I'm just saying that the Church has gone far beyond their original commissions. They were not commanded by Christ to molest children either. And that's only the most egregious of the liberties they've taken.
People can think up all kinds of sins to commit when they supposedly have authority over all things. Have you ever heard of the Inquisition? How about the Crusades?
02 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm not. I'm Episcopalian. In England, I'd be Anglican. Our leaders went out of their way to accept all three creeds.
You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
I told you I agree with the first half of the Anathasian Creed. I just don't think politics of the time should have been included in the second half of it. It cheapens the whole thing. I also don't think it negates your salvation if you don't believe in the Trinity. Christ wouldn't like that, either.
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by SuzianneI have no reason to believe the creed was made entirely for political reasons. Do you have any references for me? I do not wish to believe in a false creed, if that is really what it is.
I'm not. I'm Episcopalian. In England, I'd be Anglican. Our leaders went out of their way to accept all three creeds.
I told you I agree with the first half of the Anathasian Creed. I just don't think politics of the time should have been included in the second half of it. It cheapens the whole thing. I also don't think it negates your salvation if you don't believe in the Trinity. Christ wouldn't like that, either.
02 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI do not have any actual references. I would only suggest you go to Wikipedia and look up Arius and Arianism and Athanasius (sorry, I spelled that wrong a couple of times I think) and even St. Augustine and Constantine for their roles. Once you get a grip on the whole history of these players and the First Council of Nicaea, as well as the Second Ecumenical Council of 381, you too will get a pretty good idea of the politics of the time which resulted in the placing of anathemas into the second half of the Athanasian Creed.
I have no reason to believe the creed was made entirely for political reasons. Do you have any references for me? I do not wish to believe in a false creed, if that is really what it is.
EDIT: I also would not go so far as to say it is a false creed. To be sure, it is just as legal as the Nicene Creed and it does lay out some important doctrine. I just don't think they had to include the anathemas of the second half in threatening the Arians with excommunication for such a minor reason. Of course now in today's era I can say it is minor... I guess it was a much bigger deal at the time.
Keep in mind also that the original Nicene Creed of the First Council of Nicaea also included anathemas, but they were removed at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. The Nicene Creed we have now is very different from the original Nicene Creed from 325. I believe they did not remove the anathemas from the Athanasian Creed because the Church at that time had their hands full with the Arians, and they felt this was the only way to deal with them.
03 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterI absolutely DO NOT believe that way. Our little peanut minds trying to comprehend and label God. I believe God shows a triune nature about Himself but how do we really label this? Also I don't think God is going to quiz us on theology but how are hearts are toward him and our fellow man and how we lived our lives
In the "Is the trinity pagan" thread, RJHinds informed me directly that I was not a Chrisitan because I did not believe in the trinity doctrine.
This therefore means (in his world), that I am excluded from God's grace and subsequently I am not "beyond condemnation" and am to counted amoungst those to be damned, I must presume.
Do the other trinitarians here believe as RJ Hinds does?
Manny
03 Sep 12
Originally posted by galveston753rd get it correct LOL
Yes not only did Jesus never once mention that he was in fact a 3rd part of this godhead being, but from Moses to Paul, not one of them even hinted in such a god as that.
Everyone only knew of a single God.
If this three in one God did exist, someone somewhere in those thousands of years would have mentioned it at least once? Ya think?
But no, it never showed up until the 4th century and then it was forced into the churches teachings.
Manny
03 Sep 12
Originally posted by SuzianneWhat then would you say is the absolute minimum that one must believe to be able to be saved?
I do not have any actual references. I would only suggest you go to Wikipedia and look up Arius and Arianism and Athanasius (sorry, I spelled that wrong a couple of times I think) and even St. Augustine and Constantine for their roles. Once you get a grip on the whole history of these players and the First Council of Nicaea, as well as the Second Ecumenic ...[text shortened]... e had their hands full with the Arians, and they felt this was the only way to deal with them.
Originally posted by menace71That wikipedia article on the Trinity states the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
interesting no doubt
Manny
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church describes the Trinity as "the central dogma of Christian theology".
It seems to me that if that is true, then one must believe it to be a Christian.
Does anyone agree with me?
03 Sep 12
Originally posted by RJHindsJust because it is the "central dogma" does not make it a truth. Many humans in history believed many things that were not true or right....
That wikipedia article on the Trinity states the following:
[b]The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church describes the Trinity as "the central dogma of Christian theology".
It seems to me that if that is true, then one must believe it to be a Christian.
Does anyone agree with me?[/b]
03 Sep 12
Originally posted by menace71I still noticed the word "formulated" used there by basically the designers of the trinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
interesting no doubt
Manny
What exactly does that mean "fomulated?"
If the trinity is a truth, why does anyone have to formulate it?
formulatedpast participle, past tense of for·mu·late (Verb)Verb1.Create or devise methodically (a strategy or a proposal).Eg: "economists and statisticians were needed to help formulate economic policy".2.Express (an idea) in a concise or systematic way.Eg: "the argument is sufficiently clear that it can be formulated mathematically".
for·mu·late (fôrmy-lt)
tr.v. for·mu·lat·ed, for·mu·lat·ing, for·mu·lates
1.
a. To state as or reduce to a formula.
b. To express in systematic terms or concepts.
c. To devise or invent: formulate strategy.
2. To prepare according to a specified formula.