Could the Doctrine of the Trinity Be Wrong?

The Christian Diarist ^ | August 30, 2015 | JP

[CTrent1564]

Kolokotronis:

To be fair, the fillioque was being discussed in the 4th century by a whole host of Latin/Western Fathers. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Saint Hillary of Potiers and Saint Augustine all wrote in favor of it. Now the Latin Church put it into the Creed that was recited in the Liturgies of the West, that is correct, but ROme has never stated that the East had to add it, even though at times some “More Catholic than the Pope” types have made claims that to not use it is heresy, which again, Rome clearly says that it is not heresy to favor the Eastern Formula.

And while we are at the Creed of Nicea, it was Rome’s Consubsantial which in Greek is “Homooousios” that was the orthodox formula that refuted Arius. The Latin Bishop of Hosius and the 2 Papal legates were ones who brought the term from the West, and it became the term that was used. So great Latin term Consubstantial with the Father (referring to Christ), the term Catholics in the Roman Tradition here at Mass means clearly Christ is One in Substance with Father, but it also implies he is one in substance with our humanity. Of course, you as an Orthodox Christian already know this.

With many of these FR Prots here, and “every man/woman and their Bible and No Creed” Theology, it is Chaos Theology.

[piusv]

I’m sorry, but what about Jesus’ command to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost do these folks not understand?

[Salvation]

Check your Bible!!!!!!

Matthew 28

18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

[mdmathis6]

The issue is that the term “trinity” is the best of the “worst” short hand terms we have to use in describing a wonderful but mysterious relationship between Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All are God and God is one! Yet they are also 3 in one. I simply accept what the scripture says...”in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost”! While the term “trinity” is not in the Bible, the reality of it IS in the Bible! I accept what the Bible says about it!

[Zionist Conspirator]

Chrstianity itself can be wrong. And it is.

Why do you radical Protestants question everything except the "new testament?"

[Kolokotronis]

As I said, the filioque was added "a bit later on". It was certainly discussed as early as the 6th century in the West. Some Orthodox say it is heretical. I wish I could say that even a tiny minority in The Church understood the concept of the "monarchy of the Father", but I can't and we know that +BVI favored the original version for catechesis. In any event, it's not you Latins I worry about when I start fulminating about heresy!

"Consubstantial" is an interesting word in English. I don't think it is sufficient to convey “Homooousios” which really relates to essence, the ousia, rather than substance and with God, Ο ΩΝ, the distinction is important.

[af_vet_1981]

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages.

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one essence with the Father through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried.

And He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

And He will come again with glory to judge the living and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come.

Amen.

The Latins added the "fillioque" a bit later on. ANYTHING WHICH CONTRADICTS THIS IS HERESY and has been for 1600+ years!

Amen; thank you brother for defending the historic Christian faith.

[onedoug]

Deuteronomy 4:19 and Malachi 1:11.

[JAKraig]

Did God need Mary’s ovum? . . . . . .

_________________________________________________

Of Course God needed Mary even if He could have made children out of stones. Jesus needed to be the Son of Man and the Son of God, there was no other way other than Mary or some other woman.

God has already proven that He can make Man from the dust of the earth, that is how Adam came about.

[Lil Flower]

Pentecostals don’t believe in the Trinity? I had no idea. Can anyone tell me what they do believe? Or send me in a direction. Oh and what denominations include Pentecostals?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Chrstianity itself can be wrong. And it is.

Judaism itself is quite wrong, at least as it exists today, and actually proves the New.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Not all Pentecostals are the same. The poster refers to Oneness Pentecostals, who sometimes are Modalists, but other times are so confused they don’t even know what they actually believe, as I’ve experienced in my interactions with these loathsome group.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Chrstianity itself can be wrong. And it is.

Judaism itself is quite wrong, at least as it exists today, and actually proves the New.

And you "know" this because this is what the "new testament" claims. And as every fool with one eye and half sense "knows," if the "new testament" says it it must be true. After all, if the "new testament" was good enough for Moses . . . [/sarcasm]

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

And you "know" this because this is what the "new testament" claims.

I know this for several factors. 1) Old Testament prophecies that require Christ to come during the time that He did:

Gen_49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

2) The general stupidity, blasphemies and superstitions of your holiest Rabbis:

"On coming from a privy a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mil, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic" (Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 70a)

On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument,3 but they did not accept them. Said he to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!' Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place — others affirm, four hundred cubits. 'No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,' they retorted. Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!' Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards — 'No proof can be brought from a stream of water,' they rejoined. Again he urged: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,' whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: 'When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have ye to interfere?' Hence they did not fall, in honour of R. Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined. Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!' Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: 'Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!' But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: 'It is not in heaven.'4 What did he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline." (Babylonian Talmud, Baba Mezi'a 59b)

(There are much worse things than this in the Talmud, such as Rabbis lying to Gentiles, lying to other Jews, and many other heinous teachings and acts.)

And lastly, besides the prophecies mentioned before, all these wonderful little Easter Eggs!

http://www.ldolphin.org/camp.html

[umgud]

My ex as well as 2 of my kids were are Pentecostal. As far as I know, there are two groups of them. The larger group believe in the trinity, the others preach “Oneness.”

[Lil Flower]

I have family who are UPC. After reading up on it, explains a lot.

[the_daug]

The question is simple but you make reference to things I did not question. Mary is fulfillment of prophesy. Does God require Mary’s ovum too to fulfill prophesy? I do not find necessity to believe a certain part of Christendom dogma of Mary is required for Salvation. The only reason for the question is your statement God not having a feminine nature.

[Theodore R.]

Trinity and Oneness is really the same.

[Zuriel]

**Consider the story of Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist, as Jesus emerges from the waters, a Dove depends from Heaven and a voice calls out “Behold, this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased”.**

First of all, it was A dove. The Spirit descended like a dove. Not like a lightening bolt.

Some folks use the chicken egg for a teaching point of the trinity; referring to the shell, albumen, and yolk. It’s actually a good example of singularity, not a trinity. There is one life that’s in there, and it’s using the rest of the egg (until it doesn’t need the other parts) to keep on living.

How about a TV? A machine able provide audio and video. Unplug it, and it’s just a big paper weight. There is one source of power,..grab the right wire (and be grounded), and ‘zap’.

The Father is the source. He’s IN the Son, without measure, as the Holy Ghost.

Peter told Cornelius household: “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good...healing...for God was with him...Him God raised up...it is he that was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.” Acts 10:38-43

[sasportas]

Both believe in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, both believe in the deity of Christ, both are Pentecostal, the difference coming down to one word - “person.”

Oneness Pentecostals point out nowhere does the Bible call Father, Son, Holy Ghost three “persons.” They do not believe in three divine people, they believe such notions come from Gentile philosophy, not Jewish monotheism...which is how all the writers of the Bible believed about God.

Remove the word “person” and you are are right, there is no difference between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals...in their theology about God.