Poll for belief in the trinity as a requirement for membership

[Nadiine]

Greetings in the name of Jesus:

Well of course hebrews, is from God. And Nice verse.

I ask, is the word Trinity from God, or man?

And to my point, should trinity faith in this mans word, be mandated in Non denomination. Or should the word. God the Father, God the Son, and Gods spirit. Faith in this should be enough.

I also personally believe Jesus is Messiah, And the Mighty God, and everlasting Father. Isaiah 9;6

I pray my words do not offend, God bless Christians in forum, and all those who use it.

Terms and names are formed FROM CONCEPTS taught.

The term "theocracy" is not in the Bible, but a theocracy is exactly what Israel was under prior to God giving them the King they demanded like the other nations around them.

Terms help us define meanings quickly and much more easily. Unless every time you want to refer to God's full identity, you start giving the complete rundown using all the verses that describe Him in depth...
this is why terms are formed.

Theology and eschatology also aren't in the bible, but they define the meanings of spiritual concepts or spirituality itself.
The "name" issue falls apart easily under closer scrutiny.
The concepts they define still remain.

 

[heavensprings]

(bold added)
Please Blue...do I see judgement of JW's and LDS?...

Are they not our brothers and sisters in Christ too? Or at the very least....are they not our neighbors that we are to love as we love ourselves?

Where's the humility? Are we not to consider JW's and LDS better than we consider ourselves?

I mean...simply because they believe differently than we do...is no reason to call them weird and way out...

Could we not consider...hypocrisy right up there with judgement...as poor fruit?

Just something I consider as check out the beam in my own eye....

I'm totally appalled by your post, Cris, I thought you were better than that.

 

[Cris413]

I'm totally appalled by your post, Cris, I thought you were better than that.

Why...because I pointed out a few inconsistencies regarding your thoughts on judging one another?

It still amazes me...how quick we are to take someone to task...then have a problem being brought to task ourselves...

We should all try and be careful in this forum...to make the distinction between judging the doctrine and judging the person....

Yes...I'm still focused on the beam in my own eye...because apparently...I've judged your judgement of others...

again...vicious circle...isn't it...

 

[heavensprings]

Why...because I pointed out a few inconsistencies regarding your thoughts on judging one another?

It still amazes me...how quick we are to take someone to task...then have a problem being brought to task ourselves...

We should all try and be careful in this forum...to make the distinction between judging the doctrine and judging the person....

Yes...I'm still focused on the beam in my own eye...because apparently...I've judged your judgement of others...

again...vicious circle...isn't it...

Yes, it is.. and guess who's keeping it going? It's not just me ~

 

[sandman]

Christians followed the teachings of Christ which had nothing to do with being born again into Christ, as it was a name given to them, not by them. I can also mention Christian was a term given in insult, not as a way to identify others. So if people worship a different God, it's ok we are to all be accepting, and let me guess, God's love will cover it. Who God is is foundational for whatever belief you have, and if you are in error and not willing to look at your error, then there is an area to post in other than ND. I guess I can be more politically correct and say if you believe different, but both my view and one who believes God is three people can not agree, as they contradict one another, so it is important to know which one is true and which one is not. You seem to think truth has no bearing in this discussion, whereas I think by knowing the truth you are set free.

Christians followed the teachings of Christ which had nothing to do with being born again into Christ, as it was a name given to them, not by them. I can also mention Christian was a term given in insult, not as a way to identify others.

It had everything to do with being born again that is where the name originated. Yes, it was originally a name given as an insult but by the end of the 1st century it evolved not as an insult, but as identification.

So if people worship a different God, it's ok we are to all be accepting, and let me guess, God's love will cover it

I am not talking about worshiping a different God ……… same God, different beliefs

Who God is is foundational for whatever belief you have, and if you are in error and not willing to look at your error, then there is an area to post in other than ND. I guess I can be more politically correct and say if you believe different, but both my view and one who believes God is three people can not agree, as they contradict one another, so it is important to know which one is true and which one is not. You seem to think truth has no bearing in this discussion, whereas I think by knowing the truth you are set free.

First, this discussion is a tentacle for the underline movement to change the definition of “Christianity”, predicated on the belief of the triune God being implemented as a prerequisite under that definition. If you can find me that prerequisite in His Word {which is truth} for salvation (i.e.) becoming a Christian, and not just conjecture of scripture, then I would concur and gladly submit to seeing that implemented.
Truth has all the bearing on this subject ………….I am just asking that we submit to truth and not to beliefs, no matter how deeply rooted that are.

 

[Svt4Him]

It had everything to do with being born again that is where the name originated. Yes, it was originally a name given as an insult but by the end of the 1st century it evolved not as an insult, but as identification.

Again it had nothing to do with being born from above, as the people who started it did not understand things like being born from above or being born again. That is a Christian belief and teaching, and people did not know someone who was 'born from above' they only knew them as followers of Christ's teachings. The name now means someone who thinks they are a good person, as can be seen by studying stats in Western US and Canada to see how many are 'Christian', and still has little to do with being born from above. We can agree to disagree it's a non-issue.

I am not talking about worshiping a different God ……… same God, different beliefs

I believe in a God that is three people in one, one believe in a God that is three people, others believe in a God that was man and became God whereas a third believes in a god who was an angel. They are not the same god.

First, this discussion is a tentacle for the underline movement to change the definition of “Christianity”, predicated on the belief of the triune God being implemented as a prerequisite under that definition. If you can find me that prerequisite in His Word {which is truth} for salvation (i.e.) becoming a Christian, and not just conjecture of scripture, then I would concur and gladly submit to seeing that implemented.
Truth has all the bearing on this subject ………….I am just asking that we submit to truth and not to beliefs, no matter how deeply rooted that are.

That is not the purpose of this thread, it's if we as a non-denominational congregation want to make it a fundamental belief. If you don't like it, then there is other places for you here, this is not one of them. If you want to debate it, do so in a different area. It makes no different what Scriptures I post, to anyone who doesn't want to believe, they will all be conjectures. For instance God the Father said He was the Alpha and Omega, Jesus Christ said He Himself was the Alpha and Omega (Revelation 1) That seems to be pretty clear to me, yet it is somehow dismissed. Then there is the whole lying to God vs lying to the Holy Spirit. But again, these are all dismissed by various people. But to think God who created the universe by simply speaking is simple enough to explain every aspect of Himself is a bit of a stretch. If you want a simple God, the God of Christianity is not simple.

 

[sandman]

Again it had nothing to do with being born from above, as the people who started it did not understand things like being born from above or being born again. That is a Christian belief and teaching, and people did not know someone who was 'born from above' they only knew them as followers of Christ's teachings. The name now means someone who thinks they are a good person, as can be seen by studying stats in Western US and Canada to see how many are 'Christian', and still has little to do with being born from above. We can agree to disagree it's a non-issue.
[/size][/font]


I believe in a God that is three people in one, one believe in a God that is three people, others believe in a God that was man and became God whereas a third believes in a god who was an angel. They are not the same god.



That is not the purpose of this thread, it's if we as a non-denominational congregation want to make it a fundamental belief. If you don't like it, then there is other places for you here, this is not one of them. If you want to debate it, do so in a different area. It makes no different what Scriptures I post, to anyone who doesn't want to believe, they will all be conjectures. For instance God the Father said He was the Alpha and Omega, Jesus Christ said He Himself was the Alpha and Omega (Revelation 1) That seems to be pretty clear to me, yet it is somehow dismissed. Then there is the whole lying to God vs lying to the Holy Spirit. But again, these are all dismissed by various people. But to think God who created the universe by simply speaking is simple enough to explain every aspect of Himself is a bit of a stretch. If you want a simple God, the God of Christianity is not simple.

But to think God who created the universe by simply speaking is simple enough to explain every aspect of Himself is a bit of a stretch. If you want a simple God, the God of Christianity is not simple.

The God of Christianity is simple if we read what is written …He only becomes complex when we read our beliefs into what is written, and then He becomes complex and indefinable.
Maybe you didn’t mean quite what this statement says “by simply speaking is simple enough to explain every aspect of Himself is a bit of a stretch” because I think it’s a stretch to think that He couldn’t. But I will leave it at that, because I don’t want to give any semblance of a debate, which trust me I have researched this area for 30 years, if I wanted to debate not only would you know about it, but biblically you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
I don’t like debates because generally they are fruitless and they only prove to divide and cause animosity, and we should all be working towards unity of the one body, not isolation and division, something that seems to be in short supply around here.

 

[Svt4Him]

The God of Christianity is simple if we read what is written …He only becomes complex when we read our beliefs into what is written, and then He becomes complex and indefinable.
Maybe you didn’t mean quite what this statement says “by simply speaking is simple enough to explain every aspect of Himself is a bit of a stretch” because I think it’s a stretch to think that He couldn’t. But I will leave it at that, because I don’t want to give any semblance of a debate, which trust me I have researched this area for 30 years, if I wanted to debate not only would you know about it, but biblically you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
I don’t like debates because generally they are fruitless and they only prove to divide and cause animosity, and we should all be working towards unity of the one body, not isolation and division, something that seems to be in short supply around here.

Of course not, that is why I wouldn't want this forum to be open to beliefs like what you hold. You have already dismissed what I know and you have no idea what that is. So my daddy is bigger than your daddy, but they won't be fighting here.

 

[Nadiine]

In glancing at these last post exchanges, I got to thinking about this: The Jews believed in YHWY as their God. God the Father.
What happened when Christ came claiming to be God, their Messiah? They rejected that He was either. Jesus said if you reject ME, you also reject my Father.

The pharisees worshipped God more than all others, knew who he was, but it hinged on the Son when He came.
He claimed to BE GOD - and the NT brings full light to their individuality (as 3) yet oneness within one another as the One True God.

So I think that you can even believe the Father is God yet when you deny the other 2 as God as well, not be born again becuz you are doing what they did with Jesus' identity - rejecting who He said He was.
To reject God (as in His other persons/being/essense) is to reject them all; they're ONE GODHEAD.
Insult one, you insult all 3 who are God.

So like I said, ignorance & misunderstanding are not keeping people from salvation, but sitting in attack against it is a whole other story and I don't recognize that spirit.
And I'll mention it again, that those who miss His identity, also make a mess of most other doctrines and teachings. When the foundation is off, the structure will follow.

 

[BustedFlat]

A chapter well worth the reading:

2Co 11:1 Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly--and indeed you do bear with me.
2Co 11:2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity[1] that is in Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted--you may well put up with it!

Paul and False Apostles

2Co 11:5 For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.
2Co 11:6 Even though I am untrained in speech, yet I am not in knowledge. But we have been thoroughly manifested[2] among you in all things.
2Co 11:7 Did I commit sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God to you free of charge?
2Co 11:8 I robbed other churches, taking wages from them to minister to you.
2Co 11:9 And when I was present with you, and in need, I was a burden to no one, for what I lacked the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied. And in everything I kept myself from being burdensome to you, and so I will keep myself.
2Co 11:10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia.
2Co 11:11 Why? Because I do not love you? God knows!
2Co 11:12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast.
2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

Reluctant Boasting

2Co 11:16 I say again, let no one think me a fool. If otherwise, at least receive me as a fool, that I also may boast a little.
2Co 11:17 What I speak, I speak not according to the Lord, but as it were, foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.
2Co 11:18 Seeing that many boast according to the flesh, I also will boast.
2Co 11:19 For you put up with fools gladly, since you yourselves are wise!
2Co 11:20 For you put up with it if one brings you into bondage, if one devours you, if one takes from you, if one exalts himself, if one strikes you on the face.
2Co 11:21 To our shame I say that we were too weak for that! But in whatever anyone is bold--I speak foolishly--I am bold also.

Suffering for Christ

2Co 11:22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I.
2Co 11:23 Are they ministers of Christ?--I speak as a fool--I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often.
2Co 11:24 From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one.
2Co 11:25 Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep;
2Co 11:26 in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
2Co 11:27 in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness--
2Co 11:28 besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches.
2Co 11:29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation?
2Co 11:30 If I must boast, I will boast in the things which concern my infirmity.
2Co 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.
2Co 11:32 In Damascus the governor, under Aretas the king, was guarding the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desiring to arrest me;
2Co 11:33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands.

 

[GuardianShua]

Again it had nothing to do with being born from above, as the people who started it did not understand things like being born from above or being born again. That is a Christian belief and teaching, and people did not know someone who was 'born from above' they only knew them as followers of Christ's teachings. The name now means someone who thinks they are a good person, as can be seen by studying stats in Western US and Canada to see how many are 'Christian', and still has little to do with being born from above. We can agree to disagree it's a non-issue.
[/SIZE][/FONT]


I believe in a God that is three people in one, one believe in a God that is three people, others believe in a God that was man and became God whereas a third believes in a god who was an angel. They are not the same god.



That is not the purpose of this thread, it's if we as a non-denominational congregation want to make it a fundamental belief. If you don't like it, then there is other places for you here, this is not one of them. If you want to debate it, do so in a different area. It makes no different what Scriptures I post, to anyone who doesn't want to believe, they will all be conjectures. For instance God the Father said He was the Alpha and Omega, Jesus Christ said He Himself was the Alpha and Omega (Revelation 1) That seems to be pretty clear to me, yet it is somehow dismissed. Then there is the whole lying to God vs lying to the Holy Spirit. But again, these are all dismissed by various people. But to think God who created the universe by simply speaking is simple enough to explain every aspect of Himself is a bit of a stretch. If you want a simple God, the God of Christianity is not simple.

King James version. Revelation 1:8. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

9. I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11. Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. If Gods name was not removed in verse 8. Marked in blue. Where it says "LORD," it would read "Yahwah." And where it is marked in red; That is not found in any ancient scripture. But it is only written in The King James Version. No scripture was ever found to say: 1:11. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,/// Do you see what Im complaining about?

 

[Svt4Him]

Of course it's not found in the version of the Bible you subscribe to, that's the only way to dismiss it. Sorry, that gets old quick, as it's hard to argue that the verse is in the Bible when you dismiss the Bible for whatever reason.

 

[GuardianShua]

Of course it's not found in the version of the Bible you subscribe to, that's the only way to dismiss it. Sorry, that gets old quick, as it's hard to argue that the verse is in the Bible when you dismiss the Bible for whatever reason.

It is not found in any ancient scripture. But it is only written in The King James Version. No scripture was ever found to say: Revelation 1:11. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,/// Do you see what Im complaining about?

 

[zeke37]

My sentiments as well. I honestly don't think this poll should be here because of the new rules - as well as the old. For any who don't know, a couple of years ago I had some pretty heavy debates over this issue. I am not talking about moderator activity, but several members wanted me to change my icon simply because I did not believe the "three persons" theology. Since CF at the time had rule #6 which included the NICENE CREED, it was clear that particular creed did not say anywhere that God was "three persons." therefore after lengthy debate it was determined I was not violating the rule or the creed. this happened 2 or 3 different times.

I believe God is ONE, but is manifest in 3 ways. God is NOT a man, the Holy Spirit is a Spirit, and John says God is a Spirit.... Jesus is a MAN, a PERSON, in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
But God and the Holy Spirit are not persons; people.

Although the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed are Catholic/Roman in origin, neither proclaim God as three PERSONS so I can agree on those so long as we interpret "holy catholic or apostolic church" to mean the "church universal" and not the ROMAN CHURCH which is a particular denomination.
I cannot agree with the Athansian Creed however because it emphasises the three persons. Shall we bring God down to the level of man by such a doctrine when god is so much more, so much higher than mere "persons."??

Besides all that, according to the new rules anyone can have any icon and post in any forum with few exceptions.

- Well, that's how the original changes were supposed to be but I see in the rules this:
"You will not misrepresent your beliefs to make posts in those areas of the site designated "Christians Only" or to use one of the "Christian" icons. You may only make posts in those sections if you agree with the contents of the Nicene Creed and the Trinitarian nature of God, with the exception of threads containing the [OPEN] tag in their titles. You may only use one of the "Christian" icons if you agree with the contents of the Nicene Creed and the Trinitarian nature of God."

Ok, still using the Nicene Creed which does not specify persons. The "trinitarian nature of God" is fine with me, so long as we are not asked to claim the 3 are 3 persons.

Just catching up on this thread....awsome post by the way...

what do the others here think of this view? I agree and Bluediamond does as well,

So I am really asking, should we be welcome here as ND?

We all believe the Christ is God!

 

[Svt4Him]

It is not found in any ancient scripture. But it is only written in The King James Version. No scripture was ever found to say: Revelation 1:11. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,/// Do you see what Im complaining about?

Actually it is in some texts, so you'll simply have to refuse those. It is also not only in the KJV that it is posted, and no, the KJV is not the grandfather of all translations. Again this debate is useless as it won't matter what I post, it can be dismissed by "I don't agree with that version of the manuscripts".

Oops, I tried to post a picture of the manuscripts, I'll try again soon.

 

[GuardianShua]

Actually it is in some texts, so you'll simply have to refuse those. It is also not only in the KJV that it is posted, and no, the KJV is not the grandfather of all translations. Again this debate is useless as it won't matter what I post, it can be dismissed by "I don't agree with that version of the manuscripts".

Oops, I tried to post a picture of the manuscripts, I'll try again soon.

What other bibles is that verse in? Show me.

 

[Starcrystal]

Starcrystal - you talk as though you think "persons" means something like "physical human beings". It doesn't mean that in reference to the Trinity. It really only means simply a distinct individual, or being; the term doesn't refer to having a physical body. "Essences" is often used interchangeably with "persons".

"Persons" is misleading because of most people's interpretation of it. I have debated Jehovahs Witnesses that get stuck on this point and start thinking there are 3 "gods." Once I assure them that I don't believe in the "persons" aspect they tend to be a little more open to listen.
Essences is fine because essence can include spirit being. Persons tends to be viewed as a human and/or physical entitiy even if some, like you do claim it means only a distinct individual.

 

[Cris413]

"Persons" is misleading because of most people's interpretation of it. I have debated Jehovahs Witnesses that get stuck on this point and start thinking there are 3 "gods." Once I assure them that I don't believe in the "persons" aspect they tend to be a little more open to listen.
Essences is fine because essence can include spirit being. Persons tends to be viewed as a human and/or physical entitiy even if some, like you do claim it means only a distinct individual.

I consider this is a pretty fine hair to split. I don't have concerns regarding the use of "persons"

Even though I would never be so presumptuous to place human attributes to holy God...

I am, however, extremely grateful for and in total awe of the "personal" relationship we have with Him.

 

[Nadiine]

"Persons" is misleading because of most people's interpretation of it. I have debated Jehovahs Witnesses that get stuck on this point and start thinking there are 3 "gods." Once I assure them that I don't believe in the "persons" aspect they tend to be a little more open to listen.
Essences is fine because essence can include spirit being. Persons tends to be viewed as a human and/or physical entitiy even if some, like you do claim it means only a distinct individual.

K, let's reason this out -- If something isn't "personable" (with a mind, will or emotions), it's inanimate, right?
or a "thing". Plants & trees are living but they have no soul or brain...
God isn't like a plant or tree - this is why He's referred to a "person", becuz we are made in HIS image - He has the divine attributes - He is Spirit; He thinks, reasons, is wisdom, etc.

We ascribe personage to Him becuz He isn't inanimate. That's just how WE relate to viewing Him while keeping from becomming impersonal as if He's an object rather than a living Being.

Hope that helps - that's at least how I view it.

 

[HypnoToad]

"Persons" is misleading because of most people's interpretation of it. I have debated Jehovahs Witnesses that get stuck on this point and start thinking there are 3 "gods." Once I assure them that I don't believe in the "persons" aspect they tend to be a little more open to listen.
Essences is fine because essence can include spirit being. Persons tends to be viewed as a human and/or physical entitiy even if some, like you do claim it means only a distinct individual.

So, you reject the Trinity, not because the doctrine is wrong, but because people don't know what "person" means in its context?

It's like claiming, "I don't accept the concept that people have belly buttons. I see buttons on my shirts and jackets - and I don't see anything like that on the human body." Nevermind that "button" doesn't mean the same in the context of the human body, you have an idea of what a shirt button is, so if a belly button doesn't look the same, the term must be wrong. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

And, it's not just "some like me" who claim it only means individual; it's not some fringe of Christianity that says that - that's what it actually means in regards to the Trinity. It's people who don't understand it who come up with the "person = human" idea.

Everytime I turn around, someone new coming in trying to redefine some of the most basic theological concepts and making up positions based on wrong defintions.