Why define "Christian" in Trinity-centeric way?

[ewq1938]

What should be cautioned is modern Christians using such a doubtful and spurious text as a positive Trinitarian proof text. While the content of the Comma is certainly true, theologically; its spurious nature and almost certain inauthenticity renders it poor as a proof text.

I fully disagree. Even if it is a later addition, that does not mean God did not inspire it to be included. And, as you admit, the content is true.

 

[hedrick]

Here is a little more:

1Jn_5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

That passage isn't in the original Greek. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum. That's why it's not in most translations.

 

[hedrick]

Mat 28:19 certainly speaks of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So does Paul in several places. I don't think any Christian doubts the importance of all of them. However the Trinity is a bit more. It's a particular understanding of how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are related.

 

[Righttruth]

Really and how is that possible since the Nicene Creed was written in 325AD and the first appearance of the Apostle Creed was in 340AD and it wasn't until about 390AD before anyone mentioned it was written by the Apostle's? What is political about the creed and if it was political what was the goal or objective in writing it?

Irrespective of the timing, Apostles Creed is a good gist of the the NT base. Emperor Constantine was more inclined to bring unity among two groups of people believing in Jesus to stabilize his empire. He was least interested in the truth! When clergy tasted power for the first time, they were ready to compromise by adding statements that are not supported by the Bible.

 

[Righttruth]

Even though the word trinity does not exist in the bible the concept does. The trinity is the three forms of god. God the father, God the son and God the spirit.

God made it this way so the wise would know/see it. God has made his wisdom seem foolish to the 'wise' human. Human wisdom is foolish to God

The Bible only refers to God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is foolishness to identify Jesus as God the Son and the Holy Spirit as God the Spirit. That is non-biblical!

 

[-(iconoclast)-]

The Bible only refers to God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is foolishness to identify Jesus as God the Son and the Holy Spirit as God the Spirit. That is non-biblical!

Hello

How is this foolish and non biblical. You have made a statement please explain yourself

Thanks

 

[-(iconoclast)-]

The Bible only refers to God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is foolishness to identify Jesus as God the Son and the Holy Spirit as God the Spirit. That is non-biblical!

Hello

How is this foolish and non biblical. Could you please explain yourself

Thanks

 

[-(iconoclast)-]

Sorry thought first wording may sound rude

 

[hedrick]

Irrespective of the timing, Apostles Creed is a good gist of the the NT base. Emperor Constantine was more inclined to bring unity among two groups of people believing in Jesus to stabilize his empire. He was least interested in the truth! When clergy tasted power for the first time, they were ready to compromise by adding statements that are not supported by the Bible.

Please look at the Nicene Creed again. It is very similar to traditional creeds such as those that the Apostles Creed developed from. It adds to them mainly in the area of how the Son is related to the Father.

The debate between Arians and others was whether the Logos was actually God or an inferior entity. This was ultimately a question of how Scripture is to be understood, much like the contemporary debate with JW's. The majority believed that in John 1, the assertion was that the Word is God. All the additional language does is make that understanding clear. If you don't like the way the Trinity developed, you should probably look at later documents, not the Nicene Creed. (And you shouldn't do it here, since New Christians is a group for orthodox Christians only.)

It's worth noting one more thing. Sometimes what matters most isn't the answer but the question. The question being answered by Nicea assumed that the Logos is ontologically distinct, and asked about its relationship with the Father. This approach goes back well before Nicea, and was agreed to by all parties.

 

[Limo]

The debate between Arians and others was whether the Logos was actually God or an inferior entity. This was ultimately a question of how Scripture is to be understood, much like the contemporary debate with JW's. The majority believed that in John 1, the assertion was that the Word is God. All the additional language does is make that understanding clear. If you don't like the way the Trinity developed, you should probably look at later documents, not the Nicene Creed. (And you shouldn't do it here, since New Christians is a group for orthodox Christians only.)

I'm following your valuable comments. I see the following from yours:-
It's not mandatory for Christian to believe in Trinity.
Trinity passage isn't in the original Greek Bible .
The ultimate of Nicene is to develop the Trinity
Discussing /denying Nicene degree is a reason not being an Orthodox Christian .

So, it's not allowed for Orthodox Christian to deny Trinity but allowed for other Christians, in the same time both will have good eternal consequences
Is this an accurate understanding ?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Sorry, this thread is closed for a clean up.

As a reminder, this forum is not for debate between Christians. Also, anti-Trintairian views are not allowed, and those who are not in agreement with the Nicene Creed should not be responding to questions in this forum.