Do Trinitarians really know their foundational core doctrines and their impact on their beliefs and others?

[Peterlag]

That might be an okay book as long as a person is aware of Jesus' deity before being swayed by the author's bias.

The author is a historian and writes about the facts based on the historian documents. There's no bias. The man is not even Christian. He just gives the facts when Jesus first began to be called God and it was not when the Apostles were walking around.

 

[dwight92070]

Jesus didn't go around saying to everyone "I am the Messiah, I am the Messiah", although He did reveal this to 2 people - the Samaritan woman at the well and the High Priest at His trial before His crucifixion. But why did He not bluntly tell everyone? The answer is quite obvious in Mat. 16:17. Because He wanted His Father to reveal this to people who looked at the evidence, then exercised their faith, and concluded "Jesus IS the Messiah".
By the way, the evidence was and is voluminous, so it really doesn't (and didn't) take a large amount of faith to believe this:

Walking on water
Commanding the wind and the water to hush and be still
Feeding ten to fifteen thousand people with a few fish and a few loaves
Turning water into about 180 gallons of wine.
Raising the dead
Healing the blind, the lame, the lepers, the sick
Casting out demons, in some cases from those who had thousands in them, like the violent, crazy man who lived in the tombs. The demons identified themselves as "Legion"
Etc.

Critics will say, "Oh He only did those things by the power of the Holy Spirit - but His disciples could also do all those things by the same power."
Hogwash! Yes, His disciples did SOME (relatively FEW) of those things, but ONLY because HE HIMSELF gave them the power and authority to do so. Aside from Peter walking on water for a few seconds (because Jesus commanded him to), no other believer in the history of man has done that. Nor has any believer successfully commanded a storm to cease, or changed 180 gallons of water into wine, or fed 15,000 people with a few loaves and a few fish.

But just as Jesus wanted them (and us) to use our faith to believe He was and is the Messiah, even so He wants us to use our faith to believe that He was and is God. So He didn't go around saying: "I am God, I am God".
Also He was not an arrogant blowhard, tooting His own horn. Rather He was humble and meek and yet, He was God in the flesh. John 1:1, 14. There is ample evidence that Jesus is God - we need to humble ourselves and acknowledge it.

But this is a stumbling block for arrogant intellectuals who think they can "prove" that Jesus is not God. Rather than accepting the simple truth of scripture, they want to display their vast intelligence and status as a Bible "scholar" or a Bible "teacher", and thereby gaining the approval and accolades of men.

One common characteristic that I see with those who do not want to acknowledge that Jesus is God - is pride. On the other hand, with those who acknowledge that He is God, I see humility. Obviously there will be exceptions, but that's what I have observed.

Last edited: Today at 8:54 AM
Quote Reply
Report

 

[mikesw]

The author is a historian and writes about the facts based on the historian documents. There's no bias. The man is not even Christian. He just gives the facts when Jesus first began to be called God and it was not when the Apostles were walking around.

Just follow Bart Ehrman then. He should give you unbiased arguments that Christ does not exist. I'm seeing how easily tricked you are.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Jesus didn't go around saying to everyone "I am the Messiah, I am the Messiah"...

... So He didn't go around saying: "I am God, I am God".

I think your post is a very good and well-thought one and perhaps it deserves a separate thread, related to Was Christ interested in people acknowledging his credentials? If so, why?

Independently of the debate on whether Jesus claimed to be Messiah and/or God, we could agree, dwight, that Jesus was, by far, much busier calling for repentance and presenting the Kingdom of God, and taking direct care of the sick and desperate, than speaking about Himself.
Jesus was the Perfect Theologian: he showed us the sound doctrine in practice, rather than debating on it.

It is my personal conviction that Jesus was interested in people acknowledging his credentials only as a means of paying heed to his Message, and obeying his Message. There was a time in which Jesus said that if people didn't believe his claims, they could at least believe in the divine origin of his works.

You've hit the nail on the head on a key topic, my friend.

 

[Peterlag]

Just follow Bart Ehrman then. He should give you unbiased arguments that Christ does not exist. I'm seeing how easily tricked you are.

Your talking to one of the most knowledgeable guys in the world on the subject of the resurrected Christ. A person like me has never been easily tricked.

 

[mikesw]

I think your post is a very good and well-thought one and perhaps it deserves a separate thread, related to Was Christ interested in people acknowledging his credentials? If so, why?

Independently of the debate on whether Jesus claimed to be Messiah and/or God, we could agree, dwight, that Jesus was, by far, much busier calling for repentance and presenting the Kingdom of God, and taking direct care of the sick and desperate, than speaking about Himself.
Jesus was the Perfect Theologian: he showed us the sound doctrine in practice, rather than debating on it.

It is my personal conviction that Jesus was interested in people acknowledging his credentials only as a means of paying heed to his Message, and obeying his Message. There was a time in which Jesus said that if people didn't believe his claims, they could at least believe in the divine origin of his works.

You've hit the nail on the head on a key topic, my friend.

You keep on presenting Christ incorrectly. He was not going into hospitals and healing everyone there. He presented signs so that in judgment the people could not say he lacked the signs of the Messiah and Prophet sent them. His role as prophet was to warn them of the judgment they faced for their corrupted lives and religious practices. Healing people was hardly his doctrine. His message was not to ultimately follow him according the flesh. To those who were ultimately of God, they would accept Christ in his resurrection and the corresponding message of the Day of Pentecost. You miss all this detail in trying to deny the ultimate divinity of Christ. Apart from that, people are just chasing their tails.

 

[mikesw]

Your talking to one of the most knowledgeable guys in the world on the subject of the resurrected Christ. A person like me has never been easily tricked.

If you were one of the knowledgeable people on the resurrected Christ, I would have thought you would have some decent arguments for one position or another.

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus didn't go around saying to everyone "I am the Messiah, I am the Messiah", although He did reveal this to 2 people - the Samaritan woman at the well and the High Priest at His trial before His crucifixion. But why did He not bluntly tell everyone? The answer is quite obvious in Mat. 16:17. Because He wanted His Father to reveal this to people who looked at the evidence, then exercised their faith, and concluded "Jesus IS the Messiah".
By the way, the evidence was and is voluminous, so it really doesn't (and didn't) take a large amount of faith to believe this:

Walking on water
Commanding the wind and the water to hush and be still
Feeding ten to fifteen thousand people with a few fish and a few loaves
Turning water into about 180 gallons of wine.
Raising the dead
Healing the blind, the lame, the lepers, the sick
Casting out demons, in some cases from those who had thousands in them, like the violent, crazy man who lived in the tombs. The demons identified themselves as "Legion"
Etc.

Critics will say, "Oh He only did those things by the power of the Holy Spirit - but His disciples could also do all those things by the same power."
Hogwash! Yes, His disciples did SOME (relatively FEW) of those things, but ONLY because HE HIMSELF gave them the power and authority to do so. Aside from Peter walking on water for a few seconds (because Jesus commanded him to), no other believer in the history of man has done that. Nor has any believer successfully commanded a storm to cease, or changed 180 gallons of water into wine, or fed 15,000 people with a few loaves and a few fish.

But just as Jesus wanted them (and us) to use our faith to believe He was and is the Messiah, even so He wants us to use our faith to believe that He was and is God. So He didn't go around saying: "I am God, I am God".
Also He was not an arrogant blowhard, tooting His own horn. Rather He was humble and meek and yet, He was God in the flesh. John 1:1, 14. There is ample evidence that Jesus is God - we need to humble ourselves and acknowledge it.

But this is a stumbling block for arrogant intellectuals who think they can "prove" that Jesus is not God. Rather than accepting the simple truth of scripture, they want to display their vast intelligence and status as a Bible "scholar" or a Bible "teacher", and thereby gaining the approval and accolades of men.

One common characteristic that I see with those who do not want to acknowledge that Jesus is God - is pride. On the other hand, with those who acknowledge that He is God, I see humility. Obviously there will be exceptions, but that's what I have observed.

Last edited: Today at 8:54 AM
Quote Reply
Report

May I comment on the following...

1.) There is ample evidence that Jesus is God - we need to humble ourselves and acknowledge it.

1.) There is no ample evidence that Jesus is God. Not even a teaching on it. There's only a verse here or a verse somewhere else all twisted out of context or not understand how the words are used in that culture.

2.) But this is a stumbling block for arrogant intellectuals who think they can "prove" that Jesus is not God. Rather than accepting the simple truth of scripture, they want to display their vast intelligence and status as a Bible "scholar" or a Bible "teacher", and thereby gaining the approval and accolades of men.

2.) I will never understand how a guy like you could think I'm interested in gaining the approval of men. If I was that I would join your churches and fellowship with the men. Instead I stand alone serving the one true God.

3.) One common characteristic that I see with those who do not want to acknowledge that Jesus is God - is pride. On the other hand, with those who acknowledge that He is God, I see humility. Obviously there will be exceptions, but that's what I have observed.

3.) How in the heck does pride become a factor because I know Jesus is not God. And then humility for those who believe the lie?

 

[Peterlag]

If you were one of the knowledgeable people on the resurrected Christ, I would have thought you would have some decent arguments for one position or another.

I could put Christ himself in front of you and you would still say I put nothing there.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible,

Neither is the word "aardvark", and yet there are aardvarks.

Trinitarians who hold to the “classic” definition of the Trinity say Jesus was 100% God and100% man while on the earth believe differently from Kenotic Trinitarians who believe Jesus set aside his godhood while he was a man on the earth. Oneness Pentecostals say the classic formula of the Trinity is completely wrong, and yet all these claim that Christ is God and that the Bible supports their position.

So "theologians" disagree - big deal!!

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.

So "theologians" disagree - big deal!!!

God is ONE GOD and there is None other like Him - creator of heavens and earth, and biblically we're presented with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Problem solved.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

New Testament Prophets are not received either.

By whom?? since "New Testament Prophets are active in the future Mature visible church of Ephesians 4, you're apparently mistaken.

 

[Peterlag]

By whom?? since "New Testament Prophets are active in the future Mature visible church of Ephesians 4, you're apparently mistaken.

Your visible mature church believes what the Catholics taught them and not what comes from the months of the Prophets. Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the Four Gospels are written to Christians, and water baptism is relevant.And then there's everything that you know about our sin nature was taught to you by them.

 

[Peterlag]

Neither is the word "aardvark", and yet there are aardvarks.

So "theologians" disagree - big deal!!

So "theologians" disagree - big deal!!!

God is ONE GOD and there is None other like Him - creator of heavens and earth, and biblically we're presented with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Problem solved.

Yes theologians do disagree like the bishops did in the third and fourth century. They went back and forth for years bickering about if Jesus was God. Half of the bishops said yes and half of the bishops said no. These are Catholics we are talking about and hundreds of years after the Apostles were dead. Well, with the help of the pagan Roman king the right side lost to the wrong side and so yeah that's a really big deal!!!

 

[mikesw]

Your visible mature church believes what the Catholics taught them and not what comes from the months of the Prophets. Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the Four Gospels are written to Christians, and water baptism is relevant.And then there's everything that you know about our sin nature was taught to you by them.

Where is your argument here? Everything you don't agree with, you just call it "Catholic." You might as well go ahead and deny Christ's resurrection since that was passed to people through the Catholics. It is arguments like those that demonstrate the reason not to take you seriously.

 

[mikesw]

Yes theologians do disagree like the bishops did in the third and fourth century. They went back and forth for years bickering about if Jesus was God. Half of the bishops said yes and half of the bishops said no. These are Catholics we are talking about and hundreds of years after the Apostles were dead. Well, with the help of the pagan Roman king the right side lost to the wrong side and so yeah that's a really big deal!!!

most sides recognized the divinity of Christ in one fashion or another. For you, that becomes the reason to deny Christ's divinity. Oh right. The bigger problem is that "catholics" have said this too.

 

[Peterlag]

most sides recognized the divinity of Christ in one fashion or another. For you, that becomes the reason to deny Christ's divinity. Oh right. The bigger problem is that "catholics" have said this too.

Not according to him... the historian. According to him it was a war between the bishops that went on for years.

 

[Peterlag]

Where is your argument here? Everything you don't agree with, you just call it "Catholic." You might as well go ahead and deny Christ's resurrection since that was passed to people through the Catholics. It is arguments like those that demonstrate the reason not to take you seriously.

The Catholics do not teach Jesus was raised from the dead. The Catholics teach God was raised from the dead. So there wrong there to.

 

[mikesw]

The Catholics do not teach Jesus was raised from the dead. The Catholics teach God was raised from the dead. So there wrong there to.

i'm not aware of such distinction. You really want to add irrelevant minutia here. The point is that protestants and Romans have shared history. There can be issues still to resolve. But you are trying to create a new doctrine on a minority view that denies Christ's divinity.

 

[Peterlag]

i'm not aware of such distinction. You really want to add irrelevant minutia here. The point is that protestants and Romans have shared history. There can be issues still to resolve. But you are trying to create a new doctrine on a minority view that denies Christ's divinity.

I am not the only person on the planet who does not buy the Catholic trinity. There's millions of us. There's even a bunch on this site.

 

[mikesw]

Not according to him... the historian. According to him it was a war between the bishops that went on for years.

View attachment 765

Thanks for sharing nearly meaningless information. No one has claimed that everyone settled on the same concept of the deity of Christ. People saw that Christ's deity and the interrelation to the God was important enough to fight over. Maybe you will eventually have something of substance to share