Would You Consider non-Trinitarian Christians to be actual Christians (scripture, Christ, Holy Ghost)

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by UtahOrBust994

I am curious how you'll respond to that post, I do hope you're still planning on it

and I am still waiting for you to respond to post 87.

[spmaiorca]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Actualy there is a ton of Historical evidence against it AND that cover-ups have occurred including the destruction of opposing writings.

This is why I am not a protestant- as they take their position and argument Sola Scriptura but the canon of New Testament scripture that they use is inevitably the one that was canonized by the Orthodox Church but they reject the Orthodox church on other issues. If you want to say there was some hidden group of Baptists who were erased from history- but had all different sorts of theologies ascribed to them- then why even pretend that anyone knows what happened in the early days of Christianity as you claim the real history was erased. UtahorBust and I are both converts to the Orthodox church so we have both looked at the issues at hand and came to a decision on how we read the data available to us.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Pleroo

So, the verse you quoted said, "in truth" (which you think has to do with "correct" doctrines, I guess), but you will qualify it by saying "at least a little bit of doctrinal truth"? Or maybe "truth about certain doctrines"? Or just "the truth that God is not a trinity"? Why do you think that it should be qualified in that way?

In truth means truth is at the core of our worship. Saying God is something He isn't, is not truthful and would then mean we were worshiping with a lie. Jesus made that point when speaking to the religious leaders of his day who twisted what was true, creating their own doctrines, and he did say they were from their father the Devil, the father of the lie.

Now the qualifications you list are yours so maybe you can explain them.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by spmaiorca

This is why I am not a protestant- as they take their position and argument Sola Scriptura but the canon of New Testament scripture that they use is inevitably the one that was canonized by the Orthodox Church but they reject the Orthodox church on other issues. If you want to say there was some hidden group of Baptists who were erased from history- but had all different sorts of theologies ascribed to them- then why even pretend that anyone knows what happened in the early days of Christianity as you claim the real history was erased. UtahorBust and I are both converts to the Orthodox church so we have both looked at the issues at hand and came to a decision on how we read the data available to us.

Remember Rev chapters 2 and 3 describe Greek churches, Eastern Churches.

However I spoke of the writings of the "Early Father's, Trinitarian scholars, Trinitarian historians and history itself.

An example, get a book 381 AD. There is a discussion of the council called by the emperor Theodosius and the orders to destroy any writing against the Trinity. Unfortunately for him not all of it was, so today we have the evidence that an effort was made to hide what was believed.

Note:

When one does speak of unqualified [unlimited] Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say the last quadrant of the 4th century ... Herein lies the difficulty. On the one hand, it was the dogmatic formula “one God in Three Persons” that would henceforth for more than 15 centuries structure and guide the Trinitarian essence of the Christian message...On the other hand, the formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development. (e.a.)—New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 295.

Trinity. The trinity of God is defined by the [Roman Catholic] Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of “person” and “nature” which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms so not appear in the Bible. In the N[ew]T[estament] the Father is “the God” (G[ree]k - ho theos), and Jesus is “the Son of God” (ho hyios tou theou). The Spirit is “the spirit of the God” or “the holy spirit,” in this context a synonymous term. Deity [in the Bible] is conceived not in the G[ree]k [philosophical term] of nature but rather as a level of being ... What is less clear about the Spirit [in the Bible] is His personal reality: often He is mentioned in language in which His personal reality is not explicit....The O[ld] T[estament], does not contain suggestions or foreshadowing of the trinity of persons. (e.a.)—Dictionaryof the Bible, John McKenzie, S.J., (Society of Jesuits) 1965, pp. 899–900.

The formulation “one God in three Persons” was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century...Among the Apostolic Fathers [Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias, Barnabas(?)] there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective [of a Trinity doctrine].— (e.a.), Vol. XIV (14), p. 299.The New Catholic Encyclopedia

This does not mean however, that we consider the traditional Scripture proof text method as mandatory or even possible. In the sense of a definition the doctrine of the Trinity is stated nowhere in Scripture
TheEncyclopedia ofthe Lutheran Chruch, 1965, Vol. III, p. 2414.

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA:
Even after the elimination of Gnosticism...the Trinitarians and the Unitarians continued to confront each other, the latter [the Unitarians] at the beginning of the 3rd century still forming the large majority. (e.a.)—11th edition, 1910-11, Vol. XXXIII (33), p. 963; and ibid., 1892, Vol. XXI (21), p. 127.


I once thought the Trinity could be true, so I studied basically Trinitarian sources and the virtually unanimously show it was man made and not biblical. Theologians will tell you a different story but never what their own scholars know.

I have far more than this available along with a knowledge of Biblical Greek and most of what is told to Trinitarian church members is false.

[Pleroo]

Originally Posted by expatCA

In truth means truth is at the core of our worship. Saying God is something He isn't, is not truthful and would then mean we were worshiping with a lie. Jesus made that point when speaking to the religious leaders of his day who twisted what was true, creating their own doctrines, and he did say they were from their father the Devil, the father of the lie.

Now the qualifications you list are yours so maybe you can explain them.

No, they aren't mine. They are yours. First you say it's so simple: Jesus said "in truth". But then you admit that you can't claim to have all truth or be without error. Which means that you are only worshiping God in SOME truth (or for all you know, only a LITTLE bit of truth). You would have to add words to the passage in order for it to mean that "truth" is only in regard to having a non-trinitarian view of God. Any of the erroneous understandings that you have about God don't count, apparently, according to you. That's pretty convenient for you. So, how did you make that determination?

[katjonjj]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Yeah, but you never met any of Jesus' contemporaries, did you? Sorry to hear that you don't think I can call myself a Christian. Fortunately, though, as Mother Teresa once said, "For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It never was between you and them anyway."

Good question. I've asked a similar one from time to time and have never gotten much in the way of a reasonable answer. I've asked what the point of two spirits even is. If one spirit is everywhere, doesn't that make a second one kind of redundant?

Kat... Don't get me wrong. I consider whomever calls themselves a follower of Christ to be Christian (as the definition states!). I was just stating my experience with Christians in general. I would also describe the Mormon non-trinitarianism a sort of trinitarianism in itself. Don't cry!

Yes. I find the two spirits redundant as well. I imagined it sort of like an angel when I was a kid but then the trinity was explained and well...

[katjonjj]

Originally Posted by Pleroo

As far as denominations, I don't think JW's believe that Jesus is God, or that the "holy spirit" is a person. Then there are modalists, who, as I understand it, believe that there is one God, a spirit, who manifests Godself in many ways (I think similar to the Hindu idea of God, if I'm not mistaken). And among the Christians who don't affiliate with any particular denomination, I believe quite a few do not hold to a Trinitarian view of God.

Apparently I need to stop hiding when people want to talk religion.. JK

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Either the Trinity is true or it is false. That, according to Jesus is important.
KJV John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Jesus' words are simple and clear.

Originally Posted by Pleroo

Do you claim to know all truth perfectly and without any error?

Originally Posted by expatCA

I know the truth about the Trinity. Studied it for nearly 40 years and the evidence from Trinitarians, Trinitarian scholars and history is overwhelming. It ain't true.
Do I claim to know All truth, nope, but this one, yep.

Originally Posted by Pleroo

So, the verse you quoted said, "in truth" (which you think has to do with "correct" doctrines, I guess), but you will qualify it by saying "at least a little bit of doctrinal truth"? Or maybe "truth about certain doctrines"? Or just "the truth that God is not a trinity"? Why do you think that it should be qualified in that way?

Originally Posted by expatCA

In truth means truth is at the core of our worship. Saying God is something He isn't, is not truthful and would then mean we were worshiping with a lie. Jesus made that point when speaking to the religious leaders of his day who twisted what was true, creating their own doctrines, and he did say they were from their father the Devil, the father of the lie.
Now the qualifications you list are yours so maybe you can explain them.

OH for Pete's sake . . . the "in truth" simply means the equivalent of "sincerely." It has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of anyone's asinine beliefs ABOUT God!!!

[Pleroo]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

OH for Pete's sake . . . the "in truth" simply means the equivalent of "sincerely." It has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of anyone's asinine beliefs ABOUT God!!!

I'd have gotten to that point eventually. Nothing like cutting to the chase and ruining my fun.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Pleroo

I'd have gotten to that point eventually. Nothing like cutting to the chase and ruining my fun.

Sorry Pleroo . . . I need to work on that "patience" thing!