Greatest Sect of Christianity

[loinburger]

You have no evidence at all that the doctrine of the trinity didn't come directly from Christ.

Which biblical passages in particular depict Christ explaining the Trinity? I won't consider it cheating if you consult somebody who has actually read the bible when formulating your answer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um, the concept of the Trinity doesn't come from anything in the Gospel of John, btw (aside from the Baptism of Jesus where God the Father tells everyone that this is my Son).

Gospel of Matthew is where most of the trinitarian references are found (such as go forth and baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

[Elok]

The exact language of the Trinity is missing from the Gospels (they don't discuss whether the Trinity are one in essence or personhood). However, the Gospels make it quite clear that there are three entities involved in salvation: God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. There is a triple God at that stage, albeit not necessarily a triune one. John 15:26 says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son obviously does likewise, so all that's missing is a declaration that they're all the same type of...being?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Uh oh - I feel a filoque clause controversy coming down .

[Elok]

That comes waaaaaaay later in Church doctrine. Do Protestants believe in the Filioque? Or do some of them, but not others?

[Kidlicious]

Which biblical passages in particular depict Christ explaining the Trinity? I won't consider it cheating if you consult somebody who has actually read the bible when formulating your answer.

hint: the Gospels aren't a complete record of what Christ said, however they are sufficient. If the early church believed in the Trinity it's because of the record of what Christ said and the apoatolic tradition.

[Lorizael]

If the early church believed it, Christ said it. *blink blink* Wow.

[Kidlicious]

I was brought up a Roman Catholic (post Vatican II). I've read the Bible in its entirety, but for the sake of sanity tend to avoid the long dreary lists of begats and antecedents in the Old Testament. I have a keen interest in Egyptian and Classical history. I have a fairly good grounding in the history of the Anglican Church in England (thanks to an excellent grammar school) .

I'm reasonably knowledgeable about the various doctrinal conflicts and heresies of Mediaeval and Renaissance Europe, from Lollardy and Catharism to the Waldenses and Socinians.

My politics are undeniably left of centre, and I've never hidden that.



I don't believe in the traditional view of Christianity, and certainly not the more whack job and modern variations on it. I'm congenitally disinclined, shall we say, towards a belief in Calvinism, an elect, predestination, talking in tongues, and paid clergy.

I'm not sure who I'm meant to have convinced into believing liberation theology, by the way- it just happens to be a subset of one branch of Christianity with which I'm most familiar, that I find correlates with some of my political concerns and agendas.

Unlike American televangelists I'm no snake oil salesman.

So you're wrong- logically and factually.

So you're honest. Ok, what's the real deal with the hard on that you have for me now.

[Kidlicious]

If the early church believed it, Christ said it. *blink blink* Wow.

Oh man. That's really bad reading skills.

[Lorizael]

Give it to me in paraphrase Bible form so that even I can understand it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That comes waaaaaaay later in Church doctrine. Do Protestants believe in the Filioque? Or do some of them, but not others?

Protestants come from the Catholic Church tradition, so yes, they believe in the filioque, but I think most of them don't think about it. I mean, when I worship at a Pentecostal Church (or the few times I visited a Baptist Church) there was no Nicene Creed recited, but at the Lutheran Church where I visit once a month the Nicene Creed includes the filoque.

Btw, I said that joking in response to your statement:

John 15:26 says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son obviously does likewise, so all that's missing is a declaration that they're all the same type of...being?

[Elok]

Yeah, I figured.

[Elok]

hint: the Gospels aren't a complete record of what Christ said, however they are sufficient. If the early church believed in the Trinity it's because of the record of what Christ said and the apoatolic tradition.

Wait, now you're *for* tradition? I don't get it. BTW, did you see my posts 645 ( http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/1...=1#post6047588 ) & 647 ( http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/1...=1#post6047608 )?

[loinburger]

hint: the Gospels aren't a complete record of what Christ said, however they are sufficient.

Okay, so then the Bible should be sufficient for you to formulate the idea of the Trinity. Please state which passages you used to do so.

If the Bible is sufficient, then why are you referring to what the early church believed? You ought to be able to justify everything that you believe using the bible alone. That's what it means for it to be "sufficient."

[Kidlicious]

Well one would be "Father and Son are one" and is there really a question with the Holy Spirit?

The Bible is sufficient for the knowledge of salvation, but it helps to know about the early church especially on matters of tradition and doctrine. Of course tradition and doctrine don't forgive sins etc...