Is belief in the doctrine of trinity crucial to a Christian's life?

[jaybird88]

The argument posed that the Pharisee never tested Jesus on the Trinity is quite an odd objection. Have you ever asked why they never tested Jesus on the virgin birth? Or on other various doctrines? I'm sure there are doctrines that you hold dear to that would be considered unorthodox. Why did the Jews not test Jesus in regards to these? Is that not as equally as odd? Put the shoe on the other foot.

the virgin birth would have been something that have only began at the birth of the Christ. the trinity, according to those that teach it, has always been there.

The Jews were awaiting the coming of the Messiah so it is of no wonder that they would test Jesus in regards to this claim of Messiahship (as they would anyone making the claim). In the process of Jesus affirming that He is indeed the Christ, He also affirms His divinity (something you claim they do not test Jesus on) on multiple accounts. This is obviously the reason they are seeking to kill Him. Recall John 5.18, where “the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” There is close connection between John 5.18, and John 19.7 -- “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”

the trinity doctrine was the only point i was bringing up.

 

[MattforJesus]

God said,thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

And is there a God beside Me,yea,there is no God,I know not any(Isaiah 44:8).

And before Me there was no God formed,neither shall there be after Me.I,even I,am the LORD,and beside Me there is no Savior(Isaiah 43:10-11).

But to us there is but one God,the Father,and in another place one God,and Father of all,who is above all,and through all,and in you all.

The Bible only attributes the Father as God.

The Son shall be called the mighty God,the everlasting Father.

The Father said that He would reveal a new name to the Jews,and speak to them,and Jesus said if you have seen Me,you have seen the Father,the words that I speak are not of My own,but the Father that dwells in Me,He does not works.

Jesus came in the Father's name.

The Son inherited the name from the Father.

The Holy Spirit comes in the name of Jesus.

Jesus said when He resurrects to heaven,do not ask Him anything,but only ask the Father,and He will do it.

But in another passage of scripture Jesus said when He resurrects to heaven,to ask Him and He will do it.

The Holy Spirit moved in creation.Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit dwells in the saints.

The Bible says that Jesus dwells in the light that no person can approach unto,and no person has seen Jesus,and no person will ever see Jesus.

When the Son comes He will be from everlasting,which means He will have no beginning.

The Son was made of a woman,made under the law,made according to the flesh.

Jesus is God manifest in the flesh,which God laid down His life,and purchased the Church with His own blood.

The Bible says there is one God,and thou believe there is one God,the devils also believe,and tremble.

They say there is 3 persons in one God,and then say God the Father,God the Son,and God the Holy Spirit,saying there is 3 Gods.

Is there one God,or three Gods.

I am going with there is one God,who is a Holy Spirit,and Father is a title for God,and the Son is the man Christ Jesus.

And there is not 3 persons in one God,but the 3 relationships God has with His saints designated by titles.

Father-Creator,parent of the saints.

Son-God's visible relationship to the saints.

Holy Spirit-God's invisible relationship to the saints.

But the same God with no distinction of persons.

And remember the Bible says,

But to us there is but one God,the Father.

One God,and Father of all,who is above all,and through you all,and in you all.

There is no God beside God.

There was no God formed before God,and no God formed after Him.

God is the only Savior.

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

So what will people believe,for if there is not a trinity,and only one God,will they be able to escape thou shalt have no other gods before Me,and the Bible says there is only one God.

 

[williamjordan]

the virgin birth would have been something that have only began at the birth of the Christ. the trinity, according to those that teach it, has always been there.



the trinity doctrine was the only point i was bringing up. [/SIZE]

The divinity of Jesus had not been revealed til Christ began making claims that seemed (to the Jews) questionable, which caused the reactions we see in John 5.18, 19.7.

How many times throughout the NT does Jesus exegete the OT, shedding new light on what was once held as truth? Jesus challenged the Jews, and opened minds to the Scripture which served as a testimony to Himself.

 

[Zi]

The point in all the scripture mentioning God Jesus and the Holy Spirit is to highlight their unity... Something most of the body has yet to concentrate on and grow in

 

[resurrection33]

However they are one and the same in the sense that they can only DO one thing at a time.
Your view cannot explain this:

16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He[c] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matt 3:16-17

Your limited view of God makes this passage impossible!

It would be easy for God to reside in Jesus, while at the same time, speaking from heaven.

 

[resurrection33]

There really isn't as big of a "debate" as you are led to believe. Of course, there will always be folks who will resurrect old heresies (in this case, the Sabellian heresy). This has been so since the beginning of the Christian era and presents itself to this very day. Oneness Pentecostals do this with the Sabellian heresy, Jehovah's Witnesses do it with the Arian heresy, and "Biblical Unitarians" do this with Socinianism. And nothing we say today is going to prevent them from being brought up in the future. As long as there are disagreements, there will always be room for "debate." But let me just clarify one thing. Just because something is up for debate doesn't mean that there is a big question mark on the issue.

When one group of people is accusing another of being heretics, I would say a debate exists.

 

[resurrection33]

I notice that Bogadile did not put you in any category. He addressed your idea or position. It is important to distinguish these, lest you get your knickers in a twist every time someone disagrees with you. Look at it this way: if a child answers an arithmetic question incorrectly, is the answer wrong or is the child wrong? Of course, it is the answer; a child cannot be "wrong", but his or her thoughts and conclusions can be.

He called me a modalist, didn't he?

 

[williamjordan]

When one group of people is accusing another of being heretics, I would say a debate exists.

I never denied that some form of discussion exists. But not exactly worthy of being called a "debate." The word "debate," as previously mentioned, can leave the impression as if there is a big question mark on the issue, or that there hasn't been any formal, educated, well-thought out response to the view you would refer to as "Oneness." Discussion pertaining to this subject is virtually absent from the academic arena. In fact, I don't recall the last time there was a published academic work in print either for or against the Oneness position, which further just goes to show that the scale of any "debate" existing is rather limited, few and scant. Perhaps on forums such as these, but not in academics.

 

[resurrection33]

I never denied that some form of discussion exists. But not exactly worthy of being called a "debate." The word "debate," as previously mentioned, can leave the impression as if there is a big question mark on the issue, or that there hasn't been any formal, educated, well-thought out response to the view you would refer to as "Oneness." Discussion pertaining to this subject is virtually absent from the academic arena. In fact, I don't recall the last time there was a published academic work in print either for or against the Oneness position, which further just goes to show that the scale of any "debate" existing is rather limited, few and scant. Perhaps on forums such as these, but not in academics.

I believe that God is one being who serves as a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Others seem to believe that there are three beings who are united and are God. Some people seem to get angry with me because they disagree with me. Therefore, I would have to believe a debate exists.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

While it is true that the Godhead is a mystery. The Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son.
What you are describing sounds like Modalism.

Jesus said, if you've seen Me, you HAVE seen the Father. I think this was Jesus saying He was God. And I think that's why He was murdered - because He was saying He was God in the flesh. Yes, it's a big mystery. I don't divide them up into three beings. They are all three just...God to me.

I did used to divide them up though. When I first met God, I watched a movie of the crucifixion and I got angry with God that He let that happen to Jesus. I told Him He could have found a better way. Then I was shocked when I realized Jesus WAS God! And that was all AFTER I received His Spirit!

 

[jaybird88]

I never denied that some form of discussion exists. But not exactly worthy of being called a "debate." The word "debate," as previously mentioned, can leave the impression as if there is a big question mark on the issue, or that there hasn't been any formal, educated, well-thought out response to the view you would refer to as "Oneness." Discussion pertaining to this subject is virtually absent from the academic arena. In fact, I don't recall the last time there was a published academic work in print either for or against the Oneness position, which further just goes to show that the scale of any "debate" existing is rather limited, few and scant. Perhaps on forums such as these, but not in academics.

the people on the other side of the fence say the same thing.