Scriptural justification for doctrine of The Trinity

SubjectSean · 03-12-2007 4:02pm #1

Does anybody know if there is any scriptural justification for this doctrine?

PDN · 03-12-2007 4:09pm

Scripture teaches the following:

1. There is only one God.

2. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God.

3. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from each other.

The Trinity (3 Persons within 1 Godhead) is the only explanation I have ever heard that does justice to these various strands of biblical teaching. Is it explicitly stated in any verse of Scripture? No.

SubjectSean · 03-12-2007 4:28pm

PDN wrote: »

Scripture teaches the following:

1. There is only one God.

2. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God.

3. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from each other.

The Trinity (3 Persons within 1 Godhead) is the only explanation I have ever heard that does justice to these various strands of biblical teaching. Is it explicitly stated in any verse of Scripture? No.

I'm having difficulty understanding how three distinct entities can actually be one entity it doesn't seem to make logical sense. Also I can only find Jesus saying that he is God in John? In the synoptics and in Acts it seems to say quite clearly that he isn't God.

Run_to_da_hills · 03-12-2007 4:32pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

Does anybody know if there is any scriptural justification for this doctrine?

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7, King James (This verse is ommitted out of the NIV.)

1k001 · 03-12-2007 5:18pm

The three members of the trinity ( i say Godhead instead) are three distinct and seperate beings. Evidence for this is seen when Jesus Christ is baptized. The bible says Christ came out of the water and a voice from heaven says: 'this is my beloved son in whom i am well pleased' (or something along those lines. The holy ghost we are told also appears in the form of a dove. This i think shows that they are seperate beings.

However in some other instances they are referred to as one. I believe that this is a referrence to their purpose rather than their state of being i.e they are 3 seperate beings with one purpose. In all the passages of scripture i have read there is none that justifies the doctrine of the trinity. It is one of the many things that men have no understanding of but try to coin concepts to fill the void.

kelly1 · 03-12-2007 5:31pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

Does anybody know if there is any scriptural justification for this doctrine?

Hello Sean, if you want a good explanation of how the Trinity is indeed one God, I'd recommend "Theology for Beginners" by F.J. Sheed.

http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Beginners-Francis-Joseph-Sheed/dp/0892831243/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196699019&sr=1-1

His explanation is something like this....

The Father is the source of the Trinity. Jesus the Son is a perfect mirror image of the Father. i.e. the Father projects a perfect image of Himself which is the Son and because this "image" of the Father is perfect, the image is in fact another person. The Father is the perfect giver and the Son is the perfect receiver. The Holy Spirit then is the perfect union and love between the Father and Son to the point that this love becomes another being which we call the Holy Spirit. So because the Son "proceeds" from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, there is in fact only one God in three distinct persons. All three persons and perfectly equal.

At least that's may basic understanding but FJ Sheed explains it far better.

God bless,
Noel.

PDN · 03-12-2007 5:40pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

I'm having difficulty understanding how three distinct entities can actually be one entity it doesn't seem to make logical sense. Also I can only find Jesus saying that he is God in John? In the synoptics and in Acts it seems to say quite clearly that he isn't God.

Maybe you could cite any passages in the Synoptics or in Acts that say Jesus is not God?

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" - which means, "God with us." (Matthew 1:22-23)

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

SubjectSean · 03-12-2007 9:38pm

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you could cite any passages in the Synoptics or in Acts that say Jesus is not God?

Ya in the synoptics he gives out to people for calling him good saying that nobody is good but God alone and also he calls the Lord "our" God there's also other things in the synoptics but I don't recall right now. I'll try to think ok. In Acts 2:22 it says "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazereth was a man accredited by God to you to do miracles wonders and signs which God did among you through him as you yourselves know." A man acredited by God is not God IMO

SubjectSean · 03-12-2007 9:42pm

kelly1 wrote: »

His explanation is something like this....

The Father is the source of the Trinity. Jesus the Son is a perfect mirror image of the Father. i.e. the Father projects a perfect image of Himself which is the Son and because this "image" of the Father is perfect, the image is in fact another person. The Father is the perfect giver and the Son is the perfect receiver. The Holy Spirit then is the perfect union and love between the Father and Son to the point that this love becomes another being which we call the Holy Spirit. So because the Son "proceeds" from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, there is in fact only one God in three distinct persons. All three persons and perfectly equal.

At least that's may basic understanding but FJ Sheed explains it far better.

God bless,
Noel.

Thanks Noel but this is just burning my synapses when I try to compute it. It would appear to be utter gobbldigook. 3 cannot be 1 no matter how hard I try.

PDN · 03-12-2007 10:58pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

A man acredited by God is not God IMO

Why not?

Jesus was fully God and fully man.

SubjectSean · 04-12-2007 2:14am

PDN wrote: »

Why not?

Jesus was fully God and fully man.

Why not is because a man accredited by God is just that, a man, there is no need for God to accredit Itself at all.

I don't see how any being can be another being at the same time. It defies all logic. Who was Jesus praying to? himself? In Luke 4:16 or thereabouts Jesus is supposed to have read from Isaiah and said today this scripture is fullfilled. The scripture isn't about God it is about a man who has the spirit of God on him and the things he has been sent to do. Your opinion would seem to make the words of Jesus somewhat schizoid.

PDN · 04-12-2007 10:22am

SubjectSean wrote: »

Why not is because a man accredited by God is just that, a man, there is no need for God to accredit Itself at all.

I don't see how any being can be another being at the same time. It defies all logic. Who was Jesus praying to? himself? In Luke 4:16 or thereabouts Jesus is supposed to have read from Isaiah and said today this scripture is fullfilled. The scripture isn't about God it is about a man who has the spirit of God on him and the things he has been sent to do. Your opinion would seem to make the words of Jesus somewhat schizoid.

No, my opinion simply means that the words of Jesus support the idea of a plurality of Persons within the Godhead. He cited the Father as a witness to Himself, but He also declared "I and my Father are One". You may not understand it - but surely you can muster the humility to conceive of a God who is not limited by your rather finite level of comprehension?

Your original post asked if there was Scriptural justification for the doctrine of the Trinity. There is more Scriptural justification for the Trinity than there is for your position of denying Christ's deity. You may not want to agree with the Scripture, that is your right, but that is a different issue altogether.

JimiTime · 04-12-2007 1:47pm

PDN wrote: »

No, my opinion simply means that the words of Jesus support the idea of a plurality of Persons within the Godhead. He cited the Father as a witness to Himself, but He also declared "I and my Father are One".

He also said, whilst speaking to God, (himself?), regarding the apostles, 'Let them be one, just as we are one'. So this 'oneness' is not, 'we are are literally the same thing. It seems to allude to a spiritual oneness.

You may not understand it - but surely you can muster the humility to conceive of a God who is not limited by your rather finite level of comprehension?

A very poor way to try put your point across IMO. Attack someones humility for not accepting an answer they view as inadequate?

Your original post asked if there was Scriptural justification for the doctrine of the Trinity. There is more Scriptural justification for the Trinity than there is for your position of denying Christ's deity.

I'd say that to every verse used to try prove the trinity, there is about 5 that would indicate otherwise tbh.
1 Corinthians 8
5for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth -- as there are gods many and lords many --
6yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] the all things,

You may not want to agree with the Scripture, that is your right, but that is a different issue altogether.

I can't speak for subjectsean, in view of other posts he has made, he doesn't seem to be christian, so maybe he doesn't accept the scriptures. However, your comment above seems to suggest that no believing the trinity is not agreeing with scripture. Absolutely not so. Its not agreeing with your interpretation, it doesn't mean that its disagreeing though.

PDN · 04-12-2007 2:58pm

JimiTime wrote: »

A very poor way to try put your point across IMO. Attack someones humility for not accepting an answer they view as inadequate?

What are you talking about? I'm simply pointing out that to reject something simply on the grounds that we cannot understand it is not reasonable. Why should the God of heaven and earth be limited by our feeble powers of comprehension? That's not an attack. It is a valid philosophical and theological point.

I'd say that to every verse used to try prove the trinity, there is about 5 that would indicate otherwise tbh.
1 Corinthians 8
5for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth -- as there are gods many and lords many --
6yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] the all things,

Sigh, it's not a case of trying to use a verse as a proof text, but rather coming up with an interpretation that remains faithful to all the verses. The verse quoted is one of those I would use to argue for the Trinity in that it clearly states there is only one God, an essential part of the Trinity doctrine.

I can't speak for subjectsean, in view of other posts he has made, he doesn't seem to be christian, so maybe he doesn't accept the scriptures. However, your comment above seems to suggest that no believing the trinity is not agreeing with scripture. Absolutely not so. Its not agreeing with your interpretation, it doesn't mean that its disagreeing though.

It's nothing to do with whether a particular poster accepts the Scriptures or not. I have confined myself to addressing the question in the OP regarding Scriptural justification. There is more Scriptural justification for the Trinity than there is for denying the deity of Jesus Christ.

JimiTime · 04-12-2007 3:43pm

PDN wrote: »

What are you talking about? I'm simply pointing out that to reject something simply on the grounds that we cannot understand it is not reasonable. Why should the God of heaven and earth be limited by our feeble powers of comprehension? That's not an attack. It is a valid philosophical and theological point.

It certainly comes across as a veiled attack PDN. You are asking someone to have the 'humility' to say I don't comprehend. This has an implication that there is a lack of humility if you refuse to accept it. That may not be how you intended it, but it certainly came across to me that way. I agree, that we should not attack something solely on the grounds that we don't understand it. However, if no one can adequately understand it, and there is an alternative view, that provides understanding, well...do the math.

Sigh,

Something the matter? You can share some wonderful knowledge at times PDN, and I've indeed enjoyed your input here for months now, and have learned from your knowledge. Putting little things like the above in your posts, is such a let down.

it's not a case of trying to use a verse as a proof text, but rather coming up with an interpretation that remains faithful to all the verses.

I agree, just firing off scriptures back and forth is not productive at the best of times. However, you are the one who was using scripture as proof text when you used the 'I and the father are one' scripture. You never alluded to the context Jesus used 'onenesss' later. I agree, the explaination needs to fit all the verses. i would also say that the trinity doctrine doesn't do this adequately. You may say that The Father being God and Jesus being his only begotten Son, but not himself God, is not explained adequately neither, but there you go.

The verse quoted is one of those I would use to argue for the Trinity in that it clearly states there is only one God, an essential part of the Trinity doctrine.

How do you use that verse to prove the trinity? I can see how you'd use it to show that there is one god? but a triune godhead?

It's nothing to do with whether a particular poster accepts the Scriptures or not. I have confined myself to addressing the question in the OP regarding Scriptural justification.

Sorry, I meant agreed with, not accepted. You seemed to say that you can agree or disagree with scripture, and that not believing the trinity is disagreeing with it. I understand that you are saying to the OP, 'yes there is scriptural justification'. However, many can try justify things that are ungodly from misusing scripture.

There is more Scriptural justification for the Trinity than there is for denying the deity of Jesus Christ.

In your opinion.

PDN · 04-12-2007 4:45pm

JimiTime wrote: »

It certainly comes across as a veiled attack PDN. You are asking someone to have the 'humility' to say I don't comprehend. This has an implication that there is a lack of humility if you refuse to accept it. That may not be how you intended it, but it certainly came across to me that way. I agree, that we should not attack something solely on the grounds that we don't understand it. However, if no one can adequately understand it, and there is an alternative view, that provides understanding, well...do the math.

If there is an alternative way, that is consistent with the overall teaching of Scripture, then that is fine - but I don't believe there is. God is, by definition, much greater than we are. His Word explicitly says that His ways and thoughts are way above ours. Therefore "I don't understand" is not a valid argument against a proposition concerning God. The question is whether Scripture provides justification for the doctrine of the Trinity. If it does then whether we understand or not is irrelevant. For any of us to pretend that our ability to understand God has any bearing on what is true of Him is, IMO, lacking in humility.

The same applies, incidentally, to your thread on hell. The issue is not whether you can understand how a loving God can send anyone to hell. The issue, at least for those of us who see Scripture as authoritative, is whether the Bible teaches such a thing. If the Bible does teach hell then we should believe in it, if it doesn't teach it then we shouldn't believe in it - our ability to understand has nothing to do with it.

Something the matter? You can share some wonderful knowledge at times PDN, and I've indeed enjoyed your input here for months now, and have learned from your knowledge. Putting little things like the above in your posts, is such a let down ... How do you use that verse to prove the trinity? I can see how you'd use it to show that there is one god? but a triune godhead?

The reason why I sighed is because I have already made very clear that I am not quoting one isolated verse to prove the Trinity. There are a host of verses saying that there is only one God, many others indicating or explicitly stating that Jesus is God, and others that state that Jesus and the Farther are distinct Persons. The verse you quoted supports the concept of one God, it in no way argues against any aspect of the Trinity. That is why I said it is one of the verses I would use to argue for the Trinity.

In your opinion.

Of course, that is all any of us can offer on these boards - our opinion.

SubjectSean · 04-12-2007 4:55pm

PDN wrote: »

No, my opinion simply means that the words of Jesus support the idea of a plurality of Persons within the Godhead. He cited the Father as a witness to Himself, but He also declared "I and my Father are One". You may not understand it - but surely you can muster the humility to conceive of a God who is not limited by your rather finite level of comprehension?

AFAIK the Godhead is a Hindu concept being the source of Gods plural and the fact that you have introduced it would seem to make it clear that the concept of the trinity cannot be taken on board without fragmenting God so that it is no longer One. One is a really simple number and rather than not being able to conceive of it there is no doubting what it is. Anything that adds to this number or divides this number renders it no longer one.

PDN wrote: »

Your original post asked if there was Scriptural justification for the doctrine of the Trinity. There is more Scriptural justification for the Trinity than there is for your position of denying Christ's deity. You may not want to agree with the Scripture, that is your right, but that is a different issue altogether.

I can see Jesus denying his deity in His own words in the synoptics. Do you believe that our scripture has arrived from the scribes without being altered to suit? I think it is full of additions, subtractions and inventions. Anybody who takes account of human nature must know this surely?

PDN · 04-12-2007 4:57pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

I can see Jesus denying his deity in His own words in the synoptics. Do you believe that our scripture has arrived from the scribes without being altered to suit? I think it is full of additions, subtractions and inventions. Anybody who takes account of human nature must know this surely?

No, I do not believe the Scripture has been altered.

Run_to_da_hills · 04-12-2007 5:51pm

PDN wrote: »

No, I do not believe the Scripture has been altered.

Scripture certainly has been altered by the modern day Bible butchers who wrote the NIV. Look up 1 John 5 vs 7 in your NIV ... It dose not exist!.

The most descriptive verse in whole Bible of the "Trinity" has been "taketh away" in your NIV. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7.

http://www.1john57.com/1john57.htm

JimiTime · 04-12-2007 5:51pm

PDN wrote: »

If there is an alternative way, that is consistent with the overall teaching of Scripture, then that is fine - but I don't believe there is.

Fair enough. But others do.

God is, by definition, much greater than we are.

Fact.

His Word explicitly says that His ways and thoughts are way above ours.

Also fact.

Therefore "I don't understand" is not a valid argument against a proposition concerning God.

As i noted in my previous post. 'i don't understand it so it must be wrong' is indeed a bad ground to stand on.

The question is whether Scripture provides justification for the doctrine of the Trinity. If it does then whether we understand or not is irrelevant.

well when there is an alternative view that is understandable and justifiable, then it shakes it up a bit. Then it just comes down to what you want to interpret.

For any of us to pretend that our ability to understand God has any bearing on what is true of Him is, IMO, lacking in humility.

Very Dangerous ground IMO, but that is part of the scaremongering i suppose. Keep God mysterious, so we can make the doctrines and control the people. religion in a nutshell IMO.

The same applies, incidentally, to your thread on hell. The issue is not whether you can understand how a loving God can send anyone to hell. The issue, at least for those of us who see Scripture as authoritative, is whether the Bible teaches such a thing.

I agree that the bible is authoritive. i also believe the bible doesn't teach these doctrines. Also, if you want to answer the question on hell or enter the discussion on that thread, by all means do. If its a case that it is something you don't understand but accept based on your understanding of scripture, then fair enough.

If the Bible does teach hell then we should believe in it, if it doesn't teach it then we shouldn't believe in it - our ability to understand has nothing to do with it.

I believe it has everything to do with it TBH, while also believing that a lack of understanding does not mean a lack of truth. Asking 'why?', is one of the best things we can do to come to know God. Being obedient is paramount of course. The pharisees did not understand the law, but obeyed it. Jesus had to tell them the meaning. Love God and Love your neighbour. Now, if they had asked 'why?', they would have understood it more. But they built a fence around it, much like religion does. David understood it, so he could in good concience take the food from the temple. understanding God to the best we can is an essential part of being a christian. Rather than just obeying, understanding opens us to so much more.

The reason why I sighed is because I have already made very clear that I am not quoting one isolated verse to prove the Trinity.

But you took a verse in isolation, and failed to mention the later context that Christ used this oneness in. So in answering the OP 'Is there scriptural justification for the trinity?', you isolated a scripture to support that view, without alluding to the later context. I understand, that you believe that isolating scriptures is not how to prove the trinity, its having a doctrine that fits all the verses. However, you did indulge in this practice (below).

pdn wrote:

He cited the Father as a witness to Himself, but He also declared "I and my Father are One". You may not understand it - but surely you can muster the humility to conceive of a God who is not limited by your rather finite level of comprehension?

The verse you quoted supports the concept of one God, it in no way argues against any aspect of the Trinity. That is why I said it is one of the verses I would use to argue for the Trinity.

But it does not support the trinity?

It categorically states, 'there is one God, The Father.......and One Lord, Jesus Christ. How would you work that into proving a triune godhead?

PDN · 04-12-2007 6:00pm

JimiTime wrote: »

But it does not support the trinity? It categorically states, 'there is one God, The Father.......and One Lord, Jesus Christ. How would you work that into proving a triune godhead?

It does not prove the Trinity on its own. It supports the Trinity when you put it alongside other verses. It supports one of the three truths I outlined in Post #2. So you take it, along with other verses that support the other 2 truths (Christ's deity & the distinction of Persons). I have yet to see any doctrine proposed, other than the Trinity, that adequately reconciles all three sets of verses.

Soul Winner · 05-12-2007 3:02pm

Sorry wrong place for my post I was going to place here. Will post a fresh one on the board...

SubjectSean · 06-12-2007 5:05pm

PDN wrote: »

It does not prove the Trinity on its own. It supports the Trinity when you put it alongside other verses. It supports one of the three truths I outlined in Post #2. So you take it, along with other verses that support the other 2 truths (Christ's deity & the distinction of Persons). I have yet to see any doctrine proposed, other than the Trinity, that adequately reconciles all three sets of verses.

Thanks PDN you have shown me that Christians believe in the Trinity because it is implicit in the scripture that has come down to us. Personally I think that the claim for the divinity of Jesus is too weak to support this concept of a triune God but I believe scripture has been tampered with and you do not.

JimiTime · 06-12-2007 5:33pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

I believe scripture has been tampered with and you do not.

I would agree that there has been a certain amount of tampering, but what kind of tampering are you talking about? I would see the tampering like this:

Certain doctrines make their way into the mainstream of Christianity, I would say the trinity, the immortal soul and hellfire being the biggies. They become accepted and taken as a given, so when it comes to translating, certain liberties are taken, such as putting in the word 'hell' where the words, sheol, hades, gahenna etc are. If one takes it as a given that these doctrines are true, then it can impact on translation. So in what way do you think they've been tampered with? and what is your reasons for believing?

SubjectSean · 08-12-2007 11:18am

JimiTime wrote: »

I would agree that there has been a certain amount of tampering, but what kind of tampering are you talking about? I would see the tampering like this:

Certain doctrines make their way into the mainstream of Christianity, I would say the trinity, the immortal soul and hellfire being the biggies. They become accepted and taken as a given, so when it comes to translating, certain liberties are taken, such as putting in the word 'hell' where the words, sheol, hades, gahenna etc are. If one takes it as a given that these doctrines are true, then it can impact on translation. So in what way do you think they've been tampered with? and what is your reasons for believing?

Well JimiTime I would see the tampering like this. I don't believe that Jesus ever claimed to be divine. This would be a blasphemous thing for any Jew to do and his family would undoubtedly have deserted him. I think after he was murdered his followers consisted of two types, Hebraic Jews and Hellenistic Jews.

At some stage prior to 70AD the Hellenistic Jews were run out of Jerusalem lock stock and barrel. The exact reason for this is not made clear but we may surmise that Stephen said something in his speech at the Temple which outraged the authorities and got him stoned to death.

Now as I say the author of Acts gives no hint of what got the authorities so offended. We are to believe from Acts that "the Jews" reacted like savage animals. Personally I think that the only thing that could be responsible for the outrage that led to the stoning of Stephen could be some form of blasphemy. I believe that he and the hellenistic Jews voiced a belief in the divinity of Jesus that the Hebraic Jews did not sanction.

I think from this point on the doctrines of the two groups became different. Whatever orthodox scripture has come to us has come only from the group that was run out of town. The closest followers of Jesus stayed behind and stayed Jewish and no doubt convinced many Jews to follow "the Way" which quite clearly from Acts involved living in poverty and worshipping Jehovah in the Temple.

As time passed by and generations went by these people were eventually denounced as Judaising heretics by the Hellenistic/Roman Church that had been so greatly expanded by Paul. By the time it was doing the denouncing and declaring its own orthodoxy this church's philosophy had begun to bear little relation to the original philosophy of John the Baptist and Jesus. Within a matter of 300 years a movement that had been initially characterised by asceticism and non-violence had come to embrace materialism, war-making and syncretist pagan doctrines.

JimiTime · 10-12-2007 1:16pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

Well JimiTime I would see the tampering like this. I don't believe that Jesus ever claimed to be divine. This would be a blasphemous thing for any Jew to do and his family would undoubtedly have deserted him. I think after he was murdered his followers consisted of two types, Hebraic Jews and Hellenistic Jews.

At some stage prior to 70AD the Hellenistic Jews were run out of Jerusalem lock stock and barrel. The exact reason for this is not made clear but we may surmise that Stephen said something in his speech at the Temple which outraged the authorities and got him stoned to death.

Now as I say the author of Acts gives no hint of what got the authorities so offended. We are to believe from Acts that "the Jews" reacted like savage animals. Personally I think that the only thing that could be responsible for the outrage that led to the stoning of Stephen could be some form of blasphemy. I believe that he and the hellenistic Jews voiced a belief in the divinity of Jesus that the Hebraic Jews did not sanction.

I think from this point on the doctrines of the two groups became different. Whatever orthodox scripture has come to us has come only from the group that was run out of town. The closest followers of Jesus stayed behind and stayed Jewish and no doubt convinced many Jews to follow "the Way" which quite clearly from Acts involved living in poverty and worshipping Jehovah in the Temple.

Could I ask you how you arrived at this conclusion? Also, do you believe that the accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are false? If so, where is it that Christs message is? Or do you believe they have been altered to say Jesus was the Son of God? If so, why would you conclude this? When you say 'divine', are you saying he was the Son of God but not God, or are you saying he was just a man?

As time passed by and generations went by these people were eventually denounced as Judaising heretics by the Hellenistic/Roman Church that had been so greatly expanded by Paul. By the time it was doing the denouncing and declaring its own orthodoxy this church's philosophy had begun to bear little relation to the original philosophy of John the Baptist and Jesus. Within a matter of 300 years a movement that had been initially characterised by asceticism and non-violence had come to embrace materialism, war-making and syncretist pagan doctrines.

I agree with the above. I think both the Roman and Orthodox churches are far from christianity. However, i base this on the knowledge contained in the books they themselves claim to observe. These very scriptures are what condemn them, so do you believe these scriptures have been tampered with? If I am to assume that you are right in saying that there was the hellenistic and hebraic jews, did the hebaic jews believe jesus was their prophesised messiah? If so, then what did he save them from and how did he save them from it?

Or are you saying jesus was just a rebel? Actually, it might be better if you explain who you think jesus is?

Scriptural justification for doctrine of The Trinity

Comments