AI, Trinity, theology ❤️ when smart people talk to me ….…God as self-giving love is the ontological foundation, & everything is understood in relation to that.
@DrJimHamilton No, our argument is what is called a reductio ad absurdum. We assume your premise in order to show that it implies a contradiction and hence cannot be true.
Only ~16% of Christians truly understand the Trinity. If it’s the “essential” doctrine of Christianity, how can that be true?
The Trinity is a man-made belief created centuries later and is not biblical.
Most Christians actually believe something much closer to the LDS Godhead: three distinct divine beings united in purpose.
Surveys don’t lie. Time to rethink what you’ve been taught.
What’s your view?
This is what I know to be true. 👇🏻
If God isn't Trinity, then who was Jesus referring to when He said "Make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit"?
If you think God just is one thing you don’t understand the thesis of the classical world when it comes to the simple God. This is just weird mixed up nonesense.
Islam and the creedal tradition are extensions of classical theism. And for that reason, they are both false, but at least the Muslims actually follow classical theism to its logical conclusion of God, only being one thing.
But have you ever considered that maybe you shouldn’t assume that classical theism is true?
B curious what’s the prior to “actual” being used here as I was under the impression true revelation is NOT received apart from apostolic tradition, ecclesial memory, doctrine, liturgy, & authoritative interpretation which are Christ’s actual teachings. Otherwise: think I agree.
The NT does not teach the Trinity; the Trinity must be exegeted out of the NT using a prior metaphysical framework of hypostasis / ousia. The corruption is very simple — there is a meaningful distinction between true revelation - the actual teachings of Jesus - and the fallible human interpretation and re-narration about Jesus and his teachings. The NT doesn’t accurately or fully preserve Jesus actual teachings - instead it presents them within the interpretations and memory of its various authors. Second the epistles in the NT are interpretations of Jesus teachings and significance. As is well known there were competing Jesus movement communities (Jewish Christians, Pauline Gentile believers, Gnostics) with different beliefs in the 1st century and the NY contains some of their competing views and not others.
At the end of the day, an honest Christian must authenticate the NT using the Church’s infallible authority.
I don’t talk about it much cause it wasn’t a big deal for me. But I am a convert in a sense. Holler at me if you need help. I literally teach catechism classes and have a degree from a non-Catholic school in theology, so I think my perspective is fun.
Any catholic converts out there?
I really want to be catholic; but have a few disagreements in doctrine. Because of that, I don’t feel it is right for me to take the oath.
So I have to stay protestant, even though I lean more catholic…
Anyone else feel or deal with this?