Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:
More smoke and mirrors, dogma. The only possible "logical" answer? You acknowledged in the preceding sentence that was impossible.

And? The trinity is logically impossible, therefore it cannot be the only answer to the question of "How do the Father, Son, and Spirit relate?"

Besides the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity in purely logical terms is ANCILLARY to to this discussion (I know you like that word)

Manchu wrote:
A-historical an incorrect yet again. The doctrine of the Trinity did not come from readings of scripture.

No one who theorized about the Trinity actually spoke to Jesus, or even one of his immediate disciples. Literally the only possible source would be scriptural, or considered scriptural in modern times.

Manchu wrote:
But that's not what JEB or I am saying. We're saying that there is a definition of Christian and some people do not meet it.

No, that's exactly what you're doing by claiming that 2 separate clauses constitute the minimal definition of a word despite clear examples that contradict the point.

Manchu wrote:
You're saying that the word "Christian" basically means whatever anyone who uses it wants it to mean.

That's not at all what I'm doing. I've repeatedly stated what the minimal definition of 'Christian' is, and why that is the minimal deinition.

Manchu wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Now that, in all honesty, is naive.
The Nicene Council was not about Jesus, it was about thier 'interpertation' of Jesus, and what they deemed to be orthodox. Anyone who had a slightly different view, like tha Arians, were cast out.
And there are th issues of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why did the council refuse to acknowledge THEM?

EF, I like you, but this discussion is pretty much at a stand-still until you learn more about the things you want to discuss.

You're right. I don't know enough about the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nicean (spelling?) Council to talk about them in any depth. But I have been born and raised in a Christian family. I go to Church every sunday, even though I would rather be surfing, out of respect of my parent belief. My brothers are (in my eyes) also firmly indoctrinated.
I know what it is to be a christian, it is a relationship with God and Jesus Christ, and at one point in my life was very close to being born again. I turned away from it though, for a number of reasons. None of which I really want to discuss publicly on this thread.

You must look at it this way. Who decided what it is to be a 'Proper Christian'? The Nicean council.
Who SHOULD have decided, and laid it out in the bible? (of which there are many different versions ) Jesus.
That is why I ironically agreed with JEB in calling your sect of Christianity the Nicean Disciples. I was being a little cheeky there. >_>


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:@tblock1984: I was qouting Manchu, who was qouting JEB. I kinda fethed it up.

Actually, I think I was quoting dogma. JEB would not have stated that Mormonism is a type of Christianity.

lol Then I REALLY fethed it up.

dogma wrote:I've repeatedly stated what the minimal definition of 'Christian' is, and why that is the minimal deinition.

Ahh, the fun times we have had on Dakka labeling things, which leads to us unintentionally labeling each other, that results in shenanigans. The crazy thing is I have only been a member for three months! EPIC WTFLOL!?!

Reminds me of atheism vs. Christmas debate...
Which reminds me of the definition of atheism debate...
Which reminds me of the definition of theism debate...
Which reminds me of this:

dogma wrote:I've repeatedly stated what the minimal definition of 'Christian' is, and why that is the minimal definition.

And unfortunately for you, it is dead wrong...Damn I go to start a P&M Blog and like 8 thousand posts pop up!

Manchu wrote:
*sigh* Yes there was.

Orthodox is a term which refers to correct, or accepted belief. If there is no standard against which to consider a belief correct, then there is no such thing as orthodoxy. You can refer to a community which existed prior to the adoption of such a standard as 'orthodox' but you're simply making a statement of convenience, not commenting on the propriety of the beliefs held by those communities.

Manchu wrote:
And what pray tell do you think this means apart from a Trinitarian understanding of God? Whatever it is, it's not Christianity.

Unitarianism. Arianism. Any other valid Christological solution to the question posed. Messiah does not mean son of God, or God the son. That's what it is often equated with in the Nicene tradition, but that is not its meaning.

Manchu wrote:
The point that I was trying to make is that Arians believed themselves to be Christians not that they actually were in a doctrinal sense.

As I've said, repeatedly, doctrine does not determine one's nature as Christian. It can affect what kind of Christian is being discussed, but it cannot exclude them from Christianity. This is why the concept of heresy exists. The heretic is still Christian, even if his beliefs do not align with orthodoxy.

Manchu wrote:
With regard to dogmatic definitions heretics are not Christians.

That's true if you're a member of an orthodox denomination. However, not all Christians are orthodox.

Manchu wrote:
For example, there are many people in the parishes who hold Arian opinions quite unconsciously. Does this effect whether or not they are Christians? You are mixing categories.

No. But that has nothing to do with the claim I'm making.

Manchu wrote:
When we talk about doctrine we are in the realm of "you must believe X in order to profess Christianity." If one does not, one is not Christian.

You can hold that as a belief, and many people do, but it has not relevance to categorical consideration.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:And unfortunately for you, it is dead wrong...

And now I'm reminded why I've always detested orthodoxy.

dogma wrote:And now I'm reminded why I've always detested Orthodoxy.

Oh come now, there is no reason to bash on GK Chesterton! Its ok, this conversation reminds me why I detest heresy! On a serious note though, you are completely disregarding a basic tenet of Christian faith as you make some of your assertions. You say the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical, but you forget that that doesn't matter. To any Christian, God, in all of his forms, is beyond human comprehension and understanding. So just because it doesn't make sense to you, to me, to any people doesn't mean it can't be true. To dictate otherwise is in fact very poor logic. More realistically it suggests our own ineptitude in describing and understanding said phenomena. Just a thought.

...I'm starting to think that dogma and JEB_Stuart are the same person. Like Two-Face from Batman.


Except they're BOTH mentally scarred and ugly... (just joking guys)

I can't believe it, but I agree with JEB! LOL, just kidding...

JEB, you were the first person whom I exploded in nerdrage, er, umm... The first person to debate with me on Dakka, so you have a special place in my jaded heart...

Emperors Faithful wrote:...I'm starting to think that dogma and JEB_Stuart are the same person. Like Two-Face from Batman.


Except they're BOTH mentally scarred and ugly... (just joking guys)

I can live with that. Thankfully we aren't identical twins. I am definitely the better looking of the two, I mean take a look at Dogma's baby picture!
Truly horrifying...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tblock1984 wrote:I can't believe it, but I agree with JEB! LOL, just kidding...

JEB, you were the first person whom I exploded in nerdrage, er, umm... The first person to debate with me on Dakka, so you have a special place in my jaded heart...

Awww, that's special...

JEB_Stuart wrote: You say the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical, but you forget that that doesn't matter. To any Christian, God, in all of his forms, is beyond human comprehension and understanding. So just because it doesn't make sense to you, to me, to any people doesn't mean it can't be true. To dictate otherwise is in fact very poor logic. More realistically it suggests our own ineptitude in describing and understanding said phenomena. Just a thought.

Maybe I should have written more clearly. The Trinity is illogical (where logic is an earthly concept). However, that doesn't mean it isn't believable. Because the Trinity is illogical, it isn't the only possible solution to the question it is meant to answer. If it were logical, it would be the only possible answer and otherwise contradictory additions could not be made consistent with it. Since it isn't the only possible answer, otherwise contradictory additions can be made, as the only barrier is coming up with a believable answer, rather than a logical one.

In short, when considering an omnipotent being, logic isn't necessarily relevant. Only belief is. Of course we can categorize those earthly beliefs using earthly logic, as they emanate from the same realm.

At the first pic.
Although the second one does leave room for flaming...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DAMMIT! Ninja'd again!

Lion
Because in the next life I don't want to do gak but sit around the Savannah mauling stuff all day, then wait for my lionesses to bring me my dinner

OOOPS, wrong thread... TEHE

dogma wrote:In short, when considering an omnipotent being, logic isn't necessarily relevant. Only belief is. Of course we can categorize those earthly beliefs using earthly logic, as they emanate from the same realm.

And that is why we Trinitarians see such things as the nature of the Trinity, the nature of Christ's humanity, etc. as being completely relevant to those who wish to call themselves Christians. I will be more then happy to acknowledge the beliefs of other religions in Jesus Christ, but I am a dogmatic person by nature so I won't acknowledge them as members of the Body of Christ. That being said I can only make judgments based on what I feel has been revealed to us, but God is the ultimate judge when it comes to who is found in the Book of Life, and who isn't. I like to think that I will be very surprised at who is and who isn't in Heaven. For what its worth I think Dante had a pretty good interpretation....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tblock1984 wrote:Lion
Because in the next life I don't want to do gak but sit around the Savannah mauling stuff all day, then wait for my lionesses to bring me my dinner

OOOPS, wrong thread... TEHE

Bwahahahah Thread post +1 for tblock!

@JEB: Lol, you're such a crypto Catholic.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:Lion
Because in the next life I don't want to do gak but sit around the Savannah mauling stuff all day, then wait for my lionesses to bring me my dinner

OOOPS, wrong thread... TEHE

Bwahahahah Thread post +1 for tblock!

Damn, today alone I am up to, what.. +3 now? I think I just leveled up


Thanks Everyone!!!

Manchu wrote:@JEB: Lol, you're such a crypto Catholic.

Dream on papist...

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Manchu wrote:@JEB: Lol, you're such a crypto Catholic.

Dream on papist...

Delude on, heretic.

@ dogma- The bottom line. The teaching of the Trinity is Biblical, and is a fundamental aspect of orthodox Christianity. This fundamentality says that this is the God of the Bible and that God is a triune being. If someone teaches a different teaching then they worship a different god than the God of the Bible. Therefore if they worship a different god than the God of the Bible they are not Christians. They would be classified as a cult.

Cults use flowery words to hide what they really believe, like the Mormon GodHead that tblock referenced for example. The term GodHead is a Christian term for the trinity, that they have twisted into their own form. Or that Jehovas witnesses believe Jesus, is Michael the archangel(a created being). They don't worship the same God I do.

GG

Is we burn heretics yet?

Manchu wrote:

dogma wrote:There was no such thing as an orthodox Christian community prior to the council at Nicaea.

*sigh* Yes there was. Like EF, you need to learn a little more about the things you want to discuss. You have a good sense of method in argumen (i.e., logic) but your premises are pretty faulty. Example:

I'm not sure what you can be referencing prior to Nicaea. There were 'Church Orders' in the form of The Didache but that could hardly be considered canon. The only other argument prior to Nicaea that may be made is Marcion....but his rejection of the Old Testament simply led to the formation of the canon at the date Dogma cited. Early Christian communities were a hodgepodge of differing standards, each blending parts of the gospels within the Jewish scriptures.

Regardless, it is moot. To believe that anyone can discern canon from texts that originated in the oral tradition, which were then transcribed under candlelight by one of the few members of the communities that had the ability to write (Whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text), which were then copied by hand/candle light for several hundred years after the fact (By those whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text)....well is a pretty big stretch.

generalgrog wrote:@ dogma- The bottom line. The teaching of the Trinity is Biblical, and is a fundamental aspect of orthodox Christianity.

Since When? The Nicean Council?

This fundamentality says that this is the God of the Bible and that God is a triune being. If someone teaches a different teaching then they worship a different god than the God of the Bible. Therefore if they worship a different god than the God of the Bible they are not Christians. They would be classified as a cult.

So whoever does not conform to YOUR branch of Christianity is a cult?

Cults use flowery words to hide what they really believe, like the Mormon GodHead that tblock referenced for example. The term GodHead is a Christian term for the trinity, that they have twisted into their own form. Or that Jehovas witnesses believe Jesus, is Michael the archangel(a created being). They don't worship the same God I do.

GG

On the other hand. They do. In fact it's entirely arguable to say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship the same god becuase he is the Abrahamic God. (Note, it's an argument not my personal belief)

AgeOfEgos wrote:Regardless, it is moot. To believe that anyone can discern canon from texts that originated in the oral tradition, which were then transcribed under candlelight by one of the few members of the communities that had the ability to write (Whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text), which were then copied by hand/candle light for several hundred years after the fact (By those whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text)....well is a pretty big stretch.

Well at least it took 6 pages before this old argument was brought up.

I'm surprised it didn't come from frigs.

The thread death spiral has started.

GG

eneralgrog wrote:If someone teaches a different teaching then they worship a different god than the God of the Bible

Agreed, except I would replace "God of the Bible" with Jesus Christ for complete accuracy.

@AgeofEgos: It's not as complicated as that. Christianity did not originate at Nicea. Christians brought it to Nicea, because it had been transmitted faithfully by the apostles of Jesus to their communities and so on right down to the bishops who went to Nicea (and right down to us). Nicea was held because some people, namely the Arian bishops of the east, started saying something else and that "something else" (Arianism) was gaining currency in the Byzantine court so needed to be dealt with authoritatively.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:The thread death spiral has started.

No need for tears. This is usually the fun part. Orkeo has already gotten a particularly clever barb of trollery off.

First, let me just put this right here:

moot /mut/ –adjective
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.

Second:


@GG:
Be nice... Technically you are in a cult, too...

cult -noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
–adjective
9. of or pertaining to a cult.
10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.
Origin:
1610–20; < L cultus habitation, tilling, refinement, worship, equiv. to cul-, var. s. of colere to inhabit, till, worship + -tus suffix of v. action

Emperors Faithful wrote:So whoever does not conform to YOUR branch of Christianity is a cult?

NO I agree to disagree with many orthodox Christians of different denominations. For example I disagree strongly with some of the Catholic teachings I have read about, however they are still orthodox and thus "in the club".

But yeah.. saying Jesus was Michael the Archangel, and or the trinity is made up of 3 seperate gods kind of rules them out of my branch of Christianity.

GG

AgeOfEgos wrote:Regardless, it is moot. To believe that anyone can discern canon from texts that originated in the oral tradition, which were then transcribed under candlelight by one of the few members of the communities that had the ability to write (Whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text), which were then copied by hand/candle light for several hundred years after the fact (By those whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text)....well is a pretty big stretch.

So are the historical implications that you mention, but that neither here nor there. The Roman Empire, and particularly its successor in the Byzantine Empire, were not the babbling fools that made up most of Western Europe in the Dark Ages. They were very educated and masters of art literature, music, philosophy, science, etc. And Christians from the beginning had wealthy, influential and powerful men in their number. Besides the only oral tradition that is agreed upon in the NT is the four gospels, the Epistles were all written by the Apostles and early disciple themselves.

It rules them out of every branch of Christianity. They are now something else altogether.

generalgrog wrote:@ dogma- The bottom line. The teaching of the Trinity is Biblical, and is a fundamental aspect of orthodox Christianity.

Careful, you should read up on the origins of the trinity in verse before declaring it canon. The original Greek manuscripts didn't contain the Trinity (By Erasmus), therefore he left them out of his original texts. He was publicly defamed but challenged anyone to present a manuscript showing proof of the Trinity. One was produced but has been shown to be a forgery.

The original was "Spirit, blood and water as one". The Trinity was used as by the Christian apologies in defense of pagan attacks. The concept of a triune deity was common in philosophy and history, so the blending of monotheistic teachings with modern day philosophy became a natural defense.

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

Why didn't I do this earlier?

The Dictionary wrote:Chris⋅tian /ˈkrɪstʃən/ –adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
11. a male given name.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@GG and all others bringing Mormons into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Wiki wrote:Non-orthodox Trinitarianism

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) identify the Trinity (or Godhead) as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but with a different intention than the Nicene faith. They regard these three as individual members of a heavenly triumvirate, completely united with one another in purpose—each member of the Godhead being a distinct being of physical form (God the Father, Jesus Christ) or spiritual form (The Holy Ghost.)[100] Mormons draw their understanding of the Godhead primarily from the First Vision of Joseph Smith, Jr., who claimed to have actually seen God the Father and Jesus Christ and recounted seeing "two personages," one of which referred to the other as His "Beloved Son." Mormons also cite Biblical script to support their position that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are actually three distinct beings. See Matt 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, John 17, John 20:17, Acts 7:55-56. In this respect Mormon theology is actually more closely related to John Ascunages' early Tritheistic sect than to Orthodox Christianity. The primary author of this Monophysite group was John Philoponus. He taught that there are three partial substances and one comon substance in the trinity.[101]

@Everybody:

Trinity is a subjective term that means different things to different people. It is also not an original Christian concept: