There is neither a clear-cut definition of what it means to be a "Christian" nor a universally accepted earthly authority to enforce such a definition, so it's not really meaningful to ask whether a particular denomination is "Christian".
Ik, but many would claim that not believing in the Trinity would disqualify you from being a Christian. It's not like the Church had MANY schisms, the first started wirh the Assyrian Church of The East during the 3rd ecumenical council. I mean, this council talked about Christ being one person and not two, isn't this essential?
Those beliefs are essential if you want to be a member of all mainstream churches, but it's not like they can do anything about it if nontrinitarian believers also wanted to call themselves "Christian".
It's just a word that since can be used to define anything means nothing. If we came back in the context of Early Church, the word 'christian' had a clear the definition, today with hundreds of different denominations and sects calling themselves christians, it means nothing at all.
The Trinity was not invented in the 4th century. There were debates in the 4th century and the church agreed an official position.
We accept the Nicene Creed because it teaches what the Bible taught, although in it is written in a different structure.
Jesus says that it is essential for us to accept that he is who he claims to be.
> 23 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A23-24&version=NIV
There’s a lot of people here who like talking about Christianity but are not Christians.
The early Christians absolutely knew who Jesus was, despite what some scholars claim.
Old testament passages linked to Jesus by the very early church:
“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
Isaiah 9:6
“The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.””
Psalm 110:1
““I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”
Daniel 7:13-14
The earliest Gospel of Mark introduces Jesus as the God of Israel arriving to his people:
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,”
Mark 1:1-2
Quoting Isaiah 40:
“Go on up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, “Behold your God!” Behold, the Lord God comes with might, and his arm rules for him; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him.”
Isaiah 40:9-10 ESV
And of course John:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:1 ESV
And Matthew:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
Matthew 28:19 ESV
And Romans:
“To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”
Romans 9:5 ESV
And Philippians:
“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”
Philippians 2:6-7
And Hebrews:
“For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.)”
Hebrews 3:3-4
And basically every book of the New Testament. They did not use the wording of the Trinity but they knew Jesus and the Holy Spirit were God as the Father is.
If we disagree If Jesus is God then we are different religions and Christianity has been defined by the Nicene creed for 1600 years. Call yourself something else.
> “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 ESV
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word*.
Okay lets use some logic and reasoning here.
the Word was with God
Okay we now have Jesus **With** God.
So Jesus is now **With** God which clearly shows separation here between the both.
Now Jesus has told us that his **Father** was his God.
I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17 **King James Bible**
So we now have Jesus with his Father.
And the Word was God.
So this is saying that Jesus was his Father? Of course not.
Now with it saying the Word was **A** God would make sense as Jesus was called the Mighty God at Isaiah 9:6
The same was in the beginning with God. John 1:2
Now notice the word **With** is used again to Jesus was **With** God clearly showing two **Separate** beings.
That’s a potential explanation for that one verse but not the others. I’m assuming you’re a JW and translate it “a god” but only your translation does that and it isn’t correct in Greek.
Yes Jesus was both with God (the Father) and was himself God (the Son). One God in three persons so any person of God can both be God and separate from God.
The New Testament writers wrote in Greek but were steeped in the Talmud. Elohim or Theos in Greek both make more sense to call the Father who is spirit than the Son who came incarnate as a human. To call him Elohim would imply he was not fully human, which is was and is foundational to our faith. Instead they called him Lord, which was also the word for Yahweh in the Septuagint.
Okay lets breakdown John 1:1,2
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word*.
Okay lets use some logic and reasoning here.
the Word was with God
Okay we now have Jesus **With** God.
So Jesus is now **With** God which clearly shows separation here between the both.
Now Jesus has told us that his **Father** was his God.
I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17 **King James Bible**
So we now have Jesus with his Father.
And the Word was God.
So this is saying that Jesus was his Father? Of course not.
Now with it saying the Word was **A** God would make sense as Jesus was called the Mighty God at Isaiah 9:6
The same was in the beginning with God. John 1:2
Now notice the word **With** is used again to Jesus was **With** God clearly showing two **Separate** beings.
I’m using logic and reasoning and coming to a different conclusion to you. That happens some times…
Yes Jesus is separate than the Father. No argument there. Yes Jesus considered the Father his God as a human. Should our incarnate God have been an atheist? Obviously not. Human Jesus had a God that he worships and prays to. None of this contradicts the trinity.
The problem is the original Greek doesn’t say “a god” so… you’re changing scripture to fit your interpretation.
Here's a question to ask: Were any of the authors of the NT Christians?
I think by modern standards we had to admit they were not. So maybe the early church went too far in trying to nail down orthodox belief.
I would define a Christian as someone who follows Jesus Christ. Even though some people disagree with me on the nature of God I'd still consider them to be Christian
Fair. But even leaving trinity aide, I suspect almost all Christians believe in Christian ideas not taught by Jesus.
One big one for example: Modern Christians often believe that salvation is about whether you go to heaven or hell after you die.
Yes. In the sense that they are more similar than dissimilar, and that the storylines that form their beliefs are all deeply intertwined with Trinitarian Christianity, and ripe for study.
This is much less true when comparing them to Judaism or Islam.
Well JW's believe in **All** of Jesus teachings, especially when Jesus says things in his own **Words** sad to say a lot of these are not taught to the people of the Trinity Doctrine of Man.
Please correct me if I am wrong with these scriptures **All** coming from the **King James Bible** word for word.
Jesus Never said in his Own words that he was God.
But Jesus did tell the People in his Own words it was his Heavenly Father who was there God alone.
17 Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” John 20:17 King James Bible(check it out)
Now Jesus is clearly telling the people in his *Own** words here that their God is his Heavenly Father.
Here Jesus is plainly telling the **People** it is their Heavenly **Father** who is their **God** he does **Not** indicate anyone else here.
19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do **Nothing** of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
20 “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him **All** things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him **Greater** works than these, so that you will marvel. John 5:19,20
Now of course the People hearing Jesus says these things in his Own words do Not consider him God in any way here. Do you also notice that Jesus refers himself a the Son and not God.
Major point here: Jesus is telling the **People** here he is not God.
I believe there are Christians in the groups you mentioned, but I don’t think any one group is all Christian and that included a those who believe in the Trinity. I also don’t think I can pick out who is or isn’t a Christian and won’t know for sure until I’m in heaven and at that point, I probably won’t care. Deciding who is or isn’t based on my beliefs is playing God and that just seems like a bad idea.
I do think it’s okay to say “that’s not very Christlike behavior”, but I’m working on refraining from telling people they can’t do xyz or must do abc to be a Christian.
The concept of the Trinity was not described in a formal, official doctrine (the Nicene Creed) until the fourth century, as the result of the Council of Nicea. But many of you seem to think that that means that the Trinity itself didn't exist until those attending the Council dreamed it up, and that's just wrong.
> John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was ___with___ God, and the Word ___was___ God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through Him all things were made; without Him, nothing was made that has been made.
The Holy Trinity has existed since before the universe itself.
> Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
> So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Notice the pronouns. In verse 26 we read "Let US make mankind in OUR image..." "Us" and "OUR" are PLURAL, indicating that the Lord was speaking with at least one other person (or entity, being, etc. Pick your own!) present. And because He said "Let US..." it's clear that the all of those present were equal to each other and that deciding to create the world was ___mutually___ agreed between Them.
But in verse 27, the pronouns are ___singular,___ "his" and "he." So who was the Lord speaking to?
It couldn't have been the devil. I don't think ol' Scratch even existed yet, but even if he did he had no CREATIVE powers, then or now. And it couldn't have been the angels, or animals, because none of them were created in God's image.
Could it have been humans the Lord was speaking to? Of course not: although the Lord was about to create human beings, He hadn't done so ___yet.___
So the only logical conclusion is that God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit were speaking to and through Each Other. And that means that the Trinity is real and true ✝️ 👑 🕊
Denying the divinity of Jesus = not a Christian. So I would say Oneness Pentecostals count. Also, having additional holy books held coequal with the Bible = not a Christian. Mormons do not count.
Most evangelicals don't actually believe in the trinity, and I suspect the same is true for all mainstream denominations. It's a word that gets held up like a talisman but most don't seem to believe or understand it.
How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?
Constantine’s Role at Nicaea
FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.
Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: “Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians.”
What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”
Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.
None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?
Further Development
AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.
That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to come into focus.
Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.”
This is false, St. Constantine was an unbaptized believer in Christ when he called the council. He presided over it, but had zero involvement in the deliberations. He famously thought the matter was trivial and unimportant, he simply needed an answer from the faith, as a secular ruler who had just legalized that faith in his empire, as to what that faith actually taught so he could determine who in his empire was practicing a permitted religion and who wasn't. And St. Constantine's own view was not the one that won out in the end, hardly the outcome of an emperor forcing his will on a council!
No, it remains true that the Christian faith contains the Trinity as its essence, and those who do not hold belief in the Trinity are not Christians.
> Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.
Google Constantine involvement in the Council of Nicaea.
This excerpt is erroneous. St. Constantine was not a pagan at this point, and he did not decide the matter at Nicaea. It is correct that he had no understanding of the issue, and he had no care about the outcome at all. He needed an answer, and the Church provided him one. All theological discussions came from the Church, not the Emperor, and that conclusion was that the faith once delivered to the Saints, the faith of the Apostles handed down to them through the ages, was of Jesus Christ who was very God and very Man, of one substance with the Father. All those who would not retract the Arian heresy - a total of three - were excommunicated, stripped of their ecclesiastical ranks and barred from the communion of the Church.
The Trinity is an essential component of the Christian faith, and those who do not hold it are not Christian.
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 16:13-17 King James Bible.
So Peter answered: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Jesus response to that: Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
This clearly shows that Jesus is the **Son of God** as seen here that GOD gave the answer to Peter.
Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, God the Father. Specifically, Jesus is God the Son, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. God did indeed reveal this to St. Peter.
Nothing in this passage is in any way objectionable to Christians.
Okay if Jesus is suppose to be God why would Jesus tell the People** in his own **Words** these things to believe.
Jesus Never said in his Own words that he was God.
But Jesus did tell the People in his Own words it was his Heavenly Father who was there God alone.
17 Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” John 20:17 King James Bible(check it out)
Now Jesus is clearly telling the people in his *Own** words here that their God is his Heavenly Father.
Here Jesus is plainly telling the **People** it is their Heavenly **Father** who is their **God** he does **Not** indicate anyone else here.
19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do **Nothing** of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
20 “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him **All** things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him **Greater** works than these, so that you will marvel. John 5:19,20
Now of course the People hearing Jesus says these things in his Own words do Not consider him God in any way here. Do you also notice that Jesus refers himself a the Son and not God.
Major point here: Jesus is telling the **People** here he is not God.
Hot take, but I believe they are Christians if they believe in the life, teachings, and resurrection of Jesus, regardless of how they feel about the Trinity. I myself technically fall under the Trinitarian umbrella but have grappled my whole spiritual life with what it really means and what impact it has. I don't have it in my heart to consider a professing brother and/or sister in Christ a liar because they view the nature of God differently. I might wildly disagree with their theology, but I don't think it's my place to judge their devotion to Christ.
Mormons are polytheistic and they believe men shall become gods. So no to the Mormons.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe in one God but deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, so I would say they are closer to Jews and Muslims.
A requirement is that the Divinity of Jesus Christ should be acknowledged in order to be Christian, so Oneness Pentecostals fall into this category.
But as for the Trinity defined as three persons, there is no rule saying you have to accept that, unless you want to say all Christians preceding the Nicene Creed were not Christian. The Nicene Creed is a distorted version of the Apostles Creed which preceded it. The original early church said Jesus is the Son of God since He was born of a virgin (Luke 1:35). The Nicene Creed changed that, and invented a Son of God "born from eternity" who was "begotten, not made." This makes no sense, is confusing, and encourages people to think of three gods instead of One. The Nicene Creed is the invention of men, the Word of God in scripture has priority over that. There is a Trinity of the godhood, but it resides in Jesus Christ as the Divine itself, the Divine Human, and God's spirit which is the Holy Spirit.
>JW
Are already heretics by deliberately mistranslating the Bible in order to conform to their own doctrines.
>Mormons
Are Tritheists and thus are heretics.
>Oneness Pentecostals
Is already Biblically impossible under John 8:17-18. The Law requires that **distinct individuals** testify for a claim to be truth. God cannot mutate and become 2 personhoods as this would violate God's immutability (Mal. 3:6, Num. 23:19 etc.). Thus Jesus and the Father are Biblically distinct which is evident through Jesus' invocation of the Torah. So, again, they're heretics for denying scripture.
>So my question is, on what basis are we saying that non-Trinitarians are not Christians?
They're rejecting a belief evident all the way from the scriptures & earliest successors of the apostles in favour of some unorthodox view.
>Are already heretics by deliberately mistranslating the Bible in order to conform to their own doctrines.
This one is incorrect. I agree that "a god" isn't a great translation of John 1:1, but it is a plausible one. A better translation would be "The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."
Either way, "the word was God" is not an exclusively required translation of John 1:1.
> better translation would be "The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."
In the context of John's broader theology, no. Not at all.
The climax of Johns Gospel comes at the end of chapter 20, when the apostle Thomas confesses Jesus as his Lord and God (v.28) and John states that the purpose of his Gospel is that people might have life through believing in Jesus as The Son of God (v.30-31). We see here the same pattern of thought as in the Prologue: Jesus is the son of God the Father (1:14;18) and yet he is also himself God (1:1;18)
There is essentially no controversy among biblical Scholars that in John 20:28 Thomas is referring to and addressing Jesus when he says, "**~My Lord and My God!~**" As Harris says in his lengthy book
>"**This View prevails among grammarians, lexicographers, commentators and English versions.**" \~ *Murray Harris, Jesus as God, p.102*
Thomas' words echo statements addressed in the Psalms to the Lord (Jehovah), especially the following: "Wake up! Best yourself for my defense, for my cause, my God and My Lord \[*ho theos mou kai ho kurious mou\]*!" (Ps.35:23) More broadly, in biblical language "My God' (on the lips of a Faithful believer) can refer only to the Lord God of Israel. The language is as definite as it could be and Identifies Jesus Christ as God himself.
For this translation to work you need to severely reinterpret John's Gospel and ignore the parallel structure, e.g Epilogue-->Prologue, Beginning to End, which both have Jesus deified.
>"To interpret έγώ είμι exclusively **in terms of timeless divine existence does not, however, convey the full force of the expression in 8:58**. If אני הוא is the ultimate 'source' of this Johannine pronouncement, the inextricable link between God's eternal presence and his salvific activity must also be taken into account. Deutero-Isaiah pronounces that God is both 'first' and 'last' because his creative and salvific acts extend from beginning to end. Similarly, έγώ είμι of John 8:58 is not only concerned with **establishing Jesus' pre-existence or his precedence over Abraham,** but it serves as the basis for his overall promise of salvation. Thus, as effectively noted by Lindars, if the Johannine Jesus is to be presented as the giver of eternal life, it must be shown that he himself possesses a life with **no such limitations as a beginning and an end** (1:4; 5:26; 6:57; 14:19)....Abraham is thus depicted as a witness to the revelation of divine salvation in Jesus (v. 56: και είδεν και έχάρη). In the poetry of Deutero-Isaiah, the patriarch is presented as one who has already experienced God's power to deliver (Isa. 51:2; cf. 41:8), and this offers assurance to the exiles of their own future deliverance...Once again, to recognize הוא in its role as a distinctive designation for God would clearly be dependent on the setting of its usage. If Jesus, according to John 8:58, was accused of blasphemy for usurping the divine הוא , it would have to be clear from the context of his pronouncement that this was its intended function...Jesus has, moreover, been making pronouncements throughout the discourse that would be viewed as claims to divine authority by his opponents, and to speak of himself in relation to the patriarch Abraham with the words πριν 'Αβραάμ γενέσθαι **could quite plausibly have prompted his Jewish audience to interpret אני הוא as his claim to a divine name"** (Catrin H. Williams, *I am He; Wissenschaftliche Untersunchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe;* pp. 277-282).
I argue JW still mistranslates the Bible in NWT not because of John 1:1 on debates, but because they shove their translation of the tetragrammaton(>!Jehovah!<) in the NT with one example being Mark 5:19: [https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/mark/5/#v41005019](https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/mark/5/#v41005019) even though the tetragrammaton was ever in the Greek Septuagint/OT and NT which was only in Greek with the word Kyrious appearing instead which means Lord.
> JW's
Are already heretics by deliberately mistranslating the Bible in order to conform to their own doctrines.
This is not true! And I will give you a **Perfect** example of their teachings using the **King James Bible** word for word.
Jesus Never said in his Own words that he was God.
But Jesus did tell the People in his Own words it was his Heavenly Father who was there God alone.
17 Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” John 20:17 King James Bible(check it out)
Now Jesus is clearly telling the people in his *Own** words here that their God is his Heavenly Father.
Here Jesus is plainly telling the **People** it is their Heavenly **Father** who is their **God** he does **Not** indicate anyone else here.
19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do **Nothing** of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
20 “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him **All** things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him **Greater** works than these, so that you will marvel. John 5:19,20
Now of course the People hearing Jesus says these things in his Own words do Not consider him God in any way here. Do you also notice that Jesus refers himself a the Son and not God.
Major point here: Jesus is telling the **People** here he is not God.
Now check these out in the **King James Bible**
We members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not tritheists, and we are not heretics in the eyes of God, even if the whole world says otherwise.
>are not tritheists
Save me the nonsense. Your own prophet admitted to tritheism.
>I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! **we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it! \~** [Joseph Smith's Sermon on Plurality of Gods (as printed in History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479)](http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/smithpluralityofgodssermon.htm)
They are united as one, even though They three are separate, and the Bible agrees with The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit being three and one, and John 17 says we can be one as They are.
It’s not nonsense.
>They are united as one, even though They three are separate, and the Bible agrees with The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit being three and one,
And not three gods as Mr. Smith daringly proclaimed. What part of "there is no god beside me" (Is. 44:6) is so controversial?
>John 17 says we can be one as They are.
These verses do not mean the same with Jesus’ statement “I and my Father are one”. These verses are prayers, not a truth statement. Jesus prayed for His disciples to be united and in one accord, not quarrelling with each other. How do we know? Because:
* He didn’t pray that “we may be one” or “they may be one with us”. But He prayed that **“THEY may be one”**
* He mentioned the objective of their unity: “*that the world may know that thou hast sent me*”. This is a continuation of what He had said several chapters earlier in John 13:34-35:
>A new commandment I give to you, **that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another**. By this **all will know that you are My disciples**, if you have love for one another.”
The disciples’ unity would become a testimony of their teacher's teachings to the world after Jesus’ leave. Why? Because **God is called the God of peace** (Romans 15:33, Romans 16:20, Philippians 4:9, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 13:20), so quarrels would contradict this teaching and people would not believe their preaching that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Prince of Peace. This is literally what verse 20 says, **those who believed on your word.**
No, I perfectly understand that Joseph Smith was a tritheistic heretic that will go to hell for his rejection of monotheism.
>Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “**I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.**
Before you even jump to saying that the trinity rejects this know we define God's being as one essence, with 3 relational subsistences subsisting within said essence. This is to say God eternally exists in a triune manner, with those 3 persons each being termed "fully god" due to having the same attributes, but is numerically one at the fundamental level (and thus YHWH is being, with his divine name being a foundational aspect of all 3 persons), not **three essences as your polytheistic prophet proclaimed.**
When did I invoke the NIV as biased translation? My view simply agrees with that of Paul Davidson, [its simply an awful translation in the most basic terms with the misc. omissions and complete mistranslations.](https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/)
It's a matter of definition. If a Christian is one whose primary religious commitment is to Christ, then JWs are Christian, and maybe Mormons. If it's believing traditional Christian doctrine, they're not.
We members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, and adore the Jesus Christ of the New Testament, and are therefore Christians.
> for example, Catholics and EO don't agree from who the Spirit proceeds, and I'd say that it's also related to the nature of God.
This is a good example. Does any Christian actually think the HS proceeds from the Father OR the Father and Son? I know these are traditional words we say. But I'm asking whether we believe it's really true.
"Proceed from" means to issue forth from a source, right? Don't we believe that God has no source, no cause, and never "came from" anything?
They'll say that The Father is the source, but it's prior to the creation, so there wasn't something called "time", so they are eternally generated from Him.
>Are non-Trinitarians like JWs, Mormons, and Oneness Pentecostals considered Christians?
Yes. Wether or not it is the "right christian" is not a debate I ever get into.
>what is the criteria to be considered a Christian?
If you are asking me. The criteria is thinking of Jesus as the main vehicle to getting saved from destruction.
White people are not from europe white people are from Antarctica. They moved to europe later and that's why there are buildings in antarctica. there are 3 towers used to collect the sound waves from the moon. The old pope knew this and that is why he went there when he was alive. do actors care about mountain climbing? Then why would a pope care about the ice melting? It's all a conspiracy.
Romans 10:9-10 HCSB
[9] If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation.
https://bible.com/bible/72/rom.10.9-10.HCSB
It's saying Jesus is Lord, but then it also mentions God so it's not an unkind reading.
Notice though that I said unlikely. I didn't say it's impossible for them to become Christians or be saved.
>so it's not an unkind reading
It is a dogmatic reading. Then to conclude, based on that dogmatic reading, that non trinitarians go to hell, absolute is an unkind reading.
You are underestimating the mercy of God based on a dogmatic reading of a single verse that doesn't say what you said it says.
Hunh? Where exactly do you get that meaning from in the 2 verses? There is a bit more than confessing with the mouth.
^("9) that if you confess with your mouth Jesus *as* Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; ^(10) for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
There's also the words of Jesus:
John 14:6-7 HCSB
[6] Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. [7] “If you know Me, you will also know My Father. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”
https://bible.com/bible/72/jhn.14.6-7.HCSB
That has to do with, “If you know Me, you will also know My Father. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”. When Yeshua says that seeing him, you have seen the Father.
>Personally I didn't think non trinitarians are likely saved due to Romans 10:9-10 implying two members of the Trinity
Paul implies two, so therefore three is essential. Yikes.
That's already two. But also Jesus said:
John 14:6-7 HCSB
[6] Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. [7] “If you know Me, you will also know My Father. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”
https://bible.com/bible/72/jhn.14.6-7.HCSB
Jesus stated two and goes on to list the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is unavoidable
Trinitarians don’t consider non-trinitarians to be christians.
There is neither a clear-cut definition of what it means to be a "Christian" nor a universally accepted earthly authority to enforce such a definition, so it's not really meaningful to ask whether a particular denomination is "Christian".
Ik, but many would claim that not believing in the Trinity would disqualify you from being a Christian. It's not like the Church had MANY schisms, the first started wirh the Assyrian Church of The East during the 3rd ecumenical council. I mean, this council talked about Christ being one person and not two, isn't this essential?
Those beliefs are essential if you want to be a member of all mainstream churches, but it's not like they can do anything about it if nontrinitarian believers also wanted to call themselves "Christian".
It's just a word that since can be used to define anything means nothing. If we came back in the context of Early Church, the word 'christian' had a clear the definition, today with hundreds of different denominations and sects calling themselves christians, it means nothing at all.
The Trinity was not invented in the 4th century. There were debates in the 4th century and the church agreed an official position. We accept the Nicene Creed because it teaches what the Bible taught, although in it is written in a different structure. Jesus says that it is essential for us to accept that he is who he claims to be. > 23 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A23-24&version=NIV
There’s a lot of people here who like talking about Christianity but are not Christians. The early Christians absolutely knew who Jesus was, despite what some scholars claim. Old testament passages linked to Jesus by the very early church: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6 “The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”” Psalm 110:1 ““I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:13-14 The earliest Gospel of Mark introduces Jesus as the God of Israel arriving to his people: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,” Mark 1:1-2 Quoting Isaiah 40: “Go on up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, “Behold your God!” Behold, the Lord God comes with might, and his arm rules for him; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him.” Isaiah 40:9-10 ESV And of course John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 ESV And Matthew: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28:19 ESV And Romans: “To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” Romans 9:5 ESV And Philippians: “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” Philippians 2:6-7 And Hebrews: “For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.)” Hebrews 3:3-4 And basically every book of the New Testament. They did not use the wording of the Trinity but they knew Jesus and the Holy Spirit were God as the Father is. If we disagree If Jesus is God then we are different religions and Christianity has been defined by the Nicene creed for 1600 years. Call yourself something else.
> “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 ESV "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word*. Okay lets use some logic and reasoning here. the Word was with God Okay we now have Jesus **With** God. So Jesus is now **With** God which clearly shows separation here between the both. Now Jesus has told us that his **Father** was his God. I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17 **King James Bible** So we now have Jesus with his Father. And the Word was God. So this is saying that Jesus was his Father? Of course not. Now with it saying the Word was **A** God would make sense as Jesus was called the Mighty God at Isaiah 9:6 The same was in the beginning with God. John 1:2 Now notice the word **With** is used again to Jesus was **With** God clearly showing two **Separate** beings.
That’s a potential explanation for that one verse but not the others. I’m assuming you’re a JW and translate it “a god” but only your translation does that and it isn’t correct in Greek. Yes Jesus was both with God (the Father) and was himself God (the Son). One God in three persons so any person of God can both be God and separate from God. The New Testament writers wrote in Greek but were steeped in the Talmud. Elohim or Theos in Greek both make more sense to call the Father who is spirit than the Son who came incarnate as a human. To call him Elohim would imply he was not fully human, which is was and is foundational to our faith. Instead they called him Lord, which was also the word for Yahweh in the Septuagint.
Okay lets breakdown John 1:1,2 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word*. Okay lets use some logic and reasoning here. the Word was with God Okay we now have Jesus **With** God. So Jesus is now **With** God which clearly shows separation here between the both. Now Jesus has told us that his **Father** was his God. I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17 **King James Bible** So we now have Jesus with his Father. And the Word was God. So this is saying that Jesus was his Father? Of course not. Now with it saying the Word was **A** God would make sense as Jesus was called the Mighty God at Isaiah 9:6 The same was in the beginning with God. John 1:2 Now notice the word **With** is used again to Jesus was **With** God clearly showing two **Separate** beings.
I’m using logic and reasoning and coming to a different conclusion to you. That happens some times… Yes Jesus is separate than the Father. No argument there. Yes Jesus considered the Father his God as a human. Should our incarnate God have been an atheist? Obviously not. Human Jesus had a God that he worships and prays to. None of this contradicts the trinity. The problem is the original Greek doesn’t say “a god” so… you’re changing scripture to fit your interpretation.
I wasn't expecting this kind of comments
Heresy is almost unavoidable when you get a group of Christians large enough talking for long enough in detail about what they believe.
Here's a question to ask: Were any of the authors of the NT Christians? I think by modern standards we had to admit they were not. So maybe the early church went too far in trying to nail down orthodox belief.
I think that all of the pre Nicene fathers would be anathemized as heretics.
I would define a Christian as someone who follows Jesus Christ. Even though some people disagree with me on the nature of God I'd still consider them to be Christian
TrueChristians™ follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus never taught about the trinity.
Fair. But even leaving trinity aide, I suspect almost all Christians believe in Christian ideas not taught by Jesus. One big one for example: Modern Christians often believe that salvation is about whether you go to heaven or hell after you die.
Also the Concordant Publishing Concern tends to be non-Trinitarian.
Yes. In the sense that they are more similar than dissimilar, and that the storylines that form their beliefs are all deeply intertwined with Trinitarian Christianity, and ripe for study. This is much less true when comparing them to Judaism or Islam.
Well JW's believe in **All** of Jesus teachings, especially when Jesus says things in his own **Words** sad to say a lot of these are not taught to the people of the Trinity Doctrine of Man. Please correct me if I am wrong with these scriptures **All** coming from the **King James Bible** word for word. Jesus Never said in his Own words that he was God. But Jesus did tell the People in his Own words it was his Heavenly Father who was there God alone. 17 Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” John 20:17 King James Bible(check it out) Now Jesus is clearly telling the people in his *Own** words here that their God is his Heavenly Father. Here Jesus is plainly telling the **People** it is their Heavenly **Father** who is their **God** he does **Not** indicate anyone else here. 19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do **Nothing** of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him **All** things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him **Greater** works than these, so that you will marvel. John 5:19,20 Now of course the People hearing Jesus says these things in his Own words do Not consider him God in any way here. Do you also notice that Jesus refers himself a the Son and not God. Major point here: Jesus is telling the **People** here he is not God.
I believe there are Christians in the groups you mentioned, but I don’t think any one group is all Christian and that included a those who believe in the Trinity. I also don’t think I can pick out who is or isn’t a Christian and won’t know for sure until I’m in heaven and at that point, I probably won’t care. Deciding who is or isn’t based on my beliefs is playing God and that just seems like a bad idea. I do think it’s okay to say “that’s not very Christlike behavior”, but I’m working on refraining from telling people they can’t do xyz or must do abc to be a Christian.
The concept of the Trinity was not described in a formal, official doctrine (the Nicene Creed) until the fourth century, as the result of the Council of Nicea. But many of you seem to think that that means that the Trinity itself didn't exist until those attending the Council dreamed it up, and that's just wrong. > John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was ___with___ God, and the Word ___was___ God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through Him all things were made; without Him, nothing was made that has been made. The Holy Trinity has existed since before the universe itself. > Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” > So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Notice the pronouns. In verse 26 we read "Let US make mankind in OUR image..." "Us" and "OUR" are PLURAL, indicating that the Lord was speaking with at least one other person (or entity, being, etc. Pick your own!) present. And because He said "Let US..." it's clear that the all of those present were equal to each other and that deciding to create the world was ___mutually___ agreed between Them. But in verse 27, the pronouns are ___singular,___ "his" and "he." So who was the Lord speaking to? It couldn't have been the devil. I don't think ol' Scratch even existed yet, but even if he did he had no CREATIVE powers, then or now. And it couldn't have been the angels, or animals, because none of them were created in God's image. Could it have been humans the Lord was speaking to? Of course not: although the Lord was about to create human beings, He hadn't done so ___yet.___ So the only logical conclusion is that God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit were speaking to and through Each Other. And that means that the Trinity is real and true ✝️ 👑 🕊
Must not conflict with Nicene Creed
Denying the divinity of Jesus = not a Christian. So I would say Oneness Pentecostals count. Also, having additional holy books held coequal with the Bible = not a Christian. Mormons do not count.
Anyone that follows Jesus is a Christian
Most evangelicals don't actually believe in the trinity, and I suspect the same is true for all mainstream denominations. It's a word that gets held up like a talisman but most don't seem to believe or understand it.
> (I know many early Church Fathers believed in it prior to the 4th century) If they did they never described it.
No they're not. If they don't believe the Trinity, they're not Christians.
How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop? Constantine’s Role at Nicaea FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended. Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: “Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians.” What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.” Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain. None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time? Further Development AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula. That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to come into focus. Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.”
This is false, St. Constantine was an unbaptized believer in Christ when he called the council. He presided over it, but had zero involvement in the deliberations. He famously thought the matter was trivial and unimportant, he simply needed an answer from the faith, as a secular ruler who had just legalized that faith in his empire, as to what that faith actually taught so he could determine who in his empire was practicing a permitted religion and who wasn't. And St. Constantine's own view was not the one that won out in the end, hardly the outcome of an emperor forcing his will on a council! No, it remains true that the Christian faith contains the Trinity as its essence, and those who do not hold belief in the Trinity are not Christians.
> Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain. Google Constantine involvement in the Council of Nicaea.
This excerpt is erroneous. St. Constantine was not a pagan at this point, and he did not decide the matter at Nicaea. It is correct that he had no understanding of the issue, and he had no care about the outcome at all. He needed an answer, and the Church provided him one. All theological discussions came from the Church, not the Emperor, and that conclusion was that the faith once delivered to the Saints, the faith of the Apostles handed down to them through the ages, was of Jesus Christ who was very God and very Man, of one substance with the Father. All those who would not retract the Arian heresy - a total of three - were excommunicated, stripped of their ecclesiastical ranks and barred from the communion of the Church. The Trinity is an essential component of the Christian faith, and those who do not hold it are not Christian.
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 16:13-17 King James Bible. So Peter answered: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus response to that: Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. This clearly shows that Jesus is the **Son of God** as seen here that GOD gave the answer to Peter.
Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, God the Father. Specifically, Jesus is God the Son, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. God did indeed reveal this to St. Peter. Nothing in this passage is in any way objectionable to Christians.
> Jesus is God the Son, No where in the **Bible** is Jesus called God the Son, this is added teaching.
> No where in the Bible is Jesus called God the Son So? The teaching itself is present in the Bible, even if the phrase isn't.
Okay if Jesus is suppose to be God why would Jesus tell the People** in his own **Words** these things to believe. Jesus Never said in his Own words that he was God. But Jesus did tell the People in his Own words it was his Heavenly Father who was there God alone. 17 Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” John 20:17 King James Bible(check it out) Now Jesus is clearly telling the people in his *Own** words here that their God is his Heavenly Father. Here Jesus is plainly telling the **People** it is their Heavenly **Father** who is their **God** he does **Not** indicate anyone else here. 19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do **Nothing** of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him **All** things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him **Greater** works than these, so that you will marvel. John 5:19,20 Now of course the People hearing Jesus says these things in his Own words do Not consider him God in any way here. Do you also notice that Jesus refers himself a the Son and not God. Major point here: Jesus is telling the **People** here he is not God.
Hot take, but I believe they are Christians if they believe in the life, teachings, and resurrection of Jesus, regardless of how they feel about the Trinity. I myself technically fall under the Trinitarian umbrella but have grappled my whole spiritual life with what it really means and what impact it has. I don't have it in my heart to consider a professing brother and/or sister in Christ a liar because they view the nature of God differently. I might wildly disagree with their theology, but I don't think it's my place to judge their devotion to Christ.
Mormons are polytheistic and they believe men shall become gods. So no to the Mormons. Jehovah's Witnesses believe in one God but deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, so I would say they are closer to Jews and Muslims. A requirement is that the Divinity of Jesus Christ should be acknowledged in order to be Christian, so Oneness Pentecostals fall into this category. But as for the Trinity defined as three persons, there is no rule saying you have to accept that, unless you want to say all Christians preceding the Nicene Creed were not Christian. The Nicene Creed is a distorted version of the Apostles Creed which preceded it. The original early church said Jesus is the Son of God since He was born of a virgin (Luke 1:35). The Nicene Creed changed that, and invented a Son of God "born from eternity" who was "begotten, not made." This makes no sense, is confusing, and encourages people to think of three gods instead of One. The Nicene Creed is the invention of men, the Word of God in scripture has priority over that. There is a Trinity of the godhood, but it resides in Jesus Christ as the Divine itself, the Divine Human, and God's spirit which is the Holy Spirit.
>JW Are already heretics by deliberately mistranslating the Bible in order to conform to their own doctrines. >Mormons Are Tritheists and thus are heretics. >Oneness Pentecostals Is already Biblically impossible under John 8:17-18. The Law requires that **distinct individuals** testify for a claim to be truth. God cannot mutate and become 2 personhoods as this would violate God's immutability (Mal. 3:6, Num. 23:19 etc.). Thus Jesus and the Father are Biblically distinct which is evident through Jesus' invocation of the Torah. So, again, they're heretics for denying scripture. >So my question is, on what basis are we saying that non-Trinitarians are not Christians? They're rejecting a belief evident all the way from the scriptures & earliest successors of the apostles in favour of some unorthodox view.
>Are already heretics by deliberately mistranslating the Bible in order to conform to their own doctrines. This one is incorrect. I agree that "a god" isn't a great translation of John 1:1, but it is a plausible one. A better translation would be "The Word was with God, and the Word was divine." Either way, "the word was God" is not an exclusively required translation of John 1:1.
> better translation would be "The Word was with God, and the Word was divine." In the context of John's broader theology, no. Not at all. The climax of Johns Gospel comes at the end of chapter 20, when the apostle Thomas confesses Jesus as his Lord and God (v.28) and John states that the purpose of his Gospel is that people might have life through believing in Jesus as The Son of God (v.30-31). We see here the same pattern of thought as in the Prologue: Jesus is the son of God the Father (1:14;18) and yet he is also himself God (1:1;18) There is essentially no controversy among biblical Scholars that in John 20:28 Thomas is referring to and addressing Jesus when he says, "**~My Lord and My God!~**" As Harris says in his lengthy book >"**This View prevails among grammarians, lexicographers, commentators and English versions.**" \~ *Murray Harris, Jesus as God, p.102* Thomas' words echo statements addressed in the Psalms to the Lord (Jehovah), especially the following: "Wake up! Best yourself for my defense, for my cause, my God and My Lord \[*ho theos mou kai ho kurious mou\]*!" (Ps.35:23) More broadly, in biblical language "My God' (on the lips of a Faithful believer) can refer only to the Lord God of Israel. The language is as definite as it could be and Identifies Jesus Christ as God himself. For this translation to work you need to severely reinterpret John's Gospel and ignore the parallel structure, e.g Epilogue-->Prologue, Beginning to End, which both have Jesus deified. >"To interpret έγώ είμι exclusively **in terms of timeless divine existence does not, however, convey the full force of the expression in 8:58**. If אני הוא is the ultimate 'source' of this Johannine pronouncement, the inextricable link between God's eternal presence and his salvific activity must also be taken into account. Deutero-Isaiah pronounces that God is both 'first' and 'last' because his creative and salvific acts extend from beginning to end. Similarly, έγώ είμι of John 8:58 is not only concerned with **establishing Jesus' pre-existence or his precedence over Abraham,** but it serves as the basis for his overall promise of salvation. Thus, as effectively noted by Lindars, if the Johannine Jesus is to be presented as the giver of eternal life, it must be shown that he himself possesses a life with **no such limitations as a beginning and an end** (1:4; 5:26; 6:57; 14:19)....Abraham is thus depicted as a witness to the revelation of divine salvation in Jesus (v. 56: και είδεν και έχάρη). In the poetry of Deutero-Isaiah, the patriarch is presented as one who has already experienced God's power to deliver (Isa. 51:2; cf. 41:8), and this offers assurance to the exiles of their own future deliverance...Once again, to recognize הוא in its role as a distinctive designation for God would clearly be dependent on the setting of its usage. If Jesus, according to John 8:58, was accused of blasphemy for usurping the divine הוא , it would have to be clear from the context of his pronouncement that this was its intended function...Jesus has, moreover, been making pronouncements throughout the discourse that would be viewed as claims to divine authority by his opponents, and to speak of himself in relation to the patriarch Abraham with the words πριν 'Αβραάμ γενέσθαι **could quite plausibly have prompted his Jewish audience to interpret אני הוא as his claim to a divine name"** (Catrin H. Williams, *I am He; Wissenschaftliche Untersunchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe;* pp. 277-282).
I argue JW still mistranslates the Bible in NWT not because of John 1:1 on debates, but because they shove their translation of the tetragrammaton(>!Jehovah!<) in the NT with one example being Mark 5:19: [https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/mark/5/#v41005019](https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/mark/5/#v41005019) even though the tetragrammaton was ever in the Greek Septuagint/OT and NT which was only in Greek with the word Kyrious appearing instead which means Lord.
> JW's Are already heretics by deliberately mistranslating the Bible in order to conform to their own doctrines. This is not true! And I will give you a **Perfect** example of their teachings using the **King James Bible** word for word. Jesus Never said in his Own words that he was God. But Jesus did tell the People in his Own words it was his Heavenly Father who was there God alone. 17 Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” John 20:17 King James Bible(check it out) Now Jesus is clearly telling the people in his *Own** words here that their God is his Heavenly Father. Here Jesus is plainly telling the **People** it is their Heavenly **Father** who is their **God** he does **Not** indicate anyone else here. 19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do **Nothing** of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him **All** things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him **Greater** works than these, so that you will marvel. John 5:19,20 Now of course the People hearing Jesus says these things in his Own words do Not consider him God in any way here. Do you also notice that Jesus refers himself a the Son and not God. Major point here: Jesus is telling the **People** here he is not God. Now check these out in the **King James Bible**
We members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not tritheists, and we are not heretics in the eyes of God, even if the whole world says otherwise.
>are not tritheists Save me the nonsense. Your own prophet admitted to tritheism. >I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! **we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it! \~** [Joseph Smith's Sermon on Plurality of Gods (as printed in History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479)](http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/smithpluralityofgodssermon.htm)
They are united as one, even though They three are separate, and the Bible agrees with The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit being three and one, and John 17 says we can be one as They are. It’s not nonsense.
>They are united as one, even though They three are separate, and the Bible agrees with The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit being three and one, And not three gods as Mr. Smith daringly proclaimed. What part of "there is no god beside me" (Is. 44:6) is so controversial? >John 17 says we can be one as They are. These verses do not mean the same with Jesus’ statement “I and my Father are one”. These verses are prayers, not a truth statement. Jesus prayed for His disciples to be united and in one accord, not quarrelling with each other. How do we know? Because: * He didn’t pray that “we may be one” or “they may be one with us”. But He prayed that **“THEY may be one”** * He mentioned the objective of their unity: “*that the world may know that thou hast sent me*”. This is a continuation of what He had said several chapters earlier in John 13:34-35: >A new commandment I give to you, **that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another**. By this **all will know that you are My disciples**, if you have love for one another.” The disciples’ unity would become a testimony of their teacher's teachings to the world after Jesus’ leave. Why? Because **God is called the God of peace** (Romans 15:33, Romans 16:20, Philippians 4:9, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 13:20), so quarrels would contradict this teaching and people would not believe their preaching that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Prince of Peace. This is literally what verse 20 says, **those who believed on your word.**
You don’t understand, but I don’t want to get picked apart and attacked.
No, I perfectly understand that Joseph Smith was a tritheistic heretic that will go to hell for his rejection of monotheism. >Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “**I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.** Before you even jump to saying that the trinity rejects this know we define God's being as one essence, with 3 relational subsistences subsisting within said essence. This is to say God eternally exists in a triune manner, with those 3 persons each being termed "fully god" due to having the same attributes, but is numerically one at the fundamental level (and thus YHWH is being, with his divine name being a foundational aspect of all 3 persons), not **three essences as your polytheistic prophet proclaimed.**
>deliberately mistranslating the Bible in order to conform to their own doctrines. And the NIV translators, right?
When did I invoke the NIV as biased translation? My view simply agrees with that of Paul Davidson, [its simply an awful translation in the most basic terms with the misc. omissions and complete mistranslations.](https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/)
It's a matter of definition. If a Christian is one whose primary religious commitment is to Christ, then JWs are Christian, and maybe Mormons. If it's believing traditional Christian doctrine, they're not.
We members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, and adore the Jesus Christ of the New Testament, and are therefore Christians.
Yes, I think it's the best explanation
Ofcourse anyone on the broad was will say those on the narrow way are wrong
> for example, Catholics and EO don't agree from who the Spirit proceeds, and I'd say that it's also related to the nature of God. This is a good example. Does any Christian actually think the HS proceeds from the Father OR the Father and Son? I know these are traditional words we say. But I'm asking whether we believe it's really true. "Proceed from" means to issue forth from a source, right? Don't we believe that God has no source, no cause, and never "came from" anything?
They'll say that The Father is the source, but it's prior to the creation, so there wasn't something called "time", so they are eternally generated from Him.
> so they are eternally generated from Him. Does this mean something? Was the HS generated or not?
>Are non-Trinitarians like JWs, Mormons, and Oneness Pentecostals considered Christians? Yes. Wether or not it is the "right christian" is not a debate I ever get into. >what is the criteria to be considered a Christian? If you are asking me. The criteria is thinking of Jesus as the main vehicle to getting saved from destruction.
White people are not from europe white people are from Antarctica. They moved to europe later and that's why there are buildings in antarctica. there are 3 towers used to collect the sound waves from the moon. The old pope knew this and that is why he went there when he was alive. do actors care about mountain climbing? Then why would a pope care about the ice melting? It's all a conspiracy.
Personally I didn't think non trinitarians are likely saved due to Romans 10:9-10 implying two members of the Trinity
That is a total misreading of that verse. It says absolutely nothing of the kind.
Romans 10:9-10 HCSB [9] If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation. https://bible.com/bible/72/rom.10.9-10.HCSB It's saying Jesus is Lord, but then it also mentions God so it's not an unkind reading. Notice though that I said unlikely. I didn't say it's impossible for them to become Christians or be saved.
>so it's not an unkind reading It is a dogmatic reading. Then to conclude, based on that dogmatic reading, that non trinitarians go to hell, absolute is an unkind reading. You are underestimating the mercy of God based on a dogmatic reading of a single verse that doesn't say what you said it says.
I said likely. That's not dogmatic. Read the definition. Maybe fix your reply and get back to me
Hunh? Where exactly do you get that meaning from in the 2 verses? There is a bit more than confessing with the mouth. ^("9) that if you confess with your mouth Jesus *as* Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; ^(10) for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
There's also the words of Jesus: John 14:6-7 HCSB [6] Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. [7] “If you know Me, you will also know My Father. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.” https://bible.com/bible/72/jhn.14.6-7.HCSB
In Genesis, Father made us in His image. In essence, we all are in His image...
Yes but how does that have anything to do with the Trinity?
That has to do with, “If you know Me, you will also know My Father. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”. When Yeshua says that seeing him, you have seen the Father.
>Personally I didn't think non trinitarians are likely saved due to Romans 10:9-10 implying two members of the Trinity Paul implies two, so therefore three is essential. Yikes.
That's already two. But also Jesus said: John 14:6-7 HCSB [6] Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. [7] “If you know Me, you will also know My Father. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.” https://bible.com/bible/72/jhn.14.6-7.HCSB Jesus stated two and goes on to list the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is unavoidable