the bibles' view of 'trinity'

[jayboy]

In the light of john 1:1 what does the bible really say about trinity?

[Adaline'sMama]

You may want to edit the thread because the only options the poll gives are "A" and "B".

[lilyka]

You also have to keep in mind that the Bible was written by a church who had already established a doctrine on the Holy Trinity.  You have to interpret the writings of the church in light of the pre-existing doctrines.  The Bible did not create or define the church.  The church wrote, created and canonized the Bible.  Not the other way around.  Just a thought.

I am also going to throw the penalty flag on focusing on just one verse.  That is pretty random stuff.  You have to at least take the whole first paragraph.  I recommend taking the whole first Chapter.   I don't understand how people think they can wrestle with doctrine by isolating one sentence or even part of a sentence.  The Bible is not a code or mystery.  It was, once again, written, organized and canonized,  by a well organized, well defined church, well indoctrinated church.  The scriptures canonized are the ones that stood the test of time and church leadership found no flaws with.  They deemed them worthy and useful for instructing and edifying the flock.  Which by this time was quite large and had beat down a lot of vile heresies.   Anyway, my point is a sentence on it owns means nothing and is useless for understanding anything.  Context context context.

[Nazsmum]

I have to agree with lilyka. Context is so many times overlooked. You can not just pick apart a book. Paul's letters are so many times just picked apart and misunderstood.

[katelove]

I'm interested to know what the two options are.

[Trigger]

Totally agree about context, but this

 

Originally Posted by lilyka 

You also have to keep in mind that the Bible was written by a church who had already established a doctrine on the Holy Trinity.  You have to interpret the writings of the church in light of the pre-existing doctrines.  The Bible did not create or define the church.  The church wrote, created and canonized the Bible.  Not the other way around.  Just a thought.

confuses me.  What "church" are you referring to?  Both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures were written by certain individuals, long before any formal "church" was ever in existence.  The "church" may have put it all together in a reasonably intelligible fashion, but "wrote the Bible"?  No.
 

[lilyka]

Well, the new Testament.  The writers of the books were Bishops writing to their flock or the Apostles (the first bishops) writing their accounts. Then hundreds of years later, and several church counsels, church leadership (the early church, the true church, pre-schism, pre-reformation), hammered out which books were acceptable, which were heretical and which were ok but not worthy of cannon.  And it was in flux until about 500 AD.    These books did not fall from heaven.  They were a useful tool of a pre-existing, functioning, mature, organized faith.  They were written to support the teachings of the church, for the people in the church, and meant to be read, interpreted, and used inside the doctrines and under the leadership, of the One, Holy Church started by the apostles.  

[Wolfcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trigger 
What "church" are you referring to?  Both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures were written by certain individuals, long before any formal "church" was ever in existence.  The "church" may have put it all together in a reasonably intelligible fashion, but "wrote the Bible"?  No.

Actually, during the Nicean Council, the representatives of the Church took the oral stories that had never been written down and the already written pieces that make up the bible (as well as a HUGE amount of text that didn't make the cut - much of this is now what is known as the Dead Sea Scrolls), and essentially decided not only what was going into the Bible, but also what versions.

To this, there are essentially "drafts" of books of the Bible from that time that have survived, showing the process of how certain portions of the Bible were actually re-written to be more in line with what was then the "mainstream" and what was politically beneficial to the Church.

To them, "reasonably intelligible fashion" meant everything from tweaking the language to be more "mainstream" (and at this time, Pagan Rome had been homophobic, sexually prudish, and really big on restrictions of behavior, particularly for women of color and slaves [Greeks and North Africans mostly]) to massive editing to give the Church both more political validity and more political power (keep in mind, the Church was just getting some influence after centuries of discrimination - they were, quite frankly, looking to make sure Christians were never again fed to the lions).

[nicolelynn]

To answer the OP, it doesn't support the idea of the Trinity =). "the Word was with God". I see two parties mentioned there, not three.

It is true, the canon was written to support the idea of the Trinity to support the male and leadership hierarchy in the church and state. I see God as one and equal in all things now, the Father is not above the Son and the "Holy Spirit" the the Sophia- Wisdom of God- Mother God.

But I am an "apostate" or "heretic" from fundamentalism as a universalist now, so I accept that my views are not orthodox or Orthodox =).

[Arduinna]

Originally Posted by Trigger 

Totally agree about context, but this

 

confuses me.  What "church" are you referring to?  Both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures were written by certain individuals, long before any formal "church" was ever in existence.  The "church" may have put it all together in a reasonably intelligible fashion, but "wrote the Bible"?  No.
 

What do you mean what Church? As a Catholic do you not believe what the Church teaches in the CCC 74-100 and also that the Church was founded at Pentecost?