Jump to content

Why is the trinity so important?


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Eph2,8 said:

 I suppose it might be my way of paying homage to them.

I think that is cool.

I don't have a problem with the cross or that passage.  I think the reason that it comes across as bait is because on the surface it's as if you are trying to appear Evangelical, when you are not...as if to raise eyebrows and at least draw questions, or as if you are trying to say something about it.     

Link to comment
14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I once asked an Evangelical pastor if it was fair that a blatant murdering, drug selling pimp, discovered Christ on his deathbed and was "saved", went to the same heaven as say, Billy Graham, who did so much for Evangelicalism, and saved so many others.

He said that the Billy Graham character might get an extra jewel in his "crown of glory", so yes, that is a real belief!

It is interesting to me this idea they have of crown, jewels, rewards.  The more sanctified you are the more rewards.  Bully and the other fellow are both in heaven but Billy has a better crown.  I have told EVs to just change that to exaltation or non exaltation or different glories.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Since half of Christ’s genetic makeup comes from his Father, whose ethnicity is unknown, all bets are off when it comes to what Christ actually looks like.

And we wonder why Orthodox Christians don't think Mormons are Christians...🙄

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is interesting to me this idea they have of crown, jewels, rewards.  The more sanctified you are the more rewards.  Bully and the other fellow are both in heaven but Billy has a better crown.  I have told EVs to just change that to exaltation or non exaltation or different glories.

Yes, that was my point in speaking with the pastor as well.

It feels like the same reward for everyone is unfair

Google " bible jewels crown" and it will tell you there are 60 references 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
2 hours ago, bOObOO said:

Damned as in limited by not accepting that knowledge of truth?  We believe people who don't accept some aspect of truth will be limited by not accepting that truth as the truth too. 

Damned as in being tortured by God forever and ever because he just likes torturing people who don't accept some aspect of truth as the truth, though?  No, we do not believe that.

I was using the traditional Christian definition of it. Yes, many (if not most) believe you will burn for all eternity if you do not accept the concept of the trinity

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Fether said:

I was using the traditional Christian definition of it. Yes, many (if not most) believe you will burn for all eternity if you do not accept the concept of the trinity

There may be some truth to that.  And the burning feeling some may feel for not knowing the truth about something may be a good thing even if it may have been due to a simple misunderstanding.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Eph2,8 said:

Deuteronomy 6:4 came later? What's the evidence for that? Honest question, if you got something I really wanna read it. I agree that early Hebrew religion was probably more Henotheistic or polytheistic, but I think saying the Shema was a later addition - or perhaps a later interpretation - is faulty ground for that. Places like Psalm 89 work better imo

I think it you look into the religious reforms of King Josiah it will lead you to the conclusion that Deuteronomy was written during his reign and was not actually written by Moses. Deuteronomy introduced a monotheism to Israel that was not present before that time frame.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=18&article=1038&context=mi&type=additional

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think it you look into the religious reforms of King Josiah it will lead you to the conclusion that Deuteronomy was written during his reign and was not actually written by Moses. Deuteronomy introduced a monotheism to Israel that was not present before that time frame.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=18&article=1038&context=mi&type=additional

Wow, that's really interesting. I skimmed it a little bit, but I'll have to read it in depth later. Though fascinating, I can't help but believe that if it had more merit it might "catch on" a bit more. What about Matthew 19:8, where Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 24 and clearly states that Moses wrote it? Again, honest question. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Eph2,8 said:

Wow, that's really interesting. I skimmed it a little bit, but I'll have to read it in depth later. Though fascinating, I can't help but believe that if it had more merit it might "catch on" a bit more. What about Matthew 19:8, where Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 24 and clearly states that Moses wrote it? Again, honest question. 

If Jesus even said that, he would have just been appealing to common tradition of the time.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, the narrator said:

If Jesus even said that, he would have just been appealing to common tradition of the time.

If Jesus said it? What is the metric by which we know for sure if something written in the Gospel of Matthew actually happened? Is there none? If so, I might logically dismiss the entire book on basis of a faulty source. In fact, that would probably be the most logical thing to do. 

I don't think Jesus was the biggest supporter of the "tradition of the time" (See mark 7 for that) IF the stipulation of Deut and King Josiah are correct, why would Jesus uphold, affirm, or even use Deut in the "incorrect" context? He rejects Pharisaical law and many other post/interpretive Old Testament Jewish beliefs. Something as drastic as changing Hebrew theology from Poly to Mono seems too big for Jesus to use in His teaching as something to gain popular support, much less to not openly speak out against it. That's a major, extreme religious change. Surely Jesus would not have liked it. 

Link to comment
On 9/1/2021 at 3:30 PM, Fether said:

So what is so important about believing in the trinity for traditional Christians? Many will say that if you don’t believe in the trinitarian nature, you are not only wrong, but at risk of damnation

After decades of debate, on the Internet, or “one on one”, I have reached this conclusion. 
 

I used to believe that such theological debates boiled down to lazy human interaction. A practice where “all people” engaged in compartmentalism, so we could easily place each other into little boxes, to better understand each other. What I learned is that it is even less complicated than I had supposed. 
 

The goal is create “one box”, to then go through the mental gymnastics of putting themselves in the “small saved box”, and all others with who they disagree with, (no matter how slight of technical the doctrinal point of view) outside this box. 
 

Simply put, there is only “One Jesus Christ”, the one found in the Standard Works of the Church, and one does not have to be LDS to find and worship Him. However the Standard Works of the Church, help us find him “more deeply”, and “more completely”, thus allowing us to draw “more closely” too Jesus Christ!  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Eph2,8 said:

If Jesus said it? What is the metric by which we know for sure if something written in the Gospel of Matthew actually happened? Is there none? If so, I might logically dismiss the entire book on basis of a faulty source. In fact, that would probably be the most logical thing to do. 

It's not like Jesus had a stenographer following him around. Any report of what he said is based on a chain of oral rehearsals, which any child playing Telephone can tell you is wrought with problems. That said, that general teaching attributed to Jesus certainly seems to be the sort of thing he might have said. Either way, an appeal to a traditional understanding in order to convey new ideas is hardly an endorsement of all traditions.

Edited by the narrator
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Eph2,8 said:

If so, I might logically dismiss the entire book on basis of a faulty source. In fact, that would probably be the most logical thing to do. 

Which epistemological paradigm would THAT be?  The Mr. Spock School of Hollywood logic?

Scriptural interpretation is not scientific investigation 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, the narrator said:

It's not like Jesus had a stenographer following him around. Any report of what he said is based on a chain of oral rehearsals, which any child playing Telephone can tell you is wrought with problems. That said, that general teaching attributed to Jesus certainly seems to be the sort of thing he might have said. Either way, an appeal to a traditional understanding in order to convey new ideas is hardly an endorsement of all traditions.

Is it presumable that Matthew was influenced by the Holy Ghost to remember the words of Jesus? "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." It seems at least possible - and honestly probable - that the Holy Ghost brought things to Matthew's remembrance while he wrote the gospel - a book which God knew would be preserved and studied for thousands of years. 

I never said this instance endorsed all traditions. I just stated that when Jesus came up against a current tradition that conflicted with eternal truth, He usually was not very kind to it. Especially if it's something that changes the entire theological foundation of Hebrew religion from poly to mono. He would be using a MAJOR incorrect idea to make a tiny doctrinal case. Further, why would Jesus even bring up Deut in this example if it's not true scripture? He's quoting a law that - to my understanding - is ONLY found in Deut. Why would Jesus use an apparently false law authoritatively to make a point? Is that not dishonest? It just does not make a lot of sense to me. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Which epistemological paradigm would THAT be?  The Mr. Spock School of Hollywood logic?

Scriptural interpretation is not scientific investigation 

You're right. Scriptural interpretation is scriptural investigation. That's the foundation of exegesis. Willy nilly scripture interpretation is eisegesis, and it's dangerous. History, context, validity of everything matters. If we say "oh well... that's probably misquoted/written incorrectly anyway" every time we encounter a biblical passage we don't like/agree with, then the entire legitimacy of the document falls apart. It becomes subjective, anyone can claim something written is fact or fiction based on their own views. How do we know which parts are true, which are false? I know you dismissed this as some fantasy or fictional issue, but it's a real question I grapple with. 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Eph2,8 said:

Is it presumable that Matthew was influenced by the Holy Ghost to remember the words of Jesus?

Considering that we have no idea who "Matthew" even was, I don't see any reason to presume such--especially when "Luke" didn't seem to have the same influencing when adapting Mark and whatever sources he used for his Gospel.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Eph2,8 said:

I just stated that when Jesus came up against a current tradition that conflicted with eternal truth, He usually was not very kind to it.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider the supposed Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy to be an "eternal truth." Though, I don't think anyone knows what any particular "eternal truth" is.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Eph2,8 said:

anyone can claim something written is fact or fiction based on their own views. 

Such is the unavoidable condition of mortality - even with exegesis.  There is no escaping our own perspective.

2 hours ago, Eph2,8 said:

 How do we know which parts are true, which are false? I know you dismissed this as some fantasy or fictional issue, but it's a real question I grapple with. 

It depends on what you mean by "true".  Seems like a silly thing, but that word causes more miscommunication and confusion than perhaps any other word in religion.  True in what epistemological sense?   Christ seemed to approached the word of God in a more practical approach to truth.  Do what works.  He compare the word to a seed...  Experientially experiment and see what grows.  That is an entirely subjective experience and cannot be objectively verified through exegesis or other means.  Not that there is anything wrong with exegesis, but ultimately we rely on subjective experience to tell us what is "true" when it comes to the word of God.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

You all figured I would weigh in this, right? What might surprise you is that I think some of you may be overthinking this. Just a couple of general things to begin – I have never preached or taught that a belief in the trinity is essential for salvation. I have never heard it preached or taught as essential to salvation. I don’t say that to try and negate or minimize those of you who have heard it said to you. I believe you. I also believe that this helps prove the point that I am about to make.

Second, I will confirm that a belief in the trinity is necessary for membership in some denominations and churches, both Evangelical and Fundamentalist. Not all, perhaps not many, but some. Just like I would have to answer certain questions in a certain way to be baptized in, and join the LDS church, there are groups in the non-LDS Christian world who make a belief in the trinity essential for church membership. This is validated by the fact that the Catholic Church (probably much to the chagrin of our resident Catholic forum gurus) provide a list of baptisms from a page-full of denominations that they accept. I could, for example join our local Catholic parish based on my childhood baptism. I would have to go through an adult catechetical experience but would not have to be re-baptized. My LDS friends would have to be re-baptized, because the LDS baptism is viewed as non-trinitarian in mode (I think that is the right word). So, to join the Catholic church one would have to have a “trinitarian” baptism, whether inside or outside the Catholic church.

In much of the Protestant world, salvation and becoming a member of the church are not the same thing. One doesn’t happen at the same time as the other. They are sequential, perhaps months or years apart, or never. Salvation first and then church membership after training, baptism, and public profession of faith. I digress, back to the subject at hand.

Let me make it perfectly hazy. . . . I know of no Fundamentalist group or Evangelical group that requires a belief in the trinity to consider someone “saved” or a “Christian. If someone tells you that, they are, as Elder Holland said recently using the musket with the trowel. They are performing boundary maintenance. They are the Border Patrol, keeping you out of their world because of their belief in your church's heterodoxy. Do you believe that when someone went forward during an evangelistic crusade put on by John R Rice, Billy Graham, or my dad that they knew about and understood about the trinity? Of course not. Yet, they were all pronounced “saved” on the spot – perhaps the more wretched the soul, the greater the joy. I still have the billy club that my dad took away from a guy on the streets of Chicago the night the guy got saved. I believe it was in 1929. My dad kept that as a reminder of God’s grace and handed it down to me.

Remember for both the typical Fundamentalist and Evangelical, salvation is a point in time (aorist in the Greek) happening. It is not a process. It doesn’t happen over time. Now, Fundamentalists tend to believe that salvation once experienced is forever. Evangelicals are all over the barnyard about that – Baptist Evangelicals believe the same as their Fundamentalist friends. Mennonite and Methodist Evangelicals believe you must persevere to maintain your salvation.

You see, most if not all Fundamentalists want members of the LDS church to be saved, but they just as much want them to leave the LDS church. Ditto for some Evangelicals. So, beliefs like the trinity, which LDS church leaders don’t teach, are convenient means to not simply ensure that someone is getting saved, but also leaving the church. It is the LDS church that is the problem, not the individual person. When someone says to you, you have to accept the trinity, which they would not say to the bum on the street, they are simply saying you must also leave the LDS church. Of course, this is also why the LDS church doesn’t want you going near such an evangelist, because experiencing Protestant salvation seems to be tantamount to leaving the church. I have never heard someone in the ward express concern that so and so had become born again. The concern is that they “left the church.” Point-in-time salvation and leaving the LDS church seem to go hand in hand.

I have done street evangelism as a teenager and young adult. We would always meet somewhere afterwards and there would be great and genuine joy if someone was “saved” that night. Notice past tense. Right there on the street corner they prayed and were saved. Point in time. No one in those ice cream-filled after meetings asked if the person believed in the trinity. Perhaps months later if the person was still around and willing to go through a baptism class, he or she would be taught about the trinity (depending on the group) but belief in it was never in my experience made a requirement for baptism or church membership. I don’t remember ever asking anyone anything about the trinity prior to baptizing them.  I have heard my LDS friends use the term “milk before meat.” I think that is the idea.

Please don’t believe that Fundamentalists (those Chik tracts people) or Evangelicals believe that a belief in the trinity is necessary for salvation. That simply isn’t true, whether they say it is, or not. If someone on the spot who had no knowledge whatsoever of the trinity prayed the sinner’s prayer, they would be considered saved and evangelists would be thrilled about it. As I pointed out in my chart on another thread, many Evangelical Statements of Faith state that “God is eternally existent in three persons," no mention of the trinity per se.

Don’t get me wrong. Many sincerely love to study the trinity doctrine and are passionate about it. As a teenager I sometimes carried around an egg to explain the shell, yolk, and egg illustration of the trinity. “How many eggs do I have” I would then separate the three parts of the eggs into three bowls and triumphantly ask, “Now how many eggs do I have?” One of course! Case closed. Of course when I got to college, my theology professor frowned deeply at my egg illustration and deemed it a yoke! (not really) Do not underestimate the boundary maintenance function of the trinity. It also is historically significant in church history. It is an important yea, vital doctrine for many. However, lack of understanding or even knowledge of it never prevented anyone from praying the sinner’s prayer and being pronounced saved on the spot.

 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You all figured I would weigh in this, right? What might surprise you is that I think some of you may be overthinking this. Just a couple of general things to begin – I have never preached or taught that a belief in the trinity is essential for salvation. I have never heard it preached or taught as essential to salvation. I don’t say that to try and negate or minimize those of you who have heard it said to you. I believe you. I also believe that this helps prove the point that I am about to make.

Second, I will confirm that a belief in the trinity is necessary for membership in some denominations and churches, both Evangelical and Fundamentalist. Not all, perhaps not many, but some. Just like I would have to answer certain questions in a certain way to be baptized in, and join the LDS church, there are groups in the non-LDS Christian world who make a belief in the trinity essential for church membership. This is validated by the fact that the Catholic Church (probably much to the chagrin of our resident Catholic forum gurus) provide a list of baptisms from a page-full of denominations that they accept. I could, for example join our local Catholic parish based on my childhood baptism. I would have to go through an adult catechetical experience but would not have to be re-baptized. My LDS friends would have to be re-baptized, because the LDS baptism is viewed as non-trinitarian in mode (I think that is the right word). So, to join the Catholic church one would have to have a “trinitarian” baptism, whether inside or outside the Catholic church.

In much of the Protestant world, salvation and becoming a member of the church are not the same thing. One doesn’t happen at the same time as the other. They are sequential, perhaps months or years apart, or never. Salvation first and then church membership after training, baptism, and public profession of faith. I digress, back to the subject at hand.

Let me make it perfectly hazy. . . . I know of no Fundamentalist group or Evangelical group that requires a belief in the trinity to consider someone “saved” or a “Christian. If someone tells you that, they are, as Elder Holland said recently using the musket with the trowel. They are performing boundary maintenance. They are the Border Patrol, keeping you out of their world because of their belief in your church's heterodoxy. Do you believe that when someone went forward during an evangelistic crusade put on by John R Rice, Billy Graham, or my dad that they knew about and understood about the trinity? Of course not. Yet, they were all pronounced “saved” on the spot – perhaps the more wretched the soul, the greater the joy. I still have the billy club that my dad took away from a guy on the streets of Chicago the night the guy got saved. I believe it was in 1929. My dad kept that as a reminder of God’s grace and handed it down to me.

Remember for both the typical Fundamentalist and Evangelical, salvation is a point in time (aorist in the Greek) happening. It is not a process. It doesn’t happen over time. Now, Fundamentalists tend to believe that salvation once experienced is forever. Evangelicals are all over the barnyard about that – Baptist Evangelicals believe the same as their Fundamentalist friends. Mennonite and Methodist Evangelicals believe you must persevere to maintain your salvation.

You see, most if not all Fundamentalists want members of the LDS church to be saved, but they just as much want them to leave the LDS church. Ditto for some Evangelicals. So, beliefs like the trinity, which LDS church leaders don’t teach, are convenient means to not simply ensure that someone is getting saved, but also leaving the church. It is the LDS church that is the problem, not the individual person. When someone says to you, you have to accept the trinity, which they would not say to the bum on the street, they are simply saying you must also leave the LDS church. Of course, this is also why the LDS church doesn’t want you going near such an evangelist, because experiencing Protestant salvation seems to be tantamount to leaving the church. I have never heard someone in the ward express concern that so and so had become born again. The concern is that they “left the church.” Point-in-time salvation and leaving the LDS church seem to go hand in hand.

I have done street evangelism as a teenager and young adult. We would always meet somewhere afterwards and there would be great and genuine joy if someone was “saved” that night. Notice past tense. Right there on the street corner they prayed and were saved. Point in time. No one in those ice cream-filled after meetings asked if the person believed in the trinity. Perhaps months later if the person was still around and willing to go through a baptism class, he or she would be taught about the trinity (depending on the group) but belief in it was never in my experience made a requirement for baptism or church membership. I don’t remember ever asking anyone anything about the trinity prior to baptizing them.  I have heard my LDS friends use the term “milk before meat.” I think that is the idea.

Please don’t believe that Fundamentalists (those Chik tracts people) or Evangelicals believe that a belief in the trinity is necessary for salvation. That simply isn’t true, whether they say it is, or not. If someone on the spot who had no knowledge whatsoever of the trinity prayed the sinner’s prayer, they would be considered saved and evangelists would be thrilled about it. As I pointed out in my chart on another thread, many Evangelical Statements of Faith state that “God is eternally existent in three persons," no mention of the trinity per se.

Don’t get me wrong. Many sincerely love to study the trinity doctrine and are passionate about it. As a teenager I sometimes carried around an egg to explain the shell, yolk, and egg illustration of the trinity. “How many eggs do I have” I would then separate the three parts of the eggs into three bowls and triumphantly ask, “Now how many eggs do I have?” One of course! Case closed. Of course when I got to college, my theology professor frowned deeply at my egg illustration and deemed it a yoke! (not really) Do not underestimate the boundary maintenance function of the trinity. It also is historically significant in church history. It is an important yea, vital doctrine for many. However, lack of understanding or even knowledge of it never prevented anyone from praying the sinner’s prayer and being pronounced saved on the spot.

 

The question in the OP was about whether belief in the trinity was so important that rejecting it could lead to damnation.  How easy it is to be saved is another issue, and even if it is as easy to be saved as you think it is, the question is whether rejection of the trinity could lead to damnation even for someone who had already been saved.  And I would even expand the question to ask whether a person would remain saved if they rejected ANY aspect of the truth.  To not know something is one thing, to reject that the truth is true is another issue.  And if you take the time to answer this question it might also help for you to explain what salvation is all about.  Being saved from what, exactly? If saved from sin what if a person sins again even after being saved?  What to do then?  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

Such is the unavoidable condition of mortality - even with exegesis.  There is no escaping our own perspective.

You're right, I agree absolutely that people will always disagree on whether something written is fact or fiction.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

It depends on what you mean by "true".  Seems like a silly thing, but that word causes more miscommunication and confusion than perhaps any other word in religion.  True in what epistemological sense?   Christ seemed to approached the word of God in a more practical approach to truth.  Do what works.  He compare the word to a seed...  Experientially experiment and see what grows.  That is an entirely subjective experience and cannot be objectively verified through exegesis or other means.  Not that there is anything wrong with exegesis, but ultimately we rely on subjective experience to tell us what is "true" when it comes to the word of God.

I suppose in this particular instance when I say true I mean a historical fact that Jesus said something. I brought up Matthew 19:7-9 in a discussion and another user questioned whether or not Jesus actually said what was contained in Matthew 19. So, when I say "true" in this context, I mean is it a historical fact that Jesus actually said something. Yes, in the interpretive world of the text we will undoubtedly approach, infer, and conclude differently (whether or not that is ideal). However, that wasn't what was being discussed. If we cannot even agree if Matthew 19 is real and true (historically), how can we adequately and accurately discuss the implications of it?

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

The question in the OP was about whether belief in the trinity was so important that rejecting it could lead to damnation. 

No

21 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

the question is whether rejection of the trinity could lead to damnation even for someone who had already been saved

No

21 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

whether a person would remain saved if they rejected ANY aspect of the truth. 

Depends on what aspect

21 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Being saved from what, exactly? If saved from sin what if a person sins again even after being saved?  What to do then?  

Saved from the paying the penalty for sin. What to do then? Repent and turn around!

Ha! And somebody said I was too wordy! Ha!

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

This is validated by the fact that the Catholic Church (probably much to the chagrin of our resident Catholic forum gurus) provide a list of baptisms from a page-full of denominations that they accept. I could, for example join our local Catholic parish based on my childhood baptism. I would have to go through an adult catechetical experience but would not have to be re-baptized. My LDS friends would have to be re-baptized, because the LDS baptism is viewed as non-trinitarian in mode (I think that is the right word). So, to join the Catholic church one would have to have a “trinitarian” baptism, whether inside or outside the Catholic church.

This is correct, though I'm not sure why you say it would be to the chagrin of the Catholics here..? This has been discussed before and I have posted a link to one diocese's list of churches that perform valid baptism. I've also posted a link to the official Vatican answer why LDS baptism is not valid. Validity requires proper matter, form, and intent. For baptism, matter is water. Form is the invocation of the Trinity during the baptism. The Catholic Church finds the LDS disbelief in the Trinity problematic enough to invalidate LDS baptisms. Also problematic is the intent of the person performing the LDS baptism, as that intent will be quite different from what the Catholic Church would intend.

Here is the link to the official document about LDS baptism: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, the narrator said:

Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider the supposed Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy to be an "eternal truth." Though, I don't think anyone knows what any particular "eternal truth" is.

Mosaic authorship may not be, but Monotheistic vs Polytheistic is (I would say). My whole point in bringing up Matthew 19 was to suggest that Jesus seemed to accept Mosaic authorship in that verse. If you are right about Josiah, then Jesus would have been appealing to a current tradition, despite that tradition representing dishonesty (Deut. would be fraud), major doctrinal errors, etc. in order to make an authoritative theological point. 

For an interesting philosophical thought, perhaps every piece of objective truth is eternally true? Does two plus two eternally equal four? Not important at all, just fun to think about. 

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

Considering that we have no idea who "Matthew" even was, I don't see any reason to presume such--especially when "Luke" didn't seem to have the same influencing when adapting Mark and whatever sources he used for his Gospel.

Why, in your opinion, should anyone read the Bible? Honest question. If it is possibly riddled with falsities, what is the point? 

"2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...