The trinity was the most discussed doctrine besides that of salvation to the early Christians (and us). It is not something the early christians chose to make up as time went along.
And, the trinity is discussed in the early church. Does the first council of Nicaea ring a bell? Nicene creed anyone?
Unless I'm mistaken, that was in the fourth century, almost 300 years since the communities brought forth by Paul, Peter, James and John. Unless the early church's oral tradition was strong, its essential meaning would almost certainly have withered away in the 300 years through to the Council of Nicaea. Traditions passed on from generation to generation will almost always lose their essential meaning. What "preserves" Christianity is the New Testament. The New Testament is our chance to rediscover the past. The traditions we've been following in the last 2,000 years are not "oral tradition" but dogmatic tradition, which doesn't have the same essential meaning as "oral tradition." We are missing a vital piece of the so-called "mystery." When we rediscover the essential meaning of our faith, it won't be a mystery anymore. We will actually understand it. That is the challenge that we face. We're on a quest to solve a 2,000 year mystery.
Well, that's at least the theory I have. I just don't think it was meant to be a mystery. Jesus went around telling people that the Kingdom of God was near, that God was accessible. He was telling people that they could actually
see the Kingdom. The point was that you could connect with God, connect with the Kingdom if you did it with your heart not your head. You'd then be able to actually
feel God, to
feel the Kingdom. God and the Kingdom would become a
reality.
Once you think the Bible is fallible, the entire subject goes out the window, because Jesus is the Logos.
Hey, just because the Bible is "fallible," doesn't mean everything in it becomes invalidated. Yes, it says Jesus is Logos. So why don't we
use that? I am sure we can find a hundred other important sayings in the Bible that can help us find God. The Bible is not a machine that falls apart just because one part is faulty. Does God need a machine to take us up to heaven? Infallibility and fallibility should not be a concern. The important thing is
content. What does it say? What can it tell us? How can it help us? What did the people back then do so that we can follow in their footsteps?
It is deviation from the original message to say " The Bible is fallible", " the trinity has no basis in the Bible", and " the Christianity we have now is WRONG and flawed".
I see the Trinity as progress, but that said, I'd call it a temporary rationalisation that we could, perhaps keep for now. There are thousands of newcomers to Christianity, those born into it, and those introduced to it, that need to learn the basics and I would see a lot of benefits in giving people an experience of one of the many ways we approach the faith. Otherwise, we'd create confusion.
But anyhow, a belief system should not be treated as like a machine that is broken and useless just because one part is "faulty" or "flawed." Imagine that. You had to get the whole machine working otherwise God wouldn't love you. What kind of religion would that be? Do you see Christianity as a machine that you have to get working for you to be one of God's people? One of the benefits of the Trinity is that it "preserves" or "reinforces" our innocence by allowing us to not think so hard about having to define God. It helps us relax and let go. Whether we say it's a mystery or whether we say it's the truth, there is one thing that we are doing in both cases, which is saying,
look no further, what you need is right in front of you.
The point here is that God values our innocence. Do you see what I mean? I don't think God even cares whether we get the so-called "Trinity" right or whether we even believe in the Trinity. The important thing is that we are at peace. The reason why we defend the Trinity is to protect others who believe in it. We don't want their innocence violated. At the some time, however, strict conformity and insistence on adherence to a Trinity doctrine could violate the innocence of other people's relationship with God. We've just got to be flexible.
I was not making a point of the Trinity being "wrong." Don't get the wrong idea. My point was that it not be regarded as essential. I would have no problem if
all Christians believed in the Trinity.
Unfortunately, however, we don't all believe in the Trinity. What I do see as wrong is when we don't all believe in the Trinity and we insist that others believe in it too and enforce it on them, or condemn others for not believing in it.
That would be a violation of their innocence. It is easy to say that one must contemplate the nature of God but what about someone else's state of mind, something that God created? Would God not want His creation to be respected? When we violate someone else's innocence, we do emotional damage. We inflict injury on another. We inflict injury on something God created. Where people are persecuted for their belief in the Trinity, they should be defended. Where the Trinity is used to oppress or gain an advantage over others, the movement should be opposed.
What would you make of Jesus' disciples in Mark 10:13-16 discouraging the little children from coming to Jesus? What's the moral of the story? Is there not a lesson to be learnt here? Were these little kids somehow too young to understand what Jesus had to say? God surely doesn't like idol worship, but any concept of God, no matter how stupid that is formed by an innocent mind, I believe, is acceptable to Him.
