The Trinity: Genesis of a doctrine

[moralorel]

This is very true in my experience. I used to hang around with some very political people. I saw numerous debates where there was a clear loser but I never saw anybody change their mind.

So many times I have had friends say that they would never vote for someone who is a liar. But they vote for liars. Never made sense to me.

 

[TheLightWithin]

It contradicts the scripture that it is supposed to represent.

Most people's opinions are more important to them than scripture.

So how does one tell?
Is there a clear reading of scripture on every doctrine, that dissenters are merely ignoring?
Or do they in fact have plausible counterarguments?

 

[moralorel]

So how does one tell?
Is there a clear reading of scripture on every doctrine, that dissenters are merely ignoring?
Or do they in fact have plausible counterarguments?

They could read and study scripture for themselves. This could be its own thread I suppose.

Let me give you a common example. Now and then we hear of some church that has a "prophet" who believes that the Earth will end on a specific date. They make the claim that God has let them know the exact date and time (no word on if it's ET, CT, or PT). Their believers blindly believe them, even though scripture makes it quite clear that no man or woman knows the date and time. Only the Father. Even Jesus doesn't know. Yet so many people have fallen for this obvious lie. But they ignore scripture because they really really really want to believe.

The Bible isn't exactly an easy book to read. I have used the example of Dante's Divine Comedy as a book that is difficult to read and is often misinterpreted. There are reasons why some universities have a class dedicated just to that book. It takes a long time to research the original Italian and to research the people who are mentioned in his classic book.

The Bible is even more difficult. It was written over a long period of time, was written by multiple authors, written in multiple languages, etc. I would think someone could create a college course just about the many idioms found in the Bible. So if someone wants to prove a doctrine, they are going to have to read and do some research.

There is no black and white answer to every doctrine. But I'm just pointing out how human nature interferes with people's quest for truth.

 

[TheLightWithin]

They could read and study scripture for themselves.

The Bible isn't exactly an easy book to read.

The Bible is even more difficult. It was written over a long period of time, was written by multiple authors, written in multiple languages, etc

There is no black and white answer to every doctrine.

Precisely.

What do you think is the best criteria for who has the best argument?

Denominations accuse each other of misreading or misinterpreting the bible, and even of not reading it.

My grandfather used to say that ALL of the regular churches - "didn't teach what was in the bible at all" and that all of their beliefs were distorted mistaken or wrong, and that his denomination - the Herbert Armstrong led World Wide Church of God, was "the one true church" that actually read the bible where other churches had ideas that weren't really attached to the bible. I more or less took him at his word while simultaneously taking it all with a grain of salt. When I read the bible as a teenager, I kept wondering "how do people even begin to draw conclusions much less beliefs from anything here?" I guess I might have expected it to read like a catechism or something.

Why isn't a full catechism simply included in the bible as part of it? Didn't any prophet write one? Does anybody know why not?

 

[moralorel]

Precisely.

What do you think is the best criteria for who has the best argument?

Denominations accuse each other of misreading or misinterpreting the bible, and even of not reading it.

My grandfather used to say that ALL of the regular churches - "didn't teach what was in the bible at all" and that all of their beliefs were distorted mistaken or wrong, and that his denomination - the Herbert Armstrong led World Wide Church of God, was "the one true church" that actually read the bible where other churches had ideas that weren't really attached to the bible. I more or less took him at his word while simultaneously taking it all with a grain of salt. When I read the bible as a teenager, I kept wondering "how do people even begin to draw conclusions much less beliefs from anything here?" I guess I might have expected it to read like a catechism or something.

Why isn't a full catechism simply included in the bible as part of it? Didn't any prophet write one? Does anybody know why not?

Best criteria? I don't have one. But when it comes to any argument, this is what I notice.
1. The one who speaks the loudest is probably wrong.
2. Likewise the one who listens the least is probably wrong.
3. The one who resorts to insults is probably wrong.
4. The one who deflects is probably wrong.
5. The one who is dishonest is probably wrong.
6. The one who can't find evidence to back their claim is probably wrong.
7. The one using circular reasoning is probably wrong.

I think you get the point.

As far as doctrine is concerned, that very well could be another thread. The best advice I can give is that if you believe in something, try to disprove it. If you let your beliefs be challenged you will come out stronger. But there is so much to unravel here.

Ah yes, Mr. Armstrong. He tried disproving his Quaker wife's statement about the Sabbath and came out with a completely different outlook on the Bible. In the end they both abandoned their old beliefs after reading the Bible. I have had plenty of arguments and discussions with people from that church and its offshoots. The thing I do like about them is that they tend to have a decent biblical background. But some still hang on every word that man said. Or even the words of some of the popular ministers of old.

 

[TheLightWithin]

But some still hang on every word that man said.

Yes even with everything that happened to the WCG there are still several remnant spinoffs that maintain some degree of Armstrong doctrines.
I'm partial to them for sure. Always on the lookout for them.

 

[Base12]

So how does one tell?
Is there a clear reading of scripture on every doctrine, that dissenters are merely ignoring?
Or do they in fact have plausible counterarguments?

This is precisely why I use Science, Biology, Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Human Anatomy etc. as a type of error correcting code to verify the different claims out there and to find the deeper meanings in Scripture. The Bible actually teaches us to do this. Unfortunately, most do not follow the instructions.

Because I have followed the instructions, I am able to see light years ahead of the average Bible Student. Once all of the lies, mistakes, disinfo, misinfo, etc. are taken out the equation using the prescribed method, Truth can be found with relative ease.

So, to answer your question, yes there is a clear reading. It is called the literal interpretation. Sadly, most are taught to ignore the literal interpretation because it goes against established dogma.

Genesis 2:17 is a perfect example. Christians are told to change the words to make the verse say something it does not. It just gets worse from there. As far as I know, I am the only person on the planet that believes the literal interpretation of Genesis 2:17. Yet, I am treated like the Devil himself for believing my Bible.

The bottom line is that there is a Spirit at work keeping folks from finding out what the Bible really teaches. This is a real thing I run into all the time. It is an extremely difficult battle to win.