I don't trip.
Sorry if it sounds arrogant.
I was taught the Trinity by 3 different denominations and they agree with each other.
Biblically, it's correct...
and it's what was taught by the ECFs.
Yes, I studied some history too.
Jesus was born 2 thousand years ago.
The Son existed forever.
Don't use the word beginning anymore and I think it would be better.
Many call themselves Christian and don't believe
1. The Doctrine of the Trinity
or
2. Jesus is God.
I'm not saying it's you....but you sure are starting to slide...
I am a long way from sliding GG. I am reading the scriptures that the Uni's amongst us quote, and considering them, but not how they interpret them, testing my understanding on scripture firstly. However I have not been swayed by any means, as I began to give the Trinity a fresh look before that, and whether the teaching from Augustine is as weak as his other doctrines since he differs from Monarchial Trinitarianism.
I have been reading from
Origen's Christology: A Response to the Cults and found this:
"Orthodoxy in the pre-Nicene church, however, focused on right concepts - not on using this word instead of that word.
As Origen expressed it: "Let everyone, then, who cares for truth not be concerned about words and language. For in every nation there prevails a different usage of speech. Rather, let him direct his attention to the meaning conveyed by the words (rather than to the nature of the words that convey the meaning), especially in manners of such importance and difficulty" (ANF 4,376). From the writings of the pre-Nicene Christians, it is quite apparent that many of them used "begotten" [Gr.
gennetos] and "created" [Gr.
genetos and
ktizein] as interchangeable terms. This was partially based on usage in Scripture. In describing the generation of Wisdom (which the pre-Nicene church universally understood to be referring to the generation of the Son), the eighth chapter of Proverbs in the Septuagint uses the term "create" [Gr.
ektisen]. But in using the term
ktizein,
neither Scripture nor the pre-Nicene writers meant that the Son was made or created out of nothing. Rather, they understood ktizein to have a broad meaning that encompasses both "beget" and "create." This becomes quite clear when a person READS THE TOTALITY OF WHAT EACH WRITER SAYS. (p. 109; bold and capital emphasis ours)"
This is where I hugely differ from the Unitarians. They say that the Word was created out of nothing....
ex nihilo but I say that the Word came forth from the Father is a way we cannot understand, like the way that Eve was formed from the rib of Adam so she was sharing Adams' humanity but a different person. Well that was not a really good explanation, but you get the drift I hope. This happened before the creation of all things . The Word was always a part of
the Godhead as far as time goes, which is since this eon.
Regarding the Incarnation, they say that God through the Holy Spirit, placed Jesus who already existed as the Word, into her womb, but I say that God's regenerating power entered her ovum so that man and God fused together in the way that a man and a womans' DNA join at conception. But in a way we cannot understand.
I am still working through it and finding it hard going due to battling a serious illness but slowly making progress
