Why 'Trinity'?

[Imagican]

Since there IS scripture that labels the relationship of God and Son, why 'create' a name that NEITHER EVER offered? Why not JUST use that which was offered by the Father and His Son PERIOD. Look at ALL the confusion that could have been eliminated if the RCC had simply used the word 'Godhead' in reference to this relationship.

Now, what I am asking is WHY THIS WORD 'TRINITY'? Where did it come from and WHY use this instead of Godhead. The SAME EXACT definition could have been 'attached' to Godhead that has been placed on 'trinity'. Now, WHY 'TRINITY'?

MEC

 

[Vic C.]

See Michael's post here:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=23978

Since it isn't really the word we use to describe the triune nature of the Godhead, but rather the very concept itself, I don't see you ever accepting this doctrine anyway. So, why do we waste so much energy and the forums' time and space to continually debate this?

There's spiritual battle going on in the world. There are family, friends and neighbors that still need to hear The Word. There are helpless widows and hungry children that need tending to.

As Jason pointed out in another thread, the SOF of this site recoginizes the Godhead as a union of three as One. Besides, we know what you believe and you know what we believe, so lets move on. There are FAR too many threads on this subject already.

See? I uesed the word Godhead twice and Trinity zero times. :-D

 

[Imagican]

And Vic, I accept your offering. I feel the WAY that I feel 'for a 'reason'. It is NOT something that I simply 'talk' about. The understanding that I offer is NOTHING but the 'truth'. But, if this makes others 'uncomfortable', perhaps there is a 'reason' for this too.

I will submit to your wish and abandon this thread. You may delete it with NO hard feelings from me.

One last thing, I DO believe that there is MUCH to be learned by discussing SUCH an important issue. Many simply 'accept' what they are offered and NEVER truly come to an understanding of it 'because' it is 'simply accepted'. Scarry theology to me, but to each their own.

God Bless Vic,

MEC

 

[mutzrein]

Actually Vic, I'd like to post something on this - but I'm not quite ready. I don't intend to target the term 'trinity' so much but the concept of adherance to any doctrine (be it true or false) that seems to be at odds with a righteousness that comes by faith. Perhaps I should create a new thread.

 

[Vic C.]

Hey Ed and MEC, I suggested we move on, but I didn't lock the thread. :wink: I am leaving the locking to the Mods.

 

[mutzrein]

Hey Ed and MEC, I suggested we move on, but I didn't lock the thread. :wink: I am leaving the locking to the Mods.

Thanks Vic - the more I think about it, the more I think it needs its own thread. So I will mull over a few things and wait for the right time to be presented.

 

[theSeriousOne]

Since there IS scripture that labels the relationship of God and Son, why 'create' a name that NEITHER EVER offered? Why not JUST use that which was offered by the Father and His Son PERIOD. Look at ALL the confusion that could have been eliminated if the RCC had simply used the word 'Godhead' in reference to this relationship.

Now, what I am asking is WHY THIS WORD 'TRINITY'? Where did it come from and WHY use this instead of Godhead. The SAME EXACT definition could have been 'attached' to Godhead that has been placed on 'trinity'. Now, WHY 'TRINITY'?

MEC

Why ask Why?
Trinitarians will think of a million excuses!