Thoughts about Trinity beliefs

I can see any saint inflicting everlasting torment on anyone or anything ...

If they can change, and desire to, then everlasting punishment is cruel and morally wrong.
If they cannot change, then everlasting punishment is pointless, cruel, and equally morally wrong.
You and I are not going to agree on this one. Thats ok though thats why this forum works. I believe in dispensation periods and the one we are in is the age of grace. That will end. I feel like you look down on the Church in the US unfairly. We teach truth in love and telling someone that they will eventually be saved is a dangerous thing because what if you are wrong. Whose blood will be on your hands?

If God wanted us to know we will eventually be saved why didnt He just say that?
 
By which I mean, the oldest surviving Christian institutions, the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox, interpret the Bible quite differently on significant points. Then we have the Coptic Orthodox
I thought the Coptic Orthodox church was co-equally old or even older than the other two?
 
If God wanted us to know we will eventually be saved why didnt He just say that?
It seems @Thomas is indicating, in his posts, that that idea actually is consistent with the written record.

I think people often wonder, quite reasonably, "why didn't G-d just do x?" about so, so many things.
Maybe we'll know one day, maybe we won't, maybe the question just won't matter by and by.
 
I thought the Coptic Orthodox church was co-equally old or even older than the other two?
Yes ... one gets into technical points of when and why such schisms occur.

So I would agree, the Coptic Orthodox Church traces its foundation back to 42AD by Mark the Evangelist, it was my mistake as I was thinking of it as an entity after the schism following the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
 
If that is so, then God is not Good; rather, God is only as good as we allow Him to be.
And that would not be a good God by which to promote a POSITIVE self-fulfilling prophecy. So I think you chose your belief wisely, even if for reasons other than self-fulfilling prophecy. I don’t rule out those other reasons. I just prefer to make my case with the weakest reason. “If you can make it in New York (analogous to the “weakest reason”). then you can make it anywhere!” If the weakest reasons works, then other reasons have even more weight. To my way of thinking, that is. Also analogous to “You don’t have to outrun the bear, just at least one person in your party!”
 
More accurately, and more relevantly, the word is the conjunction of per ('through') and sonare (verb: 'to sound'), coming round to the mask 'through which the voice sounds' or through which the character manifests itself.
I like that. But also suggests that we too are not in essence as separate in our being as we suppose, and that at the base of our individual being we are rooted in spirit as manifestations of God also (3 is a multiple, so is/are all humans). Children of God does come close to this view (of being particular expressions or manifestations of the One God), but Branches off the God Tree might be even better. Sin comes in from thinking and acting as though we are not connected to the Tree. Branches that think they are mere limbs or even just logs are lost and will sin more than branches who know their Essence as branches who are naturally (divinely?) connected to the Tree.
 
Quite ... but then, to be fair, that's not what Christianity is ...
I agree that Christianity is not merely a positive self fulfilling prophesy, as it involves encouragement to EXPERIENCE our connection to God, using God’s Messenger/Son to help link/connect. Self fulfilling prophecies help with doing but Christianity is most concerned with BEING. And once the fullness of being is achieved, relating with love becomes richer, stronger, and more sustainable. God is allowed to help His Branches.
But I emphasize positive self fulfilling prophecy because it is reason enough to choose and use religion, perhaps becoming a stepping stone to realizing the Source of the self. If one has faith in the manner of positive self fulfilling prophecy, then one may notice the Divine flow behind the process. That flow would then turn mere doing into being.
 
This is quite a big statement. To do that proper justice, one would need to know Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek, as well as a grasp of Aramaic...

... for example, it's a common belief that the souls of the unrepentant suffer in hell for all eternity, but that's not what the Bible actually says. The text says they suffer for a period of time, but not eternally, and certainly those who read the Gospels in the Koine Greek would not have assumed 'eternal punishment' ... I've discussed this ad nauseam elsewhere.

When the Bible is translated into local language, there is a fair degree of interpretation, but more importantly than that, we would need to read and think as the people who wrote the books thought, and the people who read the books thought – we would need to understand their world view, and modern scholarship has gone to some lengths, in recent years, to show how far off the mark we sometimes are.
Thank you for the welcome, Thomas.
I'm looking forward to having some good conversations with you. I find these kinds of discussions really helpful and encouraging for my own spiritual growth, and I truly hope the same is true for you and for everyone else here.

Let me be honest in responding to your first point. You mentioned that in order to really understand what the Bible says, we need to know the original languages it was written in. I get where you're coming from, and I agree that language differences can sometimes lead to confusion or loss of nuance. But I don’t fully agree with the idea that you have to know the original languages to understand Scripture.
It’s like saying that if I watch a movie like Superman in a French translation, I can't really understand it because it wasn’t in the original English. That doesn’t quite hold up. In fact, when movies are released in French, there are usually two versions : one for France and one for Canada. The wording and expressions may differ a bit, but the message still comes through clearly in both versions (I speak from experience).

Translators don’t just swap words : they consider context, meaning, and cultural differences. Take the English word “pride,” for example. In French, you’d use fierté in a positive sense and orgueil in a negative one. A good translator knows when to use which, based on the context.


It's true that grammar and idioms vary from language to language. In French, we deal with gendered and plural forms more than in English. And idioms are another layer—like how “in your face” in English might be translated as dans tes dents (in your teeth) in French. The words are different, but the idea is the same.


My point is that Bible translators are well-versed in the original languages and in the target language, and they work hard to communicate the original meaning as faithfully as possible. So while it's definitely helpful to know the original languages, I believe it's still very possible to understand the Bible deeply through a good translation. In between, I read the Bible in French and in English.
 
... for example, it's a common belief that the souls of the unrepentant suffer in hell for all eternity, but that's not what the Bible actually says. The text says they suffer for a period of time, but not eternally, and certainly those who read the Gospels in the Koine Greek would not have assumed 'eternal punishment' ... I've discussed this ad nauseam elsewhere.
I’ve never come across any Bible passage that says unrepentant souls suffer for only a limited time. If you know of one, please share.

On the other hand, I’ve found quite a few where God’s final judgment (whether it’s eternal life or eternal death) is described as lasting forever. Some of these were even spoken by Jesus Himself.

For example, in Matthew 25:46, here’s the original Greek from the New Testament along with a literal translation I found:

Matthew 25:46
Greek:
Καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
Literal English:
And will go away these into punishment eternal, but the righteous into life eternal.

There’s also a passage (Daniel 12 : 2, in the Old Testament) that makes a similar point. Here’s the original Hebrew and a literal translation:

Hebrew:
וְרַבִּ֨ים מִֽיְשֵׁנֵ֤י אַדְמַת־עָפָר֙ יָקִ֔יצוּ אֵ֚לֶּה לְחֵיֵ֣י עוֹלָ֔ם וְאֵ֖לֶּה לַחֲרָפ֥וֹת לְדִרְא֖וֹן עוֹלָֽם׃
Literal English:
And many from the sleepers of the dust of the ground shall awake—these to life everlasting, and these to reproaches, to abhorrence everlasting.


So from what I’ve seen, the Bible presents these final outcomes as eternal rather than temporary. But again, if you have any passages, please share.!
 
OK. As a fellow Christian, again I am not so sure about that.

I believe the text is inspired, but not in every letter, every word ... and I also believe the sacred scribe was true to their task, but were not infallible, and nor were they intent on writing a literal history. For example, accounts given in the Gospels sometimes contradict each other in the details, while remaining true to the overall statement, things like that.

I’ve heard people say that the Bible contradicts itself, and I get why that can seem true at times. But from what I’ve seen so far (and I’m still learning, like many of us), most of what people call “contradictions” are more like apparent contradictions, not actual ones.

Examples :

1) The death of Judas Iscariot

Matthew 27:5 says Judas hanged himself. Acts 1:18 says he fell headfirst and his body burst open.
These aren’t two different stories : they’re describing the same event from different angles. Judas hanged himself, and later, his body fell and was severely damaged.

2) There are also some differences in dates or timelines that can seem like contradictions but are actually due to different calendar systems.

2 Kings 24:12 says Jehoiachin surrendered in Nebuchadnezzar’s 8th year.Jeremiah 52:28 says it was the 7th year.
It comes down to how years were counted. One writer is using the Babylonian system (where the first year of a king’s reign is “year 1”), and the other is using the Hebrew system (where the first year is “year 0”). So it’s just a difference in perspective.

3) The Gospel writers wrote different words of Jesus on the cross:

Matthew: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Luke: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”
John: “It is finished.”

These aren’t contradictions : Jesus said all of these things. The writers just chose to highlight different moments.

I’m not saying I have all the answers, and I definitely don’t know how to respond to every tough question. I’m still learning, just like everyone else. But I believe the Bible is true, and if something seems off, I think there’s a reasonable explanation for it.

If you have any “contradictions” in mind, feel free to share! I’d honestly love to dig into them and learn more.
 
I do not believe the Bible is inerrant - no-one did, until the last century.
You mentioned that the Bible (or Scripture) isn’t inerrant (without error or completely free from mistakes). That’s totally your right to believe that. But I know your point that no one believed the Bible was inerrant until the last century isn’t quite right.

In fact, the very first people who believed Scripture was inerrant were the Bible’s own authors.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (written by the Apostle Paul) says:
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
Psalm 119:160 (traditionally attributed to David, though the exact author of Psalm 119 is unknown) says:
“The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”

A quick note on the word “Word” in the Bible—it can mean different things depending on context. Sometimes it refers to God’s spoken command, a prophetic message, Jesus Himself (the Word made flesh), or Scripture (the written Word). Figuring out which meaning fits usually depends on context and sometimes the original language.

For instance, in John 17:17, where Jesus prays:
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth,”
the Greek word translated as “word” is λόγος (logos), which means God’s authoritative revelation or Scripture.

Another example:
Psalm 12:6 (traditionally King David) says:
“The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.”

Beyond the biblical authors, many well-known Christian teachers and theologians throughout history also defended the trustworthiness and authority of Scripture. Just to name a few:

Augustine of Hippo (4th–5th century)
Jerome (4th century)
Irenaeus (2nd century)
Thomas Aquinas (13th century)
Martin Luther (16th century)
John Calvin (16th century)
The Puritans (1640s)

They all stood up for Scripture’s inherence. I can share quotes/citations/references if you would like.

It’s also worth noting that they didn’t necessarily use the word “inerrant” because the formal use of that term to describe the Bible only became popular in the 19th and 20th centuries.
 
A point is the Book of Genesis. It's commonly accepted that the first eleven chapters are myth – now I happen to believe that 'myths' are presentations of truths that cannot be expressed easily in any other way – but that's not my point.
I just want to point out that just because a lot of people believe something isn’t true, that doesn’t automatically mean they’re right. And just because something is commonly believed doesn’t make it true, either.

Here are some examples from history:

1) For a long time, people believed the Earth was flat : until the ancient Greeks proved otherwise.
2) People also used to think the sun revolved around the Earth. It was only later, thanks to Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, that we learned it’s the other way around.
3) People believed life could just spontaneously come from nonliving matter, like maggots appearing out of meat. That was disproven by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century.

So, just because many people today think the first 11 chapters of Genesis are myth doesn’t mean they’re right.

I’m curious. Who exactly are the ones who commonly accept that these chapters are viewed ar myth ? Are you talking about all people in general, atheists, agnostics, or people of other faiths? If so, I’m not surprised. But if you mean Christians specifically, then I can tell you that many Christians, including some Christian scientists like Dr. John C. Sanford, Dr. Russell Humphreys, and Dr. Andrew Snelling, believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not myth but actual truth.

You mentioned that these chapters are often seen as myths used to explain truths (example : moral truth) through storytelling. But the first chapters of Genesis aren’t written as stories but as history. For example, they include genealogies (even family lines with time markers, called chronogenealogies by scholars) and the “table of nations” (which lists the origins of different ethnic groups). These kinds of things are commonly found in history texts (like biographies or anthropological studies).

The New Testament also treats these chapters as historical fact, not just stories. For example, the Gospel of Luke references Genesis genealogies. Jesus Himself mentions Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4-6) and talks about Noah, too:

  • Matthew 24:37-39:
    “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man... until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away.”

  • Luke 17:26-27:
    “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man... until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”
Historical narratives wantsto tell what actually happened. Myths, on the other hand, are more symbolic or allegorical and often take place in a timeless or sacred past / space. In the Bible, the closest thing to myths would probably be parables : stories Jesus used to teach spiritual lessons.

One thing that might make people think the first chapters of Genesis are myths is the etiological parts : these explain the causes or origins of things, like sin, death, the rainbow, or different nations and languages. That kind of explanation can feel more like storytelling, but it’s actually part of the historical narrative.
 
My point is the story of creation, and of the early inhabitants of the earth, and the Flood, and so forth, read a lot like the myths of other religions and other peoples in the region.
I've got things to say about that as well, but it's currently passed 3 AM, LOL.
I am beat.
I'll respond another time.

To all of you, God bless !
 
In the Bible, the closest thing to myths would probably be parables : stories Jesus used to teach spiritual lessons.
I think the Bible has quite a few meaningful myths other than the parables. I wonder what the myth to history ratio might be. I suspect fairly myth heavy. Perhaps Rabbi Christ’s parables were to help us see the Bible’s truths as being figurative, not so literal? Inclusion (that Jesus latched onto from Isaiah?) and metaphorical meaning are two of the main things He brought to the religious “table.”
 
I like that. But also suggests that we too are not in essence as separate in our being as we suppose, and that at the base of our individual being we are rooted in spirit as manifestations of God also (3 is a multiple, so is/are all humans).
It would depend on how you mean 'manifestation of God', as that phrase carries a wide degree of interpretation.

All creation is a manifestation of God. There's a sign on a footpath on Mount Athos that says 'even the trees are holy'. (Although it's explanation might be conditional.)

The Torii that stand before Shinto shrines signify a gate to the eternal and the divine Kami. I have mentioned here before that a certain Japanese gentleman, riding through a forested mountain, heard a fox bark above him, and the sound triggered such a numinous experience in him that he raised a gate at the point he was standing, facing in the direction of the sound he heard.

Having said that, and while 'in Him we live and move and have our being', I would not go so far as to say I am divine, as I possess none of those qualities attributed to divinity – omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and so forth.

But yes, to suppose I am somehow other than God, or nature, or the world, is a tragic misunderstanding.

As for being, I don't think there is a 'base' of my individual being. Rather, my individual being comes into focus, as it were, as something that regards 'itself', as 'me' and not 'you', and so on. But the source of that being, of my being, and every other being, and every other mode of being, is prior, and transcends 'being' as such.

Tree might be even better. Sin comes in from thinking and acting as though we are not connected to the Tree.
OK, a bit philosophical for me. Sin is acting in one's own self-interest in the knowledge that the act in question, in the long run, is detrimental to one's own good.
 
Let me be honest in responding to your first point. You mentioned that in order to really understand what the Bible says, we need to know the original languages it was written in. I get where you're coming from, and I agree that language differences can sometimes lead to confusion or loss of nuance. But I don’t fully agree with the idea that you have to know the original languages to understand Scripture.
Oh, for sure the Bible is an infinite source of spiritual nourishment.

Nevertheless, technically, there's a whole theological debate going on today about whether hell is 'eternal', or not, or whether there's a point to it, or not.

And literally for centuries, the received wisdom was that hell is eternal, without remit or release. Now scholars are pointing out that such an argument depends on a mistranslation of Greek into Latin – and that the implication now, that is the common understanding of the original Greek, is that hell is not eternal, and is better and more accurately understood a corrective and curative process of limited duration.

Translators don’t just swap words : they consider context, meaning, and cultural differences. Take the English word “pride,” for example. In French, you’d use fierté in a positive sense and orgueil in a negative one. A good translator knows when to use which, based on the context.
Today, yes ... but we're talking centuries ago ...

My point is that Bible translators are well-versed in the original languages and in the target language, and they work hard to communicate the original meaning as faithfully as possible.
All I can say is look at the debate mentioned above – I can point you in the direction of discussion, if you wish.
 
I’ve never come across any Bible passage that says unrepentant souls suffer for only a limited time. If you know of one, please share.
I do not think of it that way. I am of the belief that one can repent after death, and that the process cures that part of us that leads us to sin.

On the other hand, I’ve found quite a few where God’s final judgment (whether it’s eternal life or eternal death) is described as lasting forever. Some of these were even spoken by Jesus Himself.
In translation ... that's my point.

For example, in Matthew 25:46, here’s the original Greek from the New Testament along with a literal translation I found:

Matthew 25:46
Greek:
Καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
Literal English:
And will go away these into punishment eternal, but the righteous into life eternal.
That's not quite the correct 'literal' translation – a more concise translation is:
"And these will go to the chastening of that Age, but the just to the life of that Age.”

The word punishment/chastening is κόλασιν (kolasis), which originally meant 'pruning' or 'docking' of trees and plants, and then came to mean 'punishment,' or 'chastisement,' chiefly with the connotation of 'correction.' The term timéria, for example, is used in the sense to mean a retributive punishment (revenge or justice), whereas kolasis means corrective punishment or confinement.

Whether this distinction applies here we cannot say, since by the time the Gospel was written kolasis seems to have been used to describe punishment of any kind; so then we look to other uses of the word in scripture –
1 John 4:18:
φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον ὅτι ὁ φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει ὁ δὲ φοβούμενος οὐ τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ
"In love there is no fear; rather, the love that is perfect casts out fear, because fear carries chastisement (kolasis), and whoever fears has not been perfected in love."
So the term here means a fear derived from man imperfect sense of love, whereas the love of Christ casts out all fear, because it casts out the sense of chastisement – so kolasis here does not mean retributive punishment, but the suffering experienced by someone who is subject to fear because not yet perfected in charity.

The verb form, kolazé, appears twice, in Acts 4:21:
οἱ δὲ προσαπειλησάμενοι ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς μηδὲν εὑρίσκοντες τὸ πῶς κολάσωνται αὐτούς διὰ τὸν λαόν ὅτι πάντες ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεὸν ἐπὶ τῷ γεγονότι·
"And they, having made additional threats, released them, finding that – on account of the people – they had no way to punish (kolazo) them; for everyone gave God the glory for what had happened;"
where it clearly refers only to disciplinary punishment, and in 2 Peter 2:9:
οἶδεν κύριος εὐσεβεῖς ἐκ πειρασμοῦ ῥύεσθαι ἀδίκους δὲ εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως κολαζομένους τηρεῖν
"the Lord knows how to rescue the pious from trials and to keep the unrighteous guarded in confinement for a day of judgment"
in reference to fallen angels and unrighteous men, where it probably means “being held in check" or “penned in” until the day of judgment.

κολαζομένους τηρεῖν (kolazomenous térein): usually translated as “to hold them while they are being tormented” or “to hold them while still chastising them” or something equally awkward. But the most proper meaning of kolazé – even though it is also typically used to mean “chasten” or “punish” – is “dock” or “hold in check,” while that of téred is “keep under guard,” and in this construction the meaning is
clear: God knows both how to rescue the pious from their trials and also how to prevent the unrighteous from escaping the judgement that awaits them which, in the language of the rest of the chapter, suggest annihilation for those beyond redeption.

There’s also a passage (Daniel 12 : 2, in the Old Testament) that makes a similar point. Here’s the original Hebrew and a literal translation:

Hebrew:
וְרַבִּ֨ים מִֽיְשֵׁנֵ֤י אַדְמַת־עָפָר֙ יָקִ֔יצוּ אֵ֚לֶּה לְחֵיֵ֣י עוֹלָ֔ם וְאֵ֖לֶּה לַחֲרָפ֥וֹת לְדִרְא֖וֹן עוֹלָֽם׃
Literal English:
And many from the sleepers of the dust of the ground shall awake—these to life everlasting, and these to reproaches, to abhorrence everlasting.
And again, the Hebrew term עוֹלָם olam, commonly traslated as everlasting, does not necessarily mean that, but rather refers to an age, an unspecified period of time that could be a day, or could be of considerable duration.

So from what I’ve seen, the Bible presents these final outcomes as eternal rather than temporary. But again, if you have any passages, please share.!
The English translations do, the original Greek does not necessarily infer that, and in most cases, does not.

I have discussed this extensively, with references, in the What the Hell? thread.
 
I’ve heard people say that the Bible contradicts itself, and I get why that can seem true at times. But from what I’ve seen so far (and I’m still learning, like many of us), most of what people call “contradictions” are more like apparent contradictions, not actual ones.
Which is rather my point.

1) The death of Judas Iscariot
Matthew 27:5 says Judas hanged himself. Acts 1:18 says he fell headfirst and his body burst open.
These aren’t two different stories : they’re describing the same event from different angles. Judas hanged himself, and later, his body fell and was severely damaged.
OK. But Acts says he purchased a field with the money he received for the betrayal, whereas Matthew says he "cast down the pieces of silver in the temple" ...

If you have any “contradictions” in mind, feel free to share! I’d honestly love to dig into them and learn more.
In the Resurrection Narratives, the accounts differ quite distinctly.

I do not try to reconcile them – you can't – what you can do is accept these are different accounts of the same event, presented in a way that means something to the scribe.

I can't recall now, but I think Mark gets his geography wrong. The work to make Jesus of Nazareth be born in Bethlehem presents problems, the dating of the crucifixion is well known – it was not a Friday. In the Synoptics, the Cleansing of the Temple occurs at the end of Jesus' ministry, in John, it's at the start.

None of these are problems, as far as I am concerned, and nor should they be.
 
Back
Top