The Trinity of Christianity

[mee]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The concept of the "Trinity" began in Genesis...unless one considers God as being Schizofrenic. No matter how one looks at it, God is talking to others, besides Himself...and I don't think by the "we" and "us" and "our", His verbage is describing angels, either.


v/r

Joshua

there is an easy answer to that one and its an answer straight from the bible itself , Jesus was in heaven with his father Jehovah before he came to the earth , Jesus was the first-born of Gods creation , and everything else that was created was through Jesus christ. so Jehovah God was talking to his first-born son . yes the only-one created by Jehovah alone was Jesus , and he had a pre-human life in the heavens with his father Jehovah, so Jehovah was talking to his only -begotten son. when we take the bible as a whole it harmonizes throughout. and answers all of our questions . and we dont need to add any manmade doctrines (trinity) to find easy answers.

[pfw]

Right, I'll explain my point. The 'three fold (or more) nature of God' is a seperate issue to the trinity of Christianity. That could, putting it very crudely, be explained like this in human terms (this is metaphore by the way); Take a man who is a husband, father and doctor- he will allow different aspects of his personality dominance when 'acting' in each of those different roles- neither one is the 'complete man' but they are all 'the man'. Now a little history lesson. The Nicean Creed was not solely created by the Roman Catholic Church- it is actually used by all the major Christian denominations (with slight variances in phrase and interpritation)(i.e. Roman Catholic, Protestant & Church Of England, Greek & Russian Orthadox...) It came about because an Emporer got so fed up with the bickering and infighting between the diffrent sects of Christianity he gathered their leaders and theologans together and (metaphoricly) locked them in a room and told them they couldn't come out until they'd come up with a list of things they could agree on (probably with a request to do so quietly). Here's the 'interesting' point; this 'Roman Catholic' doctrine of the trinity was actually included at the INSISTANCE of the (Greek) Orthadox Church- which, strictly speaking by Roman Catholic standards, is an apostate religion. Before the Nicean Creed there was nothing comparable to a trinity in Christianity, but there was plenty of examples of the 'three fold nature of God'- not the same thing and using the 'three fold nature of God' to back up the trinity doesn't quite fit. As for the 'revalation' argument- please... Christians are so selective when it comes to this- on the one hand you'll tell us that Muhummad and Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) couldn't possibly be real Prothets because there has been no 'post-Christ' prothecy or revalation, but the Pope (or Christian Leader of your choice) has a direct link with God and can make sweeping statements in the name of Prothecy. Make your minds up please, is it any wonder people like me have rejected organised religion?

[Thomas]

Hi pfw –

Right, I'll explain my point. The 'three fold (or more) nature of God' is a seperate issue to the trinity of Christianity.

The Trinity derives from reflection upon that threefold nature, as taught and manifest in Jesus Christ.

Now a little history lesson. The Nicean Creed was not solely created by the Roman Catholic Church- it is actually used by all the major Christian denominations (with slight variances in phrase and interpritation)(i.e. Roman Catholic, Protestant & Church Of England, Greek & Russian Orthadox...)

Now a little correction ... the Roman Catholic Church did not exist when the Creed was formulated. Nor did the other denominations. There was just 'the church' ... and the Fathers in question were, by a vast majority, Greek.

It came about because an Emporer got so fed up with the bickering and infighting between the diffrent sects of Christianity he gathered their leaders and theologans together and (metaphoricly) locked them in a room and told them they couldn't come out until they'd come up with a list of things they could agree on (probably with a request to do so quietly).

This again is rather crude and somewhat inaccurate. There was a dispute brought about by the teachings of Arius, which was destabilising the fragile peace Constantine had managed to secure, so he wanted the matter resolved – and offered to fund a 'general council' of church leaders, something the church could not afford itself.

The Creed is actually older than Nicea, and can be traced back to baptismal statements of the 1st century (Constantine was 4th). It was deemed necessary to add exegetical phrases to the core wording to clarify the meaning in response to the Arian debate.

In formulating a creed – a short statement of belief – the Christians were adopting Jewish practice, and credal statements can be traced throughout the Scriptures of the Old Testament – the Shema Israel is a form of credal statement – the Creed is not a Catholic invention, it is a continuation of Hebrew practice.

Here's the 'interesting' point; this 'Roman Catholic' doctrine of the trinity was actually included at the INSISTANCE of the (Greek) Orthadox Church

Don't follow – there were not two denominations in the 4th century, so this statement is an anachronism and inaccurate.

- which, strictly speaking by Roman Catholic standards, is an apostate religion.
More anacgronism still. Each declared the other apostate much, much later, so that really doesn't figure in the debate (and each has reconciled itself to the other since).

Before the Nicean Creed there was nothing comparable to a trinity in Christianity,
The Nicean Creed is a formula based on the teaching, it didn't appear out of nowhere.

but there was plenty of examples of the 'three fold nature of God' - not the same thing and using the 'three fold nature of God' to back up the trinity doesn't quite fit.

The Trinity is a 'definition' – as much as a Mystery can be defined – of that 'three fold nature of God' that does not fall loul of modalism, monism, polytheism, monarchianism, etc – so to say it doesn't fit is putting the cart before the horse ... the Trinity addresses how we can understand what Christ was saying.

Make your minds up please, is it any wonder people like me have rejected organised religion?

To which I might respond get your facts right please, is it any wonder people are so confused by so much error and opinion presenting itself as fact.

Thomas

[pfw]

I stated that teh Nicean Creed was not just used or created by the Roman Catholic Church although I admit the way I've phrased that whole point is sloppy at best. But I was pretty clear about it being different 'sects' of Christianity- an accurate discription of what was around at the time, even in it's infancy Christianity produced different sects (or 'denominations'- The Gnostics were contempry to Saul/Saint Paul as a prime example) so your portral of Christianity as one organisation at the time is as inacurate as my original statement apears to be.Whilest not Roman Catholic in the modern sense most of Western Europe was religiously under the sway of what would become the RC church. Eastern Europe was more influenced by what would become (Greek) Authadox- again, looking at the way I've said that I could have put it better. (but I really didn't want to get into an argument or detailed discussion bogged down with details so, in my defence and right or wrong, I was trying to express my point in terms most modern readers would understand)As for getting my facts right; I first came across 'my' explanation of were the trinity came from from a scolarly book titled 'A HISTORY OF GOD' by Karen Armstrong, isbn 9780099273677. I didn't believe it so, instead of simply ignoring it I looked into her sources and did my own reasearch. I don't just sit back and merrily swallow what's spoon fed to me by 'my betters'.Also I made no mention of creeds being unique to Christianity.As for the creed being based on the baptismal statements that go back to the 1st century, and? They needed a frame work to build on and they were probably the best starting place as they already represented a kind of 'proto-creed' anyway.The trinity didn't appear out of nowhere, it was based on an already existing teaching. Please explain because there are quite a few doctrines, points of dogma etc that have 'appeared out of nowere' in the history of Christianity (and religion in general)-as a prime example the, in Medieval times, sudden apperance of the teaching that if you paid the pope enough money you could 'buy your way into Heaven'-based on a pre existing teaching or the Pope needed money?. Add to that many teachings come about by a mixture of combining older teachings or a radical rethink, by slow osmosis and evolution of ideas and not infrequently by political necessity (as an example the forming of the Church Of England by Henry 8th because he wanted yet another divorce- people tend to forget that the bishops, priests etc were all- or mainly- Roman Catholic to start with- yet look at the marked differences in doctrine they came up with).If your saying the idea of the Trinity came about as a radical rethink of the three fold nature of God (&/or a combination of previous teachings) I'd say you had a good point that deserved looking into and further discusion- but I get the feeling your actually saying it's been there from the start.My guess is we aren't going to see eye to eye over this- I'm prepared to 'agree to differ' after you've made any reply you wish to on this posting- or we can continue sniping at each other if you'd prefer?

[Silas]

The Trinity is only a theological word (I think coined by Tritiallain?) used to describe the God of the Bible. He is one and yet has 3 seperate and distint persons. How it works, I dont know? He's God and not I. All 3 persons of the Godhead is called God, has the same attributes of God, and are worshipped as God.

[Thomas]

Hi pfw -

In these discussions, context is everything.

But I was pretty clear about it being different 'sects' of Christianity - an accurate discription of what was around at the time, even in it's infancy Christianity produced different sects (or 'denominations'- The Gnostics were contempry to Saul/Saint Paul as a prime example) so your portral of Christianity as one organisation at the time is as inacurate as my original statement apears to be.

My point is context, there were sects, but there was a general body across the Roman Empire from East to West who believed the 'orthodox' teaching. Christianity was not a body of disparate sects, but a single body with a number of peripherally associated bodies.

Had Jerusalem not been destroyed, then perhaps that would have been the center of the Christian faith, but there had already been 'problems' regarding the Jews' acceptance of Gentiles as equals. But it was destroyed, and raised. It is no surprise that the centre of the church would want to be placed in the center of the world, and that was Rome.

But the theological powerhouse of the Church was Greek.

Whilest not Roman Catholic in the modern sense most of Western Europe was religiously under the sway of what would become the RC church. Eastern Europe was more influenced by what would become (Greek) Authadox- again, looking at the way I've said that I could have put it better. (but I really didn't want to get into an argument or detailed discussion bogged down with details so, in my defence and right or wrong, I was trying to express my point in terms most modern readers would understand)

But the implication is wrong – and introduces anachronism, as I stated – there was no east/west divide at this time. If anything, the west was schooled by the East. There is a huge amount of misunderstanding about the church in this era, and one either adds to it, or tries to clarify it. Already you're insinuating difference of interest or outlook where none is evident. In short, and this cannot be denied, the intellectual light of the Catholic Church was Greek.

They needed a frame work to build on and they were probably the best starting place as they already represented a kind of 'proto-creed' anyway.
Yes.

The trinity didn't appear out of nowhere, it was based on an already existing teaching. Please explain because there are quite a few doctrines, points of dogma etc that have 'appeared out of nowere' in the history of Christianity

The Doctrine of the Trinity is a theological reflection upon the Incarnation. It traces it foundation and bases its argument on Scripture. You will not find one doctrine that does not have a Scriptural foundation – although I will accept they often turn on a precise and profound reflection upon a point.

- as a prime example the, in Medieval times, sudden apperance of the teaching that if you paid the pope enough money you could 'buy your way into Heaven'- based on a pre existing teaching or the Pope needed money?.

Please! Another old saw! This was not the teaching, but again is a very loose and largely erronoeus presentation of the Doctrine of Indulgences. I'm not defending indulgences, but I am saying one can't couch the argument in such a way. Luther, for example was happy with indulgences when the money went to his Bishop, not so happy when the money went elsewhere ... and indulgences is not all about money.

Add to that many teachings come about by a mixture of combining older teachings or a radical rethink, by slow osmosis and evolution of ideas and not infrequently by political necessity (as an example the forming of the Church Of England by Henry 8th because he wanted yet another divorce - people tend to forget that the bishops, priests etc were all - or mainly - Roman Catholic to start with - yet look at the marked differences in doctrine they came up with).

Yes. It's called the Reformation, and whilst Henry's 'Church of England' was Catholic in many respects, later Protestant influence took it further towards the Reformer's position, one that Henry was against (hence his title as 'defender of the Faith' as awarded by the Pope).

If your saying the idea of the Trinity came about as a radical rethink of the three fold nature of God (&/or a combination of previous teachings) I'd say you had a good point that deserved looking into and further discusion - but I get the feeling your actually saying it's been there from the start.
The evidence was there from the start – the Incarnation – but the understanding marks a spiritual journey, which can be traced through the work of the Patristics.

or we can continue sniping at each other if you'd prefer?

I'm not sniping, but I do challenge when people add to the general miasma of misinformation that clouds the issue. I'm not saying yopu do so intentionally, but it is a fact that the web especially is loaded with error and unfounded assumption – a classic being that Constantine authored or dicated the outcome of the Council of Nicea. I call for clarity and precision, that's all.

The last thing people see, it seems to me, is the spiritual insight of the Church. Compared to that, gnosticism was all too often just 'the same old same old' – a poorly-thought-through rehash of various mystery religions, the lack of proper data or metaphysical rigour obscured by fantastic imagery and flights of fancy.

Try reading Gregory of Nyssa – no syzygies, no archons, just a profound focus on the nature of being ... it's very technical, very dry, not popular, but its absolutely at the cutting edge of insight into the Mystery of Being and the Divine, so much so it is still studied today ...

Thomas

[Silas]

Originally Posted by mee

there is an easy answer to that one and its an answer straight from the bible itself , Jesus was in heaven with his father Jehovah before he came to the earth , Jesus was the first-born of Gods creation , and everything else that was created was through Jesus christ. so Jehovah God was talking to his first-born son . yes the only-one created by Jehovah alone was Jesus , and he had a pre-human life in the heavens with his father Jehovah, so Jehovah was talking to his only -begotten son. when we take the bible as a whole it harmonizes throughout. and answers all of our questions . and we dont need to add any manmade doctrines (trinity) to find easy answers.

Mee,

In scripture, does the Father, Son, and Spirit, said to have the same attributes? Are they all called God and recieve worship as God?

Thanks,

Silas

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Silas

Mee,

In scripture, does the Father, Son, and Spirit, said to have the same attributes? Are they all called God and recieve worship as God?

Thanks,

Silas

Mee, ignores John 1 and Genesis 1.

The both identify Jesus as being in existence at the beginning with Jehovah God (Yaweh).

v/r

Joshua

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Mee, ignores John 1 and Genesis 1.

The both identify Jesus as being in existence at the beginning with Jehovah God (Yaweh).

v/r

Joshua

and Revelations.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Mee, ignores John 1 and Genesis 1.

The both identify Jesus as being in existence at the beginning with Jehovah God (Yaweh).

v/r

Joshua

(Genesis 1:26) And God went on to say: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth."

(Proverbs 8:22) "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.
Colossians 1:15) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
(Revelation 3:14) "And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce´a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,
(John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.
(John 1:1) In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. ..........................the bible harmonizes throughout when it is translated in the right way.

(Proverbs 8:30) then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time,

(John 17:5) So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

[BlaznFattyz]

thoughout the bible it is clear from chapter one, verse one, that god creates through his son, and the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters. from start to finish the bible clearly shows that all three persons are one true living God.

When the Bible puts the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit on the same level in the same scripture, it shows us the Trinity.
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all" (2 Cor. 13:14).

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…" (Matt. 28:19). See also John 14:26, Luke 3:21-22.

"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:6).

Christ and the Father Are Not Separate Gods, They Have the Same Spirit:
"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his… But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you" (Rom. 8:9-11).

Here we find the same Spirit called both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. The one Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. This shows us that they are not separate Gods. If they were, they would not have the same Spirit. In this passage we see the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the three persons of the one God, working together to raise the mortal bodies of the dead.

The Attributes (or Characteristics) of God Belong to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:

• Eternity (Psalm 90:2 AV, Mic. 5:2, Heb. 9:14)
• Omniscience (Jer. 17:10, Rev. 2:23, 1 Cor. 2:11)
• Omnipresence (Jer. 23:24, Matt. 18:20, Psalm 139:7)
• Holiness (Rev. 15:4, Acts 3;14, 1 Thess. 4:8)

The Works of God Are Likewise Attributed to All Three Persons The creation is but one example (Psalm 102:25, Col. 1:16 AV, Job 33:4).

God Speaks in the Plural
In the Old Testament God sometimes speaks in the plural, probably indicating the Trinity:

• "And God (Elohim, a plural word) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Gen. 1:26). See also Gen. 3:22.
• "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language…" The New World Translation specifies who said this: "After that, Jehovah said… Let us go down and there confuse their language …" (Gen. 11:7).
• "Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory" (Isa. 6:3). "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us" (Isa. 6:8)?

Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Isaiah 48:16

[Dor]

Originally Posted by mee

(John 1:1) In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. ..........................the bible harmonizes throughout when it is translated in the right way.

Actually it makes you a polygamist.

[Silas]

Does Mee believe in two Gods?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Silas

Does Mee believe in two Gods?

Mee believes in God Almighty (Jehovah or Father), a Mighty god (Jesus) and the force of God with no persona (The Holy Spirit). So in essence yes, he believes in two gods.

v/r

Joshua

[Silas]

But the God of the Bible says that there is only one God and that there is no other God before Him. Why then does mee believe in 2 different Gods?