Trinity

[Thomas]

OK, something to ponder:

" ... "by the Son" are said to be created "all things that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible ... all things were created by Him, and for Him; and He is before all, and all things consist by Him, who is the Head" (Colossians 1:16-18). In conformity with which John also in his Gospel says: "All things were created by Him; and without Him was not anything made" (John 1:3). And David, intimating that the mystery of the entire Trinity was (concerned) in the creation of all things, says: "By the Word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Spirit of His mouth" (Psalm 32:6)."

Origen Adamantius, De Principiis, 4, 4, 3.

Thomas

[Thomas]

And for the more philosophically inclined:

Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son is not generated from Him by "prolation," as some suppose. For if the Son be a "prolation" of the Father (the term "prolation" being used to signify such a generation as that of animals or men usually is), then, of necessity, both He who "prolated" and He who was "prolated" are corporeal. For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist; but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding. Nor, seeing He is called "the Son of (His) love" (Colossians 1:13), will it appear absurd if in this way He be called the Son of (His) will.

"Nay, John also indicates that "God is Light" (1 John 1:5) and Paul also declares that the Son is "the splendour of everlasting light" (Hebrews 1:3 – Origen here attributes Hebrews to St Pul, although he questioned the Pauline authorship of that Epistle). As light, accordingly, could never exist without splendour, so neither can the Son be understood to exist without the Father; for He is called the "express image of His person" (Hebrews 1:3) and His Word and Wisdom. How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His Substance. And although these qualities are said to be many in understanding, yet in their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fulness of divinity (cf Colossians 2:9).

Origen De Principiis, 4, 4, 1.

Thomas

[17th Angel]

Wax on, wax off.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Alex P

Wax on, wax off.

...just add ice water and the wax just flakes right off.... ;-)

[Thomas]

Scripture opens with "In the beginning ..." (Genesis 1:1)

The Hebrew in question bere****h is translated in the Greek as en arche and in Latin as in principio. Thus the Greek and Latin draw out an atemporal meaning inplicit in bere****h — in the metaphysical Principle, the ontological First Cause, the Absolute by means of which every relative is constituted ... that is missed if we read the term beginning purely as signifying a termporal or finite event.

(Had the temporal beginning been the object, then the Greek would more accurately be protista and the Latin inceptium or initium. Science I think would agree? There is not a 'time' before the beginning of time in any real sense, nor is there a 'space' into which the Kosmos was born.)

En arche occurs famously in the prologue of the Gospel of St John, and was joined to and became synonymous with the term Logos, a theme taken up by the Fathers, who saw the Son as the Logos of God, and so the Son, is the arche, the principle by which everything is constituted, of the Father who is beyond all determination and above all principle, the arche anarchos.

This was prefigured by Anaximander some seven centuries earlier, when he coined the term apeiron — the Infinite, the Boundless, the Limitless, to designate that which contained the principle of all things, but was itself not contained. He also redefined arche, which until then had meant a temporal beginning or origin, to imply no more a mere point in time, but a source that could perpetually give birth to whatever will be.

From this one can read bere****h in a wider philosophical context, and informed by Revelation, it is not illicit to say:
"In the Son, the Father created the heavens and the earth"

This, of course, means that the Kosmos was never without a meaning, a purpose, and each and every element of it possesses 'a reason to be' — that reason, the logos of every created thing, frames and is thus fundamental to every existing nature, and informs it of its purpose, is itself formed '"before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4) in the Son, the Logos of the Father.

And that knowledge is the Gift of the Holy Spirit, this wisdom and beatitude, was poured forth upon the world when the Father spoke (in the Son, for speech belongs to Logos) and said, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) ...

Thomas

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Scripture opens with "In the beginning ..." (Genesis 1:1)

The Hebrew in question bere****h is translated in the Greek as en arche and in Latin as in principio. Thus the Greek and Latin draw out an atemporal meaning inplicit in bere****h — in the metaphysical Principle, the ontological First Cause, the Absolute by means of which every relative is constituted ... that is missed if we read the term beginning purely as signifying a termporal or finite event.

Thomas

Finally! An attempt to meet God "outside" the human box...Bravo!

[mee]

Originally Posted by Thomas

(Psalm 32:6)."



Thomas

On this account every loyal one will pray to you
At such a time only as you may be found.
As for the flood of many waters, they will not touch him himself. psalm 32;6

see i am listening LOL

[mee]

"Trinity"

in the Bible?

A PROTESTANT publication states: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God."—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

and that is from those who believe in it

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by mee

"Trinity"

in the Bible?

A PROTESTANT publication states: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God."—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

and that is from those who believe in it

A protestant publication is not the spokesman for the entirety of Chrisondom. It is an opinion by one author (human). Genesis on the other hand is quite clear as to the number in the God head. It is also quite clear that we were made in the God head's image and likeness.

Get your head out of the Watchtower, and look at what the Bible says. Let me point out something to you. I dismiss what you believe as nonsense. I didn't before, but then after years of you dismissing what I and others believe, I lost my reservations. Your words are hollow, and have no meaning to me. Your "salt" has no flavor, becuase you forgot to include the most important part of your so called message (us). God's message cannot broach the ears of the dead. You said so yourself Mee. I believe you.

v/r

Q

[mee]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I dismiss what you believe as nonsense.

v/r

Q

many do dismiss the promises in the bible, and many do dismiss bible truths as nonsense , and believe me you will not be the first to do that , the world is full of people who do not respond to the wonderful promises of God .



matthew 5;5, ...psalm 37; 11 ,29 .... Daniel 2;44..... Daniel 7;13-14.... matthew 24;14 ...... psalm 83;18 ....... the nonsense that i promote ,is all based on the promises in the bible . but many as you say dismiss it .


but i still love to promote it

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by mee

many do dismiss the promises in the bible, and many do dismiss bible truths as nonsense , and believe me you will not be the first to do that , the world is full of people who do not respond to the wonderful promises of God .



matthew 5;5, ...psalm 37; 11 ,29 .... Daniel 2;44..... Daniel 7;13-14.... matthew 24;14 ...... psalm 83;18 ....... the nonsense that i promote ,is all based on the promises in the bible . but many as you say dismiss it .


but i still love to promote it

No, you slam Trinitarians and promote your own belief. You do not discuss anything. That is not what CR is for Mee.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by mee

A PROTESTANT publication states: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

Indeed — a Gift of the Holy Spirit:
"And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached. And when they shall lead you and deliver you up, be not thoughtful beforehand what you shall speak; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye. For it is not you that speak, but the Holy Spirit."
Mark 13:10-11

Doctrine is not Revelation, but it is the revelation of the meaning of Revelation.

Thomas

[Dream]

I've gone through this 15 page thread and compiled 2 statements from every contributor that help to give the flavor of the thread in total.

Thomas:
When the High Priest asked the question, he was not asking 'are you a prophet?' but 'are you God?' — to which Jesus answers yes.

The 'rest of the story' that belongs with Scripture is Tradition ...

Mee:
IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God’s revelation of himself to mankind..

Jesus plays a very big part in the outworking of Gods purpose for the earth ,and Jesus was sent to the earth by his father and Jehovah wants people to listen to Jesus . John 3;16-17 but Jesus is not God

Pico:
Upon investigation it appears Jesus was just testing them. For he was God in the flesh, he wanted to see if they understood that. He didn't say "i'm not God." or "I'm not good," he said "no one is good-except for God alone."

I'm curious to JW's why do they think Jesus was crucified? To my understanding of the Bible, Jesus claimed to be God, and was killed for blasphemy.

Path_of_one:
I like the concept, but it doesn't really work when you consider a lot of the modern theories about the universe. For example, in string theory, space has 11 dimensions.

Poverty is our own doing. We have plenty of stuff on earth. We just need to learn to share it better.

Azure24:

...and about the trinity, to keep a long post short...

"For even if so be that there are those being termed gods, whether in heaven or on earth, even as there are many gods and many lords, nevertheless for US there is ONE God, the FATHER, out of Whom ALL IS, and we for Him, and ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST, through Whom all is, and we through Him" (I Cor. 8:5-6).

Dah-veeth:

Since this is a comparative religion forum, I thought I might add a Baha'i perspective on Trinity:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 113-115#

Quahom1:
I think I'll stick with Jesus' own words "No one knows the moment of the coming, not even the Son, but only the Father.." (para)

While on Earth Jesus put away his godhead, therefore he was human. So his statement was accurate.

BlaznFattyz:
i am repeating what the bible says. again you are leaving out the parts of the bible where the Father calls the Son God and leaving out the parts where Christ is worshiped, honored and glorified.....and all other attributes of God.

By you just pointing out a scripture to fit your argument your agenda becomes apparent, and your ability to see beyond it becomes clouded.

Saltmeister:
I will go to my spiritual bed, sleep spiritually and then have a spiritual awakening.

What a lot of religions possess is a system of representations and symbolisms. This is actually one link Christianity has with paganism. It's the use of symbols and representations.

Lecter:
Clearly here Jesus says that the one called the father is his own god just like everyone elses god.

Jesus tells him he is going to send them another comforter because if he does not leave he will not come. However according to the scripture the holy spirit was already there, so he could not have been talking about the holy spirit.

Joedjr:
If Christianity was practiced in line with what is taught in the bible instead of what was in the imagination of the tradition builders it would look nothing like we have today.

I don't have a problem with preexistence of the Word. Sometimes I think John is referring to Jesus as the perfect Torah.

Heliotrope:
Amongst the Abrahamic religions, evidence of syncretism from pagan traditions is considered prima facie proof of corruption and falsehood.

This seems to be based on an assumption that pagan thought is necessarily devoid of divine inspiration. Why so? Why is syncretism a bad thing?

Jauntoo3:
From the perspective of one seeking to unite with the Divine Providence that Christians know as the Heavenly Father, it seems to me such attitudes against syncretism are misdirected, unnecessary and negative energies created and wasted. I find I do not have to hate other paths in order to love the path I am on. I am a bit partial though, I hope you don't mind that.

Still Thinking:
If that's true then you're saying Jesus is not God. And if He's not God, He's just a crazy person who tries to heal people and create miracles. The Word became flesh and dwelled amongst us; that sounds like a Divine being to me . . . . . .

Thomas - don't you love how Mee never addressed the errors in the NWT? You seem to be very educated in this area, since you mentioned the so-called "translators" of that Bible being unable to pass a simple test.

Alex P:
Wax on, wax off

[wil]

Namaste Dream,

Nice job, do you suppose you could do this again next week with the next 15 pages?

I wonder what percentage of Christians are Trinitarians, which are non trinitarians and which would like to avoid the issue and love G!d and their neighbor?

[Dream]

Thanks, Wil; but this was a one-time thing for this thread. Maybe when we get to the end ha ha.....but seriously....!

I think discussion of a topic like this is good as long as we take it for what it is. It is important for some good reasons, but whether you believe in Trinity or not doesn't tell me how much you love people. It tells me nothing of your family situation, your resolve, or any of the most important things about you.