The truth about Trinity

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by Sensei, May 22, 2011.

  1. Sensei

    Sensei Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    The early christians did not believe in the Trinity. According to history, In year 325 A.D the trinity was establish in the Council of Nicea. This means that the Trinity was established 325 years after Jesus died. Therefore the trinity was not approved by God. and It was not approved by Jesus (because Jesus didn’t live while the trinity was established). The word trinity does not exist in the bible, and the formulation of the Trinity is not mentioned in the bible neither. Therefore trinity is based on falsehood and has nothing to do with the original teachings of christianity. And it is obvious that christianity has become distorted.

    Most christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. If Jesus was God’s son, then when does he become God? Because if someone is a son, then he one day must become a father. As we can see, the belief that Jesus was the son of God, is illogical and it is based on falsehood. God can not have a son. God is not a human being. Only a human being can have a son. If God had a son, then it would exist two Gods. And that would be illogical. Therefore, when Jesus is described as God’s son in the bible, it should not be understood literally. The word son, in the bible, most likely have a symbolic meaning. In the bible, other persons are also described as the sons of God. For example, David is described as the Son of God in the bible (See Psalms 2:7).

    Many christians even go as far claiming that Jesus was God. They claim that Jesus was God reincarnated. If Jesus was God, then why did christians believe that he died? As we know, God is immortal. But human beings die. So since Jesus died he could not have been immortal. Ergo, Jesus was not God. If Jesus was God, then why did he prayed to God? Does a god need to pray to a god? That would be completely illogical and absurd. The reason why Jesus prayed to God, was because he was a human being and needed help and support from God. In the bible, it says that Jesus prayed to God (see Matthew 26:39, Matthew 26:42, Matthew 26:44 and Luke 5:16).
    There is not a single verse in the bible, where it says that Jesus is God. The christians who claim that Jesus is God, has misunderstood the whole christian religion. And they have ignored the original teachings of christianity. All messengers that came before Jesus were humans. So it makes no sense when people claim that Jesus was more than a human. Noah, Abraham, Jakob, Isak, Josef, Moses, and Muhammed were only humans. So Jesus was just a human, just like all of the other messengers.
    Many people wonder when the doctrine of the Trinity began for the first time in our history. There were many doctrines of the Trinity in the past. But most likely the doctrine of a trinity was established for the first time in ancient Babylon. According to historians, this civilization flourished around 5000 years ago. Here is a list of the trinity gods of different religions:

    Babylon: King, Prince and Queen.
    Egyptian religion: Osiris, Horus and Isis.
    Indian religion: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.
    Phoenician: Baal, Ashtoreth and Tammuz.
    Greek religion: Zeus, Apollo and Hera.
    Roman religion: Jupiter, Mars and Venus.
    Christianity: The Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit.

    The Trinity is a pagan doctrine taken from other religions, which became a part of Christianity. Trinity does not belong to the original teachings of Christianity. Those who established the Trinity in the Council of Nicaea 325 A.D were most likely inspired by pagan religions. As i mentioned earlier, the Trinity was established 325 years after Jesus died. Therefore the trinity was not approved by God. And It was not approved by Jesus (because Jesus didn’t live when the doctrine trinity was established).
     
  2. Eclectic Mystic

    Eclectic Mystic Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    はい先生!
    Hai Sensei!


    Even though the original stories of Osiris, Horus, Dionysus et al come before the Bible was written, the particular stories in which these gods resemble Christ in fact come after.
     
  3. Eclectic Mystic

    Eclectic Mystic Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    By the way, what does the Holy Spirit have at all common with these queen goddesses or with Shiva?
     
  4. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    Love covers the multitude of sins. If Christians believe the Trinity, then the trinity is true. If they don't, then it isn't. My own thinking is hardly the basis for truth, because God's revelation must come to me both personally and through fellow believers. "Count other believers are better than yourself." (Phil 2) Hermeneutic arguments are not the foundation of truth and more importantly are no basis for fellowship in Christ. God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.
    The thing that God does not approve of is getting puffed up instead of built up in love. Knowledge puffs up but love builds up, so love is what matters. The only way you could know Jesus was sent by God is if God revealed that knowledge to you. Despite what some people claim it does not come through detailed arguments about archeology or textual studies.
     
  5. NiceCupOfTea

    NiceCupOfTea Pathetic earthlings

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol this thread should read

    An Opinion About the Trinity.

    otherwise its just another fundamentalist rant
     
  6. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    The evidence says otherwise.

    Belief in the Trinity was affirmed by Nicea, not invented by it.

    The Canonical books of the Bible were not established until the Council of Trent in 1563, but that doesn't mean the Church did not know of or believe in the Bible before that date.

    No it wasn't. Tertullian coined the term over a hundred years previously, and then he used the term to refer to something that was common knowledge before then.

    The Didache, written late first/early 2nd century, talks of the Trinitarian formula for baptism.

    In 140AD Aristides said :"(Christians) are they who, above every people of the Earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16).

    The Trinity is God.

    Then you don't understand Jesus, either.

    John 14:16
    And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever.

    John 14:26
    But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

    John 15:26
    But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

    John 16:7
    But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

    +++

    But it is implicit in the text. You need to get someone to explain it to you. Just because you can read the Bible does not mean you understand it.

    No, your essay is based on a lack of critical information and insight.

    No he need not. There are sons who are not fathers.

    Your argument is founded on ignorance, illogical assumptions and erroneous data.

    No, because you assume God is a thing like other things. God is not like other things, therefore the rules that apply to other things do not necessarily apply to God.

    No, I've never heard a Christian claim that. Incarnate, yes, reincarnate, no.

    It began in Scripture.

    No, there are many triunes ... but only one Trinity.

    If you think the Doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrines of the triunes you list say the same thing, then you know absolutely nothing at all about the doctrines of either, I should imagine.

    Thomas
     
  7. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    Eclectic Mystic,

    Nihongo ga wakarimasu ka?
     
  8. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    Nick: is that "do you speak Japanese?"

    Thomas: the Didache was never a "closed" book which copyist treated as "scripture" to be replicated without changes, so it is a mixture of texts some from as late as the 6th century; however, even skeptical scholars agree the core is quite old, and I personally (for what it is worth; you know me to be quite skeptical) assume much of it traces back to 1st and 2nd centuries. BOTH baptismal formulas "I baptize you in the name of Jesus" and "... in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" occur, and I would take "in the name of Jesus" to be the older text. The trinitarian formula is presumably contemporary with the ending of the gospel of Matthew as we now have it: late 2nd century.

    Sensei: the list of "pagan trinities" is particularly weak, since in most case you are just grabbing three, out of a larger set of gods; the Romans like the Greeks considered twelve to be the number of the most important set of gods; the Egyptians had an Ogdoad "set of eight" and an Ennead "set of nine"; Moab worshipped Chemosh "the five-ness" (presumably a central power associated with powers of the four cardinal points, as in Tibetan mandalas). But it is correct to say that many "pagan" faiths had a concept that multiple deities should be in some sense identified, as aspects of some underlying unity.
     
  9. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    Bob —

    But you are an informed skeptic, Bob, who's put my assumptions to shame more than once. Always a delight and often a challenge to read.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  10. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    221
    Hi, Thomas, could you share your interpretation of some passages from Paul for me?

    Jesus "is the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). The Greek word for image is eikon, the very same word Plato used to describe the reflection of the Sun in the water. Elsewhere he writes: Jesus, "who is the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4).

    It seems to go against the Catholic doctrine of Incarnation.

    Thanks.
     
  11. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    Interesting comments folks.
     
  12. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    221
    Testing 1, 2, 3.
     
  13. seattlegal

    seattlegal Mercuræn Buddhist

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,635
    Likes Received:
    110
    LOL. eikon is where icon came from. You click on Jesus icon to access God. :p
     
  14. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,041
    Likes Received:
    2,060
    oh my I can see the website now!


    Just click here to accept Jesus as your lord and saviour...

    Click here, send in your donation with paypal and you will get your recorded blessing in your email, along with a pdf of your baptism record.

    We can have your holy water rushed to you for the ceremony, click here.

    click here for Jesus, and he will come into your life...

    now before anyone gets upset I'll stop....but this is no different than what I've seen clicking around the channels....it is amazing...
    truth is stranger than fiction....
     
  15. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    221
    I can't help it Paul was not a great writer. C. S. Lewis once said:

    "I cannot be the only reader who has wondered why God, having given [St. Paul] so many gifts, witheld from him (what would to us seem so necessary for the first Christian theologian) that of lucidity and orderly exposition."

    Perhaps I did not ask the right way to get the right response I wanted.

    Here goes another try.

    Colossians 2:9 ("For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form") means something quite different in the light of Colossians 1:15 and 2 Corinthians 4:4. It is easy to misunderstand and think Paul was saying the Divine Essence manifested Itself as Jesus . . .

    instead of through Jesus.

    Could not Colossians 2:9 have a different interpretation than the one given to us by Thomas?
     
  16. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    Sorry for the tardy response ... I will respond.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  17. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    Be delighted.

    According to the Hebrew Scriptures, God is invisible by virtue of the fact God is beyond forms (any given form excludes all other forms).

    The Son is the Wisdom of God; the Word of God, the Logos of God, the Memra of God ... so in every sense, the Son is God as God chooses to disclose Himself to man, whereas the Father as God in and of Himself, unknowable and unutterable, because God in Himself is beyond the containment of objects, terms or forms.

    (This debate continues even today. The Orthodox distinguish between the Divine Essence and the Divine Energies, and insist that God can be known by what God effects, but not by His essence ... the Roman catholic dispute this.)

    Indeed ... and over the following centuries the lexicon of philosophy was going to be tested to and beyond its limits in the necessity to formulate a theology.

    In Hebrews 10 for instance, Christ is that of which the Law is a prefiguring and a preparation. Thus the Apostles saw Christ as an eikon in the same sense as the term symbol — not a sign or representation, but the immanent presence of something in an intelligible form — for the author of Hebrews, Christ is not a prolongation of the Law, but its fulfillment and its surpassing.

    Paul uses eikon in the same way, not just as 'image', but further, as 'embodiment' or 'manifestation'.

    In the Hymn of Colossians, Christ is called "the firstborn of every creature" — the text goes on:
    "For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth,
    visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers:
    all things were created by him and in him.
    And he is before all, and by him all things consist."

    This speaks of Christ as the Logos of God.

    There is a 'reformed Platonic' theology which takes the idea of Christ as the Logos of God, in which exists the 'idea' or 'logoi' of all things ... every 'thing' has it's logoi, which is its model and its exemplar, which exists in the mind of God, and exists in the mind of God before creation:
    "Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Matthew 25:34
    "As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity." Ephesians 4:1

    God, being atemporal, knows the origin and end of all creatures, so these logoi contain within themselves origin and end ... and the judgement of a life is against the logoi of the creature, thus we can surmise it's against this idea that Jesus said:
    "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."
    Matthew 5:48

    Or, more worryingly, "I know you not" (eg Luke 13:27), in which I suggest the reality of the life does not match the logoi, and therefore the person is 'unrecognised' and 'unknown'.

    +++

    It is worth noting the influence of Hellenic/Hebraic texts on the understanding of Christ as the image of God. 'Wisdom' and 'Logos' (largely equivalent terms in Jewish theology) were both thought of as the 'image of God.'

    Paul assumed the language used of the Jewish divine Wisdom and reuses it to further highlight the significance of Christ. Essentially, Paul identifies this divine Wisdom, or Logos, with Christ. This identification is in common with other NT writers (John 1:1, Hebrews 1:3).

    God bless

    Thomas
     
  18. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    221
    It is controversial--just like everything else in scripture :)rolleyes:). Thankyou for your interpretation, but I think another interpretation is still valid.

    I have another question:

    If Jesus is the Incarnation of the Divine Essence, would the Catholic be superior in moral character and knowledge than any Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and so on?
     
  19. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    No.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  20. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    Hi Ahanu —
    Well, it's not my interpretation, rather it's the orthodox and traditional interpretation, so whilst other orthodox and traditional interpretations are valid, interpretations from outside the tradition are, obviously, questionable and not 'valid' in terms of doctrine.

    There would also have to be a compelling reason to assert another interpretation as 'valid'?

    God bless,

    Thomas
     

Share This Page