Amendments to Trinity

a reply to: ketsuko

Well said...

Although going to church does not make you a better person... it only makes you part of a community of so called "believers"... Yet when those believers promote hatred as many churches do, you become part of the problem not the solution even though they might teach you otherwise...

I am in no way saying Jesus was not divine... What im saying is the triune God was not taught by Jesus or any of his closest associates... Jesus always worshipped the Father...

And while he did let others worship him, which I find slightly suspicious... He said "believe in me"... but when one believes in something they do what is asked of them to show that belief

I hate to say it but Christianity is guilty of following the ideals of men, not the ideals of Christ...

Which is why I left Christianity to begin with

a reply to: Akragon

Oh, I wasn't saying that you need church. That was just the story as told to my husband. The instructive part for the purposes of this discussion was the part about the man being the bird and relating it to God and Jesus.

I could have chosen my husband's far less elegant description of the trinity which is that it's like a cherry pie cut into three slices. They're all three very different slices, but they all have the same cherry goo inside.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well IF the trinity was real it would have been taught by the man himself...

and there wouldn't have been a need for zealous Trinitarian scribes to add their own flavor to the writings...

To each their own though... believe whatever makes you happy

The doctrine of the Trinity has its roots in the council of Nicea. The apostles and other Christians for the first couple centuries of Christianity did not teach any such doctrine.

There are still many Christians that do not believe in the trinity, and do not trace our roots through the reformation to Rome, but we trace our roots back to Pentecost.

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

Excellent point LightningStrikesHere about the trinity. But Rome's intent was to modify the teachings of Christianity for the pursuit of power not religion which has caused confusion where there should be none.

If we examine Gospel of Thomas 50....

Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"

That tells us that we are all sons and daughters of God. God is our father. So the only difference between us and Yeshua was that Yeshua was in the highest state of consciousness with God (east refer to it as Alaya Consciousness). That doesn't make Yeshua any less great in my eyes, to contrary, it makes him the perfect inspiration for us all, which I believe is the best and biggest message Christianity could ever convey to humankind.

a reply to: Akragon

... perhaps I should have omitted the word "original"

We have no original's...

That is true, obviously, but not what I was talking about.

It has to do with certain variants that are sometimes given early dates based on that variation, having fewer words than the majority texts, for example.

That was popular for a time with the Old New Testament scholars, to think those better reflected what would have been the original.
That view has fallen out of favor in more recent years and they are looked on more as aberrations now.

a reply to: RidgeWalker

The doctrine of the Trinity has its roots in the council of Nicea.

The idea of a trinity has been around since the Gospel of Matthew was written.
That is built into the text, where Jesus orders his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Nicaea was about the date of Easter and pensions for retired nuns, according to the canon, which is the official decision document that comes out of a council.
I would say that the idea that there was a decision on the Trinity at Nicaea was much later, invented by the supporters of the Athanasius view of the Trinity that eventually became the official Catholic view on the subject.
The motivation for such fraud would be to demonize Arius and to vindicate Athanasius by surrounding the circumstances of Arius' death with an indication of divine justice for his opposition to an earlier decision, rather than his dying when the subject was still open to debate.
The actual authentic ratification of Athanasius' version of the Trinity was made at a later council, long after Arius was already dead.

The apostles and other Christians for the first couple centuries of Christianity did not teach any such doctrine.

It is well documented in anti-Nicean Christian literature that they did in fact baptize converts into the three names of the persons of the Trinity.

There are still many Christians that do not believe in the trinity, and do not trace our roots through the reformation to Rome, but we trace our roots back to Pentecost.

They are being led, in my opinion, by less than totally honest people who are, I suspect, operating as agents of an agenda to undermine Christianity.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Not once in the book of Acts, which is, as I'm sure you know, an account of the first few decades of Christianity, is a person baptized in the titles. In fact, the very people to whom Jesus spoke those words (Matthew 28:19), commanded those in Jerusalem to be baptized in Jesus' Name (Acts 2:38). This continued in Samaria (8:16), Caesarea with Cornelius (10:48), and in Ephesus (19:5). They understood that the only saving name (Acts 4:12) is that of the God manifested in flesh (I Timothy 3:16), Jesus.

The problems with a doctrine of one God existing in three co-equal and co-eternal persons are replete. For instance, if the Father is the father of the Son, why does Luke say that it was the Holy Ghost that overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35)? Why did Jesus identify Himself to Phillip as being the image of the Father (John 14:9)? Why did Jesus use the name of God that had been revealed to the Jews in the Old Testament, the verbal pronounciation of which had been lost centuries before Jesus' birth, to identify himself (john 8:58, 8:24)? Why does the Isaiah, under the inspiration of God, say that apart from the LORD (the I AM) there is no Savior (Isaiah 43:11)?

There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), who has manifested Himself in three forms and for different ends, to humanity. Indeed, in the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John, He states, "I am the alpha and the omega..." (Revelatino 1:11-18).

In the Old Testament, He revealed Himself as the YHVH, or Yahweh (an assumed pronounciation). In the New Testament, He revealed Himself in His only begotten Son, walked around in sandals for three decades, and died as the Perfect Lamb on Calvary. He was buried for three days, then arose victorious over death, and ascended to heaven. On the day of Pentecost, the OT prophecy of the law being written on the hearts was fulfilled, and He returned in what we call the Holy Ghost, just as He had stated He would (John 14:15-26).

a reply to: RidgeWalker

. . . as I'm sure you know, an account of the first few decades of Christianity . . .

I don't take the Book of Acts as actual history but as historical fiction.

. . . God manifested in flesh (I Timothy 3:16), Jesus.

It doesn't say it is God. There is one verse that mentions "God", then the verse you cited, that talks about Jesus.
It is a misinterpretation to read it like God is the subject by running the two together.

The problems with a doctrine of one God existing in three co-equal and co-eternal persons are replete.

Fine, those things were introduced by Athanasius and can be rejected as far as I am concerned.

if the Father is the father of the Son, why does Luke say that it was the Holy Ghost that overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35)?

It means a spirit that is holy, not The Holy Spirit, the person.
The Third person of the godhead is only mentioned in a limited way and does not come into play in our experience until Jesus made his final ascent into Heaven.

Why did Jesus identify Himself to Phillip as being the image of the Father (John 14:9)?

I think you are adding a literal element into what should be obviously a metaphoric statement.
Jesus manifests the character of God.

Why did Jesus use the name of God that had been revealed to the Jews in the Old Testament, the verbal pronunciation of which had been lost centuries before Jesus' birth, to identify himself (john 8:58, 8:24)?

He was speaking in Greek, so he wasn't pronouncing the "name of God".
I think he is in the one verse saying basically that he is eternal as a person beyond just this one incarnation.
In the second one you cited, he is saying that he was the apocalyptic character seen by Daniel in vision, the son of man.

Why does the Isaiah, under the inspiration of God, say that apart from the LORD (the I AM) there is no Savior (Isaiah 43:11)?

It is a sort of historical review that back in legendary times, the miracles were attributed to a single god.

There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), who has manifested Himself in three forms and for different ends, to humanity. Indeed, in the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John, He states, "I am the alpha and the omega..." (Revelation 1:11-18).

Angels were manifesting as representatives of God, in the Old Testament stories.
In the New Testament, another character is introduced who turns out to be eternal in that he was a god-type person before he was born as a baby, and later was raised to immortality, then to be given god-like powers and authority to be Lord over his kingdom of the church on earth.
During all of this, another character is introduced, another god-type person (the Paraclete), being more of the spiritual in nature, rather than the physical, as Jesus was.

I would agree with Sir Isaac on this one. The Trinity is not taught in the bible, he was wise and searched out the truth. Instead it is an adaptation of pagan beliefs that date back thousands of years. In Sumeria (Shinar of the bible) we had the Trinity in the form of Anu, Enki, and Enlil. In Egypt we had Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Hinduism has Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.In Greece we had Zeus, Athena and Apollo. In Rome it was Jupiter, Juno, Minerva. And the list goes on.

So what we had in the Roman times was a so called mass conversion to Christianity, which was really a mass deviation from Christianity. Almost all customs of the then Pagan Religion was cut and pasted to Christianity. We have Apollo the Sun God, son of Zeus or Jupiter respectively replaced by Jesus. Thus early Jesus paintings depict Jesus with a halo, the symbol of the sun god. We have god the father replacing Zeus and Jupiter. Mary would be the logical 3rd in this trinity being congruent with past trinities, but it is easier to cut and paste mention of the holy spirit in some bible verses to complete the perversion. Mary thus has been venerated separately.

To illustrate that the Holy Spirit is God's power and force in which he accomplishes things, and not a deity that is part of a trinity, I quote these verses:
"But if I drive out demons by the SPIRIT of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." (Matthew 12:28)
"But if I drive out demons by the FINGER of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." (Luke 11:20)

Yes we humans have arms, hands, and fingers to accomplish things. God being a spirit, accomplishes by his "finger" of holy spirit, which is a force and not a deity.

a reply to: TheChrome

The Trinity is not taught in the bible . . .

Jesus says that the third person who is mentioned in regards to the Trinity, was not being sent until he returned to the father.
So all these mentions of a spirit of the "holy" variety before then have nothing to do with this person, other than that they are both holy and are of a spiritual nature.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: RidgeWalker

. . . as I'm sure you know, an account of the first few decades of Christianity . . .

I don't take the Book of Acts as actual history but as historical fiction.

Thank you for your quick response. However, if we do not have a mutual understanding of the entirety of Scripture as being the inerrent and inspired Word of God, then frankly, we do not have a basis upon which to proceed.

originally posted by: TheChrome
I would agree with Sir Isaac on this one. The Trinity is not taught in the bible, he was wise and searched out the truth. Instead it is an adaptation of pagan beliefs that date back thousands of years. In Sumeria (Shinar of the bible) we had the Trinity in the form of Anu, Enki, and Enlil. In Egypt we had Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Hinduism has Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.In Greece we had Zeus, Athena and Apollo. In Rome it was Jupiter, Juno, Minerva. And the list goes on.

So what we had in the Roman times was a so called mass conversion to Christianity, which was really a mass deviation from Christianity. Almost all customs of the then Pagan Religion was cut and pasted to Christianity. We have Apollo the Sun God, son of Zeus or Jupiter respectively replaced by Jesus. Thus early Jesus paintings depict Jesus with a halo, the symbol of the sun god. We have god the father replacing Zeus and Jupiter. Mary would be the logical 3rd in this trinity being congruent with past trinities, but it is easier to cut and paste mention of the holy spirit in some bible verses to complete the perversion. Mary thus has been venerated separately.

To illustrate that the Holy Spirit is God's power and force in which he accomplishes things, and not a deity that is part of a trinity, I quote these verses:
"But if I drive out demons by the SPIRIT of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." (Matthew 12:28)
"But if I drive out demons by the FINGER of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." (Luke 11:20)

Yes we humans have arms, hands, and fingers to accomplish things. God being a spirit, accomplishes by his "finger" of holy spirit, which is a force and not a deity.

Good post.

There is a litery term that means to use descriptive terms of a person (body etc) and apply them to something that does not have a body. I cannot for the life of me remember what that term is! But, what you do in your final paragraph would be an application thereof, much like the book of Proverbs describes wisdom as a woman. Not incorrectly either, I might add.

The observation that the concept of a trinity goes far beyond Christianity into the annals of history is absolutely accurate; in fact, I was going to make that point in my above post, but it didn't fit with the thought. Very good! As an addition to that point, there is also a theme that runs throughout many religions of a strong mother and son. I'm by no stretch of the imagination studied in ancient religions, but what I do know has shown that point. Contrast that with the emphasis that the RCC places upon Mary, an emphasis that is not borne out in Scripture. Indeed, Mary herself had to be saved, and was present on the day of Pentecost and was filled with the Holy Ghost along with 119 other people.

There is a litery term that means to use descriptive terms of a person (body etc) and apply them to something that does not have a body. I cannot for the life of me remember what that term is!

Personification: Giving human attributes to something inanimate. Much used in the bible, as well as metaphor

a reply to: RidgeWalker

. . . the entirety of Scripture as being the inerrant . . .

"Scripture" means anything written.
You follow Athanasius' canon, and I follow mine, based on a higher standard.
Feel free to sit idly by while I counter your arguments.

a reply to: TheChrome

. . . a litery term that means to use descriptive terms of a person . . .

You are probably thinking of anthropomorphism.

originally posted by: TheChrome
I would agree with Sir Isaac on this one. The Trinity is not taught in the bible, he was wise and searched out the truth. ..............................................
To illustrate that the Holy Spirit is God's power and force in which he accomplishes things, and not a deity that is part of a trinity, I quote these verses:
"But if I drive out demons by the SPIRIT of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." (Matthew 12:28)
"But if I drive out demons by the FINGER of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." (Luke 11:20)

Yes we humans have arms, hands, and fingers to accomplish things. God being a spirit, accomplishes by his "finger" of holy spirit, which is a force and not a deity.

Yes.....The scriptures say nothing of a "trinity" God nor does reason.The trinity is just one of the many perversions extrapolated from the scriptures and turned into the doctrines of men.The broad meaning of the word "spirit" is Life.The creator God is causing everything to live even though mankind cannot perceive it all.

The way "spirit" is used is mysticism of some ethereal amorphous being/entity that "posses" someone.Religion has made a mockery of spirit and turned it to mystic fantasy.The creator God is "one" and has nothing to do with mysticism or religion.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: TheChrome

. . . a litery term that means to use descriptive terms of a person . . .

You are probably thinking of anthropomorphism.

That's the word. Thanks!

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: RidgeWalker

. . . the entirety of Scripture as being the inerrant . . .

"Scripture" means anything written.
You follow Athanasius' canon, and I follow mine, based on a higher standard.
Feel free to sit idly by while I counter your arguments.

"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is [a matter] of one's own interpretation," ~ II Peter 1:20 NASV

I don't follow Athanasius; the historical peer of his that is much closer to what we see in the Bible would be Sabellius. But again, this isn't a discussion based upon post-Biblical writers, it is about what the Bible actually says. And, the doctrine of the trinity cannot be found in the text. Even with your rejection en toto of one entire book (Acts), there isn't any evidence of tritheism in either the Old Testament or the New.

a reply to: RidgeWalker

"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is [a matter] of one's own interpretation," ~ II Peter 1:20 NASV

Your translation downplays the use in the verse of the Greek word, ginomai, just putting "is" in there for it.
If the writer meant "is" he would have used the word that specifically means that.
The word, ginomai, refers to how the scripture came to be written.
The Prophet, 2 Peter says, isn't just making this stuff up.
It has nothing to do with how the reader understands it.
Colbe has a current post quoting the same verse saying that it means you have to accept what the Catholic Church tells you to believe about what scripture means.