Religious Curiousity

Remove all ads!

[little bit off-topic]

Fljotsdale: Thanks for the great info, are you a preacher or is it just a hobby?. Maybe you have to visit othe chat also, there are good discussions about religion sometimes, and Math and I need some more support from the christian-side...... (However Darien and some other dislike that dicussions )

 

No, not a preacher. Used to be, of a sort, but now atheist! I just 1)love debating, 2)know a lot about the bible - therefore: bible debate is my fave topic, lol!

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited August 21, 2001).]

 

Ah well. I just don't know as much as I thought I did. I'll curl up in my dorm room with the ol' bible and ready myself more thouroughly for the next time.

Flojtsdale: I must say that you astound me with your knowledge, but I wonder if you wouldn't turn back to Christianity? Since by your arguments, belief in the bible and nothing else will get me into heaven, I'll do my best to be good. And then you can laugh at me for all eternity.

 

Hi, Sapiryl! LOL! All I am saying is that IF a person is a christian, s/he needs to know whether what s/he believes is actually biblical or merely church doctrine adopted from pagan beliefs and/or a desire to make money for the church in times past.
I really dislike inaccuracy. In anything. But when it comes to religion, it annoys me that people believe a whole lot of stuff that is not at all what was/is taught by the bible. The later doctrines frequently obscure or negate bible teachings, yet are taught as bible 'truth'.
Now, I do not believe in the bible god - he is far too prone to human failings (as are all the gods we have made) - but you christians DO! So I think you should at least be made aware of the facts and discrepancies so that you can make informed choices for yourselves. After all, it is no skin off my nose WHAT you believe!
And anyway - I love debating!

 

Isn't that line from the old testament Fjlo?
Besides he HAS changed! I know you take the Bible quite literally, so you have to agree with me that God gradually changes through the stories.
I agree with you about Sodomah and Gomarah.
I guess even Gods' get really pissed sometimes.
Take a look at...hmm...I think it was Ezekiel 25:17 and see what I mean
( I think it was used in Pulp fiction).
Try to imagine being a god.
An eternal battle to get a stupid warlike race (with enough weapons to destroy your masterpiece ten times over) to act peacefully.

And...I'm afraid you didn't get the point.
People THINK the church is about feeling rightious and not doing anything.
That's wrong.
The priest's preach because they actually WAN'T people to do something.
Just like artist's make music to tell something.
Don't tell me the church just want's to make money.

 

I quoted from both the OT AND the NT! Both say he doesn't change.
And, yeah, I agree - stopping people kicking all hell out of each other is no cinch. But setting a good example sure would have helped, imho! If he really wanted to protect 'his people' maybe he should have settled 'em on Easter Island! Or maybe Australia. It was pretty empty at the time... and nice and big, too. Would have saved a whole lot of problems...

About churches and them 'wanting to make money': No, not just money. They wanted power and prestige as well. Which is not to deny that SOME became priests for good reason, and still do, of course. But reading church history is a real eye-opener! A lot of 'em were real b****rds!

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited August 20, 2001).]

 

Oh yeah. Most priests were power-hungry younger sons of the nobility who correctly saw the church as a path to power, wealth, and, of course, women.

Want some laughs? Via an objective resource, look back at the popes. They are no less messed up than the Roman Emperors.

 

No matter what the Bible says it's still quite obvious how the religion and God changed.
And what I meant about the church was, that they certainly aren't interested in making money anymore. At least not where I live.
Or maybe it hasn't changed THAT much now I think of it...
I once saw an american "christian" tv program. " I can feel a that a man out there has broken his ankle. God is healing it now!"


[This message has been edited by Divine Shadow (edited August 21, 2001).]

 

For anyone still waiting for my Trinity 'essay', I have reduced it to less than 10,000 words (17 A4 pages in Verdana 10 point script), but have to cut it by LOTS more yet!
Should be ready in a couple of days, I think, but it will still be pretty long...

Phew! Now have it down to less than 5,000 words, by cutting lots of interesting stuff that is just expanding on the reasoning... I might be able to post it tomorrow!

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited August 22, 2001).]

 

I await this publication with baited breath.

 

Ok, for you guys that wanted my take on the Trinity Doctrine. It was a long haul, but it is here now. All faults and errors are my own, lol, as they say in book prefaces! But this is not QUITE a book – only 5,000 + words.

Basic Trinity Doctrine (There is lots more of it, but it is more or less repeating the same thing in different ways).
The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God’ ‘so likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty’ – from the Doctrine of the Trinity
Two very good illustrations to help the christian to understand this doctrine, were given by an on-line friend of mine:
‘The Trinity is a way of conceptualising the differing known aspects of an omnipresent creator awareness. It is no different to regarding Ice, Water and Steam as separate despite containing the same ingredients. The differing temperatures, or environments create a different manifestation.
An orange - Skin, Juice, Pulp is another common simile drawn.’

But we need to ask ourselves a number of questions about this doctrine:
1. What scriptures are traditionally used to prove that the Trinity is biblical?
2. IS it biblical?
3. What is the evidence of the scriptures -
a) about the Trinity
b) about Jesus?
c) about Holy Spirit?
4. What are the origins of the Trinity doctrine?
5. WHEN was the Trinity introduced into church thought?

I shall endeavour to answer those questions here, though not as comprehensively as they deserve because this is already going to be a LONG read!

1. What scriptures are traditionally used to prove that the Trinity is biblical?
 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1, AV

 "I and the father are one" John 10:30

 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7 (Catholic bibles)

 “Let us make man in our image” Genesis 1:26

 “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also.” John 14:9

These are the main scriptures used to ‘prove’ the Trinity doctrine is biblical. All other scriptural ‘evidence’ is vague and only used to support these. We will be coming back to them!

2. Is it biblical?
What do church and other theological authorities themselves say about it?

TRINITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
 “Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible (OT) does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.” (Encyclopedia of Religion)
 “The OT… tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit… There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a (trinity) within the Godhead… Even to see in it (the OT) suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.” (‘The Triune God’ by Jesuit Edmund Fortman)
 “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia)

TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
 ”Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.” (Fortman. See ref. above)
 “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the NT.” (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica)
 “To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the Trinity was apparently unknown… they say nothing about it.” (‘Origin and Evolution of Religion’ E Washburn Hopkins, professor of Yale University)
 “Jesus never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the NT does the word Trinity appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord.” (‘The Paganism in Our Christianity’ Arthur Weignall, historian)

3a. What is the evidence of the scriptures - about the Trinity?
To answer this, let me return the scriptures used to prove that the Trinity doctrine is biblical:

#. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1, AV

Modern translations of John 1:1
a) ‘In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine’. AT
b) ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was a god.’ The New Testament, trans. by Johannes Greber (a German bible)
c) ‘Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God and he was the same as God.’ Good News Bible
The AV has God/God in the same locations.

There is something to be noted about these Modern Translations, namely, the difference between:
God/divine in a);
God/god in b);
God/same as God in c)

So the question arises – WHY do the modern translations differentiate between these words?
It is because they are making a distinction that was present in the original text, but not acknowledged in the AV translation.
Two separate terms were used in the original text: ho theos (or ton theos), and theos – the God/god.
Ho theos (ton theos) is the term in Greek that is applied to the ‘one true god’. It is also applied at times to the gods of ‘pagans’, and even, in the NT to the Devil! (‘The god of this system of things’. 2 Corinthians 4:4). It means ‘THE God’
theos, on the other hand, is a word used to denote any lesser god, or godlike person, or humans in a godlike position of authority. Psalm 82:6; John 10:34-36; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 (Moses was also called a ‘god’ at Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 since was representing THE GOD).
So then, John 1:1 makes a distinction between THE GOD (ho theos) and god (theos). Between The God himself and a person of divine origin and substance,. The Word is therefore shown by this verse to be divine, a godlike one - but not THE GOD.
Revelation 3:14 bears this out. Jesus, then in heaven, years after his resurrection, says this of himself:
‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God…’ Douay, AV, AS.
So, the Word/theos/Jesus, was a creation – the FIRST creation of God.
As such, he cannot be – in the words of the trinity dogma – ‘co-eternal and co-equal’. A child is not the same age as its father. Likewise Christ CANNOT be co-eternal, for the simple reason that before his creation he did not exist. Only god has always been in existence.
Granted, Jesus, in his pre-human heavenly position, was of the same ‘substance’ as his father, just as your son would be the same ‘substance’ genetically as yourself, but would be a new person. Jesus is of the same substance as HIS father, but was a new creation, a separate person.
Note this too:
WITH is not the same as IS. In the Greek it says the Word was WITH ‘o theon (or ton theon) and the Word was theos. If you are WITH someone you are automatically SEPARATE from the one you are WITH. YOU, can be WITH your father, but that does not mean you ARE your father. You can even be of 'one mind' and 'one spirit' with your father, if you have the same interests and objectives, but that does not make you and your father 2 parts of one person. You remain 2 separate but genetically similar individuals.

#. "I and the father are one" John 10:30
There are two principal words in common Greek that are translated as ‘one’. The first is ‘eis’, meaning ‘one’ (person, thing, whatever), and the other is ‘en’ (pronounced ‘hen’), which means ‘oneness in co-operation’ (or ‘at unity’).
Both these words have diacritical marks over them, which are vital in knowing the meaning of the words, because the same words with different diacritical marks have different meanings. But I don’t have the appropriate marks, so you will have to take my word for it or check ‘em out in a Greek lexicon or a diaglott. You can find use of the word ‘eis’ at Luke 24:18 and Luke 23:39. And use of ‘en’ can be seen as follows:
OK.
Jesus said ‘I and my Father are one.’ The common Greek used the word en (oneness of co-operation) here, NOT ‘eis’ (one person). Jesus again uses ‘en’ at John 17:20-22, AV, ‘… that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: ‘... that they may be one, even as we are one.’ In each instance of ‘one’ in this scripture the word one is translated from ‘en’ (‘oneness in co-operation’ [or ‘at unity’]), NOT from ‘eis’ (a person, thing).
In other words, God and Jesus were united in purpose, co-operating together; and the disciples were likewise to be united in that very same purpose and co-operation. They were all ‘at one’ (en ) with each other. They were NOT one (eis) person.
It is also very worthy of note that Jesus spoke of the Father as being ‘My God’ (John 20:17 AV, Mark 15:34, AV, Rev 3:12, AV), even saying so after he had been resurrected back to heaven. He also said ‘My father is greater than I’ (John14:8 AV). Both statements indicate that he is not in the position of being – in the words of the Dogma – neither ‘greater or less than another’. He clearly considered himself to be LESS than his father. Therefore, Jesus cannot be said to be ‘almighty’ as his father is ‘almighty’
[BTW, having three people being almighty is a contradiction. Being ALL mighty means having ALL power over EVERYTHING. So, if Jesus was almighty, his father COULD NOT be almighty, ‘cos Jesus would have the power to control and order him! But Jesus was the one ‘sent’ (John 17:1, 3)] Only the Father can be All Mighty. And according to the bible, GOD directed Jesus. Jesus himself said he 'did nothing of (his) own initiative', but 'only as the Father commanded' him. John 5:19,30; John 7:28; John 8:28,42.

#. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7 (Catholic bibles)

You will not find the above text in ANY modern translation of the bible, other than as a footnote, for the plain and simple reason that it is spurious. Let me quote from comments on this text:

 “This verse has not been found in any manuscript in or out of the NT earlier than the 13th century. It does not appear in any Greek manuscript of 1 John before the 14th century, when one cursive has it; one from the 16th also contains the reading… it occurs in no ancient Greek manuscript or Greek Christian writer or in any of the oriental versions, Its chief support is in two Old Latin manuscripts of the 6th and 8th centuries and in some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, but not the oldest ones. … Erasmus did not include it in his first edition of the NT in Greek (1516) nor in his second (1519). When criticised for the omission, he rashly said that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript containing the passage he would insert it, and the 16th cent Codex Montfortianus containing it was brought to his attention. He felt obliged to include the reading in his third edition (1522), and it was this edition that Tyndale used in the making of his translation of the Greek Testament (1525). From Tyndale the verse found its way into the King James Version.
It is universally discredited by Greek scholars and editors of the Greek text of the New Testament.” The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament (Chicago;1943) Edgar J Goodspeed, p 557.

 “The words ‘in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost … bear witness on earth’ , constitute what is often called the Comma Ioanneum, or text of the Heavenly Witnesses. Without it the translation would run ‘For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood.’ In the opinion of nearly all critics and of most Catholic writers of the present day the words were not contained in the original text; … until …action be taken by the Holy See it is not open to Catholic editors to eliminate the words…” The Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures (London 1931)

Today, not even modern Catholic bibles include this text in the body of 1 John 5, but relegate it to a footnote which points out that it is not in the oldest texts.

#. “Let us make man in our image” Gen 1:26

The argument is that God uses the word ‘we’ and ‘our’ in this text, and therefore was obviously speaking to the other two persons of the trinity, because no-one else was present. But was this the case?
If we read Genesis 1:1 we can see that BEFORE he started his creative activity on this planet (which was already in existence at the time), he had ‘created the heavens and the earth’ – the physical universe.
As already seen, his first creative act was producing the person who eventually became Jesus. And Job 38:4,7 shows that the angels were also in existence at that time. So, when god said ‘we’/’our’ he could have been speaking to any or all of them.
But it is logical to conclude that he was speaking to the one ‘by means of (whom) all other things were created’, namely, the being who became Jesus (Colossians 1:16,17). But his speaking to this one is not evidence for a Trinity, merely evidence of another person’s presence.

#. “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also.” John 14:9

Was Jesus saying that he was god in this scripture? The response was in answer to Philip’s comment: “Lord, show us the Father and it is enough for us.”
But let me quote the whole passage:
“I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you men had known me, you would have known my Father also; from this moment on you know him and have seen him. Philip said to him ‘Lord, show us the Father and it is enough for us.’ Jesus said to him “Have I been with you men so long a time and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the father (also). How is it you say ‘show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you men I do not speak of my own originality; but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works…” (John 14:6-10 but read on to the end of verse 16)

There are some very interesting points in this passage. Notice that Jesus said ‘from this moment on you know him and have seen him.’ THEN Philip asked to be shown the Father. It is evident that he, at least, did not take Jesus’ comment literally. Jesus then said ‘He that has seen me has seen the father’.
So, twice in this passage Jesus says that seeing him is seeing the Father. Pretty conclusive evidence, isn’t it? Or is it?
Notice that he then goes on to say "The things I say to you men I do not speak of my own originality; but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works…”
Um? Pardon? ‘if you have seen me you have seen the father’ –
but ‘I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father… etc’.
And verse 16 says ‘I will request the Father and he will give you…etc’

Contradictory? Only if you take the statement ‘He that has seen me has seen the father’ LITERALLY.

Consider it this way: you can look at a man’s son and the way he conducts himself and say ‘He’s exactly like his dad!’
But he is NOT his dad, is he?
I have often mistaken my friend's daugher for my friend! They are alike as two peas in looks apart from one being older, and the similarity in personality is remarkable!
Considering the other statements by Jesus in this passage it is evident that he meant he was so much like his dad that if you knew one, you knew the other as well.
Consider what these scriptures are saying, as well:

 ‘My God! To what hast thou surrendered me?’ (Mark 15: 34b)
 ‘Blessed be that God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1Peter 1:3a)
 ‘No man has seen God at any time.’ (John 1:18). Written by John, who knew Jesus personally.
 ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father; even my God and your God.’ (John 20:17b)
 ‘A revelation of Jesus Christ…’ (Revelation 1:1) … ‘I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, … I will write on him the name of my God… coming down out of the heaven from my God; and my new name’ (Rev 3:12)
Hm. Interesting. Even after his ascension back to heaven, Jesus called the Father his GOD. So did his apostles and disciples.
So, can we REALLY believe Jesus literally meant that he was God? The weight of evidence is against it so far.

3b What is the evidence of the scriptures - about Jesus?
Throughout the NT, Jesus is called ‘the son OF God’. NEVER ‘God THE SON’. And Jesus himself never claimed to be god.
Such a belief, in fact, would have been anathema to the original body of Christ’s followers, who were Jews, believing in ONE undivided and indivisible God. Why, Jesus merely saying that he was THE SON of god had the Jews up in arms! It was the prime reason they wanted him killed – they believed that by claiming to be a Son he was claiming equality with God, which was arrant blasphemy!

But was that what Jesus was saying, or was it just an interpretation by the religious leaders Jesus had exposed as hypocrites? After all, they wanted to get rid of him…
There is an interesting scripture at Philippians 2:5-7:
“… Jesus Christ, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped…” (RS version).
Even in heaven, before he was sent out by God to become a man, he was not, nor did he seek to be, equal to his Father.

 Let me give you several translations. I quote verses 5 & 6 but recommend you also read to verse 11:
‘The attitude you should have is the one that Christ Jesus had: He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God… ‘ (Good News Bible)

 ‘Let this disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though being in God’s form, yet did not meditate a usurpation to be like God…’ (Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott)

 ‘Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God…’ (Westcott & Hort)

(Some of the older translations of this verse render it as saying that Jesus din’t NEED to usurp power ‘cos he already had it. If you want a detailed commentary on this I can post it. It is one of the things I cut out because of space.)

Jesus was called the Son of God over 50 times in the bible and never once was he called God the Son. I think many people fail to see the difference, reading the first as the second, regardless of what the words actually say.

It is interesting to note that Jesus called himself ‘the Son of man’. The expression occurs 44 separate times in the Gospel of Matthew, 25 times in Luke, and 12 times in John – 81 times in all, most of them spoken by Jesus himself, whereas on most of the 50 occasions the term ‘Son of God’ was used it was spoken by others. He was also called ‘Son of David’ on quite a few occasions. It would therefore seem that Jesus considered his being the ‘son of man’ of some considerable significance. The term was used in the OT at Dan 7:13,14 in a vision that obviously was referring to Jesus Christ, and again in the NT at Rev 1:12,13 also in reference to Jesus.

3c. What is the evidence of the scriptures - about Holy Spirit?
The bible sometimes offers us visions of heaven, of the throne of God. Two of these are:
Acts 7:55,56 RS
Daniel 7: 9,13 RS
You will notice that the holy spirit/holy ghost is not to be seen with God and The Son of Man/Jesus in either of these scripts, which is a little odd if the HS is the 3rd person of a Trinity and the occasions were of such great importance. Imagine a birth with father & baby present, but mother missing. Or a marriage with priest and bridegroom present, but no bride. These are not perfect illustrations but the best I can think of at the moment.
Look again at John 1:1,2.
And at John 2:28,29.
Again, only Father & Son are mentioned.
Yes, the bible often mentions ‘father, son and Holy Spirit’ together. But nowhere, at any time, in either OT or NT, is there even the faintest indication that they are equal, co-eternal, or 3 parts of One God.
John 15:26 AV
Rom 8:26 AV
This does not alter the fact that in certain texts the words ‘Holy Spirit’ have a masculine pronoun. These are the texts that refer to Holy Spirit as ‘Comforter’ and ‘Helper’. The masculine pronoun in these texts, however, does not indicate that the Comforter and Helper is a person, or male. Other references to HS are the neuter IT.
So why is HS referred to by a masculine pronoun in the ‘Comforter’ and ‘Helper’ texts? Simply because the Common Greek words ‘comforter and helper’ are in the masculine gender, so the pronoun to ‘comforter’ and ‘helper’ has to be masculine to agree grammatically.
Throughout the bible, OT & NT, the spirit is shown to be a ‘force’ or ‘power’ rather than a person. Check out the scriptures at Acts 1:8; 2:2-4,16,17; Eph 5:18; Acts 1:5; 1Cor 12:4-13; as a few examples.
I noticed when checking out the text of the Trinity doctrine that at one point it makes the statement:
“The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding…”
Which seems to indicate that even the creators of the doctrine recognised that it was something that ‘came from’ God and Jesus – which is exactly what the bible indicates.
An examination of the bible use of the term ‘holy spirit’ (Greek pneuma, Hebrew ruach) show it to be an impersonal ‘activating force’ – just as electricity is an impersonal activating force that powers radio, tv, washing machines, etc.
If you like, God can be seen as the Generator, Jesus as the Conduit and all the rest of creation as the Receivers/users of power (holy spirit).
The power or Spirit is God’s. It operated through Christ in his pre-human form to create the universe and all life. It was the power that created the earth and life on the earth. It is the power that operates in human beings to direct them to good. It is FROM God, VIA Jesus. The BIBLE does not show it to be the third person of a trinity.

So, if holy spirit is a force not a person, and neither it nor Jesus is god – who IS Jesus????
The bible says quite clearly that ‘The LORD (YHWH) your God is ONE LORD (YHWH)’.
Don’t you think he would have mentioned it, otherwise? He, and the bible make an issue of his ONENESS, his singularity.

The Son is the EXACT representation of the being of the Father.
A ‘representation’ is NOT the original. Not even an ‘exact representation’ is the original. A clone of you is an ‘exact representation’ as far as it is possible to be exact (origin, birth, life, etc are different) but the clone is not you.

Someone begotten (think of all the ‘begat’s in the OT), as Jesus was, is separate from the begetter. How can a person – even a god! – beget himself? YOU did not beget you, your father did. The one begotten is not at one and the same time the begetter
Jesus was at the ‘start’ or ‘beginning’ of CREATION. ‘The beginning of the creation of God…’ (Revelation 3:14). Creation had a start point, and that start point was God's creation of spirit person who became Jesus. Jesus then participated in creation inasmuch as everything else was created BY God THROUGH Jesus. Let me use an illustration:
You want to put up a new shelf. What do you do? Poke holes for screws in the wall with your fingers? Shape the wood with your bare hands? NO. You use tools. But was it your tools that put up the shelf? No. It was YOU. In the same way, after his creation (begetting) of Jesus, he USED Jesus to create everything else. That does not make Jesus God anymore than it makes the tools you used YOU!

Jesus is therefore shown in scripture NOT to be the ORIGINATOR or GOD of the universe but THE INSTRUMENT USED by the originator. That scripture at
1 Corinthians 8:6 is VERY good on this point, since it shows the distinction clearly. I take in v 5 as well, for interest:
‘For though there are, indeed, Gods so called, whether in Heaven or on Earth; (as they are many Gods and many Lords); yet to us there is but One God, the Father, out of whom are all things, and we for him; and One Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.’

You may also find it helpful to read Proverbs 8:22-31 where Wisdom is personified. Although this scripture is speaking of Wisdom, it provides a good illustration of Jesus’ role and position. I will quote it in part, but I recommend reading it all:
“YHVH produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. …. Then I came to be beside him as a master worker, (or architect) and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time…”
Jesus’ involvement in creation did not make him the creator. All things were ‘out of’ God ‘through’ Jesus. A conduit of power is not the power itself, nor the originator of that power.

4. What are the origins of the Trinity doctrine?
Belief in trinities of gods was widespread throughout the Roman Empire (and human history), as it was also in the Greek Empire. Most peoples were very comfortable with their trinities and multiplicities of gods. The Solo God of the Jews was utterly alien to their way of thought and was intolerable to the majority of them. The early non-Jewish converts to Christianity had a hard time of it – not only from friends and family, but also from their own previous ingrained beliefs. It was, therefore, not really all that difficult to INTRODUCE the trinity into Christianity. The difficulty was to KEEP IT OUT!
The result of this, after the death of the Apostles, was a great deal of controversy over the issues of who God and Christ were and their exact relationship – the earliest concepts were of a duo god: Father & Son, not a trinity. The Holy Spirit was not added until much later.
Anyway, now for some quotes from ‘authorities’ that you might like to see:
 ‘Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it… From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.’ (Will Durant, historian. Don’t know the book)
 ‘If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians… was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealised by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.’ (preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity).
 ‘The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.’ (Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity).

5. WHEN was the Trinity introduced into church thought?
 “Jesus never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the NT does the word Trinity appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord.” (‘The Paganism in Our Christianity’ Arthur Weignall, historian)
 ‘The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation… it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures… it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonising Fathers.’ (Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries).
 ‘We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy… The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.’ (Andrews Norton, A Statement of Reasons).

(There are tons more references for this bit if you want ‘em posted)

It was politically motivated church fathers who introduced the trinity doctrine, added verses and words that were not in the oldest writings and passed them off as true for centuries. It was only in the last 100 yrs or so that these spurious texts were discovered by bible scholars and removed from the bible. I think that even recent Catholic translations no longer print these as part of the main body of text. It will take longer to remove it from minds, however.

Conclusion
Yes, the God of the bible is indeed SOLO. Not triplicate. Jesus is his divine Son – NOT God-the-Son (a term first used in ancient Babylon. The Babylonians made Nimrod a god, and when he died they deified his son Tammuz as ‘God the Son’. It is a pagan concept, not a bible one). Jesus is the ‘Son OF God’

It is aid that the Trinity doctrine separates christianity from all other religions. But this is not the case: the Trinity doesn’t separate Christianity. Almost the only religions that DO NOT believe in trinities and/or multiplicities of gods are those of Judaism and Islam, both of which found their beliefs on the bible God. Christendom has adopted the pagan concept of the Trinity that practically all other beliefs have adhered to throughout human history.

It is interesting to note that both the bible-based Islam and the bible-based Judaism are Monotheistic religions. Of the three great religions based on the bible only Christianity has adopted the concept of a Trinitarian ‘godhead’ of 3-in-one. Judaism and Islam are unique in all history in their unshakeable belief in One, indivisible, True God – the God revealed to man through the writings of Moses. The SOLO Biblical God that divides THEM from every other religion, including christianity. And they hate each other!
The biblical God is ONE! SOLO. Jesus is his Son. He is divine. He is not God


[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited August 24, 2001).]

 

F. and other Religious Readers,

This may be the death of this thread. F. has now gone into waters that are over the heads of most religious inquirers. I hope to make this defense of the orthodox, biblical concept of the Trinity short and simple. I will give a defense that attempts to answer the principles (though not the exact quotations and arguments) found in F.’s post. I will, at a later date, post a more point-by-point righteous butt-kicking of F.’s post if necessary, but to do that now would get really messy and be virtually unreadable without me making these comments to help you folks understand where I’m coming from.

The first point is to show that the Bible presents, in an every-expanding fashion, coherent thoughts about God, who is One being who exists as Three distinct persons. The second will show how, counter to F.’s assertion, the idea of the Trinity was accepted in the early church and was not a pagan addition.

I freely thank the many who have gone before me to defend this truth, as I am not saying anything original here. I’ll include a bibliography at the end for those who wish to check my sources. But I warn you: You will go horribly blind reading the small print and going to the obscure urls. F. can attest to that.

What Is the Trinity?
The word "trinity" is a term used to denote the Christian doctrine that God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet related in essence. Each is divine in nature, but each is not the totality of the Godhead. Each has a will, loves, and says "I", and "You" when speaking. The Father is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit who is not the same person as the Father. Each is divine, yet there are not three gods, but one God. There are three persons individual subsistences, or persons. The word "subsistence" means something that has a real existence. The word "person" denotes individuality and self-awareness. The Trinity is three of these, though the latter term has become the dominant one used to describe the individual aspects of God known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Included in the doctrine of the Trinity is a strict monotheism which is the teaching that there exists in all the universe a single being known as God who is self-existent and unchangeable (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). Therefore, it is important to note that the doctrine of the trinity is not polytheistic as some of its critics proclaim. Trinitarianism is monotheistic by definition and those who claim it is polytheistic demonstrate a lack of understanding of what it really is.

The Trinity
o God is three persons
o Each person is divine
o There is only one God.

Many theologians admit that the term "person" is not a perfect word to describe the three individual aspects/foci found in God. When we normally use the word person, we understand it to mean physical individuals who exist as separate beings from other individuals. But in God there are not three entities, nor three beings. God, is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one. Yet, within the single divine essence are three individual subsistences that we call persons.
· Each of the three persons is completely divine in nature though each is not the totality of the Godhead.
· Each of the three persons is not the other two persons.
· Each of the three persons is related to the other two, but are distinct from them.
The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. But this does not mean that the concept is not taught there. The word "bible" is not found in the Bible either, but we use it anyway. Likewise, the words "omniscience," which means "all knowing," "omnipotence," which means "all powerful," and "omnipresence," which means "present everywhere," are not found in the Bible either. But we use these words to describe the attributes of God. So, to say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument.
Is there subordination in the Trinity?
There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity in regard to order but not substance or essence. We can see that the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third. The Father is not begotten, but the Son is (John 3:16). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). The Father creates (Isaiah 44:24), the Son redeems (Gal. 3:13), and the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16).
This subordination of order does not mean that each of the members of the Godhead are not equal or divine. For example, we see that the Father sent the Son. But this does not mean that the Son is not equal to the Father in essence and divine nature. A wife is to be subject to her husband but this does not negate her humanity, essence, or equality. By further analogy, a king and his servant both share human nature. Yet, the king sends the servant to do his will. Jesus said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38). Does this mean that the one sent must, therefore, be of different nature than the one who sent him? Of course not.
Critics of the Trinity will see this subordination as proof that the Trinity is false. They reason that if Jesus were truly God, then He would be completely equal to God the Father in all areas and would not, therefore, be subordinate to the Father in any way. But this objection is not logical. If we look at the analogy of the king and in the servant we certainly would not say that the servant was not human because he was sent. Being sent does not negate sameness in essence. Therefore, the fact that the Son is sent does not mean that He is not divine any more than when my wife sends me to get bread, I am not human.

Is this confusing?
Another important point about the Trinity is that it can be a difficult concept to grasp. But this is not necessitate an argument against its validity. On the contrary, the fact that it is difficult is an argument for its truth. The Bible is the self-revelation of an infinite God. Therefore, we are bound to encounter concepts that are difficult to understand -- especially when dealing with an incomprehensible God who exists in all places at all times. So, when we view descriptions and attributes of God manifested in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we discover that a completely comprehensible and understandable explanation of God's essence and nature is not possible. What we have, however, done is derive from the Scripture the truths that we can grasp and combine them into the doctrine we call The Trinity. The Trinity is, to a large extent, a mystery. After all, we are dealing with God Himself.
It is the way of the cults to reduce biblical truth to make God comprehensible and understandable by their minds. To this end, they subject God's word to their own reasoning and end in error. The following verses are often used to demonstrate that in the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed biblical.
· Matt. 28:18, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
· 1 Cor. 12:4-6, Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.
· 2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
· Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
· 1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure."
· Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."

These verses, in contrast to F.'s samples, simple list the three persons of the Trinity. It's that simple. Those verses that F. picked can be easily used as proofs of the evangelical doctrine of the Trinity, but why go to those first when you have clear ones like these to help you understand the unclear ones? Here are my sources for my work so far.
__________________
Sources:
· Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Everett Harrison, ed. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1960.
· Berkhoff's Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1988.
· Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1994.
· Hodge's Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1981.
· Matt Gross, carm.org

The Trinity in Church History
There are cult groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, Christadelphians, F.'s Witnesses) who deny the Trinity and state that the doctrine was not mentioned until the 4th Century until after the time of the Council of Nicea (325). This council "was called by Emperor Constantine to deal with the error of Arianism which was threatening the unity of the Christian Church."
The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea.
Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).
Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).
Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)
Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)
Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).
Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. A disciple of Origen. Defended Christianity. He wrote much about Christianity.
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
If, as the anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not "officially" taught until the time of the Council of Nicea is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith.
Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined.
The early church believed in the Trinity, as is evidenced by the quotes above, and it wasn't necessary to really make them official. It wasn't until errors started to creep in, that councils began to meet to discuss the Trinity as well as other doctrines that came under fire.

Source: ccel.org, carm.org

My hope is that this is clear and introduces the basic thoughts of orthodox Christianity into the discussion. Now you know to what end I’ll be arguing when I post a more negative critique of F.’s work.

If you want to know ahead of time how I’m going to do it, just look at how the church dealt with the Arians in the early church. Their position is roughly equivalent to F.’s.

Have a good day,

AD

PS I finished TOB last night and guess what I chose at the end?

[This message has been edited by AngelusDomini (edited August 24, 2001).]

 

Two points:
1)Has it ever struck you how like the Three Fates is the description you give of the Trinity?
2) And how illogical it is to say that christianity is Monotheistic just by saying the word when the actual description is of three separate, independantly thinking people?

Anyway, shall we leave people to read this for a day or two and see if anyone has questions before taking the debate further?

Over to you!



[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited August 24, 2001).]

 

<<1)Has it ever struck you how like the Three Fates is the description you give of the Trinity?>>

AD: No. But the Three Fates myth could very well be a synthesis of trinitarian concepts. Or not.

<<2) And how illogical it is to say that christianity is Monotheistic just by saying the words when the actual description is of three separate, independantly thinking people?>>

AD: It is a mystery how God is one being, but three persons. At least the "how" part is mystery. But their is no illogic (as defined by Aristotle) in saying God is one and three. He's not one and three at the same time and in the same relationship. He's one in BEING, three in PERSON. Weird. Outside our experience. Mysterious. Not illogical. The how is definately supra-logical, though.

I think you should acknowledge to the crowd that your historical argument about late pagan influences creating the doctrine of the Trinity has bit the dust. What do you say?

AD

 

Posted by AD
I think you should acknowledge to the crowd that your historical argument about late pagan influences creating the doctrine of the Trinity has bit the dust. What do you say?

Errr, how do you make that out? Certainly not by anything in your above post, lol! Or maybe your idea of 'the early church' is second and third century AD rather than Apostolic and first century?

Both my sources and yours put the conception of the trinity doctrine in the same period; is there a problem? None of the scriptures you use would give rise to a trinity doctrine. It was an external, pagan introduction.
Were you aware of this, for example?:
“AD 200. Noetus had been expelled from the Smyrnaean church for teaching that Christ was the Father, and that the Father himself was born, and suffered, and died.” A History of the Christian Church (2nd edition) by Williston Walker.
Odd, that. He was expelled as a heretic for teaching a very similar thing to what the ‘church’ was trying to force onto later christians - that christ was god. What was heresy to earlier Christians became ‘truth’ to later ones, while the ‘truth’ of the early church became 'heresy' to the later church. Do you not find that strange? Who shall we call heretics?

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited August 25, 2001).]

 

Still Chewing. Still chewing. The first thing that strikes me when reading this is that I get more and more confused. But this is interesting stuff nevertheless. People should take some time and read it, if nothing else Just to see how you two debate

The following is not by any means critisism. It is questions I feel I need to ask to be "enlightened" in Your ways of thinking.

a)to Fljotsdale Couldnt Jesus have spoken of "my God" for the sole purpose of not confusing mankind. Even now 2000 years later its hard to find any understanding in the notion "trinity". Isnt an avatar still part of the god? even though he is not as all mighty as in his heavenly form "The God".You use a lot of gramma- and semantic-references but how can we claim to know that the bible is true when it is not written by God himself but by humans' perceptions of events happening long before their time of birth. Couldn't the written language be inadequate to describe beliefs, faith and feelings? Hence make it irrelevant to talk about a trinity Vs Three devine beeings taking arguments and statements from books?

To AngelusDomini

You Seem to be talking of an entity called god who is a true person but a sphere that supports and surrounds both himself as a devine beeing but also two other entites, making them one. All very confusing to comprehend as You said. But isn't this the same point that Fljotsdale tries to make? you both seperate the trinity. But Fljotsdale thinks that then entity isn't strong enough to make the three entities into one because of the seperations. You think it is strong enough to make them into one of the excact same reasons.

I may be rambling too deep here. But I think or hope that You understand.

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited August 25, 2001).]

 

Nobleman! HI!

I'll do my best with your questions:
a)to Fljotsdale
Let me address your points one by one:

Couldnt Jesus have spoken of "my God" for the sole purpose of not confusing mankind?

Um. Why should he? I think you must have misunderstood my argument. Jesus was speaking primarily to Jews, who were Monotheistic. To the Jew, the god of the bible (OT) was most clearly a SINGLE god, not a pagan multiple god. No-one reading either the OT or the NT without a pre-conception that it revealed the trinity would see even the faintest glimpse of a trinity within its pages. ‘The church’ says that Jesus came to reveal god and ransom mankind. Ok. But nowhere does Jesus ‘reveal’ that god is a trinity. Funny, that, lol! No. The scriptures, including Jesus’ words show that god is not only the god of mankind, but the god of Jesus as well. He repeats that often enough to make it clearly his intention to reveal god as ONE. There is nothing confusing in that. The trinity concept is certainly confusing! Just read the Athanasian creed I posted below!

Even now 2000 years later its hard to find any understanding in the notion "trinity".
You are certainly right about that! Even after all the ‘explanation’ they have to admit it is a mystery – yet the bible says that ‘god is not a god of confusion’. Hm. So who is creating the confusion then? The bible is clear enough about who god is and who christ is and what holy spirit is. I think I showed that in my post on the trinity above.

Isnt an avatar still part of the god? even though he is not as all mighty as in his heavenly form "The God".

Probably. But avatars are a fictional/pagan concept and have no place in the bible at all.

You use a lot of gramma- and semantic-references but how can we claim to know that the bible is true when it is not written by God himself but by humans' perceptions of events happening long before their time of birth.

Yes, good points. But it doesn’t really matter in this context. I am not a believer. I merely point out what the bible SAYS, since the bible is what christian believers claim is god’s revealed word. Yet many people do not actually SEE the words written down on the page – instead they see what they have been taught to see.
Let me give you a personal example:
I was brought up a Catholic, and was taught to see Jesus as God the Son. That phrase – God the Son – does not exist in the bible, but I kept reading it in there. How come? The ACTUAL words in the bible were Son of God. Can you see the difference? Many people do not. They read the one as the other, because they have been tought to expect it. But look at the difference: God THE SON – SON OF God. Two utterly different concepts. Jesus never claimed to be God the Son but millions of people think he did. Grammar IS IMPORTANT!! And anyway – I have left out a great deal of semantic evidence in the Trinity post, lol!

Couldn't the written language be inadequate to describe beliefs, faith and feelings?

Well, written and spoken language is what we have. How else have we ever expressed our thoughts and feelings? What the bible teaches about god is not at all difficult to grasp. The trinity is, but then, it isn’t a bible teaching.

Hence make it irrelevant to talk about a trinity Vs Three devine beeings taking
arguments and statements from books?

There are not three divine beings. There are two. They do not form one being. The creator is God. His son is the being who became Jesus. Just as you are of the same substance genetically as your father, so is Jesus of his. He is therefore divine because his father is divine, just as you are human because your father is human. But just as YOU are not your father, neither is the son of god HIS father. I don’t actually need argument from other books, the bible is clear. But when people’s minds are clouded by teachings that are patently false to an observer it is sometimes necessary to present external evidence to help them see the point.

Any more questions?

A comment of yours in your question to AD:

But Fljotsdale thinks that then entity isn't strong enough to make the three entities into one because of the seperations.

Um, no. That is not what I said or implied at all!!

-------------------


I'm sorry, but I can't resist posting this! It has been some time since I read it in full - I usually just use the bits I have saved in text file. Anyway, I lifted this from internet for your delectation. I wonder how many of you know EXACTLY what you are supposed to accept a 'truth'?
I'm afraid I had fits of the giggles as I went through it:

The Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. And shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.



[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited August 25, 2001).]

 

You Certainly make a very good presentation of Your Point of view.
My reference to an avatar is that I have always pictured Jesus as God's avatar. They are one entity but seperated by flesh.

Else I must say that You have "clouded" or cleared my mind to agree with You to a certain extend. If what You provide of evidence is true, then the bible is quite clearly presenting three seperate entities not a trinity.

So many religions in the world has sprung forth from one book. that is the confusing part. Not the bible itself.

One thing though. Grammar IS important and after reading this entire thread I see that You don't use Grammar to cloud our minds but rather to point out that we are already clouded. neat

One Question still. You make it seem quite obvious that the trinity doesn't make sense. Do You know why it at all came into exsistance? Since the bible as You say is quite clear on this matter. Is it because of numerous translations from the first written material?

I look forward to AngelusDomini's answer too.



[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited August 25, 2001).]

 

Hi Nobleman! Here is the info in brief:

From Nobleman:
So many religions in the world has sprung forth from one book. that is the confusing part. Not the bible itself.
One Question still. You make it seem quite obvious that the trinity doesn't make sense. Do You know why it at all came into exsistance? Since the bible as You say is quite clear on this matter. Is it because of numerous translations from the first written material?

I already posted the following in the main trinity post:
Belief in trinities of gods was widespread throughout the Roman Empire (and human history), as it was also in the Greek Empire. Most peoples were very comfortable with their trinities and multiplicities of gods. The Solo God of the Jews was utterly alien to their way of thought and was intolerable to the majority of them. The early non-Jewish converts to Christianity had a hard time of it – not only from friends and family, but also from their own previous ingrained beliefs. It was, therefore, not really all that difficult to INTRODUCE the trinity into Christianity. The difficulty was to KEEP IT OUT!
The result of this, after the death of the Apostles, was a great deal of controversy over the issues of who God and Christ were and their exact relationship – the earliest concepts were of a duo god: Father & Son, not a trinity. The Holy Spirit was not added until much later.

Let me add this:
Since most converts to christianity were from religions believing in pantheons of gods, including trinities, they merely accepted the christian god as yet another god to add the ones they already had. During the lifetime of the Apostles much work was done to eliminate this attitude (read the book of Acts and the epistles!), but once they had gone, then, as foretold, ‘ravening wolves enter(ed) into the flock’ and took it over.
The gaining of power and money became paramount. To get these things, the church needed people. So they could not keep on throwing them out of the church for holding onto pagan ideas. What to do?
Simplest thing was to just incorporate their pagan beliefs into christianity. ('The church' became notorious for this. I think they still have saints with the names of pagan deities, though they got rid of a lot of them in the 20th century). Rename their trinities and their gods – it had been done many times before as one country conquered another – and the rest is history.
The main difficulty was incorporating a trinity into a monotheistic religion, and it took until the 4th century for an 'acceptable' doctrine to be fully formulated and made obligatory to the believer. Meanwhile there was much accusation and counter-accusation of heresy. In the end, the monotheists lost and the trinitarians won. Is this proof that god was on the side of trinitarians? Read some histories of ‘the church’ and see what you think!

 

Thank You

So much for Hollywood. This is much more interesting. Sorry for the Blashemic ring. But it is in fact interesting.

To clarify my question. I was thinking about the egyptian influence to the roman empire. why did it happen. But as I wanted to ask You the question, I happened to remember reading a book that describes the life of the old city "Alexandria" and in this there is the exact same conclusion. The Roman culture adobted many of the egyptian beliefs. Which influenced religion which again influenced the new christianity. It all adds up to the equation.

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited August 25, 2001).]