Can someone explain the Trinity please...

[Mountain_Climber]

That's is proselytizing and not allowed here.





That's what people often say when they have no academic education.


After 30000 post, and teaching some of these subjects, I know your education better then you do. Im guessing if you had any education at all it is 100% apologetic.

It is 100% not historical, or you would have my interest.

Have it your way.

This is your Burger King.

 

[outhouse]

Elohim being singular indicates there is one God but that God can be made up of more than one member.

No it does not.

Brother, El and Yahweh were different deities early Israelites worshipped along with Asherah and Baal.

After monotheism was instituted by a biased King who redacted all the text to reflect worship to only Yahweh. It was at this time all El's attributes were redacted to mean Elohim.

Yet to this day the polytheism still pokes through. They did not remove it all the original text giving us a picture of the polytheistic past of the cultures before the exile, and after.


This religion evolved from Canaanite mythology, and Israelites had a family of deities they worshipped.


Part of that text is in Genesis, we made "man in our image" Honestly brother with all my heart understand this. ITS NOT up for debate. What im telling you is not disputed and it is the academic knowledge on the topic.

 

[outhouse]

Ok. Let us start from how the Spirit of God enveloped Mary.
Luke 1:35
35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Bud the author was not Luke, it was someone from a different culture and different time period writing from a different part of the world. It was a community effort by people far removed from Jesus and Mary's life.

The gospels all describe these events differently, because they all wrote what was important to each community. Its why there are so many contradictions in each tale about these exact events.

When you study these text at a higher level, you start to see who these people were paralleling, in the rhetorical prose. Without knowledge of how these authors were trained to write using Aristotle's teachings, all context and credible interpretation is lost.

In this time it was not only perfectly acceptable, but they were literally required to build divinity and authority in this character, in context to the fact they were competing against the Emperor followers who were calling him FIRST the "son of god"

 

[moorea944]

Elohim is one of those interesting words like "family". Family is a singular word but a family can have more than one member. Elohim being singular indicates there is one God but that God can be made up of more than one member. In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God. Only one God but two members. It would be a lot less confusing if people did not refer to the Father as God God is the sum of all the members . the members were the Father and the Word. Later that Word became Jesus so there was still one God consisting of the Father and the Son. Jesus is a part of Elohim (God) so Thomas was perfectly correct calling Jesus Elohim )God)

Elohim is not singular, it is plural for Eloah. Eloah is singular not Elohim.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

sometimes the best academic knowledge on a topic leaves out the spiritual factual

 

[outhouse]

sometimes the best academic knowledge on a topic leaves out the spiritual factual

That's because spiritual is factually unsubstantiated, and often refers to ones personal thoughts, or simply thinking.

There is no such thing as spiritual factual.


You many not understand in ancient times they had no knowledge of the conscious mind, every good thought was gods doing, and bad evil spirits or demons.

 

[outhouse]

Elohim is not singular, it is plural for Eloah. Eloah is singular not Elohim.

The word is complicated, since the definition evolved.

The definition covers a few pages, so this one aspect in no way addresses the current or past definition.


I would agree in many cases it is not singular, but it certainly is in others. In many cases it is not a singular or plural meaning.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

so Mr Outhouse, we would appreciate a few brief sentences to sum up your understanding of the trinity

 

[Yoshua]

Well it was the Holy Spirit. Bible tells us that. The Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God is God's power or spirit. It is not a person as some trinitarians think. Otherwise, the HS would be Jesus's father. If the Holy Spirit were actually a person that would present a highly degrading image of Mary's impregnation with Jesus by the Holy Spirit. It would also make Yahweh a liar when he says that He knows of no other God beside Him (Is. 44:6-8).

Hi Moorea,

When we say that the Holy Spirit is a person, it does not connote as literally as person (human). The Holy Spirit exists. The Holy Spirit cannot be Jesus father, because there is one God.
John 14:26
26. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

The word “person” is just a term to define an individual, you may take away the word person, but the concept that the Holy Spirit exists among us is truly the existence of one God who exists as the Holy Spirit. What God has, the Holy Spirit also has.

But, that doesnt make him God. Scripture tells us that he was made a man like us. He had to be like us. It had to be someone who could conquer sin. Jesus did it with his Father's help. God was working "through" His son.

Moorea, Are you a Jewish? If you are a Jewish, I know that you are familiar with the Jewish tradition and custom. I believed that you can relate more on the passages rather than me. I believed that during their time, they are very discreet in uttering the word God to anyone (until now I see Jew, writing the word God as G-d). How come Thomas have the courage to say “My God” in front of Jesus if He is not God?

When, Thomas confess to Jesus “My Lord and My God,” Jesus did not correct Thomas instead Jesus affirmed by saying in v.29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Jesus blessed Thomas.

There are alot of good translations. One is ESV "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," Jesus ALWAYS gave Glory to the Father. Never did he think he was equal or co-existed. Being in the form of God does not make him God or very God. He manisfested his Father's charactor perfectly

Phil. 2:5-9
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,1 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,2 being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

If Jesus was being in a form of God (only), why it has to be stated that Jesus did not count equality with? What is the main reason of why He (Jesus) did not counted it to be equal with God? What is it?

Very simple answer to that. He's not. He's not calling him God or Yahweh. He's calling him Elohim in Hebrews. Not God. Our "English" bibles say God, not the org. txt. John and everyone else knows that Jesus was a man and not a God. And who can be Elohim? Mostly angels, but man can be that too. The Judges were called Elohim along with priests. Elohim - the Mighty Ones, God manifest in a multitude. They were called Elohim because they brought the Word of God to the people.
Look at John 10. The Jews didnt like Jesus calling himself the Son of God and being being associated with God. And what did Jesus tell them? "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, " The word for "gods there is Elohim. Their fathers were called gods or Elohim because they were the ones who brought the word of God to the people.

So Thomas is not calling Jesus God, he is saying, you are my Lord and my Elohim. Because Thomas knows that Jesus is the one who brings the word of God to the people.

What is your reference to connote that “elohim” was used in the New Testament. Did the New Testament was written in Greek or Hebrew?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Bud the author was not Luke, it was someone from a different culture and different time period writing from a different part of the world. It was a community effort by people far removed from Jesus and Mary's life.

The gospels all describe these events differently, because they all wrote what was important to each community. Its why there are so many contradictions in each tale about these exact events.

When you study these text at a higher level, you start to see who these people were paralleling, in the rhetorical prose. Without knowledge of how these authors were trained to write using Aristotle's teachings, all context and credible interpretation is lost.

In this time it was not only perfectly acceptable, but they were literally required to build divinity and authority in this character, in context to the fact they were competing against the Emperor followers who were calling him FIRST the "son of god"

Hi outhouse,

Those are synoptic gospels, they does not contradict with each other. They look like differing in perspective or views but connected and consistent upon studied. This is like an investigation through forensic, they are collected as narratives in different perspective but when combined, analyze or studied, they are perfectly matched.

Let us take an example with Mary, the message and appearance of angel. I will highlight those passages that has the same message.

Matt. 1:18-25
18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
19. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.
20. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21. "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.''
22. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23. "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,'' which is translated, "God with us.''
24. Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife,
25. and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

Luke 1:26-35
26. Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
27. to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
28. And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!''
29. But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was.
30. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31. "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus.
32. "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.
33. "And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.''
34. Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?''
35. And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

If you will notice, both had an angel appeared to Joseph and Mary informing them that they will become husband and wife and the child to be born named Jesus. The empowerment of the Holy Spirit that will overshadow Mary is from the Holy Spirit. I don't see any contradiction here but a perfect narrative match--to complete a perfect narrative--of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Thanks

 

[outhouse]

so Mr Outhouse, we would appreciate a few brief sentences to sum up your understanding of the trinity

My quick version, is simply a man made definition to keep monotheism alive in the light of a Constantine's forced ruling of unity.

The trinity was an unknown concept to early Christians for over 2 hundred years, it was created dogma of the late second and third century that evolved by forcing Christian text out of context to fit said dogma, once Jesus divinity to the father was ruled on and redefined in the Nicean creed.

 

[outhouse]

Hi outhouse,

Those are synoptic gospels, they does not contradict with each other.

If you read them and know what your reading, they contradict each other heavily. ANY attempt to reconcile the differences is wishful thinking that has no credible historical application brother.

First they were not written by real followers who knew Jesus.

Second the unknown authors of Luke and Matthew copied and plagiarized the unknown author of Marks text, which we know was a compilation of previous written and oral traditions.

John came later and was much more theological in nature and definitely describes events in a much more spiritual nature, with many contradicting passages.


What we have is multiple traditions by groups that made changes to marks gospel because they found it incomplete. The unknown community called Luke, used heavy rhetorical prose to build divinity aimed at Hellenist in the Diaspora, and used his artistic freedom in literature to keep readers turning pages. Matthews unknown community was very Hellenistic, but one who adhered more to the foundation in Judaism, yet still wanting to divorce this new movement from Judaism for its own self preservation.

What started it all IMHO was Marks gospel which I view as a reaction to the temple falling. No longer could this new sect gather at Passover and share their traditions so there was a need to gather what traditions they had and compile them into what was important for that particular community. As we see other communities decided to add their different traditions to this first edition as the theology matched enough that importance was given to it.

 

[outhouse]

the birth of Jesus Christ.

Both M and L have different legends/mythology surrounding this event. Reality is scholars place no historical credibility here to the point some call it outright fiction.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_of_Jesus

Many scholars view the two narratives as non-historical and contradictory

Many events in the Luke account are not in the Gospel of Matthew

Most mainstream scholars do not see the Luke and Matthew nativity stories as historically factual

Most modern scholars accept the Markan priority hypothesis, that the Luke and Matthew accounts are based on the Gospel of Mark, but that the birth narratives come from the evangelists' independent sources, known as M-Source for Matthew and L-Source for Luke, which were added later

Scholars see the accounts in Luke and Matthew as explaining the birth in Bethlehem in different ways, giving separate genealogies of Jesus, and probably not historical


While Vermes and Sanders dismiss the accounts as pious fiction.

Steve Mason asserts that, if the Massacre of the Innocents had taken place as reported in Matthew, it would have been strange for Josephus not to mention it

E. P. Sanders characterizes Josephus' writing as dwelling on Herod's cruelty, thus suggesting that Josephus would probably have included the event if it had occurred.[4] Sanders states that faced with little historical information, Matthew apparently based the story in which an infant Moses is endangered by the Pharaoh in order to kill infant Hebrews and that such use of scripture for telling the story of Jesus' birth was considered legitimate by contemporary standards.[4]

 

[outhouse]

Do not take these replies on attacks on Christianity, they are not.

With a credible historical interpretation and understanding of these text, only builds the importance of the text real meaning.

These authors were added to the canon and the people who added them, did not care about these contradictions because it shows multiple views of communities that valued the legends floating around as they were. They did not focus on the difference nor did they care.

Just so you know these are only a fraction of the text that existed in this time. And the literature was very diverse and different. These were picked out because the movement evolved into that direction, and these text just happened to the most popular.

Do you know what the gospels are listed in the order they are?

Do you know what Pauls epistles are listed in the order they are?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

thanks, outhouse, I completely agree that the early Christians had no idea of a trinity but the pagan Babylonian Mystery religion did have a trinity and many of these pagan ideas were forced on the church by pagan Roman emperors who claimed to be converted to Christianity but were just forcing pagan ideas on the church

 

[outhouse]

but the pagan Babylonian Mystery religion did have a trinity and many of these pagan ideas were forced on the church by pagan Roman emperors who claimed to be converted to Christianity but were just forcing pagan ideas on the church

This is not substantiated by any scholar. There is an author of a modern book who is not accepted at all, that makes that claim.

Looking at biblical history, we see a clear evolution of he concept due to forcing these communities into adding a "son of god" to the god concept, as well as having to explain this new group also having different theology about gods spirit then that of Judaism.

So its quite obvious there is no mystery religion behind the trinity what so ever. The concepts existed in Paul's time, but was addressed more fully by Tertullian, then later addressed in full after Jesus divinity was redefined.

This is 100% the product of adding a son to god, and matching the concept of gods sprit over that of Judaism

 

[outhouse]

The reason behind its denial, is in its man made creation outside text.

Its confusing at best. The first time it was explained to me as a child was the seed that started my atheism.

Growing up I always thought Jesus was different from god and he was gods son. As a child when they tried to explain it was the same being they just named that part of him son, I was thinking this makes no sense at all, whatever I don't buy it period.

 

[moorea944]

Hi Moorea,

When we say that the Holy Spirit is a person, it does not connote as literally as person (human). The Holy Spirit exists. The Holy Spirit cannot be Jesus father, because there is one God.
John 14:26
26. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

The word “person” is just a term to define an individual, you may take away the word person, but the concept that the Holy Spirit exists among us is truly the existence of one God who exists as the Holy Spirit. What God has, the Holy Spirit also has.


Moorea, Are you a Jewish? If you are a Jewish, I know that you are familiar with the Jewish tradition and custom. I believed that you can relate more on the passages rather than me. I believed that during their time, they are very discreet in uttering the word God to anyone (until now I see Jew, writing the word God as G-d). How come Thomas have the courage to say “My God” in front of Jesus if He is not God?

When, Thomas confess to Jesus “My Lord and My God,” Jesus did not correct Thomas instead Jesus affirmed by saying in v.29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Jesus blessed Thomas.


Phil. 2:5-9
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,1 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,2 being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

If Jesus was being in a form of God (only), why it has to be stated that Jesus did not count equality with? What is the main reason of why He (Jesus) did not counted it to be equal with God? What is it?


What is your reference to connote that “elohim” was used in the New Testament. Did the New Testament was written in Greek or Hebrew?

Thanks

How come Thomas have the courage to say “My God” in front of Jesus if He is not God?

I all ready explained that one. He didnt. "God" was put into our English bibles. "God" and "GOD" have different Hebrew names. The translators knew it too , but decided to put in "God" instead El, Eloah, Elohim, Yahweh, Adon, Adonai, El Shaddai, Yahweh Elohim, Adonai Yahweh, Yahweh Tz'vaoth. IT's easier writting in "God" or "GOD".

If Jesus was being in a form of God (only), why it has to be stated that Jesus did not count equality with? What is the main reason of why He (Jesus) did not counted it to be equal with God? What is it?

Keep on reading.... Look at the next verse. Jews thought he was saying he was God, but Paul says in verse 7, ".... he made himself no reputation". He was telling everyone that Jesus DIDNT think that. Being in the "form' of God does not make him God. Jesus WAS in the form of God. He manifested his Father's charactor and will perfectly.

Keep on reading.... verse 11 "And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" Is this really saying Jesus is God? Sorry, but not to me... To the glory of God the Father if all through the bible....

What is your reference to connote that “elohim” was used in the New Testament. Did the New Testament was written in Greek or Hebrew?

NT was written in Greek. We all know that one. But Hebrew words were still used, exp. for our Creator. I have some Hebrew and Greek bibles and study guides. They will tell you the correct name for "God" or "GOD" in the NT. Yahweh's name is not God or even GOD. And it's not Jehoveh too. I dont even know where you get that one from... It's diffenitly not biblical. One name is YHWH. Translators have put in vowels so we can pronounce it. Arch's have actually dug up tablets in foreign countries talking about the children of Israel's God, YHWH. Awesome stuff!!

 

[outhouse]

but decided to put in "God" instead El, Eloah, Elohim, Yahweh, Adon, Adonai, El Shaddai, Yahweh Elohim, Adonai Yahweh, Yahweh Tz'vaoth

El Elyon, and many more

Which for the most part represent Israel's polytheistic origins. The is a reason it is IsraEL not Israyhwh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah


The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult,[79] although she continued to be popular at a community level until Persian times.[80] Yahweh, later the national god of both Israel and Judah, seems to have originated in Edom and Midian in southern Canaan



Just so you know, the above information is not in dispute in any way.

 

[moorea944]

El Elyon, and many more

Which for the most part represent Israel's polytheistic origins. The is a reason it is IsraEL not Israyhwh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah


The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult,[79] although she continued to be popular at a community level until Persian times.[80] Yahweh, later the national god of both Israel and Judah, seems to have originated in Edom and Midian in southern Canaan



Just so you know, the above information is not in dispute in any way.

I totally disagree with that one!! There were times where Israel wondered and left the Lord (Spiritually) and intermarried and worshiped other Gods. But, as we also still see in scripture, they were brought back to God and left their Gods, some also left their foreign wives too. I feel that person who wrote that wikipedia junk doesnt read scripture. You can compare and mismatch all you want, and try to put in gods names with our Creator's name. God's name did not start with pagan history.