Can someone explain the Trinity please...

[outhouse]

. I feel that person who wrote that wikipedia junk doesnt read scripture.

They studied the text at the highest level, and are Jewish. Israel's head archeologist makes this claim. Because there is no dispute. That is what took place.

By the way, monotheism was not accepted by the Israelites culture until roughly 200-400 BC.

God's name did not start with pagan history.

Sure it did. Its not even up for debate. There was no exodus or floods, and even Abraham has no historicity as existing outside mythology.

Israelites evolved from displaced Canaanites, this is said to be factual by Israel Finkelstein, it is not in any credible dispute.

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

The Israelite ethnic identity had been created, not from the Exodus and a subsequent conquest, but from a transformation of the existing Canaanite-Philistine cultures.

The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages — all apparently established within the span of few generations — indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE. There was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group. Instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle. In the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the Judean hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in the north, far from the Canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two-hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. Here were the first Israelites.[27]

 

[McDoogins]

I'm not reading this whole thread, but I will ask, what exactly is the holy ghost?

 

[outhouse]

I'm not reading this whole thread, but I will ask, what exactly is the holy ghost?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit_(Christianity)

 

[McDoogins]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit_(Christianity)

Thanks, I didn't think it would be that easy.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Let's say I have an electric saw. That saw has a motor with a quarter horsepower rating. I can say I cut a board with my saw or I can say I cut a board with the power of my saw. I do not have two separate things. God the Father has power. When a miracle occurs you can say it happened by God or you can say it happened by the power of God. It is not two separate things. The Holy Spirit could also be called the Holy Power because it it the power of God. There is a Father and a son but no separate Holy Spirit so no trinity - only two. You could say Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit or by the Holy Power or by God the Father. All are the same thing. There are places where the Holy Spirit is refered to as "he" but it really should be "it". Two "persons", Father and Son, not three.

 

[moorea944]

They studied the text at the highest level, and are Jewish. Israel's head archeologist makes this claim. Because there is no dispute. That is what took place.

By the way, monotheism was not accepted by the Israelites culture until roughly 200-400 BC.




Sure it did. Its not even up for debate. There was no exodus or floods, and even Abraham has no historicity as existing outside mythology.

Israelites evolved from displaced Canaanites, this is said to be factual by Israel Finkelstein, it is not in any credible dispute.

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

The Israelite ethnic identity had been created, not from the Exodus and a subsequent conquest, but from a transformation of the existing Canaanite-Philistine cultures.

The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages — all apparently established within the span of few generations — indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE. There was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group. Instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle. In the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the Judean hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in the north, far from the Canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two-hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. Here were the first Israelites.[27]

Again, it's from people who dont believe in or read scripture. Or just dont believe in our Creator.

 

[Yoshua]

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.

Oh. In my long time handling the Scriptures, I don't see contradiction. Did John the Baptist coming, existence, birth, appearance, teachings and parables does not connect from each other. If that will be your judgment, this may take a one by one Scripture study like I did above for Mary, Joseph and the appearance of angels to both of them. Maybe, some may say that he is not the one who wrote it, but I think the message and the narratives should be scrutinize first.

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.

The studying of Scriptures should be taken first before hearing those critics.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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]

Hi Outhouse,

Truly they have different angles of narratives, but this will not diminish the authenticity of the characters such as Mary, Joseph, Jesus,and His disciples. How about scholars who accepted the synoptic gospels as authentic, consistent and true. I believed that if a person has doubt in the Scriptures, he should seek the Scripture and study it. Some used to find facts that will support his doubt about the Scriptures. If we seek positively, then we will see things positively, if not negatively.

I believed that the truth of the Scriptures should be given consideration; history should also be validated in balance with the Scriptures.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

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....

Hi Moorea,

If the Jews thought that he was saying He was God? Actually, he claimed to be God, that is why they stoning Him.
John 8:57-58
57. Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?''
58. Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.''

Phil. 2:6-7
6. who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7. but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men.

You mean that Paul say Jesus did not think that He is God? If being in the form of God did not make Him God, why it need to be mention that He did not consider to be equal with God? what made Him (Jesus) not equal with God?

Secondly, if He emptied himself as no reputation (as without recognition), what made Him of no reputation for what reason? why should he (Jesus) be of no reputation or emptied?

kenoó: to empty
Original Word: κενόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: kenoó
Phonetic Spelling: (ken-o'-o)
Short Definition: I empty, deprive of content, make unreal
Definition: (a) I empty, (b) I deprive of content, make unreal.

Cognate: 2758 kenóō – properly, to empty out, render void; (passive) be emptied – hence, without recognition, perceived as valueless (Phil 2:7). See 2756 (kenos).(biblehub)

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!!

So, the word "theos" was used in John 20:28 for "God," Isn't it? What do you mean by the word "theos" in Greek?

Thanks

 

[moorea944]

Hi Moorea,

If the Jews thought that he was saying He was God? Actually, he claimed to be God, that is why they stoning Him.
John 8:57-58
57. Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?''
58. Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.''

Phil. 2:6-7
6. who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7. but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men.

You mean that Paul say Jesus did not think that He is God? If being in the form of God did not make Him God, why it need to be mention that He did not consider to be equal with God? what made Him (Jesus) not equal with God?

Secondly, if He emptied himself as no reputation (as without recognition), what made Him of no reputation for what reason? why should he (Jesus) be of no reputation or emptied?

kenoó: to empty
Original Word: κενόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: kenoó
Phonetic Spelling: (ken-o'-o)
Short Definition: I empty, deprive of content, make unreal
Definition: (a) I empty, (b) I deprive of content, make unreal.

Cognate: 2758 kenóō – properly, to empty out, render void; (passive) be emptied – hence, without recognition, perceived as valueless (Phil 2:7). See 2756 (kenos).(biblehub)


So, the word "theos" was used in John 20:28 for "God," Isn't it? What do you mean by the word "theos" in Greek?

Thanks

If the Jews thought that he was saying He was God? Actually, he claimed to be God, that is why they stoning Him.
John 8:57-58
57. Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?''
58. Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.''

Well, they wanted to stone him for many reasons, not just one. Jesus never claimed to be God at anytime. The Jews didnt understand him. Plus, they didnt like that he told them that they didnt have to go by the law of Moses anymore, he was a new covenant, with him. They hated that!!

And before Abraham was, I am, does not tell of Jesus's pre-existance. Jesus did not pre-exist. He was telling them that the Gospel was preached before Abraham. Jesus is part of the Gospel. Everyone, including Adam, knew about a coming messiah. That is what it means before Abraham was , I am.

You mean that Paul say Jesus did not think that He is God? If being in the form of God did not make Him God, why it need to be mention that He did not consider to be equal with God? what made Him (Jesus) not equal with God?

Well, we have to ask ourselves, why would Jesus be equal with God? Jesus gave glory to his Father in everything he did. And it was God's will be done, not Jesus's will. Scripture tells us that there is only one God and no other Gods beside him. He is the only with immortality from beginning to end. Paul wants to make sure that everyone knows that Jesus is a man. And that he is not equal with our Creator.

So, the word "theos" was used in John 20:28 for "God," Isn't it? What do you mean by the word "theos" in Greek?

That is the Greek translation of it.

 

[outhouse]

There is a Father and a son but no separate Holy Spirit

Not how the trinity works. In Christian theology it is separate.

 

[outhouse]

The studying of Scriptures should be taken first before hearing those critics.

What you may not understand is a scholar is someone who studies the text, and they try to do it in an unbiased way. Many are guilty but they are guilty of apologetics more then skepticism.

Many things I posted are not up for debate.

IF you would like resources to learn about the real history of the NT in academia, I can provide you with excellent links that can show you what is actually known with certainty and not guess or skepticism.

 

[outhouse]

If we seek positively, then we will see things positively, if not negatively.

That is wrong.

Those credible statements of academia above were created by theist. This is NOT the work of atheist or skeptics. It is academia.

Now I understand its a shock or hard to change your beliefs based on evidence and knowledge, but academia does not use faith in determining the past brother.


These changes I speak of will give you a deeper understanding of place more value on your faith. A guarantee you all your priest and pastors know this info.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

most Christian theology was formed by human people who are not always the best sources for religious information because Satan is busy at work twisting their minds to do just the opposite of what God would want

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

a few posts back was a discussion of how Mary became pregnant. She was made pregnant by the Heavenly Father. But she was also made pregnant by the power of the most high. The power of the most high is often called the spirit of God and it is holy so it is a holy spirit. since only God is holy His spirit is the Holy Spirit. If a human woman gets pregnant today is it correct to say she was made pregnant by her husband? is it not also correct to say she got pregnant by the power of her husband? or you could say she got pregnant by the love of her husband. the power of her husband or the love of her husband are not separate beings or persons. Mary was made pregnant by the Heavenly Father, or by the power of God, or by the spirit of God or by the Holy Spirit. they are all names for the same thing. it does not make the Spirit a separate being or person in a trinity. Would you say ther is a human trinity - a man and his wife and his strength? Makes no sense at all

 

[outhouse]

most Christian theology was formed by human people

Exactly!

Every bit of text ever written, was formed by human people. There are Factually no text that exist today that were NOT formed by human people .


Just like the satan concept you attribute things to besides the bible being almost silent on the concept.

because Satan is busy at work

Rhetoric. The concept only exist in your mind because you want it to. Satan doesn't even exist in my life on any level.

Much of the popular lore of the devil is not biblical; instead, it is a post-medieval Christian reading of the scriptures influenced by medieval and pre-medieval Christian popular mythology.

 

[outhouse]

She was made pregnant by the Heavenly Father.

That is theology, not something historical. It has no historicity what so ever.

 

[outhouse]

the power of her husband or the love of her husband are not separate beings or persons.

The husband is not a deity, or a mythological concept in theology that only men define at will.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I have run out of ways to say it so this will be my last post on the subject of the trinity. I will just say one last time that a father and his son and the power of the father are not three people. God sends His power or spirit to accomplish tasks but He is not sending a separate "person"

 

[outhouse]

I will just say one last time that a father and his son and the power of the father are not three people.

That is correct bud, its just half the Christian definition.

The correct theological definition, is that there are different entities part of the same concept.

Is it confusing and maybe not logical? sure, but many aspects of theology are as such.

He is not sending a separate "person"

To me, my personal opinion, if jesus was a god, we sent a separate person.

To me it makes no sense to send yourself down and play games with yourself, may events would not be logical.


Its part of why I see, only man defining all this, in religious text, and trying o redefine what was missing in said text.