tarasan
Well-Known Member
that could very well be the case, although since im in teh middle of a conversation i think i better continue it! XD
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you Believe in the Trinity?
- Thread starter Rainbow Mage
- Start date
that could very well be the case, although since im in teh middle of a conversation i think i better continue it! XD
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I don't believe in the Trinity, but I'm not Christian. When I was, I didn't really accept it, because not only is it nonsensical but it's also pretty baseless besides reading into texts.
My wife is a Christian, but she does not believe in the Trinity. She believes Jesus to be a messenger, in effect. Not the literal son of God, because God is a spirit and can't literally have children. She believes the Holy Spirit is like a force, something that dwells within us.
Something like that, anyway.
My wife is a Christian, but she does not believe in the Trinity. She believes Jesus to be a messenger, in effect. Not the literal son of God, because God is a spirit and can't literally have children. She believes the Holy Spirit is like a force, something that dwells within us.
Something like that, anyway.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
This symbol has always struck a chord with me
The idea of 3 in 1 has been around a long time.
Where I came from, where I'm going and what's guiding me is one way I see it
The idea of 3 in 1 has been around a long time.
Where I came from, where I'm going and what's guiding me is one way I see it
Noaidi
slow walker
This is a triskele, and is a pre-christian Celtic symbol. it has been taken to represent the crone, the maiden and the goddess, indicating a matriarchal view of ancient spirituality.
Of course, having your own meaning for it is good, too.
Edit: Just realised that you are Irish, so I guess you knew this already!
Of course, having your own meaning for it is good, too.
Edit: Just realised that you are Irish, so I guess you knew this already!
Last edited:
MurphtheSurf
Active Member
As a newbie, I have noticed right away that this forum for the most part is dominated by atheists and agnostics. This is how the voting on belief in a trinity is so lopsided. Usually on other forums the adherents of christendom would scream bloody murder over this doctrine being denied. I don't seem to be seeing that here........yet.
Well, I am a Christian yet I voted no also for the simple reason that trinity doctrine was never a true Christian teaching and was invented by the apostate church in the 4th century C.E. Belief in triune gods goes back as far as human history itself.
The nation of Israel never considered such thinking, and it is not even as much as hinted at in the Hebrew scriptures. As for the Greek scriptures, christendom has selected certain scriptures in a vain attempt to validate a false teaching, including the use of versions of the Bible that were dubiously manipulated in the middle ages to make it seem to be a Christian teaching.
Jesus never taught it, his anointed followers never considered it let alone teach such a thing. Just another pagan teaching to satisfy a pagan populous to bring them under the control of an apostate church.
Well, I am a Christian yet I voted no also for the simple reason that trinity doctrine was never a true Christian teaching and was invented by the apostate church in the 4th century C.E. Belief in triune gods goes back as far as human history itself.
The nation of Israel never considered such thinking, and it is not even as much as hinted at in the Hebrew scriptures. As for the Greek scriptures, christendom has selected certain scriptures in a vain attempt to validate a false teaching, including the use of versions of the Bible that were dubiously manipulated in the middle ages to make it seem to be a Christian teaching.
Jesus never taught it, his anointed followers never considered it let alone teach such a thing. Just another pagan teaching to satisfy a pagan populous to bring them under the control of an apostate church.
Last edited:
Noaidi
slow walker
Thanks for answering my questions. I still don't get it (!!), but will leave it at that. I'm interested in what's been written in the above post- there is no true biblical basis for the trinity? If that turns out to be the case (I don't know), why do you believe it?
tarasan
Well-Known Member
cause its true in the New testament Jesus was called or kronos on an occasion, the only reason he wasnt on other is because they tried to not get people confused.
Jesus let his followers worship him, Which he would not ahve allowed if he was anything lower.
in The Old testament we did see platently Ghosts spirit in genesis as it went across the deep or when it went into certian followers.
The evidence is there they only reason people reect it is because in this culture its hard to understand because we have a very Greek way of thinking about us.
if you want to discuss this more id be happy too.
Twig pentagram
High Priest
Because I'm not a christian.
Zadok
Zadok
No - the trinity does not make any sense. For example - why would G-d declare that he had created man in his image and likeness but deliberately create man with the inability to understand G-d as he really is? The trinity makes mockery of G-d and his purpose of man.
Zadok
tarasan
Well-Known Member
so you understand everything about God?
I dont think you have read the bible alot if you think that even the Jews thought that they had God pinned down.
MurphtheSurf
Active Member
This link should help the trinitarian to understand one misconception.
In What Way Are Jesus and His Father One? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site
In What Way Are Jesus and His Father One? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site
dmgdnooc
Active Member
　
I vote NO. I do not believe in the Trinity.
　
The idea does not appear to be native to the Bible and many, very many, passages clearly exclude the idea from Biblical concepts of God.
　
The God of the Bible repeatedly requires His people to think on Him as a singularity; The one, and only, great singularity.
Imagining that God deceived the Patriarchs, Israel, the Prophets, Jesus, the Apostles and the entire World on this point up until it became revealed to an ex-pagan, neo-christian theologian sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century AD has all the support from scripture that imagination could require.
　
It should be noted that trinitarian concepts were widely accepted by many other religions (particularly in Egypt) and imo was incorporated into Christianity as a PR concession to help fill the pews and thereby increase the Church's reach and revenue base.
　
　
I vote NO. I do not believe in the Trinity.
　
The idea does not appear to be native to the Bible and many, very many, passages clearly exclude the idea from Biblical concepts of God.
　
The God of the Bible repeatedly requires His people to think on Him as a singularity; The one, and only, great singularity.
Imagining that God deceived the Patriarchs, Israel, the Prophets, Jesus, the Apostles and the entire World on this point up until it became revealed to an ex-pagan, neo-christian theologian sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century AD has all the support from scripture that imagination could require.
　
It should be noted that trinitarian concepts were widely accepted by many other religions (particularly in Egypt) and imo was incorporated into Christianity as a PR concession to help fill the pews and thereby increase the Church's reach and revenue base.
　
　
kejos
Active Member
Demotion of Jesus is always funny.
Same here.
brbubba
Underling
Has anyone studied Newton's thoughts on the Trinity? He apparently was as much a great religious scholar as he was a scientist. I've always been interested in reading why he thought the Trinity was a falsehood perpetuated by the church, but never got around to it. Can anyone summarize his arguments?
idea
Question Everything
No, I do not believe in the trinity.
from:
The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
"
In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to addressamong other thingsthe growing issue of Gods alleged trinity in unity. What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils)4 as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creedsand others to come over the centuriesdeclared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, imminent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted mystery of the trinity. They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.
We agree with our critics on at least that pointthat such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, . . . and I know not whom to adore or to address.5 How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesuss prayer to His Father in Heaven that this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?6 "
idea
Question Everything
Gen 17:1 AND the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three *men (people - Strong's H582) stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground…
Abraham himself describes the G-dhead as three separate people.
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
G-d is all knowing and unchanging. He does not “learn” anything or “become” anything G-d is not “made” to do anything.
1 Tim 2: 5 For there is one G-d, and one mediator between G-d and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Jesus is not G-d, he is the mediator between G-d and men. a mediator is not for one party only - if there's a mediator, there have to be two parties
Matt 3: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Is G-d pleased with H—self? Love H—self? If the trinity were true, this should read
“A voice came from within Jesus (not from heaven) saying this is me myself and I, I am pleased with myself.” – does that make sense to you?
Luke 22: 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
In this instance, the will of Jesus is different than the will of the Father – two different people with two different wills.
Can you rewrite this scripture to agree with the trinity doctrine? Here it is:
Jesus, talking to himself, said unto himself, I really should not go through with this, nevertheless, not my will but my other will be done??? OK – I have no idea how to write the last half of that script to agree with the trinity.
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with G-d and man.
G-d does not increase in wisdom, He is and always has been all knowing. G-d does not increase in favor with Himself.
John 7: 16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
If Jesus was G-d the doctrine would be his own.
“My doctrine is my own, I sent myself here” Is that how it should read?
John 17:1 THESE words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
G-d does not pray to himself, He does not glorify Himself, He does not give power to Himself…
“And Jesus, looking at Himself in a mirror (not to another being in heaven, looking at himself) said to himself, the hour is come for me to glorify myself. I will dress up as another person so that they will think another person glorifies me…. I will now use my power that I had all along over all flesh and will give life to as many as I have given myself.” Is that how you think it should read? Well, it does not read that way.
John 17: 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my G-d, and your G-d.
Jesus ascended to his Father indicating that His Father was at a different place that Jesus was.
Acts 2:3 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
If Father and Son and Holy Ghost were numerically one, how could Jesus be at the right hand of God? How would He be exalted? And why would He need to have received a promise of the Holy Ghost?
Mark 15: 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me?
G-d does not forsake Himself. He does not cry out to Himself. He is not schizophrenic…
Jesus is the Son of God. Heavenly Father and Jesus are 2 different beings.
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three *men (people - Strong's H582) stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground…
Abraham himself describes the G-dhead as three separate people.
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
G-d is all knowing and unchanging. He does not “learn” anything or “become” anything G-d is not “made” to do anything.
1 Tim 2: 5 For there is one G-d, and one mediator between G-d and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Jesus is not G-d, he is the mediator between G-d and men. a mediator is not for one party only - if there's a mediator, there have to be two parties
Matt 3: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Is G-d pleased with H—self? Love H—self? If the trinity were true, this should read
“A voice came from within Jesus (not from heaven) saying this is me myself and I, I am pleased with myself.” – does that make sense to you?
Luke 22: 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
In this instance, the will of Jesus is different than the will of the Father – two different people with two different wills.
Can you rewrite this scripture to agree with the trinity doctrine? Here it is:
Jesus, talking to himself, said unto himself, I really should not go through with this, nevertheless, not my will but my other will be done??? OK – I have no idea how to write the last half of that script to agree with the trinity.
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with G-d and man.
G-d does not increase in wisdom, He is and always has been all knowing. G-d does not increase in favor with Himself.
John 7: 16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
If Jesus was G-d the doctrine would be his own.
“My doctrine is my own, I sent myself here” Is that how it should read?
John 17:1 THESE words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
G-d does not pray to himself, He does not glorify Himself, He does not give power to Himself…
“And Jesus, looking at Himself in a mirror (not to another being in heaven, looking at himself) said to himself, the hour is come for me to glorify myself. I will dress up as another person so that they will think another person glorifies me…. I will now use my power that I had all along over all flesh and will give life to as many as I have given myself.” Is that how you think it should read? Well, it does not read that way.
John 17: 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my G-d, and your G-d.
Jesus ascended to his Father indicating that His Father was at a different place that Jesus was.
Acts 2:3 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
If Father and Son and Holy Ghost were numerically one, how could Jesus be at the right hand of God? How would He be exalted? And why would He need to have received a promise of the Holy Ghost?
Mark 15: 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me?
G-d does not forsake Himself. He does not cry out to Himself. He is not schizophrenic…
Jesus is the Son of God. Heavenly Father and Jesus are 2 different beings.
Last edited:
idea
Question Everything
Isaac Newton's religious views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"...A manuscript he sent to John Locke in which he disputed the existence of the Trinity was never published.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that Newton — like many contemporaries — would have faced severe punishment "