Is Trinity in the Bible?

[wmam]

Both the word "TRINITY" and the concept of a triune God are not found in the bible. Some like to make the argument for a 3-in-one GOD based on the same few scriptures that, on the outset, seem to support that. However, if you research it you will find that the Catholic church took the idea of three gods in one from the Pagan three-headed gods worshipped around them. This mixing of Pagan beliefs with "Christianity"was done to increase the church rolls, and thus the coffers and to solidify its standing as a political force of the time. Now the doctrin is merely, accepted as Biblical fact with only a few true students willing to question its validity.
As for the scriptures used to support the Trinity most are taken out of context and some have even been altered from their original greek text to lend credence to the false doctrin.
Again, a careful study of the scriptures will reveal that the vast majority of verses support the idea that GOD ALMIGHTY is one being, JESUS is his son and a totally seperate being, and, THE HOLY SPIRIT is NOT a being but is in fact GOD's ACTIVE FORCE by which he gets things accomplished according to his will.

Though you will be forever hounded on this forum for what I am about to say, I feel it necessary to show that your post is one that I personally agree with almost more than any other that I have seen here.

Peace

 

[may]

Both the word "TRINITY" and the concept of a triune God are not found in the bible. Some like to make the argument for a 3-in-one GOD based on the same few scriptures that, on the outset, seem to support that. However, if you research it you will find that the Catholic church took the idea of three gods in one from the Pagan three-headed gods worshipped around them. This mixing of Pagan beliefs with "Christianity"was done to increase the church rolls, and thus the coffers and to solidify its standing as a political force of the time. Now the doctrin is merely, accepted as Biblical fact with only a few true students willing to question its validity.
As for the scriptures used to support the Trinity most are taken out of context and some have even been altered from their original greek text to lend credence to the false doctrin.
Again, a careful study of the scriptures will reveal that the vast majority of verses support the idea that GOD ALMIGHTY is one being, JESUS is his son and a totally seperate being, and, THE HOLY SPIRIT is NOT a being but is in fact GOD's ACTIVE FORCE by which he gets things accomplished according to his will.

nice one, acurate knowledge indeed

 

[Katzpur]

Both the word "TRINITY" and the concept of a triune God are not found in the bible. Some like to make the argument for a 3-in-one GOD based on the same few scriptures that, on the outset, seem to support that. However, if you research it you will find that the Catholic church took the idea of three gods in one from the Pagan three-headed gods worshipped around them. This mixing of Pagan beliefs with "Christianity"was done to increase the church rolls, and thus the coffers and to solidify its standing as a political force of the time. Now the doctrin is merely, accepted as Biblical fact with only a few true students willing to question its validity.
As for the scriptures used to support the Trinity most are taken out of context and some have even been altered from their original greek text to lend credence to the false doctrin.

I agree with much of what you've said, but I think your idea that the doctrine of the Trinity originated with a pagan three-headed god is a bit far out. It would be far more accurate to attribute the doctrine to the influx of Greek philosophy. Most of the learned men of that time -- the men who actually established the doctrine of the Trinity -- had been educated in Greek schools where neo-platonism was the commonly accepted means of defining the world, man, and God. By the fourth century, the Church was pretty well steeped in Greek culture, and it was according to Greek philosophical thought that the scriptures were interpreted. It was difficult for someone trained to think in metaphysical terms to to understand scriptures. As a matter of fact, it was far easier to simply ignore what the scriptures said about God when they didn't fit the neo-platonic mold of what God supposedly had to be. The first-century Christians had a far more accurate understanding of (1) the nature of God, (2) the relationship between God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and (3) the relationship between the human and the divine than their fourth century counterparts.

Again, a careful study of the scriptures will reveal that the vast majority of verses support the idea that GOD ALMIGHTY is one being, JESUS is his son and a totally seperate being, and, THE HOLY SPIRIT is NOT a being but is in fact GOD's ACTIVE FORCE by which he gets things accomplished according to his will.

Again, I agree with you up to a point. There are literally dozens of scriptures than simply cannot be understood when you attempt to interpret them by trinitarian logic. I could provide example after example, as I'm sure you could, that simply don't make sense if you see the Father and the Son as both being parts of a single, invisible substance. They are two separate individuals, physically distinct from one another. They are "one" in terms of their unity of will and purpose. They think and act as "one," but they are not physically "one."

At the point where you described the Holy Spirit as "God's Active Force," you kind of gave yourself away. The only Christian denomination I am aware of that uses this terminology is the Jehovah's Witnesses. For some reason, the JWs don't seem (at least generally) to like to divulge their denomination on this forum. Maybe its out of fear of being ridiculed. That doesn't happen a lot on this forum, incidentally. People who cannot respect one another's differences are generally just asked to leave. So, if you are a JW, I would appreciate your simply admitting it. If you're not, would you mind explaining your use of their unique terminology.

I don't believe that the Holy Ghost (this is the term I personally prefer) is the third member of the Godhead mentioned in the scriptures. I believe that, unlike the Father and the Son, He is an unembodied spirit. In a sense, this makes Him God's active force, but He too is separate from God the Father, because God the Father, like His Son Jesus Christ, also has a spirit of His own. The Holy Ghost is the means by which the Father communicates to mankind. Since the Spirit is physically omnipresent (unlike the Father and the Son who physically reside in Heaven), He can be present wherever He is needed to reveal God's will to man. He is a Comforter, a Revelator and a Teacher who exists apart from the Father and the Son.

 

[searcher63]

Hi Searcher,

Welcome to the Forum;


That's an interesting 'take' on the Trinity; have you any reference to substantiate your belief (I must asmit it is a new one on me!)



As I notice that this is your first visit here, perhaps you would like to introduce yourself to the other members, by posting on:- Are you new to ReligiousForums.com?

Please feel free to ask questions, if you have any. You might like to check out our article with links for our newer members; from there, there is also a link to the forum rules which you ought to see.

I hope you'll like it here, and I look forward to seeing you around.

Hello: Mchel, Thanks for the warm welcome!
There is a great OLD OLD book called:' THE TWO BABYLONS'. I wish I still had a copy! It was written in the late 1800's I believe by an ex Catholic priest and historian. In that work he outlines a vast aray of examples of how the early church (years after the death of the apostles) incorporated a number of pagan teachings into their own. Its pretty revealing!! I've had a number of discussions with people who have said:" Why does it matter what the origin of a teaching is as long as I beleve it for the RIGHT REASONS. I feel that that way of believing is in effect saying to GOD:" I really dont care if your word clearly says how YOU feel about PAGANISM...I am going to believe these things anyway..because I love you GOD!" Its a pretty convoluted way of reasoning in my opinion. Anyway I hope that you can find that reference book. And again thank you for welcoming me.

 

[searcher63]

I agree with much of what you've said, but I think your idea that the doctrine of the Trinity originated with a pagan three-headed god is a bit far out. It would be far more accurate to attribute the doctrine to the influx of Greek philosophy. Most of the learned men of that time -- the men who actually established the doctrine of the Trinity -- had been educated in Greek schools where neo-platonism was the commonly accepted means of defining the world, man, and God. By the fourth century, the Church was pretty well steeped in Greek culture, and it was according to Greek philosophical thought that the scriptures were interpreted. It was difficult for someone trained to think in metaphysical terms to to understand scriptures. As a matter of fact, it was far easier to simply ignore what the scriptures said about God when they didn't fit the neo-platonic mold of what God supposedly had to be. The first-century Christians had a far more accurate understanding of (1) the nature of God, (2) the relationship between God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and (3) the relationship between the human and the divine than their fourth century counterparts.

Again, I agree with you up to a point. There are literally dozens of scriptures than simply cannot be understood when you attempt to interpret them by trinitarian logic. I could provide example after example, as I'm sure you could, that simply don't make sense if you see the Father and the Son as both being parts of a single, invisible substance. They are two separate individuals, physically distinct from one another. They are "one" in terms of their unity of will and purpose. They think and act as "one," but they are not physically "one."

At the point where you described the Holy Spirit as "God's Active Force," you kind of gave yourself away. The only Christian denomination I am aware of that uses this terminology is the Jehovah's Witnesses. For some reason, the JWs don't seem (at least generally) to like to divulge their denomination on this forum. Maybe its out of fear of being ridiculed. That doesn't happen a lot on this forum, incidentally. People who cannot respect one another's differences are generally just asked to leave. So, if you are a JW, I would appreciate your simply admitting it. If you're not, would you mind explaining your use of their unique terminology.

I don't believe that the Holy Ghost (this is the term I personally prefer) is the third member of the Godhead mentioned in the scriptures. I believe that, unlike the Father and the Son, He is an unembodied spirit. In a sense, this makes Him God's active force, but He too is separate from God the Father, because God the Father, like His Son Jesus Christ, also has a spirit of His own. The Holy Ghost is the means by which the Father communicates to mankind. Since the Spirit is physically omnipresent (unlike the Father and the Son who physically reside in Heaven), He can be present wherever He is needed to reveal God's will to man. He is a Comforter, a Revelator and a Teacher who exists apart from the Father and the Son.

You have made some very strong and well thought out points. As for my denomination. I'm unclear WHY that is exactly important to you. It has been my observation that when one reveals his affiliation (if any) then pre-concieved notions invariably creep in and any argument (however steeped in fact it may be) gets shoved aside.I like to think of myself as a bible student. Im interested in the search for truth that all conscientious Christians must strive for. I mean NO disrespect whatsoever to you by not answering directly your question and I hope my reasons why made some sense. Thank you again for your reply.

 

[Katzpur]

You have made some very strong and well thought out points. As for my denomination. I'm unclear WHY that is exactly important to you. It has been my observation that when one reveals his affiliation (if any) then pre-concieved notions invariably creep in and any argument (however steeped in fact it may be) gets shoved aside.

You're absolutely right. The only reason it matters to me in the slightest is that it's sometimes easier to interact with people if you know where they're coming from. In other words, I might respond to a Catholic by mentioning certain points I would see no point in bringing up if I were debating with a Protestant. But I know for a fact that pre-conceived notions about one's religious beliefs often get in the way of informed discussion on a topic. There have been many, many times that people have simply dismissed my opinions as having no merit for no other reason than that they know I'm LDS. It doesn't seem to matter at all what I have to say on a subject. If people know my denominational affiliation, they won't even bother having a discussion with me. In fact, I once knew an LDS guy on a forum who didn't ever tell anyone he was LDS. I could tell he was from the terminology he used and from his perspective in talking about certain subjects. (He finally confessed to me that he was LDS). Anyway, let me tell you: He had some great discussions and got people to re-examine their beliefs. I've often wished that I'd come here incognito myself. Alas, it's too late now! So I do respect your right to privacy for the reasons you mentioned.

 

[searcher63]

You're absolutely right. The only reason it matters to me in the slightest is that it's sometimes easier to interact with people if you know where they're coming from. In other words, I might respond to a Catholic by mentioning certain points I would see no point in bringing up if I were debating with a Protestant. But I know for a fact that pre-conceived notions about one's religious beliefs often get in the way of informed discussion on a topic. There have been many, many times that people have simply dismissed my opinions as having no merit for no other reason than that they know I'm LDS. It doesn't seem to matter at all what I have to say on a subject. If people know my denominational affiliation, they won't even bother having a discussion with me. In fact, I once knew an LDS guy on a forum who didn't ever tell anyone he was LDS. I could tell he was from the terminology he used and from his perspective in talking about certain subjects. (He finally confessed to me that he was LDS). I've often wished that I'd come here incognito myself. Alas, it's too late now! So I do respect your right to privacy for the reasons you mentioned.

Thank you.
You seem to be a very thoughtful individual! Ive found out (the hard way) to let the discussion unfold without all the hangups that imperfect people place on themselves (I.E. Labels, stereotypes, etc.) I feel also that the devil has used religion over the centuries to divide people and to turn people off from their search for GOD. When Christ walked this earth there was but ONE truth....Now look what we have! LOL! Nice chattin with you!

 

[searcher63]

Thank you.
You seem to be a very thoughtful individual! Ive found out (the hard way) to let the discussion unfold without all the hangups that imperfect people place on themselves (I.E. Labels, stereotypes, etc.) I feel also that the devil has used religion over the centuries to divide people and to turn people off from their search for GOD. When Christ walked this earth there was but ONE truth....Now look what we have! LOL! Nice chattin with you!

P.S.: I have known many LDS individuals and have a great respect for the bravery it takes to conduct their public ministry as well as their strong emphasis on family!

 

[greatcalgarian]

Hello: Mchel, Thanks for the warm welcome!
There is a great OLD OLD book called:' THE TWO BABYLONS'. I wish I still had a copy! It was written in the late 1800's I believe by an ex Catholic priest and historian. In that work he outlines a vast aray of examples of how the early church (years after the death of the apostles) incorporated a number of pagan teachings into their own. Its pretty revealing!! I've had a number of discussions with people who have said:" Why does it matter what the origin of a teaching is as long as I beleve it for the RIGHT REASONS. I feel that that way of believing is in effect saying to GOD:" I really dont care if your word clearly says how YOU feel about PAGANISM...I am going to believe these things anyway..because I love you GOD!" Its a pretty convoluted way of reasoning in my opinion. Anyway I hope that you can find that reference book. And again thank you for welcoming me.

Is this the book you referred to?
http://www.kjvuser.com/twobabylons/default.htm

[font=Comic Sans MS, Times New Roman]The Two Babylons
or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod
and His Wife
By the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop [/font]
​

[font=Comic Sans MS, Times New Roman]First published as a pamphlet in 1853--greatly expanded in 1858[/font]

 

[searcher63]

Is this the book you referred to?
http://www.kjvuser.com/twobabylons/default.htm

[font=Comic Sans MS, Times New Roman]The Two Babylons ​

or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod
and His Wife
By the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop [/font]

[font=Comic Sans MS, Times New Roman]First published as a pamphlet in 1853--greatly expanded in 1858[/font]

YES! Thank you! That is the book. Its quite revealing and the fact that it comes from an ex-Priest/historian who left the church after uncovering these facts makes it all the more telling. It's a bit of a deep read. But well worth it.

 

[searcher63]

It all depends on how you interpret the Bible, Kat. I believe they are all the same. The beginning of the Gospel of John. To me, that says that God and Jesus are one in the same.

JOHN 1:1 Opens up a whole can of worms!
That is ONE scripture where the early catholic church manipulated the verse to fit the trinity concept. I'm not a conspiracy kook. All you have to do is check out the verse using a GREEK DIAGLOT which shows how the verse would have been read from its original greek translation.
Another passage trinitarians use : (Jesus praying) " I wish my followers could be ONE just as YOU AND I ARE ONE" Was jesus telling his father he wished his followers could be part of some trinity?? Or was he simply saying he wished his followers had the same closeness, the same unity of purpose and thought that he and his father shared? Remember his disciples were constantly arguing who was the greater among them.
Heres another: (jesus)"He who has seen me has seen the father also". Again look at the context. Read the verses surrounding the text. He is clearly showing that He and his father are so close that Jesus is like a mirror Image of his father.
We could go on and on...but the one that puts the nail in the coffin on the trinity debate for me is:"Jesus is the FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION". He was created! ALMIGHTY GOD HAS BEEN AROUND FOR ETERNITY. HE HAS NO BEGINNING.
P.S.: Just to countersink the nail in the coffin: Please reason on this. Did Christ DIE for our sins? If your answer is yes. Who raised him up. If a part of him lived on in a trinity then he was not fully dead therefore the ransom sacrifice is null and void. If you say NO, he was completely dead. Then he was not part of a trinity, and a seperate being raised him up. Its really no more complicated then that. The fact that a "DEBATE" rages on is more proof that SATAN uses confusing concepts like this to disorientate people and lead them away from the truth of GODS word.

 

[searcher63]

I am not sure that we need to confer such a negative attribute here. More often than not, most people associated with Christianity have much more noble goals. Until such time as I see raw manipulation, I assume that most people have the truth as their motive, just like I do.

I am not confering a negative attribute at all. merely stating historical fact. I am sure it is another black eye that the Catholic Church would love to re-write from history. ( like the inquisition, sexscandals, etc.)Unfortunately for them there are far too many non-catholic historians out there.

 

[wmam]

I am not confering a negative attribute at all. merely stating historical fact. I am sure it is another black eye that the Catholic Church would love to re-write from history. ( like the inquisition, sexscandals, etc.)Unfortunately for them there are far too many non-catholic historians out there.

I'm really liking you right now.......... What you have said thus far is, just that simple. Great post and many frubals to you.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I am not confering a negative attribute at all. merely stating historical fact. I am sure it is another black eye that the Catholic Church would love to re-write from history. ( like the inquisition, sexscandals, etc.)Unfortunately for them there are far too many non-catholic historians out there.

Actually,

You are stating SELECTIVE historical facts. You have left out the COUNTLESS numbers of priests and pastors who have served the Lord faithfully. You are parroting the world in this, and not seeing the incredible amount of GOOD that has been done. But if you are into cheap sensationalism, then by all means keep distorting!

 

[searcher63]

Actually,

You are stating SELECTIVE historical facts. You have left out the COUNTLESS numbers of priests and pastors who have served the Lord faithfully. You are parroting the world in this, and not seeing the incredible amount of GOOD that has been done. But if you are into cheap sensationalism, then by all means keep distorting!

I am not distorting at all. There is no doubt that certain individuals within an organization ( even a corrupt one) can do great acts . Mother Teresa comes to mind. She was completely selfless. I really have wondered about this. All i can come up with is that the Church holds people through fear. If you leave, your faced with eternal damnation in a fiery torment. ( thats a whole other disgusting lie for another discussion)
People are drawn to "TRADITIONS". " It was my parents religion, and their parents before them, and so on...if it was good enough for them, then its good enough for me!" Seems to be common thinking among many people. Another reason may be the old adage:"Theres safety in numbers". Perhaps some feel that the Church must have GODS approval because look how many people belong to it.
Whatever the reasons, to stay in an organization that blatently disregards basic scripture (i.e. Trinity, Hellfire,Worshipping saints, etc.) and disregards human life (Encouraging parishoners to be involved in man-made wars.... even going so far as to say GOD is on "OUR" side...something that was spouted by both German, and American Priests during world war two..while at the same time German Priests knowingly turned a blind eye to the attrocities carried out by the Nazis)to stay in such an organization is to ignore history altogether...not just the history of the organization itself..but more importantly, the history of how god views such groups and what he has done to like minded groups in the past.

 

[searcher63]

I'm really liking you right now.......... What you have said thus far is, just that simple. Great post and many frubals to you.

Thanks...but whats a frubal? :bounce

 

[michel]

I am not distorting at all. There is no doubt that certain individuals within an organization ( even a corrupt one) can do great acts . Mother Teresa comes to mind. She was completely selfless. I really have wondered about this. All i can come up with is that the Church holds people through fear. If you leave, your faced with eternal damnation in a fiery torment. ( thats a whole other disgusting lie for another discussion)
People are drawn to "TRADITIONS". " It was my parents religion, and their parents before them, and so on...if it was good enough for them, then its good enough for me!" Seems to be common thinking among many people. Another reason may be the old adage:"Theres safety in numbers". Perhaps some feel that the Church must have GODS approval because look how many people belong to it.
Whatever the reasons, to stay in an organization that blatently disregards basic scripture (i.e. Trinity, Hellfire,Worshipping saints, etc.) and disregards human life (Encouraging parishoners to be involved in man-made wars.... even going so far as to say GOD is on "OUR" side...something that was spouted by both German, and American Priests during world war two..while at the same time German Priests knowingly turned a blind eye to the attrocities carried out by the Nazis)to stay in such an organization is to ignore history altogether...not just the history of the organization itself..but more importantly, the history of how god views such groups and what he has done to like minded groups in the past.

I am sorry, I can't sit here and read this without replying.
a) There is no such thing as a corrupt organization......there may be some corrupt people in the organization.

b) All i can come up with is that the Church holds people through fear. If you leave, your faced with eternal damnation in a fiery torment. ( thats a whole other disgusting lie for another discussion)

That is unadulterated rubbish, as you call the fact that "If you leave, your faced with eternal damnation in a fiery torment. thats a whole other disgusting lie for another discussion)"
You are saying that you can prove it is a lie, please produce the facts, or retract that statement.

I'll leave it at that, your last paragraph is full of other unsubstantiated accusations, but that seems to be all you can come up with......

 

[Scuba Pete]

There are those who concentrate on the negatives and miss the positives: Sucks to be them.

There are those who build themselves up by tearing others down: Sucks to be them.

Interesting confession: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1071456

The Catholic Church's document: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html

 

[searcher63]

There are those who concentrate on the negatives and miss the positives: Sucks to be them.

There are those who build themselves up by tearing others down: Sucks to be them.

Interesting confession: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1071456

The Catholic Church's document: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html

religioustolerance.org (search catholic church/holocaust)

 

[searcher63]

religioustolerance.org (search catholic church/holocaust)

P.S.: I guess the death of over 3 million innocent men, women, and children is a "negative", that unlike Pope pious at the time, I cant ignore.