Madhuri's question - the nature of the christian trinity

[Clear]

POST ONE OF FOUR


Madhuri;

I apologize that I did not offer much in the thread you started regarding why there are differing beliefs among christians regarding the Trinity. You asked :

I have only recently found out that a lot of Christians (predominantly Protestants, I gather) do not believe in the concept of the Trinity. But you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. So what does it mean to not believe in the trinity? I am thoroughly confused.

I feel empathy for any non-christian trying to understand the myriads of Christian theories. However, to give specific context, might I describe the core controversy I am commenting on?

I believe that ALL Christians (with extremely rare exception) believe 1) that there is a Lord God (the father of a messiah); 2) believe in Jesus (as the son of God) and 3) they believe in the Holy Spirit (as a revelator). I do not think there is much controversy over whether these three entities (i.e. the “trinity&#8221 exist, but rather the core controversy regards their individual natures and their relationship to one another. An overly simple description of this controversy is whether these three entities are actually THREE SEPARATE entities, or if they are ONE SINGLE entity having three separate manifestations.

In the thread you started, a Christian claimed that the bible is clear on the nature of the trinity and those (millions of Christians) who do not believe as he did, simply misunderstood the bible. I simply wanted to provide a counterpoint to this claim as a comparison. I do not want to debate, but merely discuss the “clarity” of modern biblical text and offer some reasons as to why I think many, many of the world’s Christians believe that the “trinity” exists as THREE SEPARATE entities rather than ONE SINGLE entity with multiple manifestations. (Either view creates additional controversies). I am also speaking from the context of a Christian that came from a “Three is really One” Christian belief; and became convinced of and moved into a “Three is really Three” Christian belief. I also admit that I don’t spend much time with modern christian theory, but my interest lies in the early Christian beliefs in their earliest periods.

The data and reasoning underlying the belief that The Father; the Son; and the Holy Ghost are separate individuals is different for the modern and typical “sunday school” christians than it is for the “historian-christian”. In this regard, I should point out that the belief in a trinity made up by “three individuals”, whether correct or incorrect, existed before Jesus time as the Jewish records describing the trinity attest (I’ll give examples later). As one moves backward in time through ancient texts, the evidence for three-individuals becomes even stronger. This is a small part of the reasoning behind the assertion that the “three is really one” theory originated and became more popular a few centuries AFTER Jesus when an evolving Christianity is trying to define such doctrines. (Origen, admits that the christians of his day had not even come to decide if God the Father was embodied or not).

If this assertion is true, then we should see textual evidence of this. And we do. In fact, as one looks further and further back in time in Judao-Christian history, the textual descriptions of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost become ever more clearly descriptions of individuals. Conversely, as one moves away from the earliest Judao-Christianity, then Christian textual descriptions evolve and begin to describe the various “three is really one” type of Trinity.

With this as a basic context, perhaps I can offer a few examples of why I think many modern christians believe that the God head / trinity, is made up of three individuals.




1) INDICATIONS OF “UNITY” OF THE FATHER; THE SON; AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
There are many, many textual indications where the trinity are described by terms used for separate individuals. Though there are a few textual indications that indicate the trinity are one individual, they seem, on the surface, to be fairly strong.


One wishes both to know what the original text read and that the NT text was clearer. Many Judao-Christian texts are very clear that the earlier doctrines show they are different individuals, and later texts are the ones upon which the trinity is based. However, the earlier the text, the more clearly the non-trinitarian view is expoused.


“ONENESS”
For examples : A frequent theme described in christian texts is UNITY. Translators of biblical text have Jesus say “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) If the translators are correct, using the word "one" for their relationship, what then is the underlying meaning of the concept “oneness” mean? Not only is Jesus “one” with his Father, but Jesus teaches the same principle by the same words for other relationships that are obviously NOT “one” in reality. A man is to “... cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. (Matthew 19:3-6). No one assumes that the man and wife lose their individual bodies and other individual characteristics, but that some other sort of unity is meant by such phrases.

Speaking to his disciples Jesus says he will ask the Father to send a comforter to them and “20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” John 14:20-23. The same difficulty exists with the concept of being “in” the father in the same way the disciples are to be “in” Jesus and Jesus is “in” them. We are dealing with a different symbology using different idioms than we are used to using. And in this, we must be careful.

For example : In prayer, Jesus lifts up his eyes to heaven (presumably to another entity which was unnecessary if HE WAS that same entity) and asks for his disciples : “21 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 the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:21-22) It is obvious that Jesus is saying that he is “in the father” and that he indicates that “we are one”, but he then asks (and clarifies) that the disciples also “be one, even as we (God and Jesus) are one". It stretches rationality to suppose this means the godhead to include the 12 disciples. It is more rational to assume a different type of unity is meant by such phrases. A sort of unity that men can have with one another and a type of unity men can have with Jesus and with God the Father. Clarification is missing in such descriptions.


THE PROBLEM OF TEXTUAL CORRUPTION AND LACK OF CLARITY

Just as there are discrepancies between all known early manuscript families of the New Testament, Our Modern texts derived from them are not without errors, nor are the trinity proof texts free of error. Some of these errors are unknown, but some have been known for many years.

For example : 1 John v.7 has been used as a proof-text for the trinity : ‘There are three that witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are at one. There are three that witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus, and there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit’.

However, it has long been recognized that the text starting with “There are three that witness” to the end, is not IN any early Greek New Testament Text, but rather, it represents a later, spurious addition to the text. Textual changes and errors do not tell us anything about the original text, but they do indicate the nature of doctrinal changes within christianity. When fictitious textual changes occurred, they usually are done to reflect the doctrinal bias of their authors. Once doctrinal trains are moving they are difficult to correct or stop.

For example : When Erasmus is one of the first scholars who shocked contemporaries by omitting the false text for the trinity in 1 John v.7. The outcry was so great that he he foolishly promised to insert the reference if it could be found in ANY Greek manuscript (since it did not exist in the earliest Greek manuscripts that anyone knew of). However, someone found a “late and worthless“ manuscript with the text that had been rendered into Greek. Reluctantly, he inserted the text back into his second edition in 1519. Luther, who had made no rash promises and thus his version did NOT include the text (unfortunately, the KJV did). Initially, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, endorsed the text as authentic, but this endorsement was reversed forty years later as it became undeniable that the text was one of the later additions to the text. Even during the reformation, Scholars knew Erasmus was correct in culling spurious additions to the New Testament Text. However, what is to be done with unknown additions; mistranslations; lack of a critical text; or even simple lack of clarity.

POST TWO OF FOUR FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF FOUR

Textual problems have been obvious for a many years, but it is impossible with current knowledge to correct all such textual errors, deletions, and spurious additions. It is equally impossible to say with certainty what the original text was. A very strong and often used passage for the “three is one” trinity is John 14:8-11 :

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. (John 14:8-11)

The difficulty with this passage is that, without additional context, it can easily be taken to support the later theory of “three is one” trinity, or it is equally suitable to support the earlier “three is three” trinity simply based on the context and the actual context surrounding the question Phillip asked. Did phillip REALLY ask something so presumptive as to be shown God the Father or did phillip ask to be shown what the father is like, or did phillip ask some another similar question. I think THIS text is the one that would best support the theory of a “three is one” trinity, IF one doesn’t consider any other historical issues.



2) INDICATIONS OF INDIVIDUALITY IN THE TRINITY
Though there are a few texts supporting the “three is really one” christian trinity, there are many, many texts which support the “three is really three” christian trinity. The indications of three individuals making up the trinity is not merely strong, but it becomes “obvious” as one moves into the early Christian and Judao-Christian texts as I hope to show.

Underlying Jesus existence (premortal, mortal and post mortal) are consistent indications that he is different in many important ways from God his Father. For examples :

The many examples where Jesus prays to his Father is perfectly fine if he is talking to another individual but irrational if he is talking to “himself”. Jesus many requests to the Father fits the typical a request of another individual, but is irrational if he is making an oral request of “himself”. Even the posturing of jesus “looking up” in prayer fits speaking to another individual “in heaven” but is irrational if speaking to ones self. Such communications are all made rational by simply assuming individuality in the Trinity.

On the mount of transfiguration, a voice comes out of the cloud saying :

This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (Matthew 17:1-5; 31)

It feels more easily justifiable that the voice is a separate individual who is pleased with Jesus as a Son than to pull it from that context and represent it as Jesus being pleased with himself. The same principle holds true with all such declarations from heaven about Jesus such as at Jesus baptism when

... and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3:16;

The descriptions in the scriptures regarding the relationship of the Father to his son are easily placed into the context of the Father and Son as separate individuals. Not so if they are the same beings. For example : Paul speaks of God the Father thusly :

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? (Rom 8:31-32)

It is less rational if God spares himself rather than sparing his son as a separate entity..

When Jesus’ soul was “troubled” as he speaks of asking his Father to save him, it is less rational to believe that he is speaking of “asking himself” to “save himself”, but rather it is more rational that he speaks of asking another individual to save him from this hour : 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. (John 12:27-28 )

It is not simply the modern Christians who believe that God the Father is separate from the son, but the early Christians also spake and thought of and interpreted the scriptures as speaking of The Father and the Son as separate individuals.

For example, speaking of Genesis 1:26 Barnabas explains :

: For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea.” And when he saw that our creation was good, the Lord said: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.” These things he said to the Son" (The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12)

To understand THIS single point regarding early christianity provides context for how the early christians interpreted their texts : How then, would barnabas and early christians have viewed the trinity in view of the text :

“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1-2)

The earliest Christian testimonies regarding the Father and the Son are more rational in the context of separate individuals; they need less rhetorical support, if the Father and the Son are separate individuals. For example, steven testifies :

And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Acts 7:55-56;

IN ALMOST ALL CASES, CHRISTIANITIES THAT ASSUMED GOD AND JESUS AND THE HOLY GHOST ARE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS HAS LESS NEED FOR COMPLICATED EXPLANATION; LESS NEED FOR RHETORICAL SUPPORT; LESS NEED FOR COMPLICATED MODELS EXPLAINING THEIR POSITION THAN THE CHRISTIANITIES THAT BELIEVE THAT THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY GHOST ARE THE SAME INDIVIDUAL.



Consider what early Christians themselves wrote from the time period when the apostles are still alive or the writers lived during the lives of the apostles :

Ignatius speaks of a christian named Crocus who had “refreshed” him and says “...may the Father of Jesus Christ likewise refresh him” (Ignatius to the Ephesians 2:1) Bishop Ignatius is referring to the Father as an individual. Polycarp uses the same context :

“Now, may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness...” (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 12:2)

Not only do they teach of them as individuals, but place them on different levels, it is clear that it is the Father who raised Jesus (jesus does NOT “raise himself).

“...may he give to you a share and a place among his saints,...and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.” (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 12:2)

These are Bishops and orthodox teachers in period of the early apostolic fathers. Even the earlier sacred texts make it clear that The Father is separate from the Son. Enoch, speaking of his vision of pre-earth “heaven” makes this clear.

; “1 At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the “chief of days.” (A euphamism for the Lord of Spirits, or God the Father). And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. 2 And I asked the one–from among the angels–who was going with me, and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings, “Who is this, and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?”. 3 And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. (1st Enoch 46:1-6)

It is not just clear that they were individuals but it is also clear that they were not equals. The Father was always the LORD God, over all other, including the son. Consider the principle of Authority and knowledge of the Father versus the authority and knowledge of Jesus.



POST TWO OF FOUR FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF FOUR



3) THE DIFFERENCE OF AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN JESUS AND GOD THE FATHER

JESUS HAS LESS AUTHORITY THAN HIS FATHER

When asked to allow them to sit next to him in heaven, Jesus declined and defers to another will, that of his Father :

...Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. (Matthew 20:23)

37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. [...] 40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. (Mark 10:37,40)

Jesus does NOT take unto himself the same authority as the Father, but admits the father is greater : “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)


THE FATHER COMMANDS AND SENDS THE SON. THE SON IS OBEDIENT TO THE FATHER, NEVER THE OPPOSITE.'

“But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence. ( John 15:31)

The ancient christians understood that God the Father delegates to Jesus, what level of authority he will and they understood this principle. “ How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Acts 10:38)

It is NOT Jesus who “raised up himself”, but God the Father raises him :

“And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Cor 6:14

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead Gal 1:1

“...how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. 1 Thess 1:9-10

Christians spoke of the power of God “ Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,.... 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Eph 1:20-22; “ It is God the Father who gives jesus authority; who sends Jesus and whom Jesus obeys.

...the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor 11:3

Not only does Jesus have less authority than his Father, but he has less knowledge than his Father as well. In speaking of the future, Jesus admits : “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mark 19:32) The father knows, but Jesus does not.

ALL SUCH REFERENCES ARE MADE LESS RATIONAL BY ASSUMING JESUS IS THE SAME AS HIS FATHER. THEY ARE ALL MORE RATIONAL IF JESUS AND HIS FATHER ARE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS.

Not only does Jesus have less authority and less knowledge than God the Father, but it is Jesus, who is servant of the father. This was very clear in the earliest Christianities.

“Let all the nations know that you are the only God, “that Jesus Christ is your servant, and that “we are your people and the sheep of your pasture.” (1 Clement 59:4)

They spoke of the Father as “the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, ....among all of them have chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved Servant, through whom you instructed us, sanctified us, honored us. (1 Clement 59:2-3)

The earliest Judao-christian understood and spoke of “...the all-seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ,. 1 Clement 64:1;

This chosing of Jesus by the LORD GOD was a clear and consistent theme in most of the earlier texts AND the doctrine becomes clearer the older the text as one approaches the time of Christ. Enoch speaks of this time period when in vision of the pre-mortal heaven.

...2 At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time .... 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall.” (1st Enoch 48:1-7)

When one understands this earliest christian model of the trinity, then Jewish Enoch and Christian Bartholomew texts correlate completely :

“Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life everyone who came to me.” The Gospel of Bartholomew CH IV

A return to the earliest doctrine of the trinity allows not only a correlation of doctrine between Jewish Enoch and christian Bartholomew and many, many, many of the earliest Judao-Christian texts, but even the later texts make greater sense. For example, the discourse given by Archbishop Timothy was able to make sense of the earliest doctrines while the early model of the trinity was used.

Referring to the Time when the pre-creation Jesus becomes “named’ or “chosen” as the savior “slain from the foundation of the world”, Jesus explains regarding the creation of Adam that God, his Father

“... took the clay from the hand of the angel, and made Adam according to Our image and likeness, and He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. And he heaved sighs over him daily, saying, “If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.” (Because of moral transgressions which God knows men will undergo)

Jesus explains to the apostles :

“And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.” And My Father said unto Me, “If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.” And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.”

Such quotes are completely clear that Jesus is NOT the Father, but a subordinate TO the Father.

To the earliest Judao-Christians, it made sense that Jesus was the Lamb Slain from the foundation of the world. He WAS chosen from the foundation of the world. If you remove God and Jesus from this early context, then the earliest Judao-Christian texts cannot make sense. IF you use the early Christian model for the trinity, then one can use the earliest texts to understand what the earliest Christians believed and taught and how such things made sense to THEM. In their context, it made perfect sense to refer to The Father and the Son as separate individuals “... they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. “Blessed be the name of the Lord of the Spirits.” (1st Enoch 48:10)

In the context of the earliest christians, it made perfect sense to the ancient Judo-Christians when the Son is given orders by his Father in the pre-creation heaven. :

... And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus, “Go out and descend through all the heavens...12 and they shall not know that you (are) with me when with the voice of the heavens I summon you...16 This command I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.” (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 10:6-16)

POST FOUR OF FOUR FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST FOUR OF FOUR (FOR THE PRESENT)


The decensus doctrine and it’s vast accompanying literature can make sense in this early christian context where the Father and the Son are separate individuals whereas taken out of context, it cannot make the same sense. In the early christian text, apocalypse of Abraham, Jesus, speaking to Abraham says : “I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God, creator of heavenly and earthly things, who has loved you....8 I am Iaoel...11 I am ordered to loosen Hades and to destroy those who wondered at the dead...” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 10:5, 11,14-17) Again, the pattern of Jesus being “sent” by the Father is clear. He is “ordered” to loosen Hades (a reference to christs descensus during the three days between death and resurrection). An entire genre of liturature (the early Christian descensus literature) makes more rational sense if Jesus is a separate individual from his Father. If they are the same, this ancient christian literature cannot correlate as rationally.

The apostles understood the concept of delegation of authority from God the Father, to the Son and then to them. “For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us." The gospel of Phillip;

I have to stop here (else I will not get anything else done today) and will pick up tomorrow on the principle of unity itself, which, I believe, contributes to the confusion regarding the nature of those individuals in the Christian trinity.

As I said, I do not want a debate, but simply to offer some reasons as to why many christians anciently and nowadeays do not believe that Jesus is the same individual as the Father (nor do they believe he is a different manifestation OF his Father)\, but rather believed / believe that Jesus is a different individual than the father (and a different individual than the holy spirit as well)

Clear
tzzt

 

[Clear]

POST FIVE - Last of the initial opening posts

Having established the underlying rationale for the reasons which many, many Christians believe that the trinity is made up of THREE individuals, rather than one three manifestations of ONE individual, I simply wanted to introduce the principle of unity, which, The Father and Son lived perfectly, but which the Christian Saints were to model and develop as well.


4) THE ETERNAL PRINCIPLE OF UNITY :

If God is in the process of preparing mankind to live in a social heaven where joy and harmony will exist forever, then he must teach men the moral principles upon which a social heaven is both created and sustained indefinitely.

One of these moral principles upon which joy and harmony is based, is UNITY, or “oneness”. There must be a profound agreement within an eternal social order for harmony to exist.

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. Acts 4:32;

For many, many Christians, both ancient and modern who believe God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are THREE INDIVIDUALS, it is the principle of complete unity of heart and soul and purposes that underlies the unity and agreement and their “oneness” rather than the theory that they are ONE INDIVIDUAL having three manifestations.

If one reads the scriptures and early Judao-Christian texts from this specific, contextual unity, then various descriptions the principle of unity are made more rational, not less. The texts require less rhetorical support and explanation. The texts are more simply understood. The meanings are clearer and more straightforward.

For example : Jesus tells the disciples :

“He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. Luke 10:16

It is not literally true that individuals hearing the voice of Peter are hearing the actual voice of Jesus, but rather they are hearing the same doctrine. It is because Peter taught doctrines Jesus gave him, and because Jesus taught doctrines his Father gave him, that one can say that one despises or rejects (or accepts) the Father’s doctrine by a rejection of Peters doctrine. Still, the Father, the Son and Peter remain separate individuals.




This same simple straightforward reading applies to many such declarations. If one despises Jesus by despising Peter as in the example above, then the same simple reading applies to an acceptance of Peter or Jesus or the Father. “...He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. (John 12:44)

Development of this sort of like minded unity was to apply to all disciples of Jesus. In many such descriptions, they were to learn to be “like minded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: 6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom 15:5)

“... a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. (Eph 5:31);

“... I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Cor 1:10)



The ancient christians were to learn to be “no respector of persons" regardless of nationality or riches or level of power. There was to be ".. neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:27-28)

The ancient christians were to endeavor “...to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.“ and remember that there was “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph 4:1-6) Christian were to learn to “... walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. (Phil 3:16) just as Jesus walked by the same rule as his Father taught him and he minded the same things as the Father minded. So were the saints to do, they were to “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” (Phil 2:5)

It is in THIS context that the earliest christian leaders taught the saints : “Let there be nothing among you which is capable of dividing you, but be united with the bishop and with those who lead, as an example and a lesson of incorruptibility.” (Ignatius to the Magnesians 6:2) The early saints were taught to “... glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified you, so that you, joined together in a united obedience and subject to the bishop and the presbytery, may be sanctified in every respect (Ignatius to the Ephesians 2:2)

The earliest Saints did not lose sight that the purpose of developing and perfecting the principle of social unity was to develop and learn to live in social HARMONY. Thus ignatius taught : “...I congratulate you who are united with him, as the church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the father, that all things might be harmonious in unity.” (Ignatius to the Ephesians 5:1) The saints were to “Be subject to the Bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was to the Father, and as the apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there might be unity, both physical and spiritual. (Ignatius to the Magnesians 13:2) They were to develop the type of unity the Father and the Son and the Apostles had taught them.

And, the purpose of and process of developing unity is part of the preparation of mankind to live in a social heaven where joy and harmony will exist forever for those who chose to obtain that principle of becoming “of one heart and of one soul” described in Acts 4:32, the same unity that the apostles were developing with Jesus, and the same unity that Jesus had developed with God, the Father.




MADHURI - I HOPE THAT I HAVE OFFERED SOME CLEAR AND SIMPLE REASONS AS TO WHY MANY, MANY CHRISTIANS, BOTH ANCIENTLY AND NOWADAYS, BELIEVE STRONGLY IN GOD THE FATHER; IN HIS SON JESUS; AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT AS THREE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE PROFOUNDLY UNIFIED IN HEART AND MIND AND PURPOSE AND THAT THE EARLY CHRISTIANS SAINTS WERE TO LEARN TO BE LIKE JESUS AND HIS FATHER IN THESE ATTRIBUTES.]

Clear
seseee

 

[Mister Emu]

As a note...

The idea that God is one individual with three manifestations is heretical in the orthodox framework

And a question Clear, on the Apocalypse of Abraham, I am not familiar with the text, but I read over the section you quoted, and can you tell me why you believe that it is Jesus speaking there? I didn't get that impression at all in my first reading.

 

[Pegg]

if something requires so much effort to explain, then surely it is a twisted tale indeed.

Perhaps Maduhri, you now understand why the trinity is such a huge issue between those christians who accept it and those who reject it.

 

[bhaktajan]

feel empathy for any non-christian trying to understand the myriads of Christian theories

"Brahman + Paramatma + Bhagavan"

GOD THE FATHER; IN HIS SON JESUS; AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT AS THREE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE PROFOUNDLY UNIFIED

"Brahman + Paramatma + Bhagavan"

now understand why the trinity is such a huge issue

"Brahman + Paramatma + Bhagavan"

According to scripture God exists in three aspects ---Here within this material world (material energy = creation-maintainance-destruction ~aka, material 'Elements' [earth, H2O, etc] in flux via the "3-Modes": passion-goodness-ignorance druing the passage of 'Time' = God's 'External energy').

This material world is composed of Three Main Ingredients --these 3 are God entoto --and we individual spirit souls, and, all material atom are roaming in the darkness of time seeking return to Heaven beyond this material worlds, to re-access face-to-face interpersonal reciropal pastimes with God in Heaven:

1 Brahman = The Void

2 Paramatma = The Spirit-force nucleus life-force of all animate & inanimate entities (ie: atoms, and, Souls).

3 Bhagavan = The personage of Godhead ---the unlimited reservior of his own name, fame, form, personality, paraphenalia, entourage and pastimes that are Transcendent to the rules/laws/functioning/control of 'material energy' and time-creation-maintainance-destruction.

Thus, According to scripture, 'Paramatma' , [para (paramount) + atma (soul)] is God's plenary expansion of His own 'Internal energy' here within this material world in the form of:
a] Material Elements (ie: atoms), and,
b] Conscious Living Spirit-Souls . . . here, taking repeted birth(s) in material bodies.

Re-Cap:
Material Energy = created-maintained-destroyed during time.
Spiritual Energy = eternal-conscious-blissful beyond influence of time.
The individual Soul = Conscious Life-Force that animates all species of material bodies.
God = The supreme personality of Godhead with his own 'self-inherited birthright' of being the source of Paramatma (localised presence of 'spirit' Life-Force of all individual souls and the nuclear 'material' force at the center of every atom)

First lesson of spiritual life:
"We are spirit souls in the material body"
IMO, this lesson is lost to material beings . . . and so, this is the prime lesson taught to humanity by the mysteries of Jesus Christ's earthly pastimes 2,011 years ago.

So, the trinity of God in Hindu metapyshics refers to the actual mechanics of God's energies and how they expand to form the Material Cosmos.

practicing my succinctness,
Bhaktajan

 

[Onkara]

"Brahman + Paramatma + Bhagavan"

This material world is composed of Three Main Ingredients --these 3 are God entoto --and we individual spirit souls, and, all material atom are roaming in the darkness of time seeking return to Heaven beyond this material worlds, to re-access face-to-face interpersonal reciropal pastimes with God in Heaven:

1 Brahman = The Void

2 Paramatma = The Spirit-force nucleus life-force of all animate & inanimate entities (ie: atoms, and, Souls).

3 Bhagavan = The personage of Godhead ---the unlimited reservior of his own name, fame, form, personality, paraphenalia, entourage and pastimes that are Transcendent to the rules/laws/functioning/control of 'material energy' and time-creation-maintainance-destruction.

.

Fascinating post, Bhaktajan,
Could you elaborate on the three areas, please? I am not clear how they exist separately, for example, if Brahman = void, why include a void in the trinity?

 

[Clear]

Madhuri;

I think Pegg is correct that, in this case, the SIMPLEST and most STRAIGHT FORWARD explanation, which has THE BEST FIT to the data one is given, is more likely the best representation of this specific truth.

For example : Even Children tend to innately view the trinity as separate individuals. When a child in sunday school, draws God the Father, his son Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they often draw an "old guy with a white beard" for the Father, a younger figure with a dark beard for Jesus and a figure like a person under a sheet as the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. This picture, drawn from a childs mind, is simple and straightforward and it IS a GOOD model for the trinity.

The concept of Love and Unity is just as simple. Every christian sunday school child is taught to be "kind" and "not argue" and to "love" their neighbor as themself. These are extremely simple principles which The Father and the Son live in their most perfect form.

Good luck in your own spiritual journey Madhuri;

Clear

 

[bhaktajan]

By "Void" [BTW, many have argued with me over my use of this nomenclature for 'Brahman']

Essentially, IMO, it suffices to remember that beyond these three aspects [Brahman/para-atma/Bhagavan] . . . there is no other created creation to be found.

It can be easily remembered that before one can construct an edifice there must be made an empty lot; even a void in the ground for the foundation to be placed.

The quality of void is that it is untainted by material energy, it is omnipresent, it is the same absolute pure nature in all locations ---similar to the purity of Sun-Light-rays that shine upon all without prejudice as to what is shined upon.

The concept of Oblivion [a subjective mental experience] may be likened to Void-ness ---yet I am not addressing Lost-Oblivion existence ---I am pointing to the fact that God owns the Void and that void is singular and all-prevading and is the identity of Brahman; yet, Brahman is understood as the void only within the material worlds precincts.

Brahman is actually defined as the Rays eminating for God's body-effulgence . . . but we are in the material world within a Brahmanda far below the North Star (Dhruva loka) on a spinning planet with a light source that falls upon us for half a day in a world of duality . . . so, brahman is covered by the shadow of material energy's flux.

So many Hindus will quote the description of Brahman as a synonym for the impersonal Godhead.
There are unlimited descriptions of Brahman as a synonym for the impersonal Godhead.
There are unlimited descriptions of Brahman as a synonym for the the stuff of which the Spirit-Soul is made from and made of.
There are unlimited descriptions of Brahman as a synonym for the Un-manifest Primevial Source of manifest variety of creation.

In lieu of use of the word "Void", the common aspects are:
Brahman is Anti-Material.
There is no quality whatsoever that can be binded to Brahman . . . except transcendence from all things material.
Brahman is inseperable from the manifested Material Elements ~This is the duality of material creation of Time and space/material energy.

Somethingness & Nothingness cannot be seperated especially in the very place where "Duality" is what constitutes creation ---here in the Material World.

My Information sources:
Bhagavad-gita, Bhagavata-Purana, Isha-Upanishad, et al Vedas; and, Guru(s) & Sadhu(s) too.

 

[bobhikes]

I like the work Madhuri's did. It was excellant

For myself the trinity as one or three doesn't change my view of christianity. I was taught it is one but always believed the story would be better if it was three.

Jesus as a half man/half god can for me explain a lot of my discrepancies with the New Testament. That being said the discrepancies do not impact the philosphy of christianity.

 

[Clear]

1) Hi Mr Emu;

I think you are referring to the following quote (please let me know if I’m wrong) :

Clear said in post #4 : “In the early christian text, apocalypse of Abraham, Jesus, speaking to Abraham says : “I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God, creator of heavenly and earthly things, who has loved you....8 I am Iaoel...11 I am ordered to loosen Hades and to destroy those who wondered at the dead...” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 10:5, 11,14-17) Again, the pattern of Jesus being “sent” by the Father is clear. He is “ordered” to loosen Hades (a reference to christs descensus during the three days between death and resurrection). An entire genre of liturature (the early Christian descensus literature) makes more rational sense if Jesus is a separate individual from his Father. If they are the same, this ancient christian literature cannot correlate as rationally.

Mr Emu asks in post #6 : And a question Clear, on the Apocalypse of Abraham, I am not familiar with the text, but I read over the section you quoted, and can you tell me why you believe that it is Jesus speaking there? I didn't get that impression at all in my first reading.

I was trying to demonstrate that a pre-mortal Jesus was “sent” to Abraham by one having greater authority than he had, and that Jesus was “ordered” to “loosen Hades” just as he is "chosen" and "ordered" and "sent" to accomplish many tasks in early Judao-Christian literature.

The context of the text is this : Abraham had discovered the idolatrous milieu of his youth was incorrect and had sought to know the true God, and had left his father’s house. Abraham is about to describe a revelation(s) he has. Chapt 8 ends with Abraham hearing the voice of God the Father speaking to him. “You are searching for the God of gods, the Creator, in the understanding of your heart. I am he.” (“God of Gods” is one of the many appelations that only applies to the father, thus it is the Father speaking). “Behold, it is I. Fear not, for I am Before-the-World and Mighty, the God who created previously, before the light of the age.” He then has Abraham make a sacrifice and they set down a covenant. After which Abraham is commanded to fast and go to a “high mountain”. “And there will I show you the things which were made by the ages and by my word....And I will announce to you in them what will come upon those who have done evil and just things in the race of man...”

Abraham lost his strength “for there was no longer strength in me to stand up on the earth.” While laying on the ground, he hears the Father speak “Go, Ioel* of the Holy One”, through the mediation of my ineffable name, consecrate this man for me and strengthen him”

The individual sent by God the Father, who comes in the "ineffable name" of the father and strengthens Abraham is labeled IOEL. Ioel is restored in the Slav. Text as “Ioailu tize” here. R. Rubinkeiwicz translated this book in Charlesworth and the accompanying notes make it clear that ultimately jhwh’l is indicated here. (I wondered if he placed IOEL there so as not to confuse future translators of lessor ability?) In the same logic, verse 4 on may throw off the unwary reader since the word “angel” is sometimes mixed for other terms.

A simple example is Psalms 8:5

In Hebrew the verse says : "For thou hast made him a little less than the gods, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."

In NIV the verse says : "You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings, and crowned him with glory and honor."

In KJV the verse says : "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."

“Gods”; “heavenly beings”; “angels” : Just as the terms are mixed in the relatively "modern books" (kjv was 1611), appellations were mixed anciently, and these texts are subject to the same corruptions as any biblical texts have been. Despite this, I can modify my reading if you can provide better data.

I think the best “non jhwh’l” argument would be that of another another angel IF he had not been ordered to loosen Hades. The contextual strength of the reference to hades with the decensus literature is quite strong as well. It is also clear from multiple texts that it is the only the son who was ordered to loosen hades rather than the Father or any angel and it is the Son who accomplishes the loosing of Hades in all the decensus literature I’m aware of. Also, Ioel says HE is the one who commands Azazel (a devil) into the "untrodden parts of the earth". In Judao-christian literature, it was the Son who accomplished this as well.

Certainly we could entertain other interpretations such as an angel coming in the name of the Son just as Jesus comes to us in the name of, and under the Authority of his Father. The "angel" describes the Father and "a power through the medium of his ineffable name in me.". However,the physical description abraham gives of this personage is similar to Enoch's description of the Son. Ioel has the sign of authority on his head (though "kidaris" in A of Abr is translated as "headdress" rather than crown in the LXX) He also has the scepter of authority in his hand as well. Also, I admit, that, of the many versions of A of Abraham, there are versions which omit an occassional refererence to IOEL in later chapters (e.g. 14cent "S", 16th cent; "D", of the15th century "A" version - having palaia materials... and the "C" version of 900 a.d.). Taken all together and in context of Judao-christian literature, such indications point to the Son as this personage and do not correlate to other literature if it is not the son.


None of the theories would undermine that principle that Jesus is “sent” by God the father, he is directed by the Father, and he is obedient to and centers his faith in God the Father.

Mr Emu, I thought that was a very good question and both respect and honor your considerable historical background. I would value any input into the earliest texts that you have.
.
.
.
.

2) Hi Bhaktajan ;

Bhaktajan wrote : First lesson of spiritual life: "We are spirit souls in the material body"
IMO, this lesson is lost to material beings . . . and so, this is the prime lesson taught to humanity by the mysteries of Jesus Christ's earthly pastimes 2,011 years ago.

You seem to understand my religion better than I understand yours. Though I did not understand much that you wrote, I believe you are correct regarding the profound importance of the early Principle that “We are spirit souls in the material body”. Frubals to you.

Clear
eieidrhh

 

[bhaktajan]

“We are spirit souls in the material body”.

This refers to the opening verse og the Rig Veda:
"atatho Brahma vigyansa' ---"Now in the human form of life let us enquire unto what is the absolute Truth"

It is the very lesson that [even unknowingly] predicates all spiritual searches and paths.

 

[Onkara]

By "Void" [BTW, many have argued with me over my use of this nomenclature for 'Brahman']

Thank you fro the detailed reply, Bhaktajanji!
I seem to recall it being refered to as "void" in upansihads and certainly in non-Upanishads commentary, so it is from interest rather than for debate that I asked you.

Do you personally reject or see differently, the 3 qualities qualities of Sat, Chit, Ananda (satcitananda) as inherent properties of Brahman?

Where may I learn more about the following "Rays" please?

Brahman is actually defined as the Rays eminating for God's body-effulgence . . . but we are in the material world within a Brahmanda far below the North Star (Dhruva loka) on a spinning planet with a light source that falls upon us for half a day in a world of duality . . . so, brahman is covered by the shadow of material energy's flux.

 

[Madhuri]

To my wonderful Dharmic brothers, please keep in mind that this is the Christianity DIR. Respectful questions only if you are not Christian, and no debating allowed!​

 

[Madhuri]

if something requires so much effort to explain, then surely it is a twisted tale indeed.

Perhaps Maduhri, you now understand why the trinity is such a huge issue between those christians who accept it and those who reject it.

Yes, I had no idea! Very interesting
I appreciate everyone who has put in the effort to explain these concepts.

 

[bhaktajan]

Do you personally reject or see differently, the 3 qualities qualities of Sat, Chit, Ananda (satcitananda) as inherent properties of Brahman?

Where may I learn more about the following "Rays" please?

Rays of Brahman
Google "Brahma-jyoti" or "Brahmajyoti"
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The 3 qualities qualities of Sat, Chit, Ananda (satcitananda) are:
The inherent properties of a soul.

God's personage is technically called: Sat-Chit-Ananda Vigraha (form).

1 Sattva = Eternality (ergo, absolute truth)
2 Chitta = Consciousness/Cognisance
3 Ananda = Blissfull/enjoyment

Sat-Chit-Ananda = Spirit; the SPIRITUAL Energy; the unmanifested Energy that The Transcendent Kingdom of God is constructed.

Sat-Chit-Ananda = Soul ---it is the very composition of Spirit Soul.

Sat-Chit-Ananda = is non-material; hence the very definition of "Transcendence".

In the Transcendent Kingdom of God, all things animate & in-animate operate in a manner that is said to be a "preverted reflection of Material Energy/Space/Time" ---the Transcendent Kingdom of God operates in a way diametrically opposite of the way we see here in the Material World [we are here in the material "Bizaaro-World"] ---in the Transcendent Kingdom of God, all things animate & in-animate things are "Sat-Chit-Ananda" ---and the spiritual economy revolves around seeking out the person at the center of God's Kingdom & society . . . namely, God himself and thus, Face-to-face time of reciprocal pastimes.

There are 5 ambrosial (Rasas, or, mellows) to have interpersonal pastime-relationships with Godhead in the Eternal Kingdom of Heaven:

1 Nuetrality -- obtained by Yogis that chant OM at the time of Death. The Spiritual Sky is self-illuminating [The Spiritual Sky is outside the confinds of the Brahmanda (universe), which we are all exist within] is the very same Brahma-jyoti effulegence spoken of above. It is very blissfull . . . but without face-time with the lord.

2 Servantship -- obtained by Yogis that have not cultivated further personal yearnings for face time with the Lord in a relation of Servant to Sovereign-King.

3 Faternity -- obtained by Yogis that yearn to play iwth the Lord.

4 Parental -- obtained by Yogis that seek to care for the Lord as a Parent.

5 Conjugal -- obtained by Yogis that desire to marry God.

These are known as the 5-rasas.

 

[not yet now]

some aspects of the christian holy trinity....
that for myself make it clear and unique in terms of jesus
that reincarnation is involved
and that as the bible speaks of the fisrt adam and last adam
that indeed jesus was the adam formed in chapter 2 of genesis...
and too he was the high priest, joshua, in the old testament in zechariah
who had all of his sins removed

Zec 3:1 And he sheweth me Joshua the high priest standing before the messenger of Jehovah, and the Adversary standing at his right hand, to be an adversary to him.
Zec 3:2 And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary: `Jehovah doth push against thee, O Adversary, Yea, push against thee doth Jehovah, Who is fixing on Jerusalem, Is not this a brand delivered from fire?'
Zec 3:3 And Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and is standing before the messenger.
Zec 3:4 And he answereth and speaketh unto those standing before him, saying: `Turn aside the filthy garments from off him.' And he saith unto him, `See, I have caused thine iniquity to pass away from off thee, so as to clothe thee with costly apparel.'
Zec 3:5 He also said, `Let them set a pure diadem on his head. And they set the pure diadem on his head, and clothe him with garments. And the messenger of Jehovah is standing,
Zec 3:6 and the messenger of Jehovah doth protest to Joshua, saying:


then how he would be the one to reincarnate as the messiah

Zec 3:7 `Thus said Jehovah of Hosts: If in My ways thou dost walk, And if My charge thou dost keep, Then also thou dost judge My house, And also thou dost keep My courts, And I have given to thee conductors among these standing by.


now how this plays into the holy trinity as god the son
that level is about eternal individual souls
and their responsible use of mind and free will...
in that regard of the holy trinity
it is about individual consciousness in connection with the eternal unchanging prinicples of the divine creator
god the father

now what most christian miss
tho in a way considering how wisdom in the old testament is a woman
is that what the holy spirit is....
it is i think
when a soul manifests perfectly the will of god the father...
this then is an individual who being properly and truly nurturing in all that they do
and in that nurturing aspect
represents the holy spirit

OOPS EDITING IN ..A BIT LATER
AS I FORGOT I WANTED TO PASTE IN SOME THINGS FROM THE BIBLE ABOUT WISDOM BEING A WOMAN...

ro 8:1 Doth not wisdom call? And understanding give forth her voice?
Pro 8:2 At the head of high places by the way, Between the paths she hath stood,
Pro 8:3 At the side of the gates, at the mouth of the city, The entrance of the openings, she crieth aloud,
Pro 8:4 `Unto you, O men, I call, And my voice is unto the sons of men.
Pro 8:5 Understand, ye simple ones, prudence, And ye fools, understand the heart,
Pro 8:6 Hearken, for noble things I speak, And the opening of my lips is uprightness.
Pro 8:7 For truth doth my mouth utter, And an abomination to my lips is wickedness.

Pro 1:7 Fear of Jehovah is a beginning of knowledge, Wisdom and instruction fools have despised!
Pro 1:8 Hear, my son, the instruction of thy father, And leave not the law of thy mother,
LATER PERHAPS HOW GOD THE FATHER IS INSTRUCTOR AND HOW THE MOTHER RELATES TO LAW OR TORAH IN HEBREW

i am not necessarily saying that jesus was the first human to do that
but it might be so
but the holy spirit who teaches all things
has not clearly shown me such
nor any who i think are have the teaching on the holy spirit on that matter..
actually there is not much that i know fully thru the holy spirit
much of my understanding comes more from those who i think have certain wisdom in the area
of my studies of the bible...
anyways...
what i do think the bible does say about jesus being unique
is that his coming in the fullness of time and by what he suffered
he is unique in how he made the holy spirit more universally available to all....
who are convicted of their sins
and repent and accept the holy spirit according to how the bible teaches such
that too as the bible says that god the father gave all authority to jesus
in regards to judgment of humanity
but that jesus is not god the father
rather is one with god the father
as all etnernal individual souls can similarly become..
but animal souls are not eternal individual souls
and have a different fate....
but do reincarnate and as different species too
but humans always as humans in terms of incarnating
tho during ancient times
in human's spiritual rebellion
there were abominations of entanglements of human flesh with animals flesh
such as centaurs and mermen and mermaids
and that was one of the main reasons for the coming of adam and eve
to make necessary adjustments to the salvation plan
in which jesus played the key role....

well that covers perhaps what i think are the basic aspects of the christian holy trinity
so bye bye
u all
and u all come back
and come along too
anyone know what the red neck expression
come along
means ?

 

[Biblestudent_007]

You can read the Athanasian creed.