The Trinity

[SB Habakuk]

The trinity though it is of pagan origin does not and can never discredit the complete truth of Christianity- For there is a Father, A Mother and a Son- as we as humans understand these terms- but this is not the correct names for these

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

The trinity though it is of pagan origin does not and can never discredit the complete truth of Christianity- For there is a Father, A Mother and a Son- as we as humans understand these terms- but this is not the correct names for these

The Trinity is not Father, Mother, and Son....it is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Undersand the doctrine before knocking it, please.

 

[logician]

You didn't just say "a historical Jesus" -- you said "everything in Christianity."

1. I find that a rather broad claim, to be sure, and unsubstantiated as well, which is why I asked you to support your claim.

2. As for the lack of a historical Jesus....so what? There's a lack of evidence for my ancestors from a mere 150 years ago, other than a family remembrance about the existence of such people. We might have just made it all up. So if that's an argument for Jesus (the man) never having existed, it's somewhere between specious and laughable.

3. We can move on to aspects of textual criticism and manuscript history later, if you like.

4.By the way, I'm not a Christian. And even when I was an atheist, I would've nailed you on this, so please don't bother claiming I'm doing anything because of some need I feel to put forth Christian apologetics.

1. If there is no historical Jesus, the it logically follows that EVERTHING in CHRISTIANITY is essentially a work of fiction.

2. But your ancestors don't make bold claims to be gods, if they did, I just might be checking into their historicity, and what actually happened during their life.

3. Again, there's plenty of discussion at the link given and a number of others, along with Freke and Gandy's books "The Jesus Mysteries" and "the LAughing Jesus".

4. I couldn't care less what you believe.

 

[ApologeticsCatholic]

It is interesting that when people seek historic and scientific proof of Jesus, they immediately discount the Bible as a reliable source.

If we look at the Bible simply as a historic document, it should be among the most reliable on record compared with others.

Some of the worlds best non-religious scholars and historians routinely cite Herodotus as a key source of information. He wrote from 488 B.C. to 428 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work comes from 900 A.D. (1,300 years later). There are only eight known copies of his work.
By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages.
The ancient historical record provides examples of writers, philosophers and historians who lived during or not long after the time Jesus is believed to have lived and who testify to the fact that he was a real person. We will look at what some of these people have said.
Still, to put to rest the notion that there is no historic and scientific proof of Jesus outside the Bible, we may look to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and to Roman historian Carius Cornelius Tacitus - both well known and accepted.
Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:

At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).
Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:

". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.
Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].
Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.

Thallus and Phlegon Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus
The four Gospels are the four accounts of Jesus’ life, which are contained in the New Testament part of the Bible. Historians will tell you that the closer an historical document is written to the time of the events it describes, the generally more reliable it is as a source of information about those events. Matthew’s Gospel account of Jesus’ life is now reckoned to have been written sometime between AD 70 and AD 80. Mark’s Gospel is dated between AD. 50 and AD. 65. Luke’s Gospel is dated in the early AD 60s and John’s Gospel sometime between AD 80 and 100. If Jesus died sometime in the AD 30s, it is clear that Mark, Luke and Matthew wrote their Gospels within living memory of Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel comes later and probably outside of living memory for most as John lived to an unusually old age for the ancient period, but the accuracy of his Gospel was verified no doubt by those who read the earlier Gospels.
Another feature of the Gospels is that they were written by men who either knew Jesus personally, or who knew people who themselves knew Jesus personally. Matthew was a former tax collector who became a disciple of Jesus. Mark was a close associate of Simon Peter, who is regarded as being Jesus’ most prominent disciple whilst Jesus was on the earth. Luke was a close associate of Paul who is the most famous of Christian missionaries and who wrote the largest contribution to the New Testament. Paul, in turn, was a close colleague of Simon Peter. John was the former fisherman who became the closest disciple of Jesus. The accounts of such men need to be considered at least seriously!
Did a man named Jesus walk the earth and was crucified, historically.... YES!

Thats more historical truth the most of the stuff we are fead in social studies and history

 

[logician]

Your "examples" such as they are, are summarily refuted in the link I posted.

 

[ayani]

The trinity though it is of pagan origin does not and can never discredit the complete truth of Christianity- For there is a Father, A Mother and a Son- as we as humans understand these terms- but this is not the correct names for these

interesting. so do you believe that God is manifest in three "persons" of Father Mother and Son? what do these distinct persons do within the universe? how do they interact with people?

 

[ApologeticsCatholic]

The website is loaded with less factual idea's and more personal input then i have ever seen in any hisorical research ever, if anything there is more lack of histrorical fact to substatioate afictional Jesus then there is to substantiate a historical Jesus
i have honestly never seen a larger collection of unsubstantiated specualtion in anythign actually, and to take oppionion and give it the appearance of fact is just that, the website and most discussions on the topic are based on assumptions, and what if's my examples are Factual and can be substantiated without using specualtion alone. plus research the vatican and the corss of christ discovered by st. helen during st. constintines rule. the inscription with the reading of latin, hebrew, and greek "Jesus of nazereth, King of the jews" is still in existance today recently found by an archeoligist behind a painting in a building used by st. helen during her time.

It is important for us to keep in mind that Jesus was a real man who walked this earth and left footprints in the sand. There is more historical evidence for the person of Jesus than there is for the person of Julius Caeser or Nero. Few people would dare to question the reality of the historial fact that at one time a man named Jesus lived and walked on this earth. Those who have made such suggestions are immediately discredited as some kind of kook.

Scholars Acknowledge the Gospels as historical Books, and you my freind are not a scholar, again your going based on speculation and not fact. because fact only closes the door for your answers in every direction

this argument has been going on for a very long time and every time it has alwasy ended the same way, jesus was a historical real man.

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}
​

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.
Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

are all these historicall figures in this big conspiracy? SEe now thats funny!

non-cristian writers all in a conspirecy to help prove that jesus was a real man?
seriously doubt it, and honestly , you should have more common sence then that.
draw your own conclusions based on fact if you want , but make sure its fact, not a bunch of who ha.

 

[Muffled]

Muffled, are you Married ? Do you have children ? - I fit into both of those caregories.

Sometimes, when I am at home, I wear my "Husband's hat"(when I am with my wife), sometimes, I have to put on my "father's hat"(for the children); sometimes, I just have the 'me' hat.....................

Can't you see a correlation between that example, and that of the Trinity?

It is an analogy but not a very good one. Sabellius tried the "role" approach and was labelled a heretic and a modalist. I certainly don't entirely agree with his approach but someone labelled me a modalist once as well.

The concept comes from the fact that two members of the Trinity are labelled "Son" and "Father". These are relationship titles based upon role. In the greek word Paraclete there is a suggestion of role but not as well defined. "Holy Spirit" is too generic a name and could be used for all three members of the Trinity. The idea of "Husband" comes more from Jesus who is the bridegroom to the bride which is the body of believers.

It is true that Jesus fulfills the most used definition of person: a living human being. Although Jesus identifies Himself as the Father and Isaiah identifies Him as the Paraclete, those are not His essential roles. Jesus in a body can't be in our body except symbolically through the bread of communion but through the name we are able to receive the spirit of God. Jesus in a body can't be dispersed throughout the universe but the spirit of God in the body of Jesus is.

Now if God's spirit were to indwell three persons say Jesus, John and Mary it would fit this most common definition but there is no biblical evidence for this.

The second definition of person is that of an entity having personality. This definition recognizes our essential spiritual nature as personal. In this definition we are not required to make outlandish statements like the first appearance of God in a body to Abraham was Jesus. No doubt it was a different body but with the same personality because it is the same spirit in a different body. This definition unites the members of the trinity in one person because all three have the same spirit of God.

The last definition of person in the dictionary was an eccesiatical definition of the Trinity which no one in the general public would recognize and has no essential meaning except to perpetuate the error of the Doctrine of the Trinity. To try to explain this better: they place the word person to mean a member of the trinity. Of course thay do not wish to generalize this into a member of any trinity such as "rock, tree, river". However their attribution has about as much validity as saying that "rock, tree, river" are persons.

Lastly, I can conceive of the apellations of "Father" and "Son" as figures of persons as Sabellius was saying one physical person can play many figures of persons in a play but still be the same person. However the analogy still breaks down because the general role of "Father" in the trinity is not that of an embodied person.

 

[James Humphreys]

Hello. As you can tell from my practically non-existent point total, I'm new around here, so new that I probably don't even qualify as a legitimate freshman yet. But the topic is so interesting that I read through the whole thread(more than an hour's worth of reading).

I think one important point is that whether one is a traditional believer in the trinity or not, or whether one happens to be Catholic, pentecostal, LDS, Jehovah's Witness, Baptist, or Jewish, or Muslim, or any other faith, if a person sincerely says they believe in and worship one God, (rather than three Gods), that expression of faith should be accepted by others. That is, if someone were to say(although the large majority of people on this forum seem highly respectful of others) "You say you believe in one God, but no, you are really polytheistic, because the Trinity is really three Gods", that is really questioning the integrity of another's heart and belief.

As regards my own opinion on the Trinity, I believe the idea captures the early Christian realization that there existed some special relationship between God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, based on Jesus' words, as well as their own experience, although they did not use the word "Trinity". I do think that special relationship exists, but I don't see it in terms of the traditional formulation of God in three persons. Jesus had so many qualities and did so many things that were Godlike, and he testified to a closeness in his relationship with God "when you see me, you've seen the Father", that I think most of his disciples eventually came to the conclusion that he was in some mysterious way, God himself, although he was also clearly a man. But perhaps he was showing to us the fullness of what man should have been(fully a son of God, that is a full expression of the divinity of the Father), if there had been no fall. What would Adam have been like, if he had not fallen? Paul refers to Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:45 as the "last Adam". Perhaps everyone originally should have able to say "when you see me, you've seen the Father". Maybe that's still possible, as John said "when he appears we shall be like him"(1 John 3:2).

In essence then I think that the Trinity refers to a special relationship between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit that allows the grace and renewing and rebirthing power of God to flow to the believer, but without that equating to God himself existing in three persons.

I'm sorry, I have to sign off now-it's after 1 am here in Japan. So, if anybody responds to this post, it's going to be a long while before I can respond back. Bye!

 

[sojourner]

that is really questioning the integrity of another's heart and belief.

WHAMMY! I don't know why some folks have to be so adamant that some others are just wrong...period.

but without that equating to God himself existing in three persons.

Does God not exist in us, even as we are, imperfect but justified? How much more fully (that's Trinitarian language -- Jesus fully human and fully divine) then, would God exist in Christ, who is perfect and needs no justification?

 

[Katzpur]

Sometimes, when I am at home, I wear my "Husband's hat"(when I am with my wife), sometimes, I have to put on my "father's hat"(for the children); sometimes, I just have the 'me' hat.....................

Can't you see a correlation between that example, and that of the Trinity?

This is almost exactly what Dawn said, Michel. Here's how I answered her:

You are the husband of someone else, someone who is not the same "being" as you are. You are the father of someone else, children who are physically distinct from you. You are not your own father or your own husband. The trinitarian approach to God requires that God be one "Being." If the Father and the Son are a single Being, then God must be His own Father and His own Son. What kind of sense does that make? It is impossible for someone to be either a father or a son unless that person has a relationship to some other being.

I would be truly interested to hear your comments on this.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This is almost exactly what Dawn said, Michel. Here's how I answered her:

You are the husband of someone else, someone who is not the same "being" as you are. You are the father of someone else, children who are physically distinct from you. You are not your own father or your own husband. The trinitarian approach to God requires that God be one "Being." If the Father and the Son are a single Being, then God must be His own Father and His own Son. What kind of sense does that make? It is impossible for someone to be either a father or a son unless that person has a relationship to some other being.

I would be truly interested to hear your comments on this.

the Trinity as an entity is not very important in my understanding of God.
In my prayers I pray to God.
I do not see the holy ghost as a separate being ... but as our souls direct link to God.

Jesus was sent by God to us ... so at the very least he was a separate being whilst he was here. I do not find it necessary to see him as separate now he has returned to God. I can not envisage him having a conversation with God...

This is a heretical view I know... But it helps my understanding.
God and Jesus for me are one and the same.

I do not see God Jesus or our Souls as separate , or inhabiting separate bodies in Heaven.

 

[Katzpur]

Jesus was sent by God to us ... so at the very least he was a separate being whilst he was here. I do not find it necessary to see him as separate now he has returned to God. I can not envisage him having a conversation with God...

But He did pray to God while He was here on earth, and He did refer on many occasions to His Father as being "in Heaven," and said that He was going to be "with Him." He ascended into Heaven with a resurrected body of His own and Stephen saw Him sitting on the right hand of God. Somehow, I can't simply dismiss those things. They validate my beliefs.

This is a heretical view I know... But it helps my understanding.
God and Jesus for me are one and the same.

Yeah, but coming from you, it never seems to rub me the wrong way. If all heretics could be so pleasant!

 

[ApologeticsCatholic]

I know its in our nature, we hve to try and desifier and figure out these mysteries, these un answered questions, but god is a powerful being, the most powerful being, and when i think about haveing all the power in the world its easy for me to understand that god can be in many places at once, i mean in a contempary sence.. he's god...

Jesus was a man born by the virgin mary and annoited with the spirit of god, whats so hard about that, the full man Jesus was also fully GOD because...

Isaiah 11:2 (NIV) The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD--

Isaiah 61:1 (NIV) The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,

Psalms 45:7-8 (NIV) You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy. 8 All your robes are fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia; from palaces adorned with ivory the music of the strings makes you glad.

Matthew 3:16 (NIV) As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

John 3:34 (NIV) For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.

Acts 10:38 (NIV) how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

Jesus has been mentioned many times in the OT telling us that one day a child will be born and he shall be alled emmanuel (God among us)

because of original sin God promised that one day sins will be forgiven and the gates to the kingdom of heaven shall be reopen, sins will be forgivin, so god did just that god came down from heaven as the holy spirit and was born by the virgin mary as the man jesus died defeated evil rose from the dead and ascened into heaven.

God can be 3 different people at once, just as i belive god can be billions of people as once if he wanted.

St. Patrick plucked a shamrock from the sward and said " This shamrock has 3 leaves, three seperate different leaves on this one stem, these leaves make up one shamrock as 3 people make up one god."

and i think that holds great signifigance, "we are one body with many parts" As is God one body with many parts

 

[ApologeticsCatholic]

"Trinity" is a term that is not found in the Bible but a word used to describe what is apparent about God in the Scriptures. The Bible clearly speaks of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit...and also clearly presents that there is only one God. Thus the term: "Tri" meaning three, and "Unity" meaning one, Tri+Unity = Trinity. It is a way of acknowledging what the Bible reveals to us about God, that God is yet three "Persons" who have the same essence of deity.

God the Son (Jesus) is fully, completely God. God the Father is fully, completely God. And God the Holy Spirit is fully, completely God. Yet there is only one God. In our world, with our limited human experience, it's tough to understand the Trinity. But from the beginning we see God this way in Scripture. Notice the plural pronouns "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26 -- Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

inscripture jesus says clearly and unmistakably

"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
"He who has seen Me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)
"He who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me." (John 12:45)

And the angel answered and said to her [Mary], "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)

so in scripture its evident

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But He did pray to God while He was here on earth, and He did refer on many occasions to His Father as being "in Heaven," and said that He was going to be "with Him." He ascended into Heaven with a resurrected body of His own and Stephen saw Him sitting on the right hand of God. Somehow, I can't simply dismiss those things. They validate my beliefs.

Yeah, but coming from you, it never seems to rub me the wrong way. If all heretics could be so pleasant!

I am pleased that your LDS beliefs are so consoling for you.
They also answer questions, I find no need to ask.
No doubt, had I that need and faith, I would be a member of your church.
As it is, my faith seems to offer me sufficient in this life.
and God will see to the next.

 

[ApologeticsCatholic]

Faith is blind as faith should be

"Then Jesus told (Thomas), "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

i go with faith but proof is in the bible, not in one scentence or a paragraph throut the whole bible, it clearly says Jesus and god and the whole spirite are one god. so if your going based on scripture it should be an easy answer. they are one

Honestly, thats what i love about faith so much..... i dont have to have seen it to belive it, or even understand it, it may remain a mystery to me till the day i meet the father and all things are revelaed... yet i still believe... i have not seen heaven..i belive in it... i have not personally witnessed miracles but i know they exist... i have not seen god in his form or jesus as man before me but i still believe...lots of ties i ask i ask i ask.. and stil non of my prayers are answered... and i still believe... that what makes faith so great.... i dont have to witness to be a witness. just beleive

 

[logician]

"have honestly never seen a larger collection of unsubstantiated specualtion in anythign actually, and to take oppionion and give it the appearance of fact is just that, the website and most discussions on the topic are based on assumptions, "

You obviously read none of it.

 

[ApologeticsCatholic]

i read alot of it, and it is mostly speculation, with less substantiated truths then anything else, there is alsmot no substantiated fact.

the website is loaded with, Probally, most likey, scholars tend to, wheres the, this document says this and this tesiment says that, and this is substaiating proof, and this certaintly happened, it again is someones very well put together contempory speculation with little to no factual content with actual supporting grounds.

i mean seriously, "This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing " so... the epistles didnt talk about the tomb Jesus rose from... oh there goes my faith....

two famous references to Jesus, but these are inconclusive... inconclusive, they make reference to Jesus, inclunclusive... by whos standards? things that make you go..HUH.. 0-0

they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?! Someone hasnt read the bible.....

yes the consipricy muhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah (meniacle lauphter) we will control the world by making them belive that there is someone in higher power then me.... O_O

Paul does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history. According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world.. First off the 4 gospels are Mathew, Mark, Luke, john and they give a lovation for the death and resercection.. get a clue ok....


site is so full of who ha

 

[Katzpur]

i go with faith but proof is in the bible, not in one scentence or a paragraph throut the whole bible, it clearly says Jesus and god and the whole spirite are one god. so if your going based on scripture it should be an easy answer. they are one

I could say the same thing, AC. Even though the Bible does say they are "one," it does not describe the way in which they are one. Jesus prayed that His followers would also be "one," in the same way in which He and His Father are "one." Do you think He was asking that we all be absorbed into the essence of the Trinity? My husband and I have been married for 36 years and are extremely happy. We two are "one," but right now, he's at work and I'm home typing this post.