The Trinity

[Dirty Penguin]

Follow it through and it's fairly obvious you're stuck with it:-

Start with "God the Father", all nice and Abrahamic, alone, jealous and prepared to flatten all comers. The he sends Jesus, so we have two parts, clearly separate or we just nailed the only true god to a cross, and he called out to himself for help. Stopping there would be nice and simple, but Jesus is reported as saying that you can slag off God; no problem, you can be rude to Jesus; shrug, but if you say anything bad about the Holy Spirit your stuffed and no takebacks. QED the Holy Spirit must also exist, isn't God or Jesus but is in some way more terrible than the pair combined.

Now if in the beginning there was one god, and by the end of John we have three it's a conundrum, but if we say they're all really the same thing, stop asking questions, I'm not listening, la la la, we might just get away with it.

simples.

Anyhow, Jesus said he was the 'Son of Man' not the son of God, so he may not really be God anyway.

The biblical Yeshua is not part of a trinity. In his prayer he begged his god to make his followers one in purpose as they (he and his god were). He clearly, while on earth, said he had a god..and even after his ascension (all of this according to the bible) while in heaven says he has a god.

 

[sojourner]

Follow it through and it's fairly obvious you're stuck with it:-

Start with "God the Father", all nice and Abrahamic, alone, jealous and prepared to flatten all comers. The he sends Jesus, so we have two parts, clearly separate or we just nailed the only true god to a cross, and he called out to himself for help. Stopping there would be nice and simple, but Jesus is reported as saying that you can slag off God; no problem, you can be rude to Jesus; shrug, but if you say anything bad about the Holy Spirit your stuffed and no takebacks. QED the Holy Spirit must also exist, isn't God or Jesus but is in some way more terrible than the pair combined.

Now if in the beginning there was one god, and by the end of John we have three it's a conundrum, but if we say they're all really the same thing, stop asking questions, I'm not listening, la la la, we might just get away with it.

simples.

Anyhow, Jesus said he was the 'Son of Man' not the son of God, so he may not really be God anyway.

Abysmal.

 

[te_lanus]

1timothy 3:16. God bless

Doesn't prove a thing. The trinity was only introduced into that verse after 500 AD.

 

[roddio]

Doesn't prove a thing. The trinity was only introduced into that verse after 500 AD.

ok. to me scripture is what it is. God bless

 

[Gharib]

Yes.:yes:

yes to the first or the second?

 

[Gharib]

Yes to the first, Mary is the Theotokos, no she is not divine herself.

how can somone be married to a king and not be a queen herself? same as how god can have a wife but she is not divine while her soposed divine husband and her soposed divine son are divine?

also where abouts in the bible does it specifically say that gods gender is male?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hmm...
My Greek Bible shows theon, an accusative, singular noun, and theos, a nominative, singular noun. both are used in the NT as references to the true God. Theos is not a god, but the God.

You may as well be speaking in Sanskrit. He has no clue what you're talking about.

The key part of the argument - I say this for their benefit, not yours - is whether or not the noun theos is definate without the article. As we know, definate nouns in Greek appear without the article all the time, especially in koine Greek, so nouns can be definate without articles. So we translate anarthorous nouns (eg., those without articles) as arthorous when we can determine with some certainty that the noun is definate.

 

[sojourner]

You may as well be speaking in Sanskrit. He has no clue what you're talking about.

The key part of the argument - I say this for their benefit, not yours - is whether or not the noun theos is definate without the article. As we know, definate nouns in Greek appear without the article all the time, especially in koine Greek, so nouns can be definate without articles. So we translate anarthorous nouns (eg., those without articles) as arthorous when we can determine with some certainty that the noun is definate.

Quite.

 

[Muffled]

Friend xkatz,

Sanatan Dharma too has the holy trinity in the form of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They represent the Creator, the Preserver and the Destroyer.
What ever is created by existence has to go through creation, preservation and destruction.

Personal understanding about the concepts are that they are for an understanding which has to be realised by meditating on each aspect and not the form.

Love & rgds
Though it happens on its own accord

The Hindu version appears to be an attribution of some of God's characteristics by men whereas the Trinity is a God devised concept.

 

[Muffled]

xkats- so far no Christians have responded and well..., I'm not either.
I do love to speculate however so here's my take on the Trinity. The Father of course is God, and like you I believe God is all three and much more. The Son and the Holy Spirit are aspects of God. The Son is the physical manifestation of God (and we are all Sons of God) and the Holy Spirit is God's Messenger who works through each and every one of us personally.

The paraclete (Holy Ghost) is a physical manifestation of God as well.

 

[Muffled]

is that 3 gods at one time or is that one god at 3 times?

It is one God all the time. However the Son and Paraclete have temporal parameters although there are pre-figures of each.

 

[te_lanus]

The Hindu version appears to be an attribution of some of God's characteristics by men whereas the Trinity is a God devised concept.

The trinity came into being after the supposed "heresy" of Arian in +-400AD. It is man-made. Nobody used to describe God and Jesus as one.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You may as well be speaking in Sanskrit. He has no clue what you're talking about.

The key part of the argument - I say this for their benefit, not yours - is whether or not the noun theos is definate without the article. As we know, definate nouns in Greek appear without the article all the time, especially in koine Greek, so nouns can be definate without articles. So we translate anarthorous nouns (eg., those without articles) as arthorous when we can determine with some certainty that the noun is definate.

I agree. The Jehovah's Witnesses have incorrectly translated John 1:1 so anyone adhering to their translation doesn't understand some of these nuances.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

whereas the Trinity is a God devised concept.

No it's not......

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree. The Jehovah's Witnesses have incorrectly translated John 1:1 so anyone adhering to their translation doesn't understand some of these nuances.

The traditional translation of the text - "and the word was God" preserves the ambiguity of the Greek. It's not that ambiguous... but there is some wiggle room without adding the "a God," which is one possible meaning of an anarthorous Greek noun, but it seems to exclude the possibility that "the Word" could be "God" and "with God" at the same time. That's something that the Greek syntax does not exclude.

Furthermore, the New World translation does not render all of the anarthorous nouns in the New Testament as anarthorous - there are several cases where they translate such nouns as definate.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The traditional translation of the text - "and the word was God" preserves the ambiguity of the Greek. It's not that ambiguous... but there is some wiggle room without adding the "a God," which is one possible meaning of an anarthorous Greek noun, but it seems to exclude the possibility that "the Word" could be "God" and "with God" at the same time. That's something that the Greek syntax does not exclude.

I can agree with that. I found, some time ago, a good link and explanation here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I can agree with that. I found, some time ago, a good link and explanation here.

Yeah, it's ok, but it comes on a bit strong.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that you learn Greek before discuss it. You can't make a good judgment about something unless you know something about it.

This issue just happens to be something quite elementary in Greek syntax, and the New World Translation just took a big smelly dump on it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yeah, it's ok, but it comes on a bit strong.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that you learn Greek before discuss it. You can't make a good judgment about something unless you know something about it.

This issue just happens to be something quite elementary in Greek syntax, and the New World Translation just took a big smelly dump on it.

Here I do agree.......:yes:

 

[MountainHumanist]

Jesus still being alive is something that I can say is true because I believe it. People believe in dinosaurs but cant prove that dinosaurs existed, I know your going to say that they found bones but if man wasnt around then how do you know that's a dinosaur bone? God bless

So the answer to my question is "No." You cannot prove Jesus is still alive via any empirical means.

For a basic primer on Paleontology, go here. We don't have faith that dinosaurs existed we have reasonable confidence due to the vast fossil record and other lines of data that clearly point to the same conclusion.

If you are going to make the claim that direct knowledge is a precursor to learning, you have brought most academic disciplines to a screeching halt. Forget history. Forget astronomy. Forget even a criminal justice system based on contemplation of evidence.

Finally, why do you believe something for which no empirical evidence exists?

 

[sojourner]

The trinity came into being after the supposed "heresy" of Arian in +-400AD. It is man-made. Nobody used to describe God and Jesus as one.

The doctrine was solidified at Nicea (325), but the theoloogy had been bandied about for far longer.