The Trinity

[imaginaryme]

True god, which is self; real god, which is religion; actual god, which is beyond understanding - this is trinity. The Catholic stuff resides most prevalently in the link between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:24. This also extends into Christianity with the belief that one must "receive the holy spirit" to be saved. Of course, if one likes Christianity as much as I like Christianity, one might consider the real goal to be saved from God rather than by God.

To be a complete skeptic about it, the innovation of needing to spread the word required the word to acquire popular appeal; and since the majority of the populous at the time believed in manly gods like Zeus or natural forces... Father, Son, & Holy Ghost = win, win, win.

 

[roddio]

Paul's theology (or one of his disciples), not the teaching of Jesus.

Paul was on the road to Damascus when Jesus spoke to him leading Paul to change his way of thinking. Jesus was and is Paul's teacher. God bless

 

[roddio]

I'm not offended. But then I'm a Christian-Wiccan


There is no such thing as the trinity. It was an idea created by the Catholics to make Christianity not conform to Paganistic ideas. Nowhere in the Bible do one read that God the Father is Jesus






Me don't know.


No, According to certain early Christian Fathers, Jesus only became God's Son after His Baptism.

No disrespect but I choose not to read all that other material what's in the bible is good enough for me. You asked for proof in the bible am I wrong? peace and blessing to you. God bless

 

[Breathe]

Paul was on the road to Damascus when Jesus spoke to him leading Paul to change his way of thinking. Jesus was and is Paul's teacher. God bless

So Paul says.

There is no evidence this happened, except Paul's word for it. Even if this happened, it does not mean that it was Jesus who spoke to him. It could have been his psyche, in the form of the one he was persecuting people because of, basically telling him he shouldn't be picking on people because of their faith.

I myself doubt that Paul actually encountered Jesus even in the spiritual world, for Paul's teachings do not echo those of Jesus. Paul told women to be quiet in church, never lead the congregation, cover their head, and that men are the heads of women. Jesus even allowed a woman to cover his feet in an expensive perfumed oil (is that the right ingredient? I forget completely) and according to non-Biblical gospels, Mary was Jesus' favourite disciple.

 

[roddio]

So Paul says.

There is no evidence this happened, except Paul's word for it. Even if this happened, it does not mean that it was Jesus who spoke to him. It could have been his psyche, in the form of the one he was persecuting people because of, basically telling him he shouldn't be picking on people because of their faith.

I myself doubt that Paul actually encountered Jesus even in the spiritual world, for Paul's teachings do not echo those of Jesus. Paul told women to be quiet in church, never lead the congregation, cover their head, and that men are the heads of women. Jesus even allowed a woman to cover his feet in an expensive perfumed oil (is that the right ingredient? I forget completely) and according to non-Biblical gospels, Mary was Jesus' favourite disciple.

Paul did have people with him did he not?

 

[Breathe]

Paul did have people with him did he not?

Did they see the spiritual figure Jesus standing before Paul and talking with him?
Or did they see someone rolling around on the floor?

 

[roddio]

Did they see the spiritual figure Jesus standing before Paul and talking with him?
Or did they see someone rolling around on the floor?

They heard the voice and they heard Paul say who are thou Lord. God bless

 

[te_lanus]

No disrespect but I choose not to read all that other material what's in the bible is good enough for me. You asked for proof in the bible am I wrong? peace and blessing to you. God bless

I was just saying that, that verse doesn't prove the trinity.

 

[roddio]

I was just saying that, that verse doesn't prove the trinity.[/quote It does. It just like this If you told your child to tell someone a message and they told them is it your childs message or is it yours? God never stop being God He still did the same things He has always done. God bless

 

[Demonic Kitten]

That is proof as you see it, but to some (such as myself) the bible is just another work of fiction. I can not accept a biblical quote as proof unless you can back it up with actual historical facts.

 

[MountainHumanist]

Actually, Acts records that those traveling with Saul/Paul heard a noise (thunder?) but did not see the vision and were curious about Paul's behavior. Paul's behavior then and subsequent behavior are symptomatic of a sufferer of frontal-lobe epilepsy. Epileptic fits are often brought on by strobe-like lights (as in a thunderstorm).

As to the accuracy and composition of the Lukan texts (Luke and Acts), here is a conclusion written by ancient history scholar Richard Carrier:

"Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd. This also results in the realization that almost every famous person, institution, place or event mentioned in L that can be checked against other sources is also found in Josephus, so that efforts to prove the veracity of L by appealing to these checks is cut short by the fact that he appears to have gotten all this information from Josephus, and simply cut-and-pasted it into his own "history" in order to give his story an air of authenticity and realism. He could thus, for all we know, have been writing historical fiction--using real characters and places, and putting them in fictional situations, all dressed up as history--history with a message, and an apologetic purpose. We thus cannot really know what in L is true or false with regard to the origins of Christianity or the actions of early Christians, since these particular details are the most prone to manipulation for didactic, symbolic, politico-ecclesiastical and apologetic reasons, and have very little if any external corroboration (and no external corroboration from a non-Christian)."

 

[Mister Emu]

(I am not trying to offend any christians. I am just challenging their beliefs. If I offend you, I apologize)

Respectful questions do not offend

1) Who is the "Father"? I have heard some people say it's god himself but isn't the trinity itself god? So doesn't that create a paradox?

The Father is God the Father, the creator, maker of all things... Each member of the Trinity is fully God, and together they are fully one divine being.

2) What is the "Holy Ghost" exactly? Is it the spirituality of the people? If so then why not call it spirit?

The Holy Spirit is another of the three personages of God. It is not the "spirituality of the people"... The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and it is the Holy Spirit who speaks by way of prophets... the Holy Spirit is the comforter, teaches us, and brings us remembrance of that which Jesus said. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable offense...

3) The New Testament doesn't really talk much about it, except in a few obscure excerpts. It is common knowledge that Jesus himself never really talked about it at all. Then why is it so heavily emphasized on in christianity?

The Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the answer to the question: Who/What is God.

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

It is one God in three persons at all times forever

they say god could not have created Jesus without a father

First of all, we say Jesus was not created at all. He is eternally begotten. There was never a time when Jesus wasn't. There was never a thing made without Jesus.

Nowhere in the Bible do one read that God the Father is Jesus

Nowhere in traditional Christianity do you read that either...

I've come to know that a lot of Christians is afraid to explain the trinity

The Trinity is three divine hypostases and one divine ousia. Roughly three persons one being.

It is not that we are afraid to explain what we know, but we, as far as I know, freely admit that which we do is not very much...

The story of St. Augustine on the beach comes to mind...

Augustine was walking on a beach, trying to wrap his head fully around the Trinity. As he walked he came upon a small boy pouring sea water with a shell into a hole he had dug in the sand. As Augustine looked on the child spoke to him telling him that just as the hole he had dug served so little to hold all the water of the sea, so too his reason held served so little to contain the mysteries of God.

There is a clear duality in the Bible, best illustrated in John 1:1 "the Word was with God, and the Word was God"... the trinity is implied...

 

[roddio]

Actually, Acts records that those traveling with Saul/Paul heard a noise (thunder?) but did not see the vision and were curious about Paul's behavior. Paul's behavior then and subsequent behavior are symptomatic of a sufferer of frontal-lobe epilepsy. Epileptic fits are often brought on by strobe-like lights (as in a thunderstorm).

As to the accuracy and composition of the Lukan texts (Luke and Acts), here is a conclusion written by ancient history scholar Richard Carrier:

"Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd. This also results in the realization that almost every famous person, institution, place or event mentioned in L that can be checked against other sources is also found in Josephus, so that efforts to prove the veracity of L by appealing to these checks is cut short by the fact that he appears to have gotten all this information from Josephus, and simply cut-and-pasted it into his own "history" in order to give his story an air of authenticity and realism. He could thus, for all we know, have been writing historical fiction--using real characters and places, and putting them in fictional situations, all dressed up as history--history with a message, and an apologetic purpose. We thus cannot really know what in L is true or false with regard to the origins of Christianity or the actions of early Christians, since these particular details are the most prone to manipulation for didactic, symbolic, politico-ecclesiastical and apologetic reasons, and have very little if any external corroboration (and no external corroboration from a non-Christian)."

why couldnt the story be true? God bless

 

[roddio]

That is proof as you see it, but to some (such as myself) the bible is just another work of fiction. I can not accept a biblical quote as proof unless you can back it up with actual historical facts.

Have we ever seen a dinosaur? but because somebody said that they found a bone people believe it. What im saying is that just because somebody shows you certain things it takes faith for you to believe that's what it is. God said it happened I believe it (2timothy 3:16) God bless

 

[sojourner]

i can't seem to recall christians to have ever fully explained the trinity here on RF.

I can't recall that Xians have ever, in their more than 2000 years of existence, "fully explained the Trinity," in any venue. That's because God cannot be fully known. Scripture implies a Trinity, although it doesn't mention a Trinity explicitly.

Remember, the NT was written as a process, in the midst of the formulation of Xy. The Bible resulted from Xy -- not Xy from the Bible. Therefore, it is the theology of the Church that informs the theology of the NT -- not the other way 'round. The concept of the Trinity was a very hotly debated item for the first 300 years of the Church's existence. It continues to be debated. Just as our concept of God is an ever-developing process, so is the Trinity.

Along these lines, even though scripture is not explicit, the Church is explicit about the Trinity -- and has been since very early on, the more so following Nicea in 325. Since scripture is not the be-all-end-all for Xian theology, it is wise to turn to the Tradition as another authoritative source for Xian theology.

Therefore, the question becomes, not so much "what does the Bible say?" but "what does the Church say?" There have been books, articles and letters written about the nature and theological understanding of the Trinity. The material is exhaustive -- too exhaustive for a forum like this.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's a man made concept. The biblical Yeshua never taught that he was part of a trinity.

 

[sojourner]

It's a man made concept. The biblical Yeshua never taught that he was part of a trinity.

Human agency. God always works through human agency. The Incarnation is the ultimate act of human agency. "Man-made concept" isn't such a bad thing, methinks, especially if one is intentional upon doing God's will. The Trinitarian relationship is implied throughout scripture -- including some things Jesus said.

 

[Lucian]

Like the former poster says, the trinitarian relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit really is implied throughout scripture. Yet them being the same thing is not. That is what is causing the confusion.

The Trinity are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are one. They act in perfect harmony in their own roles. The Son and the Holy Spirit fulfill their certain duties perfectly according to the will of the Father. The Father is the source of everything, who acts through his Son and influences with his Holy Spirit.

There is only one true God, the Father, the immortal and invisible one. God is not three or triune, the Trinity is not about that (except for Athanasians and Mormons but I'm not going into their views, other posters have already presented them).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

Yes.:yes:

 

[REASON_236]

Like the former poster says, the trinitarian relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit really is implied throughout scripture. Yet them being the same thing is not. That is what is causing the confusion.

why is Jesus said to be the 'only begotten' son of God, according to the scriptures:

Psalms:2:7: I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.(David speaking)

Ex:4:22: And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.(God speaking to Moses)

De:14:1: Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.


So, if David, Israel, and the children of Israel are all the children of God. doesn't that mean that a 'Son of God' is someone who is close to God and loved by him? What makes Jesus the ONLY begotten son of god?