-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Trinity
- Thread starter Atruthseeker
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
Sooo...
You are accusing me of idolatry, then.
not at all.
can you argue that man hasnt created every deity worshipped so far???
outhouse
Atheistically
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
There is no "my" church. There is only "the" church. like the sacred texts, it is multivalent.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yes. We create understandings of Deity -- avatars, if you will. But, even in my construction of avatars, I fully understand that they are avatars and do not have power in and of themselves. They only point to the Deity, which does have the power. OTOH, you seem to indicate that I think my avatars do have deific power in and of themselves, which constitutes idolatry.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yes! These are constructed understandings of Deity.
outhouse
Atheistically
thats a poor excuse to get by father and son.
if it was one of the same would it not have been brother ? lol if you want to use a family members name as allegory.
It wasnt though now was it???. it was father and son.
Lets get this straight dads ghost, not dad himself. Comes down and knocks ole mary up. Just like hundreds of god human hybrids before yeshua. This half man/god grows up with no special powers at all and is unheard of before 30 despite being the son of a god. you have the temple incident that has zero historicity and even if it did there is nothing there that is non human or divine at all.
Only after yeshua is dead do people start writing about him who never met or layed eyes on him.
Yet 325 years later a roman emporer claims jesus and god are one in the same to stop a bitter fued among bishops. This in 325AD was not even trinity but dualality at this time.
and you want me to swallow all that???? not going to happen.
outhouse
Atheistically
yes and as man defines a deity he is creating one to fit his personal needs.
Its how yeshua and his daddy were created, in my opinion
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that this conversation can go nowhere because you pre-suppose the Hebrew God is a man-made creation, and therefore, so are any developments in our understanding of Him. Whereas we believe that the Hebrew people were, in fact, specially chosen to bear a unique role in the drama of God's self revelation.
Can we prove that the Hebrew God is not man made, therefore, also the Trinity? I think we are moving into the question of "what is revelation exactly?" and "how does God make Himself known?"
It seems to me that you are looking for a "primitive simplicity", a moment where God's intrusion into the world is as bewildering as it is novel and pure, untouched by the contaminates of historical circumstance, culture, society or world view. I would argue that this is never the case, insofar as creation is already God's epiphany- self manifestation- insofar as creation is already a sacrament- a vehicle for His presence.
God created the world with an eye to the Incarnation, and I see Christianity as something like an idea taking flesh. The Word taking flesh, yes, but the Incarnation does not stop with the first Year of Our Lord. The image of God, He is also the image of man and so He, being made fleshly yet again (in an analogous way) in the bodies of His followers, He progresses through time and space, extending the border of His Body and causing all the streams of history and culture to genuflect at His passing and, like the three pagan Magi, to offer to Him whatever gifts that are their own.
It is, for us, not a real problem that the notion of a hierarchy of angelic hosts may have begun in Persia, or that the Great Flood is predated in Mesopotamian lore, or that Hebrews first encountered their God as a deity of the mountain, or that the Catholic Madonna is obviously anticipated in Isis and her son. For
I would suggest that your atheism is assisted by your looking for a "pure act of revelation" that presupposes no analogy between creation, human nature and the truths of God. This is the legacy of a certain Protestant theology which is bearing the fruit of unbelief.
Instead, we should see the role of the Christian Faith (with its Jewish antecedent) as a depository of the wheat of truth sprung up in a diverse manner across the earth; that the Logos became flesh because He, "through whom all things were made", existed already in germ throughout what is His own; that Christ has become incarnate to "collect Himself", as it were, and all who have been incorporated into Him.
As Blessed John Henry Newman says here:
Can we prove that the Hebrew God is not man made, therefore, also the Trinity? I think we are moving into the question of "what is revelation exactly?" and "how does God make Himself known?"
It seems to me that you are looking for a "primitive simplicity", a moment where God's intrusion into the world is as bewildering as it is novel and pure, untouched by the contaminates of historical circumstance, culture, society or world view. I would argue that this is never the case, insofar as creation is already God's epiphany- self manifestation- insofar as creation is already a sacrament- a vehicle for His presence.
God created the world with an eye to the Incarnation, and I see Christianity as something like an idea taking flesh. The Word taking flesh, yes, but the Incarnation does not stop with the first Year of Our Lord. The image of God, He is also the image of man and so He, being made fleshly yet again (in an analogous way) in the bodies of His followers, He progresses through time and space, extending the border of His Body and causing all the streams of history and culture to genuflect at His passing and, like the three pagan Magi, to offer to Him whatever gifts that are their own.
It is, for us, not a real problem that the notion of a hierarchy of angelic hosts may have begun in Persia, or that the Great Flood is predated in Mesopotamian lore, or that Hebrews first encountered their God as a deity of the mountain, or that the Catholic Madonna is obviously anticipated in Isis and her son. For
I would suggest that your atheism is assisted by your looking for a "pure act of revelation" that presupposes no analogy between creation, human nature and the truths of God. This is the legacy of a certain Protestant theology which is bearing the fruit of unbelief.
Instead, we should see the role of the Christian Faith (with its Jewish antecedent) as a depository of the wheat of truth sprung up in a diverse manner across the earth; that the Logos became flesh because He, "through whom all things were made", existed already in germ throughout what is His own; that Christ has become incarnate to "collect Himself", as it were, and all who have been incorporated into Him.
As Blessed John Henry Newman says here:
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
despite my personal belief, the trinity can still be debated. There isnt a notion that the trinity isnt man made though.
god is up for debate as being man made.
the trinity however is man made, and history states it as such.
its my opinion god created nothing, well that and most of science.
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
Good. Show me the historian, his book and the page number.
outhouse
Atheistically
No problem bud.
Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The doctrine developed from the biblical language used in New Testament passages such as the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 and took substantially its present form by the end of the 4th century as a result of controversies concerning the proper sense in which to apply to God and Christ terms such as "person", "nature", "essence", and "substance".
do you see anywhere in that statement that shows a deity penned a single word????
Trinitarianism contrasts with Nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity/two persons), Unitarianism (one deity/one person), the Oneness or Modalism belief, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' view of the Godhead as three separate beings who are one in purpose rather than essence.
outhouse
Atheistically
from the same link
the first time the trinity was used was a long long time after jesus death. and it was used as the godhead
The corresponding word in Greek is Τριάς, meaning "a set of three" or "the number three".[11]
The first recorded use of this Greek word in Christian theology (though not about the Divine Trinity) was by Theophilus of Antioch in about 170. He wrote:[12][13]
the first time the trinity was used was a long long time after jesus death. and it was used as the godhead
The corresponding word in Greek is Τριάς, meaning "a set of three" or "the number three".[11]
The first recorded use of this Greek word in Christian theology (though not about the Divine Trinity) was by Theophilus of Antioch in about 170. He wrote:[12][13]
"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity [Τριάδος], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man."http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/#cite_note-13
outhouse
Atheistically
Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early 3rd century, is credited with using the words "Trinity",[15] "person" and "substance"[16] to explain that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "one in essence—not one in Person".[17]
About a century later, in 325, the First Council of Nicaea established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and adopted the Nicene Creed, which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father".
About a century later, in 325, the First Council of Nicaea established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and adopted the Nicene Creed, which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father".
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
Of course, you're not showing me anything I didn't already know. And, as you know we believe, the only reason anyone was debating the nature of God in the first place was because of the advent of Jesus, in whom we Christians see the epiphany of God. So it is God who set the wheels in motion, through Christ's life, preaching, death and rising, that brought us to Nicea.
That the early Church developed the doctrine by looking to the baptismal formula, other words of Christ, his actions as well as shadows of anticipation in the Hebrew Scriptures is not a surprise: we believe the Scriptures and traditions themselves, in all their disparate pieces, are a product of God's interaction with humanity and that He guides us to see their inner unity.
Whoever said that God stooped down and whispered the Trinitarian dogma into anyone's ear? The Church synthesized its beliefs concerning who Christ is, taking into view the various data of the early tradition and scriptures. We believe that not only is the Trinitarian doctrine the best explanation in light of the multiple threads of Christian belief (monotheism, Christ as Redeemer and Bridegroom, Christ as the Logos, Christ as both message and messenger, unity of the Father and Son and yet their differentiation), but that the Holy Spirit has guaranteed that the Church can not err when solemnly defining such a doctrine.
The question is, as I stated above, one about the nature of revelation and its exposition. We are not Muslims, we have no "Qu'ran" which God has dictated to us. He speaks to us and guides us through our humanity. He meets us where we have already aspired and risen up to meet Him, making what is human divine without ceasing to be human.
That the early Church developed the doctrine by looking to the baptismal formula, other words of Christ, his actions as well as shadows of anticipation in the Hebrew Scriptures is not a surprise: we believe the Scriptures and traditions themselves, in all their disparate pieces, are a product of God's interaction with humanity and that He guides us to see their inner unity.
Whoever said that God stooped down and whispered the Trinitarian dogma into anyone's ear? The Church synthesized its beliefs concerning who Christ is, taking into view the various data of the early tradition and scriptures. We believe that not only is the Trinitarian doctrine the best explanation in light of the multiple threads of Christian belief (monotheism, Christ as Redeemer and Bridegroom, Christ as the Logos, Christ as both message and messenger, unity of the Father and Son and yet their differentiation), but that the Holy Spirit has guaranteed that the Church can not err when solemnly defining such a doctrine.
The question is, as I stated above, one about the nature of revelation and its exposition. We are not Muslims, we have no "Qu'ran" which God has dictated to us. He speaks to us and guides us through our humanity. He meets us where we have already aspired and risen up to meet Him, making what is human divine without ceasing to be human.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I don't believe he said that. Twisting the theology won't help you out here.
outhouse
Atheistically
and his quote
what part of that is not man defining his deity??
as well as this tidbit
he made it quite clear man defined his deity.