The Trinity

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How is that different than a Hindu saying Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are God? Or, how is that different than a Jew saying G-d is one, and there is only one G-d?

It may not be different but that is what meant by the Holy Trinity as far as the Christian doctrine is concerned.

 

[CG Didymus]

It may not be different but that is what meant by the Holy Trinity as far as the Christian doctrine is concerned.

Since the trinity was not a Jewish concept, I'm thinking it is nothing but a Christian invention to make sense of their scriptures. But then, I see all religions as people trying to make sense of the world and the things around them. If the Hindu's see one aspect of God as the destroyer, another as the life giver and another one as the overall supreme ruler, I can see that. I can see a more Jewish view also, that there is only one G-d. However, it seems too culturally bound to think that any one explanation is the only right one.

 

[sojourner]

Since the trinity was not a Jewish concept, I'm thinking it is nothing but a Christian invention to make sense of their scriptures. But then, I see all religions as people trying to make sense of the world and the things around them. If the Hindu's see one aspect of God as the destroyer, another as the life giver and another one as the overall supreme ruler, I can see that. I can see a more Jewish view also, that there is only one G-d. However, it seems too culturally bound to think that any one explanation is the only right one.

It doesn't have anything to do with "right" or "wrong." It has to do with being theologically tenable.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Since the trinity was not a Jewish concept

Some Jews don't even believe that Jesus Christ is the messiah, but Christians do. So if you are basing the validity of the Trinity doctrine by Jewish standards then I don't think you will get past first base.

I'm thinking it is nothing but a Christian invention to make sense of their scriptures.

The Trinity doctrine is not essential to salvation, so Christians dont really need it to make sense of our scriptures.

 

[SageTree]

The Trinity is a symbol for us to grow with and in God, to know It's Energies like Love, Compassion and Self-Giving.

Symbols can be verified through experience, prayed and lived, but not proven logically.

The Trinity is a catophatic assertion of understanding...
Ultimately God is beyond all of our concepts, which is a apophatic assertion.

Even saying 'beyond our concepts' probably falls short

 

[cataway]

how does the Trinity dogma answer ?
17 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”
if Jesus is God as you say ,then why does he have a God that he answers to ?

i was also wondering ,if Jesus is God then why did Satan not recognize him as God ? ....
8 Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9 and he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

 

[sojourner]

Jesus is, at the same time, fully human. As a fully human being, Jesus would have a God.

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

The Israelites survived so long because they knew the nature of God. If in all the Tanakh, and in the gospels, there is no mention that God is really three persons, how should anyone be expected to believe such a doctrine?

Oh, and consider:

"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind."

Balaam states it right there: God is not a man.

 

[Shermana]

Some Jews don't even believe that Jesus Christ is the messiah, but Christians do. So if you are basing the validity of the Trinity doctrine by Jewish standards then I don't think you will get past first base.



The Trinity doctrine is not essential to salvation, so Christians dont really need it to make sense of our scriptures.

Considering the Messiah is based on Jewish concepts, Jewish standards (of the time) would in fact be very relevant to accepting the validity of this doctrine that was "developed" centuries after the actual event. Early Jewish Christians seem to have not believed in such a concept.

What if I told you that Jews would be possibly, potentially more apt to considering Jesus as the prophecied Messiah if Christians stopped pushing the Trinity?

 

[sojourner]

The Israelites survived so long because they knew the nature of God. If in all the Tanakh, and in the gospels, there is no mention that God is really three persons, how should anyone be expected to believe such a doctrine?

Oh, and consider:

"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind."

Balaam states it right there: God is not a man.

No, they just believed in a plurality of gods, of which El was "the biggest one on the block." Until they switched to monotheism later on, of course.

 

[Muffled]

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

If I see a large animal with a long nose, tusks, floppy ears and a skinny tail I wouldn't be far off saying it is an elephant. When I take into account corroborating evidence, it narrows it down to being an elephant.

When Zechariah names the Messiah Jesus and I find so much prophecy fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, I have to believe Jesus of Nazareth is the one Zechariah is talking about.

I believe Paul must have thought so also because he spends a great deal of time in Hebrews explaining why Jesus is a high priest. And we know he is a king because he has already been crowned (with a crown of thorns).

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If I see a large animal with a long nose, tusks, floppy ears and a skinny tail I wouldn't be far off saying it is an elephant. When I take into account corroborating evidence, it narrows it down to being an elephant.

When Zechariah names the Messiah Jesus and I find so much prophecy fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, I have to believe Jesus of Nazareth is the one Zechariah is talking about.

I believe Paul must have thought so also because he spends a great deal of time in Hebrews explaining why Jesus is a high priest. And we know he is a king because he has already been crowned (with a crown of thorns).

Could also be a mastodon or a mammoth. Then you should also account for what type of elephant since depending on if you're in Africa or Asia the ears, tusks, tail though there will look the same. So while it maybe an elephant depending on where it lives it may have variations. So it's really important to get the details down correctly.

 

[Muffled]

It doesn't have anything to do with "right" or "wrong." It has to do with being theologically tenable.

I believe differently. I believe some will say that something is theologically tenable but that doesn't necessarily make it so. I have never been one to simply accept someone's theology without solid proof.

I believe it doesn't answer the question of whether it is tied in to a culture of Christianity. Basically speaking a false doctrine can get locked in as the accepted doctrine and become a part of the Christian culture.

 

[Muffled]

Since the trinity was not a Jewish concept, I'm thinking it is nothing but a Christian invention to make sense of their scriptures. But then, I see all religions as people trying to make sense of the world and the things around them. If the Hindu's see one aspect of God as the destroyer, another as the life giver and another one as the overall supreme ruler, I can see that. I can see a more Jewish view also, that there is only one G-d. However, it seems too culturally bound to think that any one explanation is the only right one.

I beleive this depends on whether you believe in progressive revelation by God. Certainly God didn't tell Abraham everything that He told Moses. So why would we think that He told Moses everything that there was to tell. However the trinitiarian concept does exist in the prophecies of Isaiah. (Something God told Isaiah but didn't tell Moses.)

I believe the scriptures make sense and the trinity is already there to see. Nothing needs to be invented. However there are most likely different ways of perceiving what is there.

I believe the Jewish and Christian religions and Islam also do not derive from a world view but from the word of God.

I can see it also but I don't believe in personifying attributes of God and though God will destroy if he has to it is not necessarily part of His nature. There is no doubt that Satan is a destroyer; it is an essential part of his nature.

I believe this is also the Christian and Islamic view.

I believe there has to be a correct (right) explanation.

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe there has to be a correct (right) explanation.

Like blind men describing the elephant, each is correct, but none of them have the whole picture. Since the Trinity is not part of the Jewish religion, where did it come from? If the early Roman church developed it, then where is the credibility in that? They developed a lot of "doctrines" that Protestants don't accept. So, again, for several hundreds of years of Christianity, the explanations of truth were wrong. Were the first protestants any better? Guys like Luther and Calvin? Are doctrines they developed and held considered as being right today? Maybe to some but not all. Christianity is redefining itself as time goes by. The trinity was never the only explanation that Christians believed in, because at best, it's only implied.

 

[cataway]

Jesus is, at the same time, fully human. As a fully human being, Jesus would have a God.

this may come as a bit of a surprise to you ,a GOD can not have a GOD . how ever a god can have a GOD. thats because any thing or any one can be a god. if Jesus was in fact God ,then the fact of it would have to be stated. all the scriptures do say is that he,Jesus ,is the son of God.which you know but ignore.

 

[allright]

John 14:14 "Whatever you ask in my name I will do it"

How could anyone but God make a promise like that ?

 

[sojourner]

If I see a large animal with a long nose, tusks, floppy ears and a skinny tail I wouldn't be far off saying it is an elephant. When I take into account corroborating evidence, it narrows it down to being an elephant.

It could also be my pet greyhound.

I believe Paul must have thought so also because he spends a great deal of time in Hebrews explaining why Jesus is a high priest.

Paul didn't write Hebrews.

When Zechariah names the Messiah Jesus and I find so much prophecy fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, I have to believe Jesus of Nazareth is the one Zechariah is talking about.

So... when somebody says, "Joe is a good football player," I can safely assume that anyone I know named "Joe" who plays football is a good player?

 

[sojourner]

I believe some will say that something is theologically tenable but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

It doesn't matter what someone "says." It only matters if it makes theological sense. There are any number of tenable theological constructs -- no one of the them can be said to be "more right" than any other, so long as they're tenable.

 

[sojourner]

this may come as a bit of a surprise to you ,a GOD can not have a GOD . how ever a god can have a GOD. thats because any thing or any one can be a god. if Jesus was in fact God ,then the fact of it would have to be stated. all the scriptures do say is that he,Jesus ,is the son of God.which you know but ignore.

This may come as a bit of a surprise to you, human beings can have a God. Jesus was fully human.

I'm not going to get drug into accepting a false, sola scriptura stance here.