Trinity: True or False?

[metis]

One big problem with trinitarianism is that the trinity is not in the Bible - not the word, not the concept.

The key to beginning to understand the concept of the "Trinity" is to understand the concept of "essence". The Trinity does not posit three gods-- only one, with Jesus and the Holy Spirit being of the "essence" of God the Father. Because the NT was eventually written mainly in Koine Greek, it's natural that it would at times use concepts that those who could read the language would understand.

Essence - Wikipedia

 

[Wrangler]

The key to beginning to understand the concept of the "Trinity" is

I understand the trinity. And I reject the trinity.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I do not believe there ae three different persons by the usual definitions. It is only person by an ecclesiastical definition and that definition does not require finite entities.

I have explained this in other posts but I will do it again:

The Spirit of God that is the Father is a person by right of having a personality but no body.
The Spirit of God in Jesus is a person having a personality and a personal body
The Spirit of God in believers is a person because He has many personalities and personal bodies

As you can see each person is quite different from the other just as a blond is different from a redhead. However it is the same Spirit of God in all three person and the Spirit of God has only one personality.

That explanation is belief in multiple Gods - Different persons, each of which is God. No matter how much it is denied, that is more than one God.

 

[moorea944]

I believe this is it: Luke 1:35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God

Correct, but I really wouldnt use the word "installed". Just doesnt sound right.

 

[metis]

I understand the trinity. And I reject the trinity.

I don't believe in it nor disbelieve in it, but all too many people don't understand what it really means, thus positing erroneously that it's a reference to there being three gods. This is why I posted the link to "essence".

To put it another way, the Trinitarian concept has it that there's only one God but that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of God. IOW, they basically reflect God as being "on the same page".

Thus, the Trinitarian concept does not posit there are three gods as some mistakingly believe.


BTW, welcome here to RF!

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I don't believe in it nor disbelieve in it, but all too many people don't understand what it really means, thus positing erroneously that it's a reference to there being three gods. This is why I posted the link to "essence".

To put it another way, the Trinitarian concept has it that there's only one God but that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of God. IOW, they basically reflect God as being "on the same page".

Thus, the Trinitarian concept does not posit there are three gods as some mistakingly believe.


BTW, welcome here to RF!

Those believing in a Trinity SAY they believe in one God, because the scripture is so clear they are forced to say that. But in reality they are believing in 3 DIFFERENT persons that are each totally and completely God. That means they believe in 3 Gods whether they will admit it or not.

 

[metis]

Those believing in a Trinity SAY they believe in one God, because the scripture is so clear they are forced to say that. But in reality they are believing in 3 DIFFERENT persons that are each totally and completely God. That means they believe in 3 Gods whether they will admit it or not.

Categorically false, and isn't it quite contentious to tell others what they supposedly believe? That's called "bearing false witness", so why don't you let others tell you what they believe, OK?

Again, for probably the hundredth time, the concept of the Trinity, at least from the Catholic perspective, uses "essence", which denotes the fact that even though the Three are different, their "essence" is similar. Or, to put it another way, Jesus and the Holy Spirit the "essence" of God but not literally God.

We call it "the Mystery of the Trinity", namely that it is not completely understandable by us mortals.

 

[moorea944]

Categorically false, and isn't it quite contentious to tell others what they supposedly believe? That's called "bearing false witness", so why don't you let others tell you what they believe, OK?

Again, for probably the hundredth time, the concept of the Trinity, at least from the Catholic perspective, uses "essence", which denotes the fact that even though the Three are different, their "essence" is similar. Or, to put it another way, Jesus and the Holy Spirit the "essence" of God but not literally God.

We call it "the Mystery of the Trinity", namely that it is not completely understandable by us mortals.

Ok, a few things here that I dont understand....

1. Isnt the Holy Spirit the power of God? Why do you want to make the HS a person? I find nowhere in scripture that tells us that it is a person. Doesnt really make sense, does it....

2. [We call it "the Mystery of the Trinity", namely that it is not completely understandable by us mortals]
I totally agree with that. The trinity is a mystery, namely because it was put into "religion" around 325 AD. But, doesnt scripture tell us that the mysteries have been revealed to us? So either the trinity is false doctrine or we are not just understanding it because scripture tells us that we can now.....
Interesting. You have many verses that tell us that too. Just one would be Col 1v26 "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:" So why is it still a mystery to you? IT's not to me. I totally understand the trinity.

I can explain the trinity in two words..... false doctrine.

 

[metis]

1. Isnt the Holy Spirit the power of God? Why do you want to make the HS a person?

The Holy Spirit is a spirit, and it's probably a rewording of "God's spirits" that shows up in the Tanakh, imo.

[We call it "the Mystery of the Trinity", namely that it is not completely understandable by us mortals]
I totally agree with that. The trinity is a mystery, namely because it was put into "religion" around 325 AD.

Over 1000 bishops were involved in that decision, so what you say above is misleading because they certainly wouldn't have agree to do as such if it hadn't been around. Why would the make this up out of nothing but thin air if it hadn't been around for a long time?

You have many verses that tell us that too. Just one would be Col 1v26 "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:" So why is it still a mystery to you? IT's not to me. I totally understand the trinity.

Actually you don't-- you only think you do. Here, maybe do some reading:
Trinity - Wikipedia

Again, the key to understanding the Trinitarian concept is the use of "essence", especially since the N.T. was translated into Koine Greek, thus the authors would have been familiar with that concept:
Essence - Wikipedia

The relationship between God and Jesus is not well-defined in the Gospels, which is why there was confusion early on as to what that relationship entailed. If you take all the verses that has Jesus referring to God, there are times when he differentiates between them and then times when he says they are "one".

By using "essence", Jesus and the Holy Spirit are believed to be of the "essence" of God, much like I am the "essence" of both of my parents, both genetically and personality-wise.

Anyhow, if you disagree with the above, that's all fine & dandy with me since I have no idea if it's correct or not, nor do I lose any sleep over it. Thus, this my last post on this-- until the next anti-Trinitarian thread shows up at least. There seems to be a sale on them lately.

 

[metis]

I can explain the trinity in two words..... false doctrine.

[I didn't see your sentence above before writing my last post.]

You state this as a fact, which is really not an intelligent thing to do if you were to study the history of the early Church.

For example, let me recommend reading "How Jesus Became God" by theologian Bart D. Ehrman, whereas he correctly explains that the evidence is that the 1st century and early 2nd century Church did not have consensus with Jesus' and the Holy Spirit's connection to God, thus there were disputes on this plus the adherence to the Law [halacha]. Note that Ehrman is not a Trinitarian [he takes a neutral position] and he is an agnostic.

Thus your statement above is an opinion, not necessarily a fact.

Anyhow, I'm "over & out".

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Categorically false, and isn't it quite contentious to tell others what they supposedly believe? That's called "bearing false witness", so why don't you let others tell you what they believe, OK?

Again, for probably the hundredth time, the concept of the Trinity, at least from the Catholic perspective, uses "essence", which denotes the fact that even though the Three are different, their "essence" is similar. Or, to put it another way, Jesus and the Holy Spirit the "essence" of God but not literally God.

We call it "the Mystery of the Trinity", namely that it is not completely understandable by us mortals.

No - I am just telling you what you are really believing in whether you realize it or not. Just common sense here - if you believe in 3 DIFFERENT persons that are each totally and completely God, that is more than one God.

(Proof: God + God + God does not equal 1 God.)

(Also essence is a man made term not found in the scripture.) The scripture doesn't mention a mystery of the Trinity either.

And the scripture says the Godhead can be understood. Romans 1:20

 

[TiggerII]

metis wrote: "Over 1000 bishops were involved in that decision [325 A.D. Council of Nicea], so what you say above is misleading because they certainly wouldn't have agree to do as such if it hadn't been around. Why would the make this up out of nothing but thin air if it hadn't been around for a long time?"

Three views were advocated by the approximately 300 Bishops present at this council. (Actually, the real question to be decided at this council was only the first step by Alexandrian philosophizers [and their Roman sympathizers] toward establishing a new doctrine of God. The question was only, “Is Jesus absolutely equal to the Father: all-powerful, always existing, and of the very same substance, or not?” The introduction of a “third person” as being equal to God was not yet being attempted officially.)

(1) Basically, Athanasius, the trinitarian from Alexandria, said,
“Yes, Jesus is absolutely equal to the Father. He has always existed beside the Father. He is of the very same substance or essence (Homoousios) as the Father. He is absolute God and must be worshiped as God.”

There was a very small minority of Western Bishops at the council who agreed with him (those most influenced by Alexandria and Neo-Platonism, including the trinitarian Bishop Hosius).

(2) There was another (much larger) minority of Bishops at the council who were led by Arius. Basically, Arius said,
“Jesus is not God, although he could be called ‘divine.’ He was made by God (the Father alone) so there was a time when he did not exist! He was made out of nothing and is, therefore, of an entirely different substance (or Essence) from that of God. He must not be worshiped as the One True God.”

(Apparently Arius also believed that in his heavenly pre-existence Jesus had been the highest of angels. But this was not an invention of Arius. It was a much earlier Christian tradition which Arius was upholding - p. 50, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, Fortress Press, 1985 - but the more recent trinitarians had rejected it.

“Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this ‘angel’ [the Angel of Jehovah] was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God’s Messenger-Servant.” - Gen. 16:7 footnote, NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985.)

(3) The vast majority (more than 200 bishops) of those at the Council of Nicaea were led by Eusebius of Caesarea. These were the Semi-Arians (see The American People’s Encyclopedia, 1954, p. 8-207). They strongly agreed with the Arians that Jesus was not God and must not be worshipped as God! They believed that Jesus did not always exist. Basically, they said,
“The Father (God alone) generated Jesus (not out of nothing as Arius believed, but) from a substance similar (Homoi ousios) to His own. He is not equal to God, but is subordinate to Him, even though he is above all the rest of creation. Jesus must not be worshiped as the One True God.”

"By contrast [with the Arians and semi-Arians], the strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be 'updated' by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son.
....
"For young militants like Athanasius, however, ... Judaism was an offensive, anti-Christian faith." - p. 74, When Jesus Became God, Harcourt, 1999.

Notwithstanding the vast majority of bishops' unshakably strong insistence upon a non-trinitarian view of God, the determination and power of the small minority of Emperor- supported (and Alexandrian and Neo-Platonist-influenced) bishops of the West prevailed after months of stormy debates.

 

[TiggerII]

“The Emperor himself presided over the critical session [at Nicaea], and it was he who proposed the reconciling word, homoousios (Greek for ‘of one essence’), to describe Christ’s relationship to the Father (though it was probably one of his ecclesiastical advisers, Ossius [Hosius] of Cordova, who suggested it to him).” - Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, p. 134, 1977; Also The History of Christianity, p. 143, Lion Publishing, 1990.

It is important to note that in the third century (about 50 years earlier) the Council of Antioch condemned the use of the term homoousios in describing the relationship of Jesus to God! It was proclaimed instead that the term heteras ousias (‘different essence’) must be used in describing Christ’s relationship to God!! But, of course, fifty years later at Nicaea the new trinitarians managed to reverse this and institute the previously condemned term (homoousios) as the required term. Those who would disagree with the new reversal of terms were to be persecuted, banished, and their writings burned.

“’Consubstantial’ (homoousios) had been introduced to Christian theology by Gnostics who believed that the heavenly powers shared in the divine fullness. .... Its use in the Creed of Nicaea must have resulted largely from Constantine’s intimidation or overawing persuasion.” - pp. 159-160, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.

“The Western [trinitarian] Church was represented by seven delegates [out of 300 attending the council!], the most important of whom was Hosius, Bishop of Cordova who presided over the sittings which continued for about two months .... After much discussion of the doctrines of Arius [and Athanasius], his creed was torn in pieces and he himself [Arius] ejected from the council and the Athanasians succeeded, with the help of Constantine and the [seven] Western bishops.” - Encyclopedia Americana, p. 250, v. 2, 1957 ed.

 

[moorea944]

[I didn't see your sentence above before writing my last post.]

You state this as a fact, which is really not an intelligent thing to do if you were to study the history of the early Church.

For example, let me recommend reading "How Jesus Became God" by theologian Bart D. Ehrman, whereas he correctly explains that the evidence is that the 1st century and early 2nd century Church did not have consensus with Jesus' and the Holy Spirit's connection to God, thus there were disputes on this plus the adherence to the Law [halacha]. Note that Ehrman is not a Trinitarian [he takes a neutral position] and he is an agnostic.

Thus your statement above is an opinion, not necessarily a fact.

Anyhow, I'm "over & out".

Actually, it was a fact. Yes, there were some people who believed that Jesus was God, but it wasnt made official until the counsel of Nicea. That's what that meeting was all about.

If you talk to a Jew on that subject today, he would find that repulsive!! If anyone people should believe in that, shouldnt be the Jews? How come they dont?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Actually, it was a fact. Yes, there were some people who believed that Jesus was God, but it wasnt made official until the counsel of Nicea. That's what that meeting was all about.

If you talk to a Jew on that subject today, he would find that repulsive!! If anyone people should believe in that, shouldnt be the Jews? How come they dont?

The early church was Jewish. The Apostles were Jewish. 144,000 of the Jews did accept the teaching of the apostles. The 144,000 were the first fruits. Then it turned to whosoever will - Jew or Gentile.

 

[metis]

No - I am just telling you what you are really believing in whether you realize it or not.

Maybe try just telling yourself what you believe versus trying to tell me what I supposedly believe, OK?

Just common sense here - if you believe in 3 DIFFERENT persons that are each totally and completely God, that is more than one God.

Again, the concept of "essence" explains your misconception of what the Trinity does actually say, thus all you are doing is to ignore what the term and the implication of the term actually entails.

(Also essence is a man made term not found in the scripture.) The scripture doesn't mention a mystery of the Trinity either.

It's a "theological concept", thus no one here said that it is a word-for-word the scriptures.

For the seemingly millionth time, please read this: Essence - Wikipedia If you don't, then any opinion of yours simply cannot be taken seriously because it is key to understanding the Trinity.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Maybe try just telling yourself what you believe versus trying to tell me what I supposedly believe, OK?

Again, the concept of "essence" explains your misconception of what the Trinity does actually say, thus all you are doing is to ignore what the term and the implication of the term actually entails.

It's a "theological concept", thus no one here said that it is a word-for-word the scriptures.

For the seemingly millionth time, please read this: Essence - Wikipedia If you don't, then any opinion of yours simply cannot be taken seriously because it is key to understanding the Trinity.

Not interested in essence since it is man made and not biblical. The Trinity is a false doctrine. Just to try to understand what they are saying about essence makes your mind hurt - just like trying to understand how 1+1+1=1

It's a bunch of gobbledygook.

 

[metis]

Not interested in essence since it is man made and not biblical. The Trinity is a false doctrine. Just to try to understand what they are saying about essence makes your mind hurt - just like trying to understand how 1+1+1=1

It's a bunch of gobbledygook.

Since you are not willing to even try and learn something that you are obviously not familiar with, and since you base your opinion on shear ignorance of the subject, I'm no longer interested in having such a discussion. If one disagrees with the Trinitarian concept, that's all fine & dandy with me because I really don't believe one way or another on this, but for you to not even try to understand what it means tells me that I'm just wasting my time with you on this.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Since you are not willing to even try and learn something that you are obviously not familiar with, and since you base your opinion on shear ignorance of the subject, I'm no longer interested in having such a discussion. If one disagrees with the Trinitarian concept, that's all fine & dandy with me because I really don't believe one way or another on this, but for you to not even try to understand what it means tells me that I'm just wasting my time with you on this.

Oh I looked at it but it's nonsense. Just like 1+1+1=1 is nonsense. If you would like to use scripture, then we have something of value. Otherwise yes you are wasting your time.

 

[moorea944]

Maybe try just telling yourself what you believe versus trying to tell me what I supposedly believe, OK?

Again, the concept of "essence" explains your misconception of what the Trinity does actually say, thus all you are doing is to ignore what the term and the implication of the term actually entails.

It's a "theological concept", thus no one here said that it is a word-for-word the scriptures.

For the seemingly millionth time, please read this: Essence - Wikipedia If you don't, then any opinion of yours simply cannot be taken seriously because it is key to understanding the Trinity.

But why would we want to understand the trinity?....

I like these verses...

1. "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one"

2. "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." Isaiah 44

3. "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." Isaiah 45

4. "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else

5. God is talking to Moses..... "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. Deut 18

You really see a trinity in those verses? I dont. Did you also see how God is talking here? "He shall speak in my name" God manifestation right there. Everything Jesus did he did for his father.

Really not sure where your getting this trinity thing.....