Why is the concept of the trinity so poorly understood (or often straw manned)?

[JayJayDee]

Therfore, by your own definition, you only have your perception of the truth, and are, therefore unqualified to dictate your version to anyone else.

I wasn't aware that I was dictating anything to anyone. Just pointing out what I see as obvious facts. I cannot see Christianity in Catholicism at all....I cannot see it in Christendom...period. Others might not either. I am not pointing fingers at the people, but at the institutions that have taught them to worship in a certain way.
If we get it wrong, there will be dire consequences, as Jesus said.....

"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left......“Then he will say to those on his left: ‘Go away from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels." (Matt 23: 31-33, 41)

Do you think that Jesus would have classified the Pharisees as "goats" ?
Do you think that they saw themselves that way?

It seems to me that Catholicism always taught that one must be Catholic to be saved......they have softened that stance somewhat...why?
Will non-Catholics have a nicer part of hell to live in now?

What is the point of being Catholic (or any other denomination) if everyone is saved? Does heaven have compartments for other faiths now?

On what basis does Jesus reject those "many" claiming to be Christians at the judgment? (Matt 7:21-23)

Some of the practices of the Catholic Church seem to be loosely based on the Jewish system, not the Christian arrangement, which was a complete departure from the sacrifice based worship at the temple. Christ fulfilled the law and dispensed with it. Love was to motivate all that Christians did.
How can you call what the church did in the early centuries, "loving"?

In the Pope's recent visit to the Philippines, it seems that the Catholic poor and destitute were secreted away somewhere so that no one could see them. What is that all about? It was these sorts of people who came to Jesus, but they were apparently not good enough for the Pope?

How did the first Christians practice their Christianity? Shouldn't we make comparisons? Shouldn't people evaluate what they have been taught to believe and practice? If it could be offensive to God, don't they have a right to know?

 

[Ingledsva]

The 'biblical truth' as interpreted by a 19th century heretical sect.

The true Church of Christ can never fall into heresy, this is a promise of Christ himself. You are outside of that Church.

Where does the Bible, or Jesus, teach there is a trinity?

Neither does!

That concept was brought in later.

*

 

[Glaurung]

Where does the Bible, or Jesus, teach there is a trinity?

Just because the word trinity isn't explicitly spelled out doesn't mean it wasn't believed by the Gospel authors. Jesus claimed to have always existed in John 8:58, and overtly claims divinity in John 10:30.

 

[sojourner]

I wasn't aware that I was dictating anything to anyone.

"I'm right -- you're wrong" is dictating in my book.

Just pointing out what I see as obvious facts.

More like obvious opinion, for your observations are largely unsubstantial.

I cannot see Christianity in Catholicism at all....I cannot see it in Christendom...period. Others might not either.

It isn't all about you. Others (myself included) do see Xy in Catholicism. You should respect that.

I am not pointing fingers at the people, but at the institutions that have taught them to worship in a certain way.

The institutions are the people. The church is the people -- not the polity or judicatory.

Do you think that Jesus would have classified the Pharisees as "goats" ?

Not necessarily. I think sheep and goats aren't differentiated in the gospel the way you seem to differentiate them here.

It seems to me that Catholicism always taught that one must be Catholic to be saved......they have softened that stance somewhat...why?
Will non-Catholics have a nicer part of hell to live in now?

I don't think Catholicism teaches that.

What is the point of being Catholic (or any other denomination) if everyone is saved? Does heaven have compartments for other faiths now?

The "point" of being part of a denomination, so far as I'm concerned, isn't "to be saved." It's to find a theological and social system that works to "make more" of one.

On what basis does Jesus reject those "many" claiming to be Christians at the judgment?

I don't think Jesus does that. I think the whole rejection thing is literary hyperbole -- overblown intentionally to drive home a point.

Some of the practices of the Catholic Church seem to be loosely based on the Jewish system, not the Christian arrangement, which was a complete departure from the sacrifice based worship at the temple.

Well, the earliest Xtians were practicing Jews. It stands to reason that there would be similarities. It just goes to show the continuity that indicates authenticity, IMO.

How can you call what the church did in the early centuries, "loving"?

To what are you referring?

In the Pope's recent visit to the Philippines, it seems that the Catholic poor and destitute were secreted away somewhere so that no one could see them. What is that all about? It was these sorts of people who came to Jesus, but they were apparently not good enough for the Pope?

I dunno. That seems dumb to me, too -- but not enough to condemn the church over.

How did the first Christians practice their Christianity?

We can't know exactly -- there's no comprehensive model or set of instructions until the Didache in about 250 C.E.

Shouldn't we make comparisons?

Through comparing what we know of the traditional liturgy (what we see in the RCC, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran churches) with what we know of typical Roman culture of the 1st century, we find that the traditional liturgy is modeled on the Roman symposium. What that tells us is that the earliest Christians practiced much as they do today.

Shouldn't people evaluate what they have been taught to believe and practice?

Of course -- and that happens all the time.

If it could be offensive to God, don't they have a right to know?

Somehow, I don't think God's going to be offended so long as the worship is intentional and sincere.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm reminded of the story of the Emperors new clothes. The hero could not see them, because they were not there.

The trinity is difficult to understand essentially because it is incoherrant.

 

[sojourner]

I'm reminded of the story of the Emperors new clothes. The hero could not see them, because they were not there.

The trinity is difficult to understand essentially because it is incoherrant.

Interesting. I don't find it "incoherent."

 

[Bunyip]

Interesting. I don't find it "incoherent."

Really? You think that being both the father and the son is coherrant?

 

[lovemuffin]

There is an interesting perspective on the relation between the idea of "essence" and "person" in the Trinity that I had not encountered until I began reading Raimon Panikkar's books, particularly Christophany. In discussing the expression "The Father and I are one", he quotes Gregory Nazianzen, one of the church fathers instrumental in the development of trinitarian doctrine:

Father is not the name of a substance; it rather indicates the relation which the Father has toward the Son or the Son toward the Father... Just as among us these names indicate a certain homogenous conjunction and necessity, so with respect to what we have just said, both he who generates and he who is generated possess the same nature -- Oratio Theologica XXIX, 16

"Conjunction and necessity" referring to the fact that a person can't be called "Father" unless they have a child, and a "Son" necessarily has a Father.

Re: the Bible - N.T. Wright makes some interesting arguments in his opus on Paul, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, in favor of Paul assuming a very high and proto-trinitarian Christology in his letters. For example in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul makes an argument about idols which depends on the premise that "God is one", and seems to quote some older formulation, possibly a prayer, in support of that one-ness, and yet which references both Father and Son:

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor 8:4-6)

He compares the greek construction of "For us there is One God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ" to the construction of the Shema (Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One) in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament which Paul almost certainly used, and argues for 1 Cor 8:6 as a sort of Christian restatement of that prayer. He also argues that outside of the Greek philosophy of substance, in the context of first century Judaism, the focus is more on an identity of God, rather than nature (substance, essence), and Paul's description of Jesus, especially in his usage of Kyrios (lord) as a title, echoing the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew YHWH.

 

[1137]

There is no trinity in the Bible, nor was such taught by Jesus.

*

That's not what I asked. People believe in the trinity, don't they?

 

[Ingledsva]

The pagan connection (that would make a great movie title) has less to do with the 1/3 idea -and more to do with the other practices of what is seen as the source of that idea.

John 1 actually describes two beings as having existed together from the beginning -God (the Father) -and God (the Word). The Word eventually became flesh as Christ.

It also states that it was the Word who eventually became Christ actually did the creating of all things.

The opposition to the trinity idea is not the number of beings in itself, but that the bible actually does not say that the spirit of God -also called the Holy Spirit -is a third separate being.
For example -though things are done BY the spirit -creation by fiat, imparting of knowledge/talents/gifts, and even the expression of words -never is the spirit itself spoken TO as if it were an individual -because it is not.

We know that the Father and the Word -though "one" -are individuals because the Father can know things the Word can not -such as the day or hour of Christ's return, and the Son/Christ/the Word addresses the Father and speaks to him, etc.

Actually, some who believe in the trinity don't see the Holy spirit as a separate deity -but that may not be an "official" stance or teaching.

As John 1 states that the Word did the actual creating -we can read Genesis with this in mind......

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

It may seem from this that the "Spirit of God" is an individual -especially as the translation capitalizes "Spirit" as if it is a name, but it actually describes HOW God (specifically, the Word) does the creating -by moving HIS SPIRIT upon the face of the waters, etc....

Then... notice the next instance where the spirit of God is mentioned in book/chapter/verse order of the bible.....


....

Yep, there is no trinity. I think what they are saying is that - Logos = God's Law, which was with him from the beginning,- as in ALL created is God's Law; and his spirit, is just his working power. No separate beings. No trinity.

When it says -

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I believe it is actually saying the "real/whole" LAW became encased In a human Teacher. Also, since the Hebrew prophecy is of a coming human-Messiah. It could also mean this human was endowed with that law/knowledge to complete his task.

So in John 1, where it says all things were made by HIM, - That HIM - is GOD either way. A direct mention, or HIS POWER creating, not some human Jesus.


Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

"Ignored?" Srrsly? Jesus (being fully human) said that the Father is greater than he. Remember: Jesus is fully human, as well as being fully God.

It doesn't say Jesus is God.

*

 

[lovemuffin]

So in John 1, where it says all things were made by HIM, - That HIM - is GOD either way. A direct mention, or HIS POWER creating, not some human Jesus.


Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

*

Leaving aside your interpretation of logos, that "him" refers to the logos in 1:3 is grammatically clear in the Greek because of the placement of the article indicating logos as the subject of the prior verses:

John 1 Interlinear Bible

The article is the "ho" in ho logos.

 

[Ingledsva]

Just because the word trinity isn't explicitly spelled out doesn't mean it wasn't believed by the Gospel authors. Jesus claimed to have always existed in John 8:58, and overtly claims divinity in John 10:30.

They didn't write it because they didn't believe it. It came in later.

Jesus NEVER claims to be God.

He is claiming to be the Awaited - HUMAN - Messiah, spoken of by Abraham.

Joh 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard from God: this did not Abraham.

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.


Joh 8:50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.


Joh 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:


Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Abraham prophesied about the coming Messiah.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

This one should be translated differently -

John 8:58 Said he Iesous, Amen (so be it, or, it is so) Amen, saying to them, for Abraham to be (gonomai) fulfilled, I am (I exist.)

In other words a claim to be the Hebrew Messiah, from the Seed of Abraham (King David.)
*

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

The word being translated GOD has other meanings, and very obviously should have been translated such, as he quotes from Psalm 82:6 which is about JUDGES, the elect of God - NOT GODS.


Psa 82:1 A Psalm of Asaph: The MAGISTRATES/Judges stand in the assembly of the mighty/powerful, among the magistrates to judge/execute.

Psa 82:2 For how long will you judge unjustly, and by reason of, advance the wicked?

Psa 82:3 Defend the weak and bereaved, needy and destitute; be righteous!

Psa 82:4 Deliver the weak and destitute from the hand of the wicked.

Psa 82:5 Of a truth, they observe and don't understand. In misery they walk. Rotten is the whole foundation.

Psa 82:6 I said Elohiym/Judges thou are; and sons elevated above all others!

Psa 82:7 Nevertheless as human beings, shall die, and of a certainty, as all leaders fall.

Psa 82:8 Arise o Elohiym/Judges, execute judgment on the land/nation; for you shall inherit the whole nation/people/land.

*

 

[Glaurung]

I hate quotation walls. Nor do I have the knowledge or patience to refute your 'point'.

Look, do really think that your 'brilliant' insight into the Scriptures and their meaning is something that the Church and her greatest minds have somehow overlooked for the past two-thousand years? Very unlikely. Do you really believe that the Church Fathers and the great theologians of Christian history were all just that oblivious?

Another question, how much Greek do you actually understand? Or are you just pandering a narrative that you've learned from someone else?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Look, do really think that your 'brilliant' insight into the Scriptures and their meaning is something that the Church and her greatest minds have somehow overlooked for the past two-thousand years? Very unlikely. Do you really believe that the Church Fathers and the great theologians of Christian history were all just that oblivious?

That's a very good question?
I think that once the trinity had been established, then like any religion, it becomes a case of "monkey see, monkey do". It's important to know the origins of the trinity..

See here Only-begotten son

Only-Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God,
Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary;
Who without change didst become man and was crucified;
Who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
O Christ our God, trampling down death by death, save us!

"This hymn is sometimes ascribed to Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria. It was written after the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea as an affirmation of the Christological Formula set down by Athanasius..."

"...In 325, at the age of 27, Athanasius began his leading role against the Arians as his bishop's assistant during the First Council of Nicaea. Roman emperor Constantine the Great had convened the council in May–August 325 to address the Arian position that the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, is of a distinct substance from the Father..."

Hmm

 

[sojourner]

That's a very good question?
I think that once the trinity had been established, then like any religion, it becomes a case of "monkey see, monkey do". It's important to know the origins of the trinity..

See here Only-begotten son

Only-Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God,
Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary;
Who without change didst become man and was crucified;
Who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
O Christ our God, trampling down death by death, save us!

"This hymn is sometimes ascribed to Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria. It was written after the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea as an affirmation of the Christological Formula set down by Athanasius..."

"...In 325, at the age of 27, Athanasius began his leading role against the Arians as his bishop's assistant during the First Council of Nicaea. Roman emperor Constantine the Great had convened the council in May–August 325 to address the Arian position that the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, is of a distinct substance from the Father..."

Hmm

Do you understand how long and difficult that process of "establishing" the Trinity was?

 

[sojourner]

It doesn't say Jesus is God.

*

No, it doesn't. But it is heavily implied.

 

[sojourner]

Really? You think that being both the father and the son is coherrant?

This:
[GALLERY=media, 4418]Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English by sojourner posted Jan 24, 2015 at 8:56 AM[/GALLERY]
Is not incoherent.

 

[sojourner]

Yep, there is no trinity. I think what they are saying is that - Logos = God's Law, which was with him from the beginning,- as in ALL created is God's Law; and his spirit, is just his working power. No separate beings. No trinity.

When it says -

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I believe it is actually saying the "real/whole" LAW became encased In a human Teacher. Also, since the Hebrew prophecy is of a coming human-Messiah. It could also mean this human was endowed with that law/knowledge to complete his task.

So in John 1, where it says all things were made by HIM, - That HIM - is GOD either way. A direct mention, or HIS POWER creating, not some human Jesus.


Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

*

You think. Obviously, that's not what the church fathers thought.

 

[lovemuffin]

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

This one should be translated differently -

John 8:58 Said he Iesous, Amen (so be it, or, it is so) Amen, saying to them, for Abraham to be (gonomai) fulfilled, I am (I exist.)

Your translation seems problematic given that no greek words that can be translated "for" or "fulfilled" appear anywhere in that verse. πριν means before or until and is never translated "for" in the way you are suggesting, which would typically be the word γαρ. You've correctly identified that γενεσθαι is an infinitive form of gignomai ("to come to be"), but it's in the aorist, which is a aspect of infinitive English doesn't have, and indicates completed action at some undefined time in the past. That's why it's translated "was"

πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι, εγο ειμι
before Abraham came to be, I am

is a very literal translation, but there isn't really any room to add "fullfiled" (πλεροω), which is crucial for you to make sense of your translation, and which isn't present at all.