Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[Maninthemiddle]

The Trinity refers to the Christian doctrine that God exists as three distinct but inseparable persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.

The relationship between Jesus as the Son of God and his connection to the Father is often a point of confusion for many. The notion that Jesus, as the Son of God, prays to God, and is described as seated at the right hand of the Father.

The theological paradoxes and intricacies inherent in the doctrine of the Trinity—such as the coexistence of distinct persons within a single Godhead, and the dual nature of Jesus (fully divine and fully human)—are part of what make the Trinity a profound and deeply confusing concept.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Jesus was undoubtedly a Jew, born of a Jewish mother, and bought up in the Jewish faith.

There is no mention of the Trinity in the bible or in any of Paul's teachings.

It did not appear as mainstream until the third century.

It was disputed then and it is disputed now, however it is still the teaching of a large majority of Christian Churches.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've noticed on RF there are a lot of heretical (that's the technical term) Christians who disbelieve in the Trinity.

Why?

We've had the creeds since Late Antiquity (Apostolic, Nicaean, Athanasian) and they all include the Trinity, especially the latter, which is all about it. These creeds are regularly read in churches and have been for hundreds of years. If the Trinity were so easily disproven, why would it have held out and been accepted by the orthodox Christians? Why spend so much time fighting the Arians? And why, I'm sorry to ask, is it almost always Protestants? Do you think you know something that everybody in the early orthodox Church failed to grasp?

Why is there so much of this around lately? How do you explain how Jesus is God without the Trinity?

How do you explain the worship of Christ?

And why is it treated in such a light manner?

To be honest. As far as I can explain it, it is because of the need to explain it. I.e. the "marriage" of religion and philosophy and thus the idea that we need to justify faith and belief.
But that is just me.

 

[Coder]

So you guys are saying you know better than the men closer to the Apostles, the men who drew up the creeds and wrote the theological texts?

The men who read the Bible in its original languages?

You know better?

Hi, I no longer believe in the trinity teaching and I also no longer have to kid myself and others that it was logical to me.

People say that the Bible must be understand in context.

"the men who drew up the creeds and wrote the theological texts?"
They must also be understood in their context. There is is the context:

In the Roman Empire, there were many gods and and sons of gods, both among the Greco-Roman pagan religions as well as the emperors who were ascribed "divinity" and "divi filius", "son of a god". It is also known that the Romans sought common ground among the various religions in the empire. Further evidence of motive is that early Roman Christianity was state religion enacted by force such as destruction and/or conversion of houses of worship.

Based on this, it is not unreasonable to consider that for the needs of unified religion in the Roman Empire ("all things to all people"), Jesus was used as a human-like ‘god’ figure to help a huge population of Greco-Roman pagans convert to Jewish monotheism. The pagans believed in human-like gods. By using a human-like form (Jesus) as an image of the true God, the pagans could transfer their thinking from the pagan gods to the true God. It's a parable. This should not be surprising. In the Roman Church we see a pattern of substitution of a pagan artifact of worship for a Christian one. It's a simple substitution process. We see this in holidays, prayer, statues, and many other aspects. So, the substitution of a human-like image of God, in place of human-like pagan god figure, for adaptation to monotheism, is a normal part of the pattern.

Many Scriptures can be shown that fit the above pattern, and in my experience, this pattern is generally a better explanation for those Scriptures than the traditional one.

If interested, to get a sense, one can look up what the name "Jupiter" means.

None of this has bearing on whether God taught through Jesus. It only has bearing on additional stories that were fabricated about Jesus (based on the above reasoning and related reasoning). This also is not to judge whether the use of these "parables" was right or wrong. The intentions may have been honorable, and one might argue that the resultant religion was an improvement over polytheism. It is also reasonable to consider that a tension existed between the church and that state. I.e. The church may have been pressured into the extent of the theological adaptations. However, the "parables" went too far and the religion wasn't accepted by Jewish people, including the trinity, which they (rightly in my belief) still don't accept.

You may also find this interesting:

Non-Trinitarian Belief

Many religious including those who use the Christian Bible, are non-trinitarian. This appears to be a potential trend. Some believe that Jesus has a particular role and relationship to God, other's don't. However, all believe that God is one in the non-trinitarian sense. Jewish people...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi, I no longer believe in the trinity teaching and I also no longer have to kid myself and others that it was logical to me.

People say that the Bible must be understand in context.

"the men who drew up the creeds and wrote the theological texts?"
They must also be understood in their context. There is is the context:

In the Roman Empire, there were many gods and and sons of gods, both among the Greco-Roman pagan religions as well as the emperors who were ascribed "divinity" and "divi filius", "son of a god". It is also known that the Romans sought common ground among the various religions in the empire. Further evidence of motive is that early Roman Christianity was state religion enacted by force such as destruction and/or conversion of houses of worship.

Based on this, it is not unreasonable to consider that for the needs of unified religion in the Roman Empire ("all things to all people"), Jesus was used as a human-like ‘god’ figure to help a huge population of Greco-Roman pagans convert to Jewish monotheism. The pagans believed in human-like gods. By using a human-like form (Jesus) as an image of the true God, the pagans could transfer their thinking from the pagan gods to the true God. It's a parable. This should not be surprising. In the Roman Church we see a pattern of substitution of a pagan artifact of worship for a Christian one. It's a simple substitution process. We see this in holidays, prayer, statues, and many other aspects. So, the substitution of a human-like image of God, in place of human-like pagan god figure, for adaptation to monotheism, is a normal part of the pattern.

Many Scriptures can be shown that fit the above pattern, and in my experience, this pattern is generally a better explanation for those Scriptures than the traditional one.

If interested, to get a sense, one can look up what the name "Jupiter" means.

None of this has bearing on whether God taught through Jesus. It only has bearing on additional stories that were fabricated about Jesus (based on the above reasoning and related reasoning). This also is not to judge whether the use of these "parables" was right or wrong. The intentions may have been honorable, and one might argue that the resultant religion was an improvement over polytheism. It is also reasonable to consider that a tension existed between the church and that state. I.e. The church may have been pressured into the extent of the theological adaptations. However, the "parables" went too far and the religion wasn't accepted by Jewish people, including the trinity, which they (rightly in my belief) still don't accept.

You may also find this interesting:

Non-Trinitarian Belief

Many religious including those who use the Christian Bible, are non-trinitarian. This appears to be a potential trend. Some believe that Jesus has a particular role and relationship to God, other's don't. However, all believe that God is one in the non-trinitarian sense. Jewish people...

www.religiousforums.com

Isn't it a " Holy Fraud" in the name of Jesus and or an accusation against him , right?

Regards

 

[I Am Hugh]

So you guys are saying you know better than the men closer to the Apostles, the men who drew up the creeds and wrote the theological texts?

The men who read the Bible in its original languages?

You know better?

Yes.

The early Christians had a difficult time with the trade-guilds in Thyatira, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: "Every such guild had its patron god, its feasts, its social occasions which could at times become immoral revels. 'Jezebel' may have argued that . . . These revels need not be condemned since every workman, to make a living, had to join a guild." (Revelation 2:20)

When I first got online in the mid 1990s, I would rarely come across a believer who didn't believe in the apostate teachings of hell and the trinity. The internet was new, and traditional Christians were testing the new waters. Forums like this were much more common. Very quickly though, those traditional Christians realized that the sense of community they had in the church of apostasy couldn't be replicated online with all of the representatives of all the opposing factions. At that time the JWs were being told to stay away from the internet, it was the Devil's. While the Watchtower was quietly working on their own website.

The sense of community is what keeps the church alive. Like the Christians in ancient Thyatira, modern-day believers either have to accept and join in the depravity or leave. In Thyatira true believers left, while the others were able to get into the trade guilds. Traditional apostate Christianity is, in a sense, like ancient Thyatira in that regard. If you want the truth, you go outside of it, if you want community you have to stay there and go along with it.

What is left in forums like this are the outsiders of modern-day Christianity, those who reject the tradition. Skeptics, ironically, can see right through the trinity, as can those not under the influence of the modern-day Jezebel. The whore of Babylon, false religion.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Why i remember this particularly is because us children though it would be more "modern" if he used "big daddy, the late JC and spooky"

That would be an awesome name for an album.

 

[Muffled]

Why should that be relevant?

Presumably a Christian creed is the thoughtful consensus of the core beliefs transmitted by the NT. What rule assures that a 325 C.E. consensus is more correct than 19th century reassessment?

I believe it isn't relevant and I am a Trinity believer having had a nice fresh look at it. I do believe the Athanasian creed is incorrect and was one of the beliefs voted down at the Council of Nicaea.

 

[Muffled]

It's not lately. Creeds were written exactly because everything was not so clear from the NT.

I believe that is not so strange. People are constantly misinterpreting scripture and sometimes with even more evidence that the Trinity.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus was a jew. Jews believe in strong monotheism. It is very unlikely that Jesus believed he was part of a trinity.

I believe as God, Jesus knew far more about what was going on than any Jew of His time.

 

[Truthseeker]

I believe it isn't relevant and I am a Trinity believer having had a nice fresh look at it. I do believe the Athanasian creed is incorrect and was one of the beliefs voted down at the Council of Nicaea.

Why vote to make everyone believe the same thing? Because Constantine had the illusion that uniform beliefs were necessary for a unified Roman Empire. Everybody believing the same thing is not necessary for unity, and it is tyrannical.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

Because it is an invention* of the Paulines, and has no basis in (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah who was neither a Zionist nor a Judaic-from the lineage of Juda aka Jew, please, right?

Regards
________________
*"Pious Fraud"

I'm so very happy to see that you have begun using "Zionist" instead of "Zionism people." The word "Judaic" is an adjective, not a noun, so one would never say "a Judaic." You are correct that the right word is Jew.

A Jew is not limited to the tribe of Judah. The word Jew is derived from the southern KINGDOM of Judah. This country originally had the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Levite, and Simeon, but it later incorporated all the other tribes of Israel when they arrived as refugees. IOW, "Jew" refers to any Israelite.