A website w/info about concept of trinity

Andalus,

I have no hard feelings towards you (first of all) so please don't ever believe that I would have.  I have no hard feelings toward anyone on this site.....we're all trying our best to follow what we believe is the truth.  Yes, there is much disagreement, he said/she said, this was proven, no it wasn't, etc., but I believe a lot of it comes from Satan.  Oh yeah, I a BIG believer in Mr. Satan.  The Bible speaks of him as the "master of confusion", which he certainly is and always has been since his fall from grace!  He will do anything to put doubts in person's minds, to cause them to lose their faith and perhaps take a hop over to his evil side.  What a shame we can't all just sit down and say, "okay, I believe every word you tell me."  But we all know that day will never come....because we are intelligent, thinking human beings (thanks be to God), and because God also gave us free will to do what we choose, whether it be good or evil....it's our decision.

I have noticed (while not responding, as it's not my place here) that there is also great dissention among various tribes/sects of good Muslims.)  So it's not only Christians who bat around the possibilities of what is meant in holy documents, such as the Qu'ran and the Bible.

Maryah, what a dear lady!  I thank you for your attempt to offer additional clarification.  You are also "living your faith to the fullest."  I have read both of the links you offered, and they are well written, and excellent articles regarding Islamic beliefs.  They just don't sit well with my Christian beliefs.  What a surprise, huh?  I don't really take this lightly.  It is the most important thing on earth.....it concerns the very decision of what will eventually happen to our eternal souls when "our morning comes around".  And NOTHING is more important than that.

I enjoy very much our interactions, and especially these which are mature and free of malicious intent. 

May God of us All Bless You Both Always!

Assalaamu Alaikum and Peace

Found this one on a google, it is an interesting site, the link to the complete article is below the pasted except below:

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine

by Cher-El L. Hagensick

The Rabbi �s deep voice echoes through the dusk, �Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord�.{# De 6:4} What a far cry that is from Judaism�s offspring, Christianity, and its belief in the Trinity. While the majority of the Christian world considers the concept of the Trinity vital to Christianity, many historians and Bible scholars agree that the Trinity of Christianity owes more to Greek philosophy and pagan polytheism than to the monotheism of the Jew and the Jewish Jesus.

The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man. Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas. A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: �[Monotheism is] a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,� which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in �one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all� (Hislop 14); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad.1

Most of ancient theology is lost under the sands of time. However, archaeological expeditions in ancient Mesopotamia have uncovered the fascinating culture of the Sumerians, which flourished over 4,000 years ago. Though Sumeria was overthrown first by Assyria, and then by Babylon, its gods lived on in the cultures of those who conquered. The historian S. H. Hooke tells in detail of the ancient Sumerian trinity: Anu was the primary god of heaven, the �Father�, and the �King of the Gods�; Enlil, the �wind-god� was the god of the earth, and a creator god; and Enki was the god of waters and the �lord of wisdom� (15-18). The historian, H. W. F. Saggs, explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of �three gods of roughly equal rank... whose inter-relationship is of the essence of their natures� (316).

Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? No. However, Hislop furthers the comparison, �In the unity of that one, Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize [sic] that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed... the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day� (16).

Egypt�s history is similar to Sumeria�s in antiquity. In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart, lecturer for the British Museum and professor of ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics at the University of London, shows how Egypt also believed in a �transcendental, above creation, and preexisting� one, the god Amun. Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face, Ptah his body, and Amun his hidden identity (24). The well-known historian Will Durant concurs that Ra, Amon, and Ptah were �combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity� (Oriental Heritage 201). Additionally, a hymn to Amun written in the 14th century BC defines the Egyptian trinity: �All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah; they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re... before [men], and his body is Ptah� (Hornung 219).

Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Egyptian triads? No. However, Durant submits that �from Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity...� (Caesar 595). Dr. Gordon Laing, retired Dean of the Humanities Department at the University of Chicago, agrees that �the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus� probably accustomed the early church theologians to the idea of a triune God, and was influential �in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in the Nicaean and Athanasian creeds� (128-129).

These were not the only trinities early Christians were exposed to. The historical lecturer, Jesse Benedict Carter, tells us of the Etruscans. As they slowly passed from Babylon through Greece and went on to Rome (16-19), they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva. This trinity was a �new idea to the Romans,� and yet it became so �typical of Rome� that it quickly spread throughout Italy (26). Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry. That Christianity was not ashamed to borrow from pagan culture is amply shown by Durant: �Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it� (Caesar 595).

Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the Etruscan and Roman triads? No. However, Laing convincingly devotes his entire book Survivals of the Roman Gods to the comparison of Roman paganism and the Roman Catholic Church. Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, a Catholic scholar and professor at Yale, confirms the Church�s respect for pagan ideas when he states that the Apologists and other early church fathers used and cited the [pagan] Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that they were called �Sibyllists� by the 2nd century critic, Celsus. There was even a medieval hymn, �Dies irae,� which foretold the �coming of the day of wrath� based on the �dual authority of �David and the Sibyl�(Emergence 64-65). The attitude of the Church toward paganism is best summed up in Pope Gregory the Great�s words to a missionary: �You must not interfere with any traditional belief or religious observance that can be harmonized with Christianity� (qtd. in Laing 130).

In contrast, Judaism is strongly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity. The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is filled with scriptures such as �before Me there was no God formed, Neither shall any be after Me� (#Isa 43:10 qtd. in Isaiah), and �there is no other God...I am the Lord and there is none else� (#Isa 45:14,18 qtd. in Isaiah). A Jewish commentary affirms that �[no] other gods exist, for to declare this would be blasphemous...� (Chumash 458). Even though �Word,� �Spirit,� �Presence,� and �Wisdom� are used as personifications of God, Biblical scholars agree that the Trinity is neither mentioned nor intended by the authors of the Old Testament (Lonergan 130; Fortman xv; Burns 2.

Read the rest at http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin% 20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

From Andalus,

"The idea of trinity is a nasty concept that was invented from presumption (of the nature of Jesus, why he was here, what was his purpose, relationship with God, etc, etc) that tried to explain the various notions that were invented from the early church fathers."

No, my friend.  The Holy Trinity is not a "nasty concept" evolving from the "presumption"...... Jesus Christ Himself told us who He was many times in the Gospels, and what He was here for.  "Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?"  "NO ONE comes to the Father, except by ME."  Etc., etc.  I realize you've read them all before.  He tells many times that He is the Christ, he and the Father are the same. 

This thing you so casually refer to as a "nasty concept" was, in fact, told to us by Jesus.  He just did not coin the word "Trinity".  I guess he felt we were smart enough to figure out (after telling us) that the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit were all the same, three separate entities in just ONE GOD.  That is what Jesus taught and it is found throughout the Gospels.  Christians believe every word He spoke and taught....our God is not a liar.

God's Peace to You.

Hi back now after some sleep and food

Mauri wrote: Angel:  mauri, you went off track after the question what would you do, I don't think it happens that way, infact i don't recall it happening at all.   You cannot be expected to relate to something without first seeing it, much less recall it ever happening.  You have found error in my reasoning.  Let�s examine yours.

Perhaps normally I would agree with you but in this instance, you did go off track as to what would you do. Perhaps my fault of not explaining fully. What would you do, your mention of: �Would you not see the need to send another messenger to the neighborhood kids to confirm the first messenger and instruct them to "say not two"..."say not 'pair'" but to see the oneness?� Your what would you do is far too complex and complicated for kids. It does not happen and I can see the poor kids being confused and going, what pair/two?? What oneness?? What the??. As I said it does not happen - reality tells me so, my experiences and observations of kids also tells me it does not happen. The neigbourhood kids were simply being trouble makers and mischevious Your explanation of trinity is in this is quite incorrect, as I mentioned you need to change, find something else. I have been in many discussions on the trinity and I have used far more simplier ways.

The most like scenerio of what might happen is that, after the mother gets back, if she feels the need to speak and explain to the others that tommy had instructions that she wish tommy to obey, then by all mean she probably will, unless she feels the need to not to speak to them. There is no need to send another/new messenger, it is unnessecary.

Angel: Not when one is babysitting a child, normally the babysitter has a set of instructions and so does the child,   Do you see the scenario as an �abnormal� situation?  Is there anything to indicate that either Mr. Jones or Tommy do not know what is expected of them (i.e., do not have instructions)?  Rather, wouldn�t the fact that there is no conflict between Mr. Jones and Tommy indicate that they did have the same �set of instructions� moreso,  than that they had none?

Yes I did see that, and did see the situation as abnormal, why do you think I replied. I saw what you were doing and it (for me) simply was not a good example to use.

[quote]

Angel: and if the child is being unruly and not listening and the babysitter cannot do anything else, the babysitter will more likely to ring the parent or the child might get in and ring the parent/s in defiance of the babysitter, reality does not speak that a new or second messager will come to tell that child <!--[if !vml]--> <!--[endif]--> 

I agree.  But, I must ask where you got the impression that Tommy is being anything but obedient to Mr. Jones.  Why do you superimpose a different scenario?[/quote]

No I didn�t superimpose a different scenerio , what I did was went straight into another situation (after mentioning it does not happen, my fault, sorry) pointing out that no new messenger comes forward and what normally happens in babysitting. I didn�t get the impression that tommy was being disobedient, I did see that tommy was being good and that there was no problem and no conflict, the issue was with the neighbourhood kids thinking that tommy does not have to listen to mr jones because mr jones is not his mother.

Angel: reality does not speak that a new or second messager will come to tell that child <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->    Okay.  But where do you see a mention of sending a new or second messenger to Tommy?

Not to tommy but to the neighbourhood kids, your words: �Would you not see the need to send another messenger to the neighborhood kids to confirm the first messenger and instruct them�����

Even in your scenario, you provide a new or second messenger�the voice heard over the phone-- unless, of course, the original set of instructions were the same voice over the phone.  In that case, yes, it would be the same messenger, coming again, rather than a new or second messenger.

Where do you get in my scenario that I provide another messenger?? There is no other/new messenger. The parent is simply the one that gave, so you last point is the correct one.

I can see the second coming of Jesus is about to creep in, lol!

Granted, you specify that the child or baby sitter would use the telephone wire to request a clarification/confirmation (second messenger).   I did not specify how the parent heard of the conflict that required a second message or messenger to resolve it.

Yes I know you didn�t specify, I wasn�t going on about tommy scenario for which there is no conflict.

You did not see the scenario I was addressing.  (You saw one in which the conflict was between the babysitter and the child rather than between the child and other children.)  Yet, you condemned me for being offtrack in the way I addressed the conflict.   Ironically, when you set up a different scenario to support your condemnation, you followed the same track you had just condemned, thus, condemning yourself!

Yes I did see the scenario you were addressing the issue of the neighbourhood kids. What I address was still in a babysitting scenario and what usually happens �if� a child was unruly.

I am not sure how you managed to twist things around or not hear what I was saying.

I don�t think tommy was in conflict, he was doing the right thing and there was no conlict between him and mr jones. There was no need to really comment, the issue is with the other kids and sending them a new messenger for which I see as not happening.

What would i do if i was the parent, ring up my child and tell him, not send another messager to confirm the first which is Mr Jones.    Why would you send the message via another messenger (the phone) to tell your child what is already established with him?  To comfort him?

How did the phone become a (another) messenger ??  

Many kids are told by their parents, and no new messenger is sent. Two things are more likely to happen, one: the kid wasn�t told first because the parent was unable to but told the babysitter and so later on when the parent/s rings, they mention it/the instructions to the child which does become a validation of what was given to the babysitter. Two: mostly all the time parent/s tend to repeat themselves of what was already said and given and the kid would generally go �yes I know you already told me� or just nod their head.  I'm in my early thirties and it still happens to me, i think its a natural innate thing amongst parents

I would not be gone a week and not ring/speak to my kid. Is there anything to suggest that Tommy�s parent did not speak with him?

You didn�t put it in, so people are left wondering, but I did assume that since tommy was respecting mr jones and his mothers wishes tommy knew what to do. Perhaps tommy did speak with his mum, perhaps he didn't, you did not indicate such a thing. A vital piece of info don�t you think ?

And besides you asked �what would you do� and I simply answered.     

Isn�t it just as likely that Tommy�s parent did speak to him through the phone or some other messenger, sending a comforter (assurance, validation)?  �or even telling (revealing to) him something he didn�t already know?

perhaps, again you fail to mention anything.

However comforted Tommy might be by hearing the same message again, it does not benefit the neighborhood kids.  Unless they hear it from a messenger whom they can receive, the conflict will remain with them.  �and Tommy will still feel the sting of the conflict.

What sting is that, that tommy is suppose to feel or be in conflict with? If tommy is obeying what conflict is there other than the others kids mentioning mr jones is not his mother therefore does not need to listen ?? that is not much of a conflict , obviously from what you put down tommy knows what to do and does not listen to the other kids.

This does not compute with reality. sorry.   I contend that it is your �computing� that is faulty, and not reality or what computes with reality.

Why is that my computing is faulty and not your reasoning and your trying to explain trinity that is faulty?

What I contended and saw fault with is a section of your concept which does not compute with reality: �Would you not see the need to send another messenger to the neighborhood kids to confirm the first messenger and instruct them to "say not two"..."say not 'pair'" but to see the oneness?��

What has the second bit got to do with instructing oneness?? Certainly mr jones and tommy's mother are two people and not one as the trinity is suppose to be. There is no oneness here other than one message/instructions. The trinity is of one entity supposedly divided into 3: the father the son and the holy spirit, while being distinct its still that of one entity, God. Your attempt does not show that, you are clearly putting three different entities that are not one as per the trinity concept in Christianity.  

Your analogy is a bit incorrect, needs to change <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->   If you had given any indication of grasping the analogy, (instead of giving every indication that you did not) I would be willing to consider your assessment.

Well I hope I did a better job this time.

Mauri I know exactly what you are doing, you are trying to explain trinity and it is rather flawed and incorrect, not to mention too much complexities to.

As it is, I appreciate the opportunity you availed to illustrate the trinity.  I had not aspired to introduce the Holy Spirit (the comforter) at this point.  But, God knows best.

it is you that is trying to illustrate the trinity, in a rather bad way. What I did was (trying) pointing out your errors. Your scenario/analogy does not go nor does it benefit. And besides I�ve illustrated the trinity and given far better examples in the past, in past threads.

Lastly, I mean no offense.