A website w/info about concept of trinity

Patty wrote: 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.

Greetings Patty.

Let me begin by making an apology. It appears that my usage of the word �nasty� was not a wise choice, as I can see how it might be interpreted as derogatory. The usage of the word was intended to mean that the idea of �trinity� was an enormously controversial idea that has been the pivot point of debate, volumes of apologetics written by church theologians, and after 2000 years, Christian theologians still write volumes on the topic trying to clarify, and re-clarify, and re-re-clarify the nuances and the continued sticking points brought up by those who reject it. It is a never ending journey of re-clarifying. This is what I meant by �nasty�.

You stated, �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.� If what you say is true, then one would find a continuous line of thinking that could be traced, without doubt, to the source, Jesus (for the sake of discussion, I will not bring up the need for a source that can be validated and verified). If the known sources were so explicit, clear, and repeated, then one should find a consensus amongst Christians. Obviously one might find differences regarding nuances, but this is very different from opposing beliefs on very basic tenets of a faith. In the first four centuries of Christianity, the group you inherited your beliefs from was not different than the multitude of other groups who also claimed to have the correct ideas regarding Jesus and the nature of God, and they considered the group you inherited your beliefs from to be �heretical�, as much as your founding group considered the other groups to be �heretical�. There was not a single element that distinguished your founding group from the others, meaning they did not have anything in their possession, nor were they privy to something that connected them directly to an authoritative source that the other groups did not have. The disagreements between these groups were as different as night and day, as they dealt with the very foundational tenets of your faith. Was Jesus the adopted son of God or was he born divine, was the nature of God �modalistic� or �triune�, was Jesus incorporeal, did his death wipe out all of Jewish law, or only some law, and which ones should be followed, what books should be in the Christian bible, and which not, etc, etc, etc. Bart Ehrman, a leading biblical scholar and Christian, has demonstrated that in the fourth century, these groups were even manipulating their MSS (manuscripts) so that they would appear to back up their own theological views. Come now Patty, historical study and biblical criticism show conclusively that the idea of the trinity and your posited idea of Jesus being clear in what he said are simply unsubstantiated. I cannot ignore that differing groups, each claiming to be Christians, had such diverse ideas about topics that are too fundamental and basic to have been fought about. What this tells me is that no one actually knew the details about Jesus or his relationship with God, and those that did, had their story in narratives that simply did not survive the centuries. Hence, we have people trying to fit the evidence to their assumptions, and as my evidence, I point out that all of the proof verses used to support Church doctrine are implicit verses. I have only found one verse that is the closest to �explicit�, and that verse, 1 John 5:7, has so much doubt placed on it (due to the evidence that it was a later insertion and not part of the actual MS witnesses), that one cannot use it.

I read the verses you gave me, and I must point out that these verses are �implicit�, and the sole reason for interpreting them as proof for the trinity and the divinity of Jesus is based upon the seed of assumption planted in your mind before you studied the verses without your believed notion. Simply put, if you were raised on an island without any church guidance, and you found the bible and read it from beginning to end, you would not draw the conclusion you are drawing now. You are simply reading the verses with the assumption planted in your mind. Take a look, �"Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?"  "NO ONE comes to the Father, except by ME."�. How is Jesus being about God�s business an explicit meaning that Jesus is God and God is triune? To make such an interpretation would require a huge leap in deduction, or a mind with the assumption already planted. �No one comes to the Father, except by me�, this is an example of an �implicit� verse. Your interpretation is no greater than suggesting that Jesus simply came with a path that would lead to God. In fact, my interpretation can be backed by �explicit� verses from the OT which states in no uncertain terms that nothing on the earth can house God. So for me, this verse does not have any real reason to be interpreted as proof for the divinity of Jesus. One must read that interpretation in.    

You also went on to say, �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 have yet to find a single �explicit� proof verse that backs this claim Patty.

 

  �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.�

Well Patty, all I can do is point out that in the first 3-4 centuries of your faith; the ideas floating around about Jesus were pretty diverse. Would this suggest that there were a lot of st**id people who just refused to see the �clear statements� of Jesus? Or is a more rational conclusion one that tells us that the narratives have a lot of ambiguous, implicit verses that can take on various interpretations, depending on what you already believe? Even today, there are still Christian groups that disagree about the trinity, and I also find it interesting that another group of people, the Jews, read a bible similar to yours, and yet have a very different belief about God. How could this be if the statements of Jesus were so clear?

Kindest regards

 

 

And another link:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/trinity.htm

Below are excerpts:

"God can in no way be described." -- Plato (Father of the pagan Trinity)

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

"Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it" (Soren
Kierkegaard, cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64).

"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages"

The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God? or was He created by God?

Different schools of thought were developed by the 4th century. In Antioch, literal interpretation of Scripture was emphasized, putting the writings in a historical context. Arius, a native Libyan, went to school in Antioch. He argued that the Father alone is true God, and Jesus was not God. Since Jesus was created by God, there would be a time when Jesus did not exist and Arius used Proverbs 8:22 and John 14:28 (the Father is greater than I) as his proof text. In Alexandria, Egypt, allegorical (mystical) interpretation was taught and Alexandrians could then spiritualize the text so they could explain away (make excuses, reject reason) any unwanted literal reference by claiming it was allegorical. They both relied on the Gnostic John 1:1 written by a Greek around 100 CE. Much of their philosophy was based mainly on Plato and Egyptian paganism. Alexander of Alexandria issued a statement that Christ was homoousios (same substance) to describe the relationship between Son and Father and thus Jesus was also the Father or God come to earth as a man. Arius thought that was dangerously close to heresy and plain st**id, so he said that the Father alone is true God more in line with reason and the content of the Bible. This controversy was tearing the church apart, so Constantine issued an invitation to settle this dispute at the Council of Nicaea"

See the article at the link for more details.

Wasalaam

Mariyah

 

Peace dear Patty,

 I do not intend to disprove anyone, just to clarify why I as a Muslim honor Jesus
(pbuh) as one of the most important messengers of God. But faith, as we know, is a
"committed belief as to things unseen" and yes, what we are seeing here is smply mankind's
differing interpretation of spiritual writings. We live on faith on that which is unseen,
and is manifest by the amazing examples of the handiwork of God around us. If a point feels uncomfortable
to us, maybe it is time that we explore why that point that makes us uncomfortable causes
us to feel that way. For 2 years in Turkey we attended a parochial school (many Muslim girls
did, it was the only way to have a higher education in those days) and the nuns would tell the
muslim girls "now this is what we believe" when teaching the religious class, which we could
opt out of or attend just to understand the Dogma of the church. Much of it was not hard to understand.
So I do understand your religion, and I understand that you were taught not to question what
was not clear, to think of it as the "mystery" and shy away from it. Back then, your masses were
in Latin and, vita aut letum! (yes we had to take that subject too!) Faith is a personal issue, and what we believe will be clarified
to us by our Creator as we stand side by side in Judgement on the Last Day, that we can be certain
of!
With love,
Maryah

Andalus wrote: I have yet to find a trinity analogy that does not prove modalism.

Try this one:

God the Father is the creator and how Christians describe the God we worship. This is the realm of our thoughts and intentions.

God the Son is how we carry out the will of the God the Father on earth. This is the realm of our physical actions.

The Holy Spirit is the flow between the two, and the connection between all people.  It is the realm of the emotional.