The Christian Trinity

[mansio]

It is often stated that things must be considered in their context. What is the religious situation 2000 years ago in Palestine ? The Jews are about to be crushed by the Romans. In that 'end of the world' situation, a Jewish rabbi raises up and decides on reforming Judaism.
The surrounding pagan religions have stories about a god coming down on earth, often through a virgin birth, to salvage mankind.
In imitation, some of Jesus' followers consider him a saviour down from heaven and they divinise him, a common process at the time.
That's of course too much for the Jews who reject them as heretics.
The newly born Christians write the Gospels in accordance with the Old Testament and the 'prophecies' they fish out of the text.
Later on theologians begin with the building of the Trinity dogma.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by mee

The idea of the trinity was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord...... people can throw scriptures around but if they are not based on accurrate knowledge of the bible it is futile

This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.....John 17;3 yes , we dont need to know about mysterys because the bible is based on accurate knowledge about Jehovah God and Jesus christ .its more important to be faithful to the teaching of Jesus and the early apostles. rather than manmade doctrines , but everyone to their own , thats just the way i feel , it would make me feel that i was an apostate to the true God, to take on other teachings not based on truth of the bible.did not Jesus warn about such things ,best to keep to the bible teaching that is the best .yes Gods name it self means ......He causes to become....... so he can accomplish whatever he whats through his Holyspirit. it is an active force from God

,the Bible and history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter

And I would be very careful about insulting people in the future, who do not believe as you do...you don't know it all.

Q

[FriendRob]

Originally Posted by Thomas

[snip]
The Trinity is One God, not Three Gods, has been taught from the very foundation of the church, one Nature, Three Persons. Any other doctrine is a departure from this teaching, and whilst all Christians pray that His church be one, they acknowledge that it can only be one in spirit and in truth, without conflict and without dissent.

Thomas, this is simply historically inaccurate. The formulation "one nature [greek ousia] three persons [greek hypostases]" only came in the fourth century. In fact, the original Nicene creed laid a curse on anyone who used the word "hypostasis" with respect to God: "But those ... who assert that he, the Son of God, is of a different hypostasis or ousia, ... the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathemizes them." It was some 50 years before this word crept back in and eventually became the orthodox formulation.

If you wish to argue otherwise, you must show how another doctrine was taught and promulgated., not simply that someone determined to interpret Scripture 'as they see it,' but as it was handed down from the Apostles.

In fact, there were MANY different doctrines that were "taught and promulgated" by different groups of Christians. The Gnostics taught a Trinity of "Father, Mother, Son". The Ebionites, a group of Jewish Christians, taught that Jesus was a man, not a god. The Arians taught that Jesus was divine, but subordinate to God. ALL of these groups traced their ideas back to the Apostles. If you want to believe that the Roman Catholic church ended up with the "correct'" doctrine, that's fine, but don't try to claim that that interpretation had been held since apostolic times, because that's just false.

Before the fourth century, there were NO Christians who believed in "one Nature, Three Persons" of God. Origin is considered one of the "Church Fathers", and is about as orthodox as you can get for his time (c. 185- 250 AD). In one place he formulates a doctrine of "one Power, two gods". So if YOU wish to argue otherwise, you have to show that the "one Nature, Three Persons" formulation existed from the earliest times.

[Quahom1]

Since we can't know what the eariliest church thought (unless records can be found for the same), I guess we have to go with the writings of the NT (and I suspect, the Apocrypha). That puts it at about 70-150 AD. However, the OT is older than that, and the references to a Trinity are there in plain sight (and no, I do not wish to repost what I've already posted to back this up).

Thomas, this is simply historically inaccurate. The formulation "one nature [greek ousia] three persons [greek hypostases]" only came in the fourth century. In fact, the original Nicene creed laid a curse on anyone who used the word "hypostasis" with respect to God: "But those ... who assert that he, the Son of God, is of a different hypostasis or ousia, ... the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathemizes them." It was some 50 years before this word crept back in and eventually became the orthodox formulation.

That means the earliest foundations of the church. That also means that Thomas is not historically inaccurate, by a long shot.


Further more, the Nicene Creed though beautiful in thought and design, is not biblical in nature, therefore the "curse" is irrelavent. As is the curse in the Bible today as noted in Revelations by John (the other John). That curse was meant only for the book of Revelation, not the Bible as a whole.

The issue here is not whether a trinity was ever used before, during or after Christianity, but what the Christian Trinity is.

It isn't Father, Mother, Son (though I like the idea of the perfect family), it is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These concepts are pre-Christian scripture, but still in the OT, and plain as day.

Before the fourth century, there were NO Christians who believed in "one Nature, Three Persons" of God. Origin is considered one of the "Church Fathers", and is about as orthodox as you can get for his time (c. 185- 250 AD). In one place he formulates a doctrine of "one Power, two gods". So if YOU wish to argue otherwise, you have to show that the "one Nature, Three Persons" formulation existed from the earliest times.

This is speculation, not fact, unless there is historical evidence to be provided to back this notion and counter that evidence which has already been presented for?...

Kinda like declaring that Constatine founded the Church...he didn't, but many think he did. History shows he probably saved the church that already existed, and had done so for 250 years before his birth.

Now, if anyone has evidence to the contrary, please present it. I would be most interested in this "evidence".

v/r

Q

[mee]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

And I would be very careful about insulting people in the future, who do not believe as you do...you don't know it all.

Q

yes you are right i dont know it all , in fact i dont know anything .but the bible as Gods word is my Guide. if i stick to that , i cant go wrong .

[mee]

Originally Posted by Thomas

the Bible and history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter

I'm sorry, but that is patently wrong - as others have repeatedly shown. Let me repeat again:

"And the angel answered and said unto her (Mary), The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35

"Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Matthew 28:19

So Father, Son and Holy Spirit is thoroughly Scriptural - and for those 'with the eyes to see' permeates the Old Testament as well as the New.

Your issue is not with Scripture, but with the unfolding and understanding of its Revelation. The emergence of doctrine follows Scripture and clarifies it, doctrine does not invent 'add-on' extras to the content of revelation, nor do the Church Councils sit down and decide to invent something - as if pulling a rabbit from a hat.

Doctrine is, and was always, a means to prevent the faihful falling into error by the provision of a more defined teaching - not a new teaching, but a clarification of what is being taught. Father, Son and Holy Spirit were spoken of by Christ from the very first, and Christians expressed 'a belief in' the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as is evidenced by the Creeds, which would comprise a blesphemous statement if they did not understand that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were Three and One.

The term 'Trinity' came into use as a means of expressing the coequal and coeval nature of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is not a term nor a doctrine that differs from the essential message of Scripture, which in fact provides the entirely of its foundation.

Thomas

the holy spirit of Jehovah God has great power , it can acomplish great things
Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son. And, look! Elizabeth your relative has also herself conceived a son, in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her, the so-called barren woman; because with God no declaration will be an impossibility." Then Mary said: "Look! Jehovah’s slave girl! May it take place with me according to your declaration." At that the angel departed from her.......yes even the aged Elizabeth concieved with the active force of God . when Jehovah uses his active force it can acomplish many things

[mee]

Why would all the God-inspired Bible writers speak of God as one person if he were actually three persons? What purpose would that serve, except to mislead people? Surely, if God were composed of three persons, he would have had his Bible writers make it abundantly clear so that there could be no doubt about it. At least the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures who had personal contact with God’s own Son would have done so. But they did not

[Kelcie]

Originally Posted by mee

Why would all the God-inspired Bible writers speak of God as one person if he were actually three persons? What purpose would that serve, except to mislead people? Surely, if God were composed of three persons, he would have had his Bible writers make it abundantly clear so that there could be no doubt about it. At least the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures who had personal contact with God’s own Son would have done so. But they did not

Hi Mee,

Perhaps originally the Bible was God-inspired as you put it. Can we, however, be really one hundred percent be certain that in the different translations that are available today that the original texts were not changed or heavily influenced by the translators own personal beliefs. Man has a way of omitting many things. Whether it is intentional or nonintentional, loss of one word can take a whole meaning out of context.

We are all at different levels of understanding the holy trinity. What you hold to be true, is true for you no more no less. It does not make you wrong. It just is right for you at the moment. Others understanding too is right for them in this moment.

I will not quote what is in the bible to justify my experience with God and my understanding of the holy trinity simply because my truth will differ from someone elses. Finding the common thread in your truth with anothers is the fun part about finding greater truths about the holy trinity.

I will however, say that those who have clearly shown (quite well I might add) their understanding thus far brings me further in to realizing just how many levels of understanding their can be. (Levels in this context does not mean higher or lower)

Words are only vessels that carry the inherent message of truth, they are in themselves not the truth.

Kelcie

[Kelcie]

Originally Posted by mansio

It is often stated that things must be considered in their context. What is the religious situation 2000 years ago in Palestine ? The Jews are about to be crushed by the Romans. In that 'end of the world' situation, a Jewish rabbi raises up and decides on reforming Judaism.
The surrounding pagan religions have stories about a god coming down on earth, often through a virgin birth, to salvage mankind.
In imitation, some of Jesus' followers consider him a saviour down from heaven and they divinise him, a common process at the time.
That's of course too much for the Jews who reject them as heretics.
The newly born Christians write the Gospels in accordance with the Old Testament and the 'prophecies' they fish out of the text.
Later on theologians begin with the building of the Trinity dogma.

Hi Mansio,

It is interesting that you bring up the religious situation 2000 years ago. Apparently there is rumour (It is rumour because I did not see the program or read the book) that Jesus was in fact a desciple of Mary Magdelene! I dont wish to start a war in this thread but I was just wondering whether any one else heard about it. The rumour reports that because the Romans considered women as subordinate to men they changed the original texts and changed she to he and Mary to Jesus. The rumour also reports that the pope himself publicly announced that this was so. If this were in fact true, it would throw the whole father son and holy spirit or holy trinity concept out the window.

For me it makes no difference whether or not it was Mary or Jesus, because regardless there is much truth to be gained from the bible and its accounts.

My understanding of the Holy Trinity is far more complex then the biblical accounts or historical accounts and fits in whether it was Mary or Jesus.

I just thought someone might know where this rumour came from is all.

Kelcie

[catlick]

If Jesus was God Incarnate, who was He praying to in the Grove? Himself? If Jesus was God the Father, why did He say to Mary not to touch Him, for He had not yet ascended to His Father.

A Very Good Question indeed, instead of giving you all the theological information I will just keep it simple.

Ok take the possiton that God is One being, with three distinct persons, actually having read what you said, it seems your distinguishing the 3 persons as three distinct gods. anyway 1 god 3 persons.

God the Father 1 person
God the Son 1 Person
God the Holy Ghost 1 person

Father + Son + Holy Ghost = God.

To find out why JC prayed to the person of God called the father we need to look at Christ himself, he was concieved by the Holy Sprit, that is God, so he was divine, he was Born of the Virgin Mary and made Man so he was human too.

He had both the divine nature and human nature, he therefore had the weakness of temptation as we see in both the Garden of Gethsemene and in the wilderness. But he has the strengh of divinity to over come it, his weakness and fear of the passion tempted him to want to not be crucified a understandable desire of human nature. But the father the 1st person does not have a human nature and no weakness, so he prayed that the father would strenghen his human nature by way of his divine nature so that he could do what he had to do and that is why he prayed to the Father.

[FriendRob]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

That means the earliest foundations of the church. That also means that Thomas is not historically inaccurate, by a long shot.

No, the Nicene Creed is from three hundred years after Jesus's death. Three hundred years. That's a long time, especially when we're talking about word of mouth. Have you ever played the game "telephone"?

Further more, the Nicene Creed though beautiful in thought and design, is not biblical in nature, therefore the "curse" is irrelavent. As is the curse in the Bible today as noted in Revelations by John (the other John). That curse was meant only for the book of Revelation, not the Bible as a whole.

Then it must be equally true that the Trinity is irrelevant. The words "trinity" and "hypostasis" appear nowhere in the NT. "Trinity" appears nowhere in the OT.

The issue here is not whether a trinity was ever used before, during or after Christianity, but what the Christian Trinity is.

It isn't Father, Mother, Son (though I like the idea of the perfect family), it is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These concepts are pre-Christian scripture, but still in the OT, and plain as day.

Let me say it again: there is no doctrine of the trinity in either the OT or the NT. If you choose to interpret passages of either in terms of the Trinity, that's your business, but given that the Bible never uses the word Trinity, that interpretation is "speculation, not fact".

This is speculation, not fact, unless there is historical evidence to be provided to back this notion and counter that evidence which has already been presented for?...

Kinda like declaring that Constatine founded the Church...he didn't, but many think he did. History shows he probably saved the church that already existed, and had done so for 250 years before his birth.

Now, if anyone has evidence to the contrary, please present it. I would be most interested in this "evidence".

v/r

Q

On the contrary, I would like to see the evidence that any Christian before the fourth century talked about God as "one nature, three persons". Here are some suggestions where to start: in the first century, the books of the NT, the writings of Clement of Rome, the "apocryphal" books; in the second century, Ignatius, Irenaeus and Justin. In the third, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian. Please show me where in their writings they use the formulation "one nature, three persons". If no one used this formulation for three hundred years after Jesus, how can you claim that it dates to "the earliest foundations of the church"?

[Thomas]

"And in the way, he asked his disciples, saying to them: Whom do men say that I am?" Mark 8:28

This was a question put by Christ to his disciples more than once, and this is a question that Christ continues to put to us, every day, if we wish to follow in the path the disciples walked for us.

The Doctrine of the Trinity asks this same question: "Who is He?" and then, from that, "How is He?"

Such questions were asked because it became apparent there were widely divergent views amongst those who called themselves Christian:

Christ was God, but not man;
Christ was man, but not God;
Christ was not God, and not man;
Christ was God and man.

All four were preached, but they can't all be right.

Thomas

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by FriendRob

Let me say it again: there is no doctrine of the trinity in either the OT or the NT. If you choose to interpret passages of either in terms of the Trinity, that's your business, but given that the Bible never uses the word Trinity, that interpretation is "speculation, not fact".

Hello FriendRob, thank you for sharing your views in this interesting conversation. However, my view on this is that to say that the Trinity is "speculation, not fact" is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church throughout the ages. While the Trinity may be Church doctrine, rather literally transcribed from the Bible, the doctrine is in evidence in the Bible as Q and Thomas and some others have pointed out above. I think a better way of stating this is that it is "sacred, not literal." It's not speculation when it has been the experience of Christians in the first century through the 21st century.

peace,
lunamoth

[Quahom1]

[quote]

Originally Posted by FriendRob

No, the Nicene Creed is from three hundred years after Jesus's death. Three hundred years. That's a long time, especially when we're talking about word of mouth. Have you ever played the game "telephone"?

No, I don't play games. You just took my comment out of text. I'd call that game playing.

Then it must be equally true that the Trinity is irrelevant. The words "trinity" and "hypostasis" appear nowhere in the NT. "Trinity" appears nowhere in the OT.

Based on your opinion? The words never appear, but the concept is presented to us in Genesis. Let me ask you...who is the "us" that God is talking about here? Hmmm? Who is Us? Why would the Father be in heaven while the Holy Spirit of God hovers over the waters? I'm not ignoring anything. You are.

Let me say it again: there is no doctrine of the trinity in either the OT or the NT. If you choose to interpret passages of either in terms of the Trinity, that's your business, but given that the Bible never uses the word Trinity, that interpretation is "speculation, not fact".

Not according to your definition, but it is stated quite clearly in both the Old and New Testement.

On the contrary, I would like to see the evidence that any Christian before the fourth century talked about God as "one nature, three persons". Here are some suggestions where to start: in the first century, the books of the NT, the writings of Clement of Rome, the "apocryphal" books; in the second century, Ignatius, Irenaeus and Justin. In the third, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian. Please show me where in their writings they use the formulation "one nature, three persons". If no one used this formulation for three hundred years after Jesus, how can you claim that it dates to "the earliest foundations of the church"?

There were non-Christians, 1400 years before the birth of Christ that talked about God as "one nature, three personages". Genesis is the base. I suggest you go back to Bible 101, and stop reviewing the secular scholars for references. Secular scholars and bible do not exactly go hand in hand.

If you think history is written by the victorious, then God wins...His history is still around after 3400 years, and still being argued against.

Oh, I never stated that I was a kind Christian. Only that I was a wannabe Christian. I can get as nasty as you, probably more so.


v/r

Q

[mee]

THE Bible’s use of holy spirit indicates that it is a controlled force that Jehovah God uses to accomplish a variety of his purposes. To a certain extent, it can be likened to electricity, a force that can be adapted to perform a great variety of operations.





At Genesis 1:2 the Bible states that God’s active force [spirit )(Hebrew, ru´ach)] was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters. Here, Gods spirit was his active force working to shape the earth.

God uses his spirit to enlighten those who serve him. David prayed: Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Your spirit [ru´ach] is good; may it lead me in the land of uprightness. (Psalm 143:10) When 70 capable men were appointed to help Moses, God said to him: I shall have to take away some of the spirit [ru´ach] that is upon you and place it upon them.—Numbers 11:17.

Bible prophecy was recorded when men of God were "borne along by holy spirit [Greek, from pneu´ma]. (2 Peter 1:20, 21) In this way the Bible was "nspired of God, the Greek word for which is The·o´pneu·stos, meaning God-breathed. (2 Timothy 3:16) And holy spirit guided certain people to see visions or to have prophetic dreams.—2 Samuel 23:2; Joel 2:28, 29; Luke 1:67; Acts 1:16; 2:32, 33.

The holy spirit impelled Jesus to go into the wilderness after his baptism. (Mark 1:12) The spirit was like a fire within God’s servants, causing them to be energized by that force. And it enabled them to speak out boldly and courageously.—Micah 3:8; Acts 7:55-60; 18:25; Romans 12:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:19.

By his spirit, God carries out his judgments on men and nations. (Isaiah 30:27, 28; 59:18, 19) And God’s spirit can reach everywhere, acting for people or against them.—Psalm 139:7-12........yes as one of JW i have learnt that the bibles use of spirit is not based on man made doctrine but only truth.that is what i believe and i do not feel it is right to add things to the pure word of God .but of coarse if others believe in the trinity that is their choice but it is not for me .
Gods will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (1 Timothy 2:4) The Amplified Bible renders the latter phrase this way: "Know precisely and correctly the [divine] Truth .i would rather go along with the truth of the bible

Beyond a doubt, the Trinity doctrine has confused and diluted people’s understanding of God’s true position. It prevents people from accurately knowing the Universal Sovereign, Jehovah God, and from worshiping him on his terms. Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God’s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?But that is what belief in the Trinity has done.

Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it

if people were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? Not at all.

What comes through very clearly to an impartial reader is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also separate and distinct, a created being, subordinate to God