The Trinity of Christianity

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

can you explain what you mean by this? and what you mean by God? i consider jesus as god in human form. his spirit is that of god because proceeded from god. jesus being perfect, sinless, righteous, forgiving, eternal, good, and the creator puts his characteristics as God. Jesus is my Lord God and Saviour and i am having trouble with your statement.
"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." Isaiah 43:11

I think I just have a different way of seeing things . . . I don't consider Jesus as God in human form, but in the form of a personality. God projected His personality through Jesus. That may or may not just be a different approach to expressing and explaining the same idea. In my view we are just saying the same thing but in different ways.

Maybe it's just a matter of taste. Some of us say Jesus was God in human form whereas others say Jesus was only God in the form of a personality. His human side was not a part of God. His flesh was composed of matter, but God isn't composed of matter, so some would think that it was only his personality that was part of God, not his physical body. The human body was a host, and the part of God projected through Jesus was a part of that human being, not the other way round.

Apart from mentioning this, I think these differences (in light of all the controversies that Christianity has faced) are trivial. These beliefs are "impersonal" in the sense that it doesn't affect our relationship with God. It's the "personal beliefs" about God that matter.

The question of whether Jesus was God in human form or in the form of a projected personality is fairly trivial in my view because it doesn't affect our relationship with God. It that sense it's "impersonal" and doesn't matter.

Hopefully we both feel the same way about God concerning this matter.

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I believe Christianity is rational, but not in a logical and deterministic sense that philosophers (you gotta love that word!!!) prefer, but in an abstract sentimental sense.

In other words,to me, it can be best described as mytical Paulism not exactly the faith revealed on Jesus from mouth of God that is rational,logical and moral.
Thanks

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I don't consider Jesus as God in human form, but in the form of a personality. God projected His personality through Jesus.

The question of whether Jesus was God in human form or in the form of a projected personality is fairly trivial in my view because it doesn't affect our relationship with God.

first off, so we are all on the same page, a personality of a person is the embodiment of a collection of qualities. So you are saying Jesus being a human had only a collection of god's qualities and was not god in human form.

i dont see anywhere in the bible that states such philosophies that god being just a man had only gods personality. i see god proclaiming his son as god and i see the prophets fortelling that the son will be god manifested in the flesh. i also see jesus saying who he is, not by just works, but by the personal faith and acceptance of the people that were around him, that god was present in their sight. "...unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder...and his name shall be called... The mighty God, The everlasting Father... "

if these personal philosopies you have come up with to define god for you, are to help you know who jesus is so you can come to terms in accepting him on a level that makes sense, you should know that the bible already has defined jesus christ for us. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things were made by him...He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

you may say "trivial" to keep your philosophies of jesus not far from mainstream christianity, or to justify your ideas of jesus as right because you came up with them, but it can more more than trivial if you think of what it means to worship God in spirit and truth. if one takes the divinity away from christ and say he was just a man that had a god-like personality or a man that had qualities of god then one has just made a seperation of divinity between god the father and god the son. and what is being worshipped has now changed as well. even before jesus' works are a word was spoken, as a babe a star announced his birth, angels worshipped him, and men came from afar to worship the king. Jesus was honored as God the father in heaven was honored. Anything else other than jesus being honored as god is not what the holy spirit inspired book says, and it is no longer trivial and one is no longer worshipping Jesus in truth as the bible make clear of who he is.
"All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him."

[Blue Jay]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

There's nothing wrong with believing in experience if it can be justified. I probably come from a different walk of life to you. If one reckons one should simply have faith, then good luck!!!! We all come from a different walks of life.

The important thing is that we both have the same spiritual leader.

The question was just to see what your position is on the death and resurrection of Jesus and salvation. You and I seem to believe about the same thing. Thank you for sharing.

BJ

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

i dont see anywhere in the bible that states such philosophies that god being just a man had only gods personality. i see god proclaiming his son as god and i see the prophets fortelling that the son will be god manifested in the flesh. i also see jesus saying who he is, not by just works, but by the personal faith and acceptance of the people that were around him, that god was present in their sight. "...unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder...and his name shall be called... The mighty God, The everlasting Father... "

The central idea was that Jesus was the Incarnate Logos. Logos means "reasoning," "concept" or "wisdom." When Jesus said that he was the Way, the Truth and the Life, it was a way in which he said, "I am the concept . . . I am the Logos."

I think whether Jesus was a part of God, equal or co-equal with God is less important than the idea of him being the Incarnate Logos, as that is what ties it together.

The question of whether Jesus was separate from God, part of God, equal or co-equal with God are technical details, and the authors of the New Testament don't seem particularly interested in these technical details, which are the arguments Christianity has endured for 2,000 years. They seemed more interested in what Jesus meant when he declared, "I am The Concept."

My thinking was that the people saw God in their sight because Jesus was demonstrating what God was like. His life, what he said and did was a projected of image what God would have done and said. Jesus wanted us to believe that what he was demonstrating was who God was as if he himself was God. There was a passage somewhere in the Four Gospels where Jesus said that the Son doesn't do anything except what he sees his Father doing.

So God was actually present in their sight, present in the Son. The Son was an image of the invisible God.

I doubt whether the idea that he was separate from or part of God, subordinate, equal or co-equal would matter. His declaration, "I am the concept" is still being reinforced here. I think that's the issue being addressed in 1 John 2:23 that by "denying the Son" one also "denies the Father." I think these technical details are more of a distraction from what Jesus meant when he said, "I am that concept." From the style of the writing in the New Testament, I doubt whether these technicalities were part of the agendas of the authors at all. I have the impression that what they really wanted us to focus on was how Jesus was the concept -- not the details of whether he was equal or subordinate to God. Regardless, Jesus would still be the concept.

God could very well just have revealed Himself. But he chose to have us try and discover Him. Jesus was most likely part of that discovery process.

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

if one takes the divinity away from christ and say he was just a man that had a god-like personality or a man that had qualities of god then one has just made a seperation of divinity between god the father and god the son. and what is being worshipped has now changed as well. even before jesus' works are a word was spoken, as a babe a star announced his birth, angels worshipped him, and men came from afar to worship the king. Jesus was honored as God the father in heaven was honored. Anything else other than jesus being honored as god is not what the holy spirit inspired book says, and it is no longer trivial and one is no longer worshipping Jesus in truth as the bible make clear of who he is.
"All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him."

Well . . . the arguments have been firing off for 2,000 years. But from what I have read in books that talk about these debates, these arguments usually stem from technical details of Jesus' relationship with God. Out of all the things we could say about his relationship with God, I think the idea that Jesus was the "concept of God" is the primary agenda of the New Testament. Everything else we say about that relationship is irrelevant except when it reinforces the idea that he was "the concept of God."

What we really mean when we say that Jesus was "a concept of God" is itself open to interpretation. Some might see this as a "denial of the Son" while others may see this as "equating Christ with God" and idolising the Son.

But I think the point is, if Jesus was "a concept of God" then it is not our agenda, but a part of God's agenda. If it's a valid concept it would not be up to us to judge people who use it.

If God wanted to use a human being to convey a concept of Himself to the world, then it's up to us to believe that that concept is a concept of God. That wouldn't necessarily be denial of the Son, but a way of acknowledging him. Colossians 1:19 says that "God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." Some people would think that this is God putting some of his qualities in another being.

What if it was true? The idea that Jesus was not God in the sense of being God may be unacceptable for some, but what if we said he was God in the sense that he was conveying God? After all, if Jesus said, "I am the concept," isn't that what he would have meant, that "you see God through Me?" ie. "Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father?"

Having said that, it doesn't sound like "a denial of the Son."

I don't think we were ever meant to figure out a set of the impersonal technical details from what was written in the NT. I think the authors of the NT have given us more credit than is due -- that we'd figure out that the technical details were irrelevant. That what was being conveyed was qualitative, not something to be nailed down in technicalities (nailed to the cross, lol!!!)

As Soma has said, Christ is not some "plastic statue." Christ is abstract not concrete.

[Marietta]

Hello, From what I have come to understand the trinity was intended to show the state of Oneness that all of creation is a part of.
There are three states of energy that comprise the Oneness of the first Source (God). There is the electrical/masculine, which became simplified as the Father, there is the magnetic/feminine, which became simplified as the Mother and much later as the Holy Spirit and there was the offspring later becoming the son, signifying androgyny/unified energies. The three divine states in which all matter manifests and is able to replicate.
Midge

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Marietta

Hello, From what I have come to understand the trinity was intended to show the state of Oneness that all of creation is a part of.
There are three states of energy that comprise the Oneness of the first Source (God). There is the electrical/masculine, which became simplified as the Father, there is the magnetic/feminine, which became simplified as the Mother and much later as the Holy Spirit and there was the offspring later becoming the son, signifying androgyny/unified energies. The three divine states in which all matter manifests and is able to replicate.
Midge

I almost got that... there is a "ring" of truth to what you just wrote, but it is still blurry. None the less, it strikes a chord, if you will. But I still think Jesus is very masculine, and looking for His Bride (feminine), aka the church...

v/r

Q

[soma]

Nice posts. Thank you for taking my mind to deep thought.

The Trinity is trying to present man’s spirit with an intuitive understanding that the mysteries of faith can be brought into existence and appreciated. These mysteries are given to us to be mastered, and they seek understanding, not only in reflection, but also in prayer and meditation. God is everything, which we try to represent for the intellect and is infinitely more so we pass from philosophical understanding to faith, and then we pass from faith to spiritual understanding. Spiritual understanding is an intensification of faith transforming it into a vision, an experience and a mystical union.

http://thinkunity.com

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

When Jesus said that he was the Way, the Truth and the Life, it was a way in which he said, "I am the concept . . . I am the Logos."

the way: salvation is only thru jesus christ, the son of god; he is the only way to God the Father in heaven.

the truth: jesus christ is holy, righteous, and true; he is the light of the world.

the life: jesus christ is life everlasting and eternal, and all things were created through him.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight. Proverbs 3:5-6

[soma]

Originally Posted by Marietta

Hello, From what I have come to understand the trinity was intended to show the state of Oneness that all of creation is a part of.
There are three states of energy that comprise the Oneness of the first Source (God). There is the electrical/masculine, which became simplified as the Father, there is the magnetic/feminine, which became simplified as the Mother and much later as the Holy Spirit and there was the offspring later becoming the son, signifying androgyny/unified energies. The three divine states in which all matter manifests and is able to replicate.
Midge

This is a great post. It brings us out of dualism to God's all pervading family in one pure consciousness. The symbols are great. Thanks again.

[Marietta]

Hello Soma, Thanks for the reply. I look forward to learning as I share what I "think" I know at this point. I also hope we have many enlightening exchanges in the future.
Marietta

[kenod]

To me, the God of the Bible is a personal Being, not a universal force or energy. I see the story of the Bible as one of establishing a personal relationship between God and humans on an individual level - love, trust, hope, ...

I do not get a sense of these things by regarding God as some sort of cosmic energy that pervades the universe. I feel/believe that I know God personally.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by kenod

To me, the God of the Bible is a personal Being, not a universal force or energy. I see the story of the Bible as one of establishing a personal relationship between God and humans on an individual level - love, trust, hope, ...

I do not get a sense of these things by regarding God as some sort of cosmic energy that pervades the universe. I feel/believe that I know God personally.

I like that kenod. I agree.

luna

[mee]

What

is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?

The

New Encyclopædia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: "The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

[Marietta]

Hello Kenod, I have a few questions regarding your post. What you have posted were once my thoughts and it was this thought that brought me to the thought process I now have.
Please allow me to play the devil's advocate a little here to make my point.
You said that you know God personally. How can you know an abstract idea personally? When you met this person to develop this person-al relationship was did this meeting take place?
If you know God personally, you should be able to describe this person. To know a person personally implies that you have met and this person and know this person well.
When was the last time you saw God and how do you know this being you met and have a relationship with was God?
If you have never personally met this being you call God, how can you claim to have a personal relationship with this being?
Webster's: Personal: 1. relating to or affecting a person 2. done in person WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF ANOTHER. 3. relating to an individual or his character
Please don't take my musings as sarcasm. This is the only way I know to make my point. And please accept my apologizes ahead of time if this comes across as demeaning because it isn't intended in that manner. I am merely trying to put all the puzzle pieces together for myself. Trying to figure out this life drama we are presently a part of.
Marietta