The Trinity

[IhartU]

I am seriously confused by the Trinity. No explanation I've ever heard has made much sense to me. It all seems like made up nonsense if you ask me. Maybe someone here can enlighten me?

[Never_Hit_Nirvana]

I am seriously confused by the Trinity. No explanation I've ever heard has made much sense to me. It all seems like made up nonsense if you ask me. Maybe someone here can enlighten me?

I vote for "made up nonsense" created to describe the seemingly schizophrenic actions of "One" God.

[Irish]

I will try to answer your question with an analogy rather than quote scripture. You and I are haveing dialogue on these forums, if you know me well enough to reason what my replies will contain and the direction I lean. In a sense you would know me spiritually but not physically. If you chose to get meet me in person you would then know me as a man. If I introduced you to my children you would know me as a father. If you spoke with my wife you would know that I am a husband.

And if I bought you dinner and drinks you may find me as a friend.

All these aspects of me are part of my diverse nature not separate entities but parts of me that can be known and verified. As one gets to know god we are able to see that He is spiritual (the communicating Holy Spirit) He is a physical man (in Jesus) and He is also the father of creation (God). But like my analogy you may never get to know God unless you chose to meet me in new light.

The clues are in the scriptures in the same way you could deduce that the Disciples of Christ were good buddies to each other yet the words in the bible does not contain such a description of them.

All The Best Irish

[seanph]

The Trinity had barely taken form in the first century. In fact, scholars have termed it the "Binitarian" formulation.

"... 1 Cor. 8:6 has been termed a "binitarian" formulation, and it clearly embarrassed scribes who copied the text in later times. In manuscripts stemming from after the era of the creeds of the fourth century, we find that scribes added a third article to the binitarian formula: "and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things, and we exist in it." In the time of the New Testament, however, not only had the relationship between Father and Son NOT been clarified, but the very nature of the Holy Spirit had NOT been defined or even understood." (The River of God, Riley, Gregory, p. 55)

And for those thinking the Trinity is supported by the OT ... If the doctrine of the Trinity had been supported by the OT, it would have been obvious to first century Christians and embraced. This was not the case. It took centuries, bitter infighting, and a series of Ecumenical councils to finally resolve this thorny issue.

The "New Catholic Encyclopedia" says, "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament".

The "Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia" adds, "The doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament".

(Both sources, though--for some bizarre reasoning--contend the doctrine is implicit.)

The Old Testament does not support the Trinity. And this fact is supported even by the Catholic Church--the very institution that formulated it in the first place!

From the "Oxford Companion To The Bible":

Trinity. Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.

Later believers systematized the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament in order to fight against heretical tendencies of how the three are related. Elaboration on the concept of a Trinity also serves to defend the church against charges of di- or tritheism. Since the Christians have come to worship Jesus as a god (Pliny, Epistles 96.7), how can they claim to be continuing the monotheistic tradition of the God of Israel? Various answers are suggested, debated, and rejected as heretical, but the idea of a Trinity—one God existing in three persons and one substance—ultimately prevails.

While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do.

The earliest New Testament evidence for a tripartite formula comes in 2 Corinthians 13.13, where Paul wishes that “the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit” be with the people of Corinth. It is possible that this three-part formula derives from later liturgical usage and was added to the text of 2 Corinthians as it was copied. In support of the authenticity of the passage, however, it must be said that the phrasing is much closer to Paul’s understandings of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit than to a more fully developed concept of the Trinity. Jesus, referred to not as Son but as Lord and Christ, is mentioned first and is connected with the central Pauline theme of grace. God is referred to as a source of love, not as father, and the Spirit promotes sharing within the community. The word “holy” does not appear before “spirit” in the earliest manuscript evidence for this passage.

A more familiar formulation is found in Matthew 28.19, where Jesus commands the disciples to go out and baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The phrasing probably reflects baptismal practice in churches at Matthew’s time or later if the line is interpolated. Elsewhere Matthew records a special connection between God the Father and Jesus the Son (e.g., Matthew 11.27), but he falls short of claiming that Jesus is equal with God (cf. Matthew 24.36).

It is John’s gospel that suggests the idea of equality between Jesus and God (“I and the Father are one”; John 10.30). The Gospel starts with the affirmation that in the beginning Jesus as Word (See Logos) “was with God and … was God” (John 1.1), and ends (John 21 is most likely a later addition) with Thomas’s confession of faith to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20.28). The Fourth Gospel also elaborates on the role of the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete sent to be an advocate for the believers (John 14.15– 26).

For the community of John’s gospel, these passages provide assurance of the presence and power of God both in the ministry of Jesus and in the ongoing life of the community. Beyond this immediate context, however, such references raise the question of how Father, Son, and Spirit can be distinct and yet the same. This issue is debated over the following centuries and is only resolved by agreement and exclusion during the christological disputes and creedal councils of the fourth century and beyond.

While there are other New Testament texts where God, Jesus, and the Spirit are referred to in the same passage (e.g., Jude 20–21), it is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear. An example is 1 Peter 1.1–2, in which the salutation is addressed to those who have been chosen “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father in holiness of spirit.” This reference may be to the holiness of spirit of the believers, but translators consistently take it as the Holy Spirit in order to complete the assumed trinitarian character of the verse: “who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit” (NRSV). This translation not only imposes later trinitarian perspectives on the text but also diminishes the important use of the spirit of human beings elsewhere in 1 Peter (e.g., 1 Peter 3.4; 1 Peter 3.19).--DANIEL N. SCHOWALTER (Professor of Religion and Classics at Carthage College, Kenosha, WI.)

And:

"I find a most interesting confession of a Catholic scholar concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine held by most Protestants as well. This isn't a mistake in the Bible of a true doctrine already in the Bible, this is a man-made doctrine added to the Bible later! The Old Testament definitely does not have the trinity. "the New Testament does not specify the terms of the relationship between Father and Son, nor among Father and Son and Holy Spirit. It assumes only that there is some relationship..." He then cites Matt. 11:27; John 1:1; 8:38; 10:38; 1 Corinth. 2:10; John 14:16, 26; 17:3; Gal. 4:6; John 15:26; 16:7; Mark 12:1-12; John 1:1, 14; 2 Corinth. 4:4; Hebrews 1:3, and then notes something incredibly interesting! "...none of these texts individually, nor all of them together, express a theology of the Trinity as such." He then rather honestly notes that "It took three or four hundred years before the Church began to make the proper distinctions, to go beyond the formulations of the Bible [note this!] and the creeds alone, and to see how the 'economic Trinity' and the 'immanent Trinity' are one and the same...we cannot read back into the New Testament, much less into the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries."--(See Richard P. McBrien, "Catholicism: Study Edition," Winston Press, 1981, p. 347). F.F. Bruce, "The Spreading Flame," Eerdman's, 1958, flat out admitted that the word "homoousios" (of the same substance) which was judged heretical, later became the very hallmark of orthodoxy! (p. 255). In fact, this word was not even in the Bible! (p. 306). Also J.N.D. Kelly, "Early Christian Doctrines," Harper & Row, 1978, Chapters IX-X has an excellent discussion on the Trinity and its development.)

Now, if first century Christians were aware of the Trinity, they would have embraced the concept from the get-go. This is simply not the case--at all. Early Christians weren't sure what to do with Jesus. And what to do with the Holy Spirit for that matter! It was quite the conundrum.

Dr. Gregory J. Riley, Professor of New Testament at Claremont School of Theology:

"... Jesus was clearly anointed with the Holy Spirit, and early Christians experience was filled with encounters of the divine, with Jesus himself and the Spirit. Yet many NT passages left the Holy Spirit out of the discussion. The last verse cited above (1 Cor. 8:6) indicates a problem that we barely recognize today; it leaves out entirely any mention of the Holy Spirit.

The reason for this lack is that Christians had not developed their central doctrine of God, the Trinity itself. It is fair to say that no one in the first century was a Trinitarian as the doctrine was later defined in the creeds of the fourth century... Trinitarianism arose as a brilliant solution to a long series of questions that began to be asked in order to define the relationship of Jesus to the Father, and then the role of the Holy Spirit. Only a few of the questions and none of the eventual answers had yet been formulated in the first century.

... In the time of the New Testament, however, not only had the relationship between Father and Son not been clarified, but the very nature of the Holy Spirit had not been defined or even understood." (The River of God, p. 55)

Again, the doctrine of the Trinity took three centuries, bitter infighting, and a series of Ecumenical councils to finally find its final form.

Kindly,

Sean

Edited June 2, 2006 by seanph

[ragus]

The most simple way I can explain it is that God is divided up into 3 parts. The first being God himself... the second being God as His son, Jesus... and the third being God as the Holy Spirit.

God as himself is just that.

God as Jesus is simply the human form of God.

And God as the Holy Spirit is the spiritual form of God that resides in every person that accepts Christ as their Savior and asks for God to come into their hearts.

Really it is a supernatural thing and cannot be explained in an earthly, logical way... so if you only try to find that kind of explanation, you'll never understand it. God is supernatural... so if you believe in God, it shouldn't be too hard to believe in the Trinity. You didn't say whether you believe it or not, only asked for an explanation... and well, this is about the best I can do. Hope you found it helpful in some way.

[TheEssenceofExcellence]

It is the three aspects of God that manifest themselves, and in essence the three ways God created the material universe. The Holy Father as the speaker, the Holy Ghost as the breath, and Jesus Christ/Yeshua as the Word spoken.

The trinity sometimes confuses people, because they can't wrap their heads around the 3 being 1, but they are. Just like my hand, foot, and head are all one (they're me, my body) so is the trinity ONE.

If you want a more detailed description of the trinity and how it works go look at my post in: "What/Who is the Holy Ghost/Spirit", Right now, my post is the 3rd to last post.

And seanph, would you please stop posting the same crap over and over again........yeah the catholics couldn't figure out what the Holy Spirt was and how the trinity worked, big deal, we already know the catholics don't know anything, it doesn't mean people today don't have a better understanding of such things.

And I don't care what your "scholars" have to say about anything, the trinity is supported in the O.T.

For one thing, there is significant mention of God's spirit (the breath of life) in the O.T., that is the Holy Ghost. There is also the secret doctrin of the son, as well as the mention of Ben Elohim, which means the Son of God.

Here is a mention of the Holy Ghost in Genesis: Chp. 7 verse 3- "And the Lord said My spirit (the Holy Ghost) shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

That passage refers to the majority of people (not including Noah and his family) before the flood and how God (since man was becoming wicked) would now only allow them to live up to 120 years, because after that time if they were still alive God would take his spirit (The Holy Ghost, the breath of life) out of them.

Genesis Chp. 2 verse 7- "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Once again we have mention of the Holy Ghost (although it is refered to as the breath of life, it is the same thing). A part of scripture that shows the Holy Ghost as the breath of life is in the N.T in Acts 5 verses 1-10 (I wont quote it) but it tells of a man and his wife, they want to recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost (when scriptures say they want to have the Holy Ghost it means awakening him, not that he isn't always in you) the two people first the husband then his wife lie about the money they give to the apostles and because of this the Holy Ghost leaves them and they die. This clearly shows the Holy Spirit as the breath of life and vise versa, and that the Holy Ghost isn't something that only the saints and apostles have in them.

The God head of The Father and The Son is also shown in the O.T. through the Throne visions many of the prophets had.

The Book of Daniel, Chp. 7 verses 9, 13-14, 18: "The Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire........I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.......the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom and possess the kingdom for ever."

This clearly refers to the Ancient of days as the Holy Father, and the Son of Man as Jesus. The propecy in the O.T. here is exactly the same as that of Revelations and shows proof of the trinity in the O.T. Here is another such vision:

1 Enoch Chp. 46- "And there I saw one who had a head of days, and his head was white like wool, and with him there was another, whose face had the appearance of a man, and his face was full of grace, like one of the holy angels. And I asked one of the holy angels who went with me, and showed me all the secrets, about the Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days. And he answered me and said to me: 'This is the Son of Man who has righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells; he will reveal all treasures of that which is secret, for the Lord of Spirits has chosen him, and through uprightness his lot has surpassed all before the Lord of Spirits for ever. And this Son of Man.....wil cast down the kings from their throne."

Once again we have the Ancient and/or Head of Days (The Father) with white hair showing he's old, and then we have a younger one with him with the appearance of a man, a young/youthful man, with a face full of grace like one of the holy angels (this is the Messiah, the Living Word, Jesus).

And here are two other mentions of the Holy Ghost/Spirit (by that name) in the O.T.:

1st we have Psalm 51: verses 10-12- "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy slavation; and uphold me with thy free spirit."

2nd we have a passage from Isaiah: Chp. 63 verses 10-11- "But they rebelled and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, Mo'-ses, and his people, saying, where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?"

On top of that we also have God saying "Let us" make man in our own image, some people have thought he was talking to the angels, but the angels don't create anything, it is God who creates, therefore it is the most probable conclusion that God is refering to himself in the plural form signifying the trinity.

Plus the names of God YHVH (sometimes people say/write YHWH) and Elohim are plural forms used singularly. There is also the ancient kabbalistic practices of Jews that deal with the emenations of God and how all of his aspects/attributes have individual meanings and purposes but are ONE.

Here is something I copied and pasted from a website (http://sg.geocities.com/shenlan.geo/echad.html), I think this guy can give a better understanding of God's names then I ever could:

Tetragrammaton Found in Earliest Copies of the Septuagint

Yahweh's name in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Last update Wednesday, 22 March, 2006

These 3 type of prime colours can be found in the order of Rainbow which I think is very significant that speak of the Attribute the HOLY ONE. When I gazed intensely upon the name of Almighty, I can't help but notice the two hei and the Vav is place in between the two hei (two witnesses), One of them is the YHWH Elohim I could not understand what this means until I pay attention what Messiah Yeshua teach about the ONEness. It has been said that who meditate on and cleave to Almighty's attributes will be filled fruit of Spirit. In Hebrew Character I understand that:

YUH is the WORD #10, TEACH, to instruct, the Comforter, possess the feminine in attribute "Mother"; Chokmah (wisdom) to convict all those who transgress the TORAH, soul of the TORAH; the breath of life, HaChayim (life), tree of life, HaEmes (truth),The word that breath into our life. In Yochanan /John tells us that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with Elohim and Word was Elohim." Both YHVH and Yeshua possess the yuh. In Yochanan 17 the Ruach HaKodesh is silent.

HEI -Spirit of Eloah , the ABBA Father, (also known as The speaker - voice that spoke from Heaven the Hidden ONE) understanding Binah, love. "The Shalom of Elohim which passeth all understanding, shall keep our hearts and minds through Messiah Yeshua (Phil 4:7) The voice that spoke at creation all things came to being; The voice that spoke at Mount Sinai the Torah is given to us; the voice that spoke in the Pillar of cloud He leads the Israel out of Egypt and tabernacle among His people; the voice that spoke at Mikvah of Messiah Yeshua is presented to us as perfect atoning sacrifice, The voice speaks when man doubt the authority of Messiah Yeshua. the voice that spoke through the cloud at Mount of Transfiguration that give us the gleams of Davidic Dynasty to come (Luke 9:35, Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7); the voice that will speak again on the last days of judgment for those who are not his people, His anger (Revelation 16:18; 21:3-4) The Voice is the ONE who will wipe the tears of the redeemed ones. So many times the VOICE is mention in the scripture did you see any form or semblance of a person?

VAV a symbol of connection; a conjunction; the Echad; to unite, join, union, the vav come in between the two hei which carries the attribute of Hesed through Yesod (foundation) Mercy and truth met together, bring togetherness. Yochanan 10:30 "I and my Father are ECHAD"

- HEI Spirit of Eloah the Redeemer (Yeshayahu 44:6); the manifested ONE title "the Son", Ben Elohim; bearing the attribute of ; HaMalkut (Kingdom); the light; the shammash; Adonay (Lord); my foundation Yesod, He is our Victory; the Kinsman-Redeemer; Adonay Tzevaot (Lord of Host). "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Adonay shall be saved". (Romans 10:13) He is our expectation, Mikveh, hope, salvation Ro 15:12 Again Yeshayahu says, "THERE SHALL COME THE ROOT OF JESSE, AND HE WHO ARISES TO RULE OVER THE GENTILES, IN HIM SHALL THE GENTILES HOPE."

I view this from the word of Messiah Yeshua means the Spirit of Elohim (blue) and Spirit of Messiah (red Ben Elohim) can be found (Romans 8:9)

The Yuh is the Living Torah. Ruach HaKodesh since the it teach us the scripture. The same breath that once breath into the nostril of Adam and Hava (Eve) now breath into those who believe in Yeshua, these ones become regenerated, restore the spiritual dead soul back to Almighty, the Word (Torah) writes into the hearts of believer.

The ONEness of YHWH Elohim

We can see and understand that The ONEness of YHWH Elohim (PL) in the Hebrew Character of the HOLY ONE is that He is ONE and in the word EcHaD dxa means UNITED ONE, COMPOSITE UNITED ONE which is in Him comprises:

HA AVINU (Father origninator) - "He" is a Spirit (does not have a physical form Deuteronomy 4:12, the Hidden One) (Yochanan 4:24) "He" denote the Masculine attribute in Hebrew understanding. A Spirit is a Spirit but a person has a form comprises body soul and spirit. In 1 Yochanan 5:7 written that...." there are three that bear record in heaven, Ha Avi (Father), Ha Dvar (Ben Elohim - Yeshua), and RuaCH HaKoDeSH (Holy Ghost / Spirit): and THESE THREE ARE ECHAD dxa (ONE). (the scripture does not say "these three "person" are ONE" DO NOT ADD EXTRA WORD YOURSELF the word "person" IN THE SCRIPTURE that is the error) Yeshua teach us to worship "HiM in Spirit and in truth" (John 4:24) not to view God as a person "in person (form) and in truth" (idolatry concept).

YESHUA - YHWH Elohim manifested in the Flesh (has a physical form visible person tabernacle among us) -1 Tim 3:16 and the book of Yochanan describe Him as the BEN ELOHIM (the Son of God) He is both G_d-Man.Also in MattiYahu 3:17 YHWH Elohim declares " And, hinei, a bat kol (a VOICE from heaven) came out of Shomayim, saying, ZEH BNI AHUVI ASHER BO CHAFATZTI (This is my Son, the beloved, with whom I am well pleased)." Also in Dvarim 18:18-19 Almighty spoke to Moshe saying: "I will raise them up a Navi from among their achim, like unto thee, and will put my words in HIS mouth; and HE shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not listen unto my words which he shall speak bishmi (in My Name), I will require it of him. NOTE: This Moshiach will certainly not speak anything contary to the TORAH.

RUACH HAKODESH (Holy breath (wind); Hagios Pneuma, does not have physical form, ) - Speak of His breath, When Yeshua (the Echad at work) appeared unto His Talmidim after resurrection Saying "Shalom Aleihem as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you"."And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said^ to them, "Receive the Ruach HaKodesh." (Yochanan 20:22). They were the first to receive the Ruach HaKodesh even before Shavuot. He is a life sustainer, He teaches, convict a person of sin, regenerated a spirit dead person to become alive in the Messiah, known as Spirit of Moshiach. Yochanan chapter 14-16 explains the work of Ruach HaKodesh.

[+Paranoid Android]

A rough analogy to perhaps explain the Trinity - water, steam, ice. Three separate substances, one chemical makeup. edit: EoE - "Just like my hand, foot, and head are all one (they're me, my body) so is the trinity ONE" - another analogy to add to my list, yay

"It is a mistake to think that the New Testament church grew in its doctrine of the Trinity. The CHristian church certainly grew in its ability to articulate the doctrine and to preserve the doctrine from the errors of heresy, but it held the doctrine from its earliest days, because of its experience of redemption in Christ and of the presence of Christ and the Father through the Spirit" (DB. Knox, Selected works, volume 1 - Doctrine of the Trinity)

Edited June 2, 2006 by Paranoid Android

[TheEssenceofExcellence]

SORRY IT WAS SO LONG.

[+Paranoid Android]

And seanph, would you please stop posting the same crap over and over again........yeah the catholics couldn't figure out what the Holy Spirt was and how the trinity worked, big deal, we already know the catholics don't know anything, it doesn't mean people today don't have a better understanding of such things.

seanph is entitled to post whatever he chooses, as long as he is respectful in doing so. Speaking of respect, maybe you can have that for other people's beliefs - there are many Catholics who would disagree with you.

Regards, PA

edited - removed redundant comment

Edited June 2, 2006 by Paranoid Android

[mako]

The Trinity

The Creed of Nicea defines the Trinity of Christianity as a merging of three distinct entities in to one single one, while remaining three distinct entities. These three gods must be regarded as one because they are co-eternal, co-substantial and co-equal, though only the first has a life of his own! The others emanated from him.

Of course this doctrine is Neo-Platonic and pagan not Jewish; since the Old Testament makes up a large part of the Christian Bible, it is heretical (Isaiah 41:10) to imagine the Trinity as three separate gods. This mental gymnastics arises because the first bishops tried to merge nascent Christian sect of Judaism with paganism. Most ancient religions were built upon some sort of threefold distinction. Ancient deities were always trinities of some sort or consisted of successive emanation in threes.

Classical Hinduism dating back to at least 500 BCE with roots extending back as far as 2000 BCE has the oldest and probably original form of the Trinity. The Hindu doctrine call Tri-murti (Three-forms) describes the divine trinity as consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva: Brahma being the Father or supreme God, Vishnu being the incarnate Word and Creator, and Siva, the Spirit of God/Holy Ghost. It is an inseparable unity though three in form. Worshipers are told to worship them as one deity.

In the Puranas (one of the Hindu bibles), more than two thousand years ago, a devotee addressing the Trinity of gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, saying that he recognized only one God. He asks the Three Lords which is the true divinity that he might address to him alone his vows and adorations. The three Gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, becoming manifest to him, replied, “Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only by semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation and destruction, but he is one.”

Hindu worshippers had no problem accepting such a concept, they were quite used to worshipping curious gods; Ganesh had the body of a man and head of an elephant, Hanuman was monkey-faced and gods and goddesses had 4, 6 or 8 arms. Their gods were strange entities, so a 3 in 1, 1 in 3 god was simple to accept.

To quote Sir William Jones:

Very respectable natives have assured me, that one or two missionaries have been absurd enough to in their zeal for the conversion of the Gentiles, to urge that the Hindus were even now almost Christians; because their Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa (Siva), were no other than the Christian Trinity.

By an almost unanimous decision, the Church fathers declared the concept of the Trinity as a leading tent of the faith, a doctrine directly revealed from heaven. Yet a pagan religion over 2000 years older than Christianity had long accepted and practiced the tenet of the Trinity. Quite independently the Brahmins, Persians, Chaldeans, Chinese, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Scandinavians, Druids, Siberians, Peruvians, Mayans, Aztecs and Greeks held the doctrine of the Trinity long before the council of Nicea of 325 CD officially recognized God’s Trinitarian nature.

A Trinity was worshipped by the pagan Romans, after an oracle declared that there was First God, then the Word, and with them the Spirit. Once again, we see the distinctly enumerated, the Father, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, this time in ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of this capital—that of Jupiter Capitolinus—was dedicated to three deities, which were honored with joint worship!

Those sages of the ancient world, the Egyptians, also worshipped a trinity. The wing, the globe and the serpent together stood for the different attributes of their god. The Buddhists of China and Japan (Chungkuo and Nippon)worship Fo, a name for Buddha. When they worship his, they say “Fo is one god but has three forms.” This trinity of Vajrapani, Manjusri and Avalokitesvara is a divine union of three gods into one god – Buddha.

St. Jerome pointed out that all the ancient nations believed in the Trinity.

The Greeks also had their trinities. When making their sacrifices to their gods, they would sprinkle holy water on the altar three times, they would then sprinkle the people three times also. Frankincense was then taken with three fingers and strewed upon the alter three times. All of this was done because the oracle had proclaimed that all sacred things ought to be in threes. An ancient Greek inscription on the great obelisk at Rome read: The Mighty God, The Begotten of God, and Apollo the Spirit. The Greeks had a first God, and second God, and third God, and the second was begotten by the first. And yet for all that they considered all these one.

The Christian Trinitarian nature of God was primarily based on the philosophy of the Greeks. This was done through the writings of the Greek philosopher Plato, who set forth the doctrine of the Trinity in his Phaedon, written four hundred years BC. His terms conform most striking with the Christian doctrine on this subject. Plato's first term for the Trinity was the Agathon, the supreme God or Father. Next was the Logos meaning the Word and then Psyche meaning the soul, spirit or ghost, the Holy Ghost. The first person was considered the planner of the work of creation, the second person the creator and the third person the ghost or spirit which moved upon the face of the waters, and infused life into the mighty deep at creation. The three names of the Christian Trinity, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are given as plainly as possible. If Plato expressed the Christian Trinity four hundred years BC, how then was it divinely originated with the incarnation of Jesus?

The works of Plato were keenly studied by the Church Fathers. The passage : “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God” is a fragment of Platonic philosophy. A Christian bishop wrote several centuries ago: Such a similitude of Plato's and John's Trinity doctrines bespeaks a common origin. St Augustine agreed that he had found the beginning of John's Gospel in Plato's Phaedon. So even Christian saints concur that the doctrine preceded Christianity. Amelius, a Pagan philosopher, says it is strictly applicable to Mercury who was the Logos. A Christian writer of the fifth century declared: The Athenian sage Plato marvelously anticipated one of the most important and mysterious doctrines of the Christian religion - meaning the Trinity. The gospels of the bible were called the Greek gospels not just because they were written in Greek but also because they entertained Greek philosophy. Either both are from heaven or both are pagan. If the former, then revelation and paganism mean the same. If the latter, then Christianity is pagan. Applying the title Word or Logos to Jesus is a pagan amalgamation with Essenism, and was not fully accepted until the middle of the second century. The Trinity is a pagan doctrine.

Divine Trinities were male Gods. No female was admitted into the triad of Gods composing the orthodox Trinity. Plainly there can never be males without females, so the whole idea is an obvious Patriarchal variant of an earlier belief in which one of the spirits in the Trinity must have been female. The truth is that the Trinity grew from a belief in the feminine principle as the mother and therefore creator of everything. The Patriarchs imposed a male Supreme god relegating the female principle to the role of his assistant as, his spirit, Word or Wisdom. That was not sufficient however and the divine son was introduced. Finally the female principle, now reduced to the Holy Ghost, the Word having been allocated to the Son, had a sex change and became masculine or neuter. Once again, we see that very little of Christianity is original.

[hetrodoxly]

Removed post because mako beat me to it, and said it much better anyway

Edited June 2, 2006 by hetrodoxly

[+Paranoid Android]

Trinity in the Old Testament: nowhere in the Old testament is it explcitly stated that there are three entities in one. However,

.....the opening words of the Bible, "In the beginning God created", the word for God is in the plural, literally "Gods", but the verb "created", goverened by this plural subject, is in the singular. THus in the first verse of Scripture we have an indication of plurality, yet unity in the Godhead. In the same chapter we read, "And God said, "Let us make man in our image". Whom is God addressing when he uses the plural "us"? Why is the plural "Let us make man in our image" followed immediately in the next verse by the singular, "God made man in HIS own image"? The phraseology is easily understood when it is remembered that the one true God here speaking is triune, three Persons in the relationship of unity.......

......There are other interesting variations of language in the Old Testament which are intimations of the Trinity. IN Genesis 32:24, it is said that Jacob wrestled with a man, yet Jacob commented, "I have seen God face to face". Hosea said that Jacob had power with God and in the next verse that he had power over the angel (Hosea 12:3,4). In Exodus 23:20, the Lord said, "I will send an angel before you" and in the next verse "My name is in him". The one sent by Yahweh is Yahweh himself. In Malachi 3:1, we read, "The Lord whom you seek shall come suddenly to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom you delight in, behold he comes, says Yahweh of hosts" The temple, of course, is God's temple so that the messenger of the covenant, the hoped-for Messiah who is distinguished from Yahweh of hosts, is himself divine - a prophecy fulfileld by the coming of Christ. In Isaiah 48:16, a threefold distinction within the Godhead is reflected in the words of God: "From the time that it took place, I was there. And now the Lord Yahweh has sent me, and his Sprit". In this verse, there is a threefold distinction. The sent One is God, and yet he is sent by the Lord Yahweh with the Spirit of God. (quoted from the same article as my previous post)

Edited June 2, 2006 by Paranoid Android

[zandore]

.....the opening words of the Bible, "In the beginning God created", the word for God is in the plural, literally "Gods",

If the word for God is plural then it stands to reason the other Gods that are in the Bible were with him/her/it at the time.

[seanph]

Thank you PA!

And seanph, would you please stop posting the same crap over and over again........yeah the catholics couldn't figure out what the Holy Spirt was and how the trinity worked, big deal, we already know the catholics don't know anything, it doesn't mean people today don't have a better understanding of such things.

And I don't care what your "scholars" have to say about anything, the trinity is supported in the O.T.

I'm sorry historical facts offend you. What I quoted is taught in both collegiate and seminary classrooms by both scholars and theologians (as referenced by using consensus materials). And I was doing my best to help someone understand a thorny issue from a historical perspective.

And I don't care what your "scholars" have to say about anything, the trinity is supported in the O.T.

And that, ShadowLady, goes a long way in explaining what religion can do to a person and how they perceive history (amongst other things)--and I speak from personal experience.

Here are a few other non-biased sources that may aid you in your quest to better understand the Trinity:

Washington State University: Early Christianity (click on contents)

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHRIST/CHRIST.HTM

Washington State University: LINKS

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHRIST/CHRIST.HTM

Fordham University: Christian Origins

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook11.html

Rutgers University: Early Church

http://virtualreligion.net/vri/xnity3.html#Fathers

University of Pennsylvania: Religious Studies 535: Varieties of Early Christianity

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/courses/535/syllabus.html

Into His Own (Professor M. H. Smith)

http://virtualreligion.net/iho/index.html

Kindly,

Sean

Edited June 2, 2006 by seanph

[+Paranoid Android]

If the word for God is plural then it stands to reason the other Gods that are in the Bible were with him/her/it at the time.

And the next sentence that you failed to quote???? the opening words of the Bible, "In the beginning God created", the word for God is in the plural, literally "Gods", but the verb "created", goverened by this plural subject, is in the singular. THus in the first verse of Scripture we have an indication of plurality, yet unity in the Godhead.

[Imaginary Friend]

The Pagan Origin of The Trinity

[seanph]

Of course, you have a further problem with the Trinity as well. Beyond the Binitarian formula, there is yet another problem: 1 John 5:7-8, or the Johannine Comma. It is the only passage in the entire Bible that explains the Trinity. It reads:

There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the Blood, and these three are one.

This passage is found only in the Latin Vulgate ... but not in the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts! What is found in the Greek manuscripts reads:

There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the Blood and these three are one.

Now we're really in a dilemma. What in the world happened to "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit"?! Well, to make a long story short, Church Fathers were so up in arms, that a Greek manuscript was later produced. And as Professor Bart Ehrman states in Misquuoting Jesus:

... And so a Greek manuscript was produced. In fact, it was produced for the occasion. It appears that someone copied out the Greek text of the Epistles, and when he came to the passage in question, he translated the Latin text into Greek, giving the Johannine Comma in its familiar, theologically useful form. The manuscript ... was a sixteenth-century production, made to order. (p. 82 cf. 113)

So the Old Testament does not explicitly support the Trinity, a fact supported even by the Catholic Church (although they claim it's somehow implied)--the very institution that formulated it in the first place!

The "New Catholic Encyclopedia" says, "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament".

Nor in the New Testament:

The "Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia" adds, "The doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament".

So the problem of the Trinity is so well-known and understood by scholars and theologianns that it is taught in collegiate/seminary classrooms and even given the name Binitarian Formula. And, finally, you have the famous Johannine Comma--not found in the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts!--which is a sixteenth-century theological production. Now, if that''s not enough evidence to support the Trinity being a man-made doctrine, I don't know what is.

Of course, to each his own.

Respectfully,

Sean

Edited June 4, 2006 by seanph

[Imaginary Friend]

The Pagan Origin of The Trinity

[M.A.D CapeBretoner]

the manifastion of the three as one the golden triagle in all

[Bluefinger]

I am seriously confused by the Trinity. No explanation I've ever heard has made much sense to me. It all seems like made up nonsense if you ask me. Maybe someone here can enlighten me?

Its how God ministers to us. The Father created us and guides us. The Son redeems us both in Spirit now and Temporally soon. The Holy Spirit is there to guide us in FAITH until The Son returns Temporally, but to establish an Everlasting Kingdom. They are simply how God ministers to us concerning those that follow Him. To those that reject Him, he is a wall between them and their eternal ambitions. Does this help?

Edited June 3, 2006 by Bluefinger

[zandore]

And the next sentence that you failed to quote???? the opening words of the Bible, "In the beginning God created", the word for God is in the plural, literally "Gods", but the verb "created", goverened by this plural subject, is in the singular. THus in the first verse of Scripture we have an indication of plurality, yet unity in the Godhead.

Where did you get your definition of "created" from?

[+Paranoid Android]

Of course, you have a further problem with the Trinity as well. Beyond the Binitarian formula, there is yet another problem: 1 John 5:7-8

Every Bible also has a footnote saying this was most likely not in the original text. Indeed it would be the poor preacher who tries to pass off as God's word. I've heard three sermons on this passage since becoming Christian. Every time, the preacher said something along the lines of "I'm going to ignore this verse because in most likelyhood it wasn't originally there".

Where did you get your definition of "created" from?

It's not "my definition", it's DB Knox wrote this. But since you asked *goes to concordance*:

the original Hebrew term for "created" in Genesis 1:1 is contracted from two separate words - bârâ' and 'êth

bârâ' - A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

'êth - Apparently contracted from the term 'ôth in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely): - As such, this word is not represented in the English language.

[hetrodoxly]

The Pagan Origin of The Trinity

You have to believe in Christianity, to accept this point of view, i think it's bunkum Christianity is just an extension of the pagan religion of the magi who had a trinity, son of god , etc. Other pagan faiths around the world, some in isolation had the trinity druids who built stone henge had a trinity.

[zandore]

Every Bible also has a footnote saying this was most likely not in the original text. Indeed it would be the poor preacher who tries to pass off as God's word. I've heard three sermons on this passage since becoming Christian. Every time, the preacher said something along the lines of "I'm going to ignore this verse because in most likelyhood it wasn't originally there".

Makes me stop and think what other verses were not there before (as if I did not think that already).

It's not "my definition", it's DB Knox wrote this. But since you asked *goes to concordance*:

the original Hebrew term for "created" in Genesis 1:1 is contracted from two separate words - bârâ' and 'êth

bârâ' - A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

'êth - Apparently contracted from the term 'ôth in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely): - As such, this word is not represented in the English language.

bârâ'

1. father of an individual

2. of God as father of his people

3. head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan

4. ancestor

a. grandfather, forefathers -- of person

b. of people

5. originator or patron of a class, profession, or art

6. of producer, generator (fig.)

7. of benevolence and protection (fig.)

8. term of respect and honour

9. ruler or chief (spec.)

SOURCE

'êth has the same definition as bârâ'

'êth

I will stay with what I said before

If the word for God is plural then it stands to reason the other Gods that are in the Bible were with him/her/it at the time.

Edited June 4, 2006 by zandore

[+Paranoid Android]

Makes me stop and think what other verses were not there before (as if I did not think that already).

Maybe. And then I also stop and think that we have early manuscripts from many sources that (imo of course) confirm the reliability. If someone added or deleted or edited something, we have texts from different sources to find out the original.

bârâ'

1. father of an individual

2. of God as father of his people

3. head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan

4. ancestor

a. grandfather, forefathers -- of person

b. of people

5. originator or patron of a class, profession, or art

6. of producer, generator (fig.)

7. of benevolence and protection (fig.)

8. term of respect and honour

9. ruler or chief (spec.)

SOURCE

'êth has the same definition as bârâ'

'êth

Sorry zandore, the information you posted is of the Hebrew term ba, not bârâ'. Ba doesn't appear in Genesis until the next chapter (2:24 to be exact). btw, the link for 'êth is the same link as you used for ba Where did you get the information that they're the same term? Edited June 4, 2006 by Paranoid Android