The Trinity....

[Guest SerenityNow]

Even as a fundamentalist Christian, I never accepted that doctrine even though it's what every church that I ever went to taught. So my question is, why do Christians believe in the trinity doctrine? Have any of you looked at this doctrine through a Hebrew understanding of scripture?

 

http://www.torahofmessiah.com/preexistence.html

 

The above is a Messiah believing sight, I only put it here for non-trinity supporting biblical text.

 

Of course, I accept no doctrine of any kind anymore but am just curious. Do you accept the doctrine because everyone else in your church does? Or because someone said that you have to believe it, regardless of biblical proof it says otherwise?

[Amethyst]

The vast majority of Christians I've ever met accepted it because they were brainwashed into it. Nobody in the church I grew up in ever questioned it, at least as far as I know. I agree, there's no really good reason to accept it. It's the brainwashing.

[scotter]

I remember this one:

 

Consider that Jesus's own religion was Judaism, did Jesus himself believe in Trinity?

[thomas]

I remember this one:

 

Consider that Jesus's own religion was Judaism, did Jesus himself believe in Trinity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If Jesus ever walked on this earth, the answer will be "no".

 

The concept of the trinity is clearly foreign to OT thinking. The doctrine was invented by the church father Tertullian, and is defined as three persons in one substance.

 

I got a question for Christians believing in the Trinity. Which version of this doctrine do you believe - the eastern (Orthodox), or the western (Augustin) version?

 

When I was a Christian I did believe in the trinity, because I was told to. But as I learned more about it, I understood that this doctrine only was invented, so the Christians could worship Jesus and still tell the Jews, that Chrisianity was a monotheistic religion.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

The concept of the Trinity is humorously summed up for me by a quote from "Aztec Autumn," in which a native Aztec is musing over the Spaniard's odd religion:

 

"...for example, the word trinity in our tongue is yeyintetl, and it denotes a group of three, or three things in company, or three entities acting together, or a set of three somethings -- such as the three points of a triangle or the three-lobed leaf of certain plants. But Tete Diego kept urging us listeners to adore what is plainly a group of four.

 

To this day, I have never met a Christian Spaniard who does not wholeheartedly worship a trinity comprimising one God, who has no name, and the God's son, who is named Jesuchristo, and that son's mother, named Maria Virgen, and an Espiritu Santo, who, though he has no name, is apparently one of those godling Santos, like San Jose and San Francisco. However, that makes four to be adored, and how four could constitute a trinity I could never understand."

 

This is also a fiction book, you understand. The character later finds out about the Pope, and is further flabbergasted when he thinks there's now a fifth member of their already odd trinity. He also pisses off the local church teacher when he points out that the Aztecs also have gods similiar to the Christians' confessional.

 

But it does make me laugh. "The Three-Who-Are-One" were usually women in pagan ritual.

[Heimdall]

I have always maintained (too bad the old old forums aren't available) that either Christ Cultists are polytheists or their god suffers from Multi Personality Disorder (MDP). It is classic - the normal one - God the Father, the child - God the Son, the "wacky" one - God the Holy Spirit, and the evil one - God the Devil (Satan, who seems to be of equal strength with God the Father - in the ancient Persian sort of way). Nowhere in the Cult handbook (NT) does the Trinity even get a mention! Heimdall

[guacamole]

Well, once I was able to work up to believing three impossible things before breakfast, the trinity wasn't that big of a stretch.

 

Okay, seriously, I've considered the trinity and I find scriptural passages describing God to be best explained by a more complex relationship than regular monotheism. Simple monotheism is truthfully more straightforward, but it doesn't logically follow that simply because it is more straightforward it is correct.

 

One way I often explain it to people, especially other Christians, is that I believe in God, not Super Man. Many theists have a conception of God being alot like us only superlatively exemplary in everyway. That's the "Super Man" view of God; his power is like our power only greater, his knowledge is like our knkowledge only completed, his existence is similar to our existence only eternal. In every way God is like us, only better. When I started to compare that view with other views of God, I found it insufficient. When I started thinking that God is less like us than we would like to imagine, the Trinity started making more sense.

 

Can you find the Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures? Not without esoteric interpretations of certain passages. Does that bother me? No, if it bothered me I'd probably be a Jew. What not a different sort of Christian? IMHO, there are too many problematic passages in the NT for me to think that Jesus is presented as anything other than Divine. If you want Jesus to be something else, there's a lot of textual ellision that needs to be done. Does that make me a polytheist? If you want, the label doesn't bother me.

 

John 20:26-28

Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

 

fwiw

guac.

[thomas]

Many theists have a conception of God being alot like us only superlatively exemplary in everyway.  That's the "Super Man" view of God; his power is like our power only greater, his knowledge is like our knkowledge only completed, his existence is similar to our existence only eternal. In every way God is like us, only better.  When I started to compare that view with other views of God, I found it insufficient.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I reached the same conclusion, when I was a Christian.

 

 

When I started thinking that God is less like us than we would like to imagine, the Trinity started making more sense.

 

I do not see that.

 

IMHO, there are too many problematic passages in the NT for me to think that Jesus is presented as anything other than Divine.

 

True, a divine Jesus is not the same as a Trinity. The first Christians claimed, that their religions was based on Judaism. Jews, of course, did not agree, and said that the CHristian were polytheists.

 

Christians back then did not like to be called polytheists, so they invented the Trinity.

 

[Guest Son of Belial]

The concept of the Trinity is humorously summed up for me by a quote from "Aztec Autumn," in which a native Aztec is musing over the Spaniard's odd religion:

 

"...for example, the word trinity in our tongue is yeyintetl, and it denotes a group of three, or three things in company, or three entities acting together, or a set of three somethings -- such as the three points of a triangle or the three-lobed leaf of certain plants. But Tete Diego kept urging us listeners to adore what is plainly a group of four.

 

To this day, I have never met a Christian Spaniard who does not wholeheartedly worship a trinity comprimising one God, who has no name, and the God's son, who is named Jesuchristo, and that son's mother, named Maria Virgen, and an Espiritu Santo, who, though he has no name, is apparently one of those godling Santos, like San Jose and San Francisco.  However, that makes four to be adored, and how four could constitute a trinity I could never understand."

 

This is also a fiction book, you understand. The character later finds out about the Pope, and is further flabbergasted when he thinks there's now a fifth member of their already odd trinity.  He also pisses off the local church teacher when he points out that the Aztecs also have gods similiar to the Christians' confessional.

 

But it does make me laugh. "The Three-Who-Are-One" were usually women in pagan ritual.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have to get that book! There is another modern classic called "Things Fall Apart" written by an Ethiopean(I think) man about the Christian conquering of Africa. At one point, in the tribe, these preachers come in and start talking to the chief and various leaders of the tribe about God. As he describes the various aspects of his religion, the tribesmen tell him they have gods that are very similar to some of the concepts he's describing(like with the saints and all). The preacher says there is only one God, and they all laugh at him. One of the tribesman says something like "How can there only be one God?" Then the preacher starts telling them about God's son, Jesus, and they're like "Wait a minute, you said there was only one God!" Finally they throw his ass out of the village after he tells them their gods are all fake and laugh at him.

 

Anyway, I never believed in the Trinity, the same reason other did believe it: I wasn't taught to. As a JW, I was taught there was only one God, Jehovah, and that Jesus was the archangel Michael.

[guacamole]

I have to get that book! There is another modern classic called "Things Fall Apart" written by an Ethiopean(I think) man about the Christian conquering of Africa. At one point, in the tribe, these preachers come in and start talking to the chief and various leaders of the tribe about God. As he describes the various aspects of his religion, the tribesmen tell him they have gods that are very similar to some of the concepts he's describing(like with the saints and all). The preacher says there is only one God, and they all laugh at him. One of the tribesman says something like "How can there only be one God?" Then the preacher starts telling them about God's son, Jesus, and they're like "Wait a minute, you said there was only one God!" Finally they throw his ass out of the village after he tells them their gods are all fake and laugh at him.

 

Yup. Chinua Achebe.

[chefranden]

Here is a darn good as any explanation of the trinity.

 

[Guest Joseph]

Even as a fundamentalist Christian, I never accepted that doctrine even though it's what every church that I ever went to taught.

 

I never got into it deep enough as a kid, always thought Jesus was God's son born of some spirit through Mary. The "Three are One" was something that I never really got into. So I don't think I ever believed it per se, but the churches I have gone to were all trinitarian in nature/doctrine to my knowledge.

 

So my question is, why do Christians believe in the trinity doctrine?

 

I believe it is due to hundreds of years of great killing and murdering of anyone that went against Rome's doctrine and the barberic things done in the name of Jesus through Crusades and such. Those that would not accept the doctrine of Trinity were killed, thus most sectations taught this idea. Funny thing is that when it was invented it was heresy.

 

How else could Christians limit heaven to just their people who believe in their respective mangod.

 

Example:

Christian, "If you believe in Jesus you will be saved."

Non-C, "I believe in God."

Christian, "Jesus is God."

Non-C, "You said he was the son of God."

Christian, "he is both."

Non-C, "how can he be both."

Christian, "God can do all things."

Non-C, "I believe in God, that's enough."

Christian, "If you do not believe in Jesus, you don't believe in God."

 

Just another way for them to manipulate the masses into bind following, the only way they can require mankind to follow their particular encantation of God and deny salvation to those that merely worship "God."

 

(snip)

 

No one really believes in the doctrine of the Trinity because it is a logical paradox which is not explained. It is a wordgame and little more, and by such those that follow this particular creed do not even know what they believe in themselves. It is the exact same thing as me requiring you to believe in a square-triangle simply because a book I hold tells you it exists, except in the Christian context the Tanakh portion emphatically denies that the/a Trinity of any kind exists.

[Cerise]

John 20:26-28

Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

 

fwiw

guac.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For what it's worth, if Jesus bothered to show the same consideration to all unbelievers as he supposedly did to Thomas, then we probably wouldn't be needing to have this debate right now. The fact that he most definitely doesn't, tells me there's something screwy in the works. Either the Lawd just plain don't want some people to know and worship, or Thomas didn't get the curteosy of a healthy investigation either and this was just a myth upon myths.

[Ouroboros]

For what it's worth, if Jesus bothered to show the same consideration to all unbelievers as he supposedly did to Thomas, then we probably wouldn't be needing to have this debate right now.  The fact that he most definitely doesn't, tells me there's something screwy in the works.  Either the Lawd just plain don't want some people to know and worship, or Thomas didn't get the curteosy of a healthy investigation either and this was just a myth upon myths.

 

That has been on my mind many times too.

 

I felt like Thomas plenty of times, and Jesus said that you're blessed if you believe without seeing. But sometimes you do need to see. Not necessarily see Jesus as an image or anything, but just that a specific prayer could be answered.

 

It bothered me that out of all prayers I did, the only ones that got answered were the ones, "please heal my cold" prayers. And it was truly remarkable; the cold always disappeared within a week!

 

But when it came to, "please make my son walk", then God wouldn't listen, wouldn't answer or maybe just couldn't answer.

 

God only worked miracles in the possible of physics, but I truly never saw him work supernatural. But you do need that kind of reaffirmation to keep your faith. God can’t be like the absent father, and at the same time expect obedience to his commands.

 

It’s funny that Jesus statement is a contradiction to the Apologetics that try to make God visible through evidence and logic, so you could believe in the facts of god instead of just blind faith. Jesus said we would be blessed without the proofs, so why work so hard to find them?

 

[edit]

My input on the trinity, it was back paddling from the Church to explain how Jesus could be included as God, while maintaining the faith in Monotheism. Jesus vs. God was a threat to the monotheistic view Christianity was supposed to be. Before the Nice Council finally decided about the trinity, the Church was divided. I wonder if that means that some didn’t believe Jesus being son of God?

[Guest Joseph]

That has been on my mind many times too.

 

I felt like Thomas plenty of times, and Jesus said that you're blessed if you believe without seeing. But sometimes you do need to see. Not necessarily see Jesus as an image or anything, but just that a specific prayer could be answered.

 

I (as a kid) always thought, "what did they have so that the saw with their own eyes." In other words, why them and not me? Why to "modernday miracles" happen to someone's grandmother's friend's cousin?

 

The age of reason and/or the ATTEMPT at an age of reason has left most things unevidenced right where they should be, fables and mythos. Those that still last are perhaps due to mem sets and/or childhood brainwashing given down over the ages to those that wouldn't question. I heard a skeptic once say that religious world views are like computer systems, and that they need constant backups/downloads in order to function in their unquestioning ways. Otherwise they fail. Perhaps the reason for indoctrination camps (Sunday School), weekly meetings, and dogmas of repetition in speach, chorus, ect.

 

It bothered me that out of all prayers I did, the only ones that got answered were the ones, "please heal my cold" prayers. And it was truly remarkable; the cold always disappeared within a week!

 

Imagine my difficulty then. I have seen someone brought back from death through "prayer." So, unexplained phenomena might exist. Saddly, the conclusion must be that miracles of any type do not demonstrate anything except that we do not understand how something took place (neither that any deity may exist or not).

 

(snip)

It’s funny that Jesus statement is a contradiction to the Apologetics that try to make God visible through evidence and logic, so you could believe in the facts of god instead of just blind faith. Jesus said we would be blessed without the proofs, so why work so hard to find them?

 

Human nature. "My god exists because I don't have cancer anymore."

 

Funny thing is that the Tanakh says that false prophets will be given powers to misled people to test them and remove them from following the YHVH-God. So all the "works" that anyone does could be nothing more than an elaborate test of God to see if people will fall prey to the abominations by worshiping false gods of other churches. Christians really have zero answer for such things, especially the trinitarian ones.

 

Here is another one:

-How did/could ANYONE know they were talking to God unless they were God?

 

[edit]

My input on the trinity, it was back paddling from the Church to explain how Jesus could be included as God, while maintaining the faith in Monotheism. Jesus vs. God was a threat to the monotheistic view Christianity was supposed to be. Before the Nice Council finally decided about the trinity, the Church was divided. I wonder if that means that some didn’t believe Jesus being son of God?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There were two "camps" and it was "Jesus is God Almighty" (basic, Jesus = YHVH) and "Jesus is the Son of God Almighty (basic, Jesus = generated son of YHVH, a "branch.") The Trinity combines these two contradictory statements into an illogical statement almost akin to "believe upon the square triangle." This is also due to the problematic ideas in the NT inwhich some followers directly state that Jesus was a man and there is One God (the Father) while others attempt to make the Logos (begotten Word) God also.

[Ouroboros]

(Joseph, I'm not criticizing you, but just picking up on your posting.)

 

I (as a kid) always thought, "what did they have so that the saw with their own eyes."  In other words, why them and not me?  Why to "modernday miracles" happen to someone's grandmother's friend's cousin?

Here’s a funny riddle for thought.

 

If a miracle could be repeated at any time, anywhere and by anyone, then it would become norm, and not be a miracle anymore. So miracle by it’s definition can not be duplicated.

 

The age of reason and/or the ATTEMPT at an age of reason has left most things unevidenced right where they should be, fables and mythos.  Those that still last are perhaps due to mem sets and/or childhood brainwashing given down over the ages to those that wouldn't question.  I heard a skeptic once say that religious world views are like computer systems, and that they need constant backups/downloads in order to function in their unquestioning ways.  Otherwise they fail.  Perhaps the reason for indoctrination camps (Sunday School), weekly meetings, and dogmas of repetition in speach, chorus, ect.

Very true. I call it reaffirmation.

 

Imagine my difficulty then.  I have seen someone brought back from death through "prayer."  So, unexplained phenomena might exist.  Saddly, the conclusion must be that miracles of any type do not demonstrate anything except that we do not understand how something took place (neither that any deity may exist or not).

Also true. Just because you see a miracle, would it explain there is one particular God, or could it be that we all, as humans, have the ability to super-powers, but we don’t know it, and hence the god nature is within us, and we are the gods?

 

Human nature.  "My god exists because I don't have cancer anymore."

 

Funny thing is that the Tanakh says that false prophets will be given powers to misled people to test them and remove them from following the YHVH-God.  So all the "works" that anyone does could be nothing more than an elaborate test of God to see if people will fall prey to the abominations by worshiping false gods of other churches.  Christians really have zero answer for such things, especially the trinitarian ones.

And this of course makes miracles less trustworthy as evidence of a specific God, since similar miracles could be performed by other miracle workers. And who should discern if the miracle came from such god or from that god? If you use the Bible to do it, it’s just your preferred measure stick that you have chosen, and then who should discern that the Bible is the true measure stick?

 

Here is another one:

-How did/could ANYONE know they were talking to God unless they were God?

There were two "camps" and it was "Jesus is God Almighty" (basic, Jesus = YHVH) and "Jesus is the Son of God Almighty (basic, Jesus = generated son of YHVH, a "branch.")  The Trinity combines these two contradictory statements into an illogical statement almost akin to "believe upon the square triangle."  This is also due to the problematic ideas in the NT inwhich some followers directly state that Jesus was a man and there is One God (the Father) while others attempt to make the Logos (begotten Word) God also.

The belief in Jesus as the Logos was the Gnostic Christians, if I understand it right, and they were a little bit to “mystical” for the Orthodox Church to accept, and manage to get rid of.

[Guest Joseph]

(Joseph, I'm not criticizing you, but just picking up on your posting.)

Here’s a funny riddle for thought.

 

If a miracle could be repeated at any time, anywhere and by anyone, then it would become norm, and not be a miracle anymore. So miracle by it’s definition can not be duplicated.

 

I "guess" what I am saying is that unlike the past history of men doing supernatural actions which stand up to investigation, we are stuck with TV preachers who sell healing napkins and vague ideas and mythos of back-room healers. We have no Moses in our own day. Which leads me to the idea that the ancient miracles were either generated mythos from legend or they were trickersters who generally got away due to the populace's acceptance of such illusions are possible.

 

Very true. I call it reaffirmation.

 

Heh, I call it enculturalizational brainwashing.

 

Also true. Just because you see a miracle, would it explain there is one particular God, or could it be that we all, as humans, have the ability to super-powers, but we don’t know it, and hence the god nature is within us, and we are the gods?

 

Now you are quoting Jesus' NT text where many claim he was saying that all mankind has the ability to become gods or perhaps where he quotes the Tanakh "all ye gods." A very mormon-esque ideaology/theological stance.

 

And this of course makes miracles less trustworthy as evidence of a specific God, since similar miracles could be performed by other miracle workers. And who should discern if the miracle came from such god or from that god?

 

Simple, if the guy that did the unexplain phenomena agrees with me about who "god" is, then he is of "god." If not he is a tool of HaSatan, HEH

 

If you use the Bible to do it, it’s just your preferred measure stick that you have chosen, and then who should discern that the Bible is the true measure stick?

 

Good lord, I'd hope that no one attempts to use the "Bible" (Tanakh and New Testament) to judge anything. However the Hebrew Bible is at least partly agreeable. The change-over between the ideas of who God is between the Tanakh and the NT is almost scarey, especially in God's idea of Justice and how this changes (Ezekiel 18:20 vs. Paulianian Original Sin doctrine).

 

The belief in Jesus as the Logos was the Gnostic Christians, if I understand it right, and they were a little bit to “mystical” for the Orthodox Church to accept, and manage to get rid of.

 

It is still taught (from everywhere I read) that John's Logos is Jesus and the Logos is God. At least in every single Trinitarian school of thought I have read. I personally think that the matter that was Jesus' body was just matter (human) while what he talks about or says (if God told it to him) is the Logos. A very fine line but a very important one none-the-less. Also goes along with Jesus claiming that God is greater than him.