The Holy Trinity

Takeshi Nagakura

Takeshi Nagakura

Newbie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
8
Age
34
Gil
0
The Trinity is a Christiandoctrine, stating that God exists as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases, but is one being. The persons are understood to exist as God the Father, God the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. Since the beginning of the third century the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as "that the one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Many would say most churches revolve arount the doctrine of Trinity. My view on Trinity is that its false from what i read in the bible. Whats your views on the Trinity?
 
Yes, we know what the holy trinity is.
However I wouldn't say that churches or the Christian religion revoloves around it.
Why is it false?
Personally I think that the idea that god is made up of three parts is a little odd.
But I'm arrogant enough to presume that it is false.
 
Chirstans (before Jesus was born) believed that god was one being and it shows this in the old testament. Then when you start reading the new testament it starts to show that God is not the Father,Son, and the Holy Spirit but rather three seperate beings. Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" This helps prove the fact that Jesus is not the same as the Father (GOD) [Another verse]Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.' " Having said this, He breathed His last.. Then there is Mark13:32 which says But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. This is one verse that pretty much says that there is no Trinity. Cause if they all were one being why wouldnt they all know the time that the Father will descend to the earth?
 
You are entering a religious debate that has been of much controversy in early Christianity. When it was devised and defined at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD that did not stop people contesting it.. There were many debates about the nature of the trinity.

Will post more about this tommorow, when it isn't ridiculous O'Clock in the morning!
 
I do not believe they are the same person every person is an individual. However I believe and I'm sorry if thgis doesn't make anysense that their essence thier soul is the same.
 
Takeshi Nagakura said:
Chirstans (before Jesus was born) believed that god was one being and it shows this in the old testament.
Click to expand...

I gotta stop you right here. Before Jesus was born, there were no Christians, only Jews. They waiting for the coming of the Messiah, and when Jesus came, many Jews believed he was the Messiah. Many more simply thought he was a heretic though, thus the believers became a estranged from Judaism and the budding religion was called Christianity.

Now back on topic. I think Christianity is false, especially the trinity. The trinity is all one being, yet three different persons at once makes absolutely no sense. As a matter of fact, I have heard numerous analogies Christians use to try to make people understand the concept. There's one that compares the trinity to an egg, saying how an egg has different parts (yolk, white, shell) but is one whole egg.

The problem with that is, that while an egg is comprised of multiple parts, they cannot exist separately and still be considered a whole egg. With the trinity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are clearly made out to be separate entities that are perfectly able of functioning independently of one another...yet somehow we are to believe that they are still all the same person. Of course a Christian would simply state that because the trinity is God, it is outside our physical laws, or our human mind simply cannot comprehend it.

And to that I say this: God made us in his image, he supposedly gave us his same concepts of justice, right and wrong, etc. It would stand to reason then that he also gave us his logic, and logic is telling me that it's impossible and ridiculous.
 
I think the Holy Trinity and other aspects of the Bible are truly metaphorical.

Mod Edit: Please remember that the debate section requires a lot of effort when one posts. Anything less than 3 lines is considered spam. =]
 
Takeshi Nagakura said:
Chirstans (before Jesus was born) believed that god was one being and it shows this in the old testament. Then when you start reading the new testament it starts to show that God is not the Father,Son, and the Holy Spirit but rather three seperate beings.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Check out the first few verses of Genesis, and God doesn't use "I". He uses "We".

I've always hated this topic. It reminds me of the Three Indian Gods (Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu) and how their not only three separate people, but are part of the same person. To this day, I still cannot understand the Holy Trinity properly.

And yes, I do believe in the holy Trinity. I haven't got any proof, nor reasons. All I have is faith that it does exist. And the basis of Christianity is faith, so, I'll be happy with that.
 
the holy trinity is purely logical if god is god and he said his son is god it does not necessarily mean they are the same person it just means that they have the same powers as for the holy spirit it is the force that resided in his disciples that gave them the same powers as god. just because some one is god does not make them THE god
 
Alright. Modern Church has me infuriated. The Trinity is simple. Their Word says, "Thy kingdom come. Thy Will be done on Earth as it is Heaven."

OK...ummm...


70dzww.jpg


So there has to be a womb? Not 3 men and a Baby. Holy Spirit Heavenly mother. The Trinity is Our Heavenly Family. The reason "God, 3 in 1" does not make sense is because you are not looking at from the right perspective. A Family is supposed to work as a unit. Father, the creator, choosing all things. Offering direction and instruction, teaching His Children, as well as the Creator. Jesus, The Son, and the point of connection between humanity and God, and our Brother. Holy Spirit, Mother, who inspires creativity and imparts wisdom, discernment, understanding, Word of Knowledge ( where we get authentic psychics), prophecy, healing, faith, miracle working, and the gift of tongues. ( You want me to explain speaking in tongues let me know. Not like any Church explanation.) And She has been greatly dishonored by Churches.

x1n98w.jpg
 
Nalaar said:
Alright. Modern Church has me infuriated. The Trinity is simple. Their Word says, "Thy kingdom come. Thy Will be done on Earth as it is Heaven."
Click to expand...

The Trinity is very much not simple. As Argor said earlier, it's one of the most debated aspects of Christianity, and has been from the beginning. In reality, the most significant reason that modern Churches are trinitarian is because the trinitarian sects and proponents were in the majority at the Council of Nicaea. Thus, it was "voted in" as the major line of thought, and the Church allowed Arianism and other nontrinitarian sects to be pushed to the periphery, branded as heretics, and/or persecuted out of existence.

The debate is best exemplified by the Comma Johanneum. 1 John 5:7 reads thusly, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." But the section of text that it resides in is not considered to be part of the original text, as it appears in some translations, but not in the original Greek form. Even the official Latin text that the Catholic Church uses does not contain the Comma Johanneum because it is not considered to be viable.

The concept of the Holy Trinity is left up to interpretation. Being brought up in the Catholic Church, I never really had the concept explained to me in a manner that made sense logically. It requires a leap of faith, as all religions do at some point.

In my personal opinion, I don't believe in the concept of the Trinity, but for different reasons. I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, therefore it is impossible, in my mind, for him to be a god incarnate.
 
Well I've been to many Churches (Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran) and each have been representing the Trinity as the very same.

You have the Father.

You have the Son.

You have the Holy Spirit (or holy ghost).

------

The father being God.

The son being Jesus in perspective.

The Holy spirit being the actual word of God.

------

Do I believe in this? No, but lets move past my faith. The Bible admitted that the son was an image of God, but it was never him in general. It was a incarnated image of him. So was Adam though according to the Bible. The thing I never understood is how many loop holes were in between the thirty years of explaining these. To most Christians Jesus only started being recognized for his works when he was of the age of 30.

The trinity in general makes a bit of sense, but I believe Jesus was never supposed to be symbolized in it. Even though "he sittith on the right hand of the father almighty maker of heaven and earth..", I just don't think the trinity was ever translated right. I think maybe it was to be man maybe. On my back I have a silver cross with six more points in the center and a Red Diamond in it, but it has nothing to do with the faith of the Jews nor Christianity. If the Bible is somewhat historically acurate, then is very possible the transcriptions were misinterpreted. I'm sorry, but Faith is not enough for some. The trinity could be different to some and be perfectly right though. I think the Bible should still never be taken literally, and only be used to take lessons and learnings, rather than straight word by word followings. Since I'm not a christian or a jew though, I really have no say in the matter.
 
I can't be sure whether they share the same body, or mind, or whatever.
A finite being cannot fully understand the infinite. I see some things that make me think they are all one...then things that make me think they aren't. I don't know if it's that important that I believe in the "trinity" or not. I believe in God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit, and that's all that matters in my opinion. It's impossible to understand how they can be separate and the same, so I just don't try.
 
One of the major points of contention with the Holy Spirit Mothers gifts is speaking in tongues. The " Upper Room" event where the Holy Spirit fell on the Day of Pentecost is a highly misunderstood thing. Since the Trinity, ( Heavenly Family) communicates with us in the form of thought association, the metaphor of another language is a necessary element when explaining the interaction between The Family and their children. Cloven, or divided tongues( language) of fire( fervor to reach righteous desire) rested on the heads (consciousness) of those on whom the Holy Spirit "fell". However, since Mother is within the vessel, She did not fall vertically or straight down. She arose from within the bodies in the room who housed her and gave everyone the audible gift of tongues to present the language of thought association which is needed to converse with Her, Father and Jesus Christ so that the people where made capable of reaching their righteous desire, and then manifested the two flames to show them what was taking place. It was an " We love you. We want you to know us. This is how you speak with Us and hear Us respond." (thought)

Tongues is given spontaneously. There is no "repeat after me" bullshit that is known to crowd the altar call...( which is also unnecessary )....There is a different language given to each individual as Mother bestows the gift on the people God wishes to have it. Everyone has their own thought association assigned to them. When you see or hear or feel anything, it is followed by a thought. Each thought behind what is encountered is the language in the consciousness. This language points you in the direction you need to go in your mind, heart, soul and body in order to see your righteous desire fulfilled. Some have the gift of interpreting tongues to a group of select individuals. This is one given the train of associative thought the tongues need to be translated into in order to offer instruction, guidance or comfort or a statement from our Heavenly Family on how They personally feel.
 
Last edited:
Takeshi Nagakura said:
Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" This helps prove the fact that Jesus is not the same as the Father (GOD)[Another verse] Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.' " Having said this, He breathed His last.. Then there is Mark13:32 which says But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. This is one verse that pretty much says that there is no Trinity. Cause if they all were one being why wouldnt they all know the time that the Father will descend to the earth?
Click to expand...
First of all, the very idea of the Trinity is that there is one God in three persons. To find a passage that distinguishes between actions and roles of the different persons in no way contradicts the Trinitarian proposition, because if there really are three persons, then we would expect to find instances in which the Bible is demonstrating a distinction between Father and Son, or between Father and Holy Ghost, or between Son and Holy Ghost. Far from disproving Trinity, these verses help establish it. In fact, the only real way that it could every be disproven would be to present a verse that says there are three completely separate gods or one that says Jesus was a mere human only and not divine at all. And, of course, you will never find a verse like that, because the Bible teaches that there is only one true God and that Jesus was God (see, for instance, Jn. 20:28).

Regarding the passages you have cited, however, we know that in Christ the human and divine natures were united into one person in such a manner that each retained its own properties. We also know that, insofar as Christ acted as Mediator, the divine nature often refrained from expressing itself when it was necessary that the human nature should act according to what was in conjunction with its role. So there is no problem in saying that Christ was ignorant of something in respect to his perception as a man. Additionally, it is common for us as humans to say that "part of me" knows something is true whereas another "part of me" is uncertain, and yet at the end of the day we would say that these aspects of our thoughts are nevertheless parts of one complete person. I would not be so presumptuous as to say that God's mind is an exact analogue of the human mind -- but rather, I point this out to demonstrate the logical possibility of it.
 
The Trinity, from a sceptic's (my) viewpoint is to overcome the problems with Transcendence and Immanence, without it actually existing.



The argument for Transcendence is that since God cannot be limited by neither time nor space, he cannot exist or operate within our universe which has limits in terms of both time and space. However, this means that God cannot influence or so much as view our world in any way whatsoever. An Immanent God is one who exists within the universe, making the whole idea of a benevolent deity possible, though a God cannot be Immanent by definition. If an Immanent God exists, it cannot be supernatural in any given way, because that power would be beyond the universe.

The first half of The Bible, the Old Testament, concerns itself only with God. No Jesus or Holy Spirit. However, at the advent and ascension of Jesus Christ, we are familiar with all three aspects of the Trinity:

God the Father: Transcendent
God the Holy Spirit: Immanent
God the Son: a bit of both

However, for either The Holy Spirit OR Jesus to demonstrate any miracles, this would need to give them 'supernatural' powers, which are beyond the universe, meaning, by definition, they cannot. This would go to suggest that The Bible can only be interpreted from a progressive viewpoint.

It's a shame fundies don't bother with theology.
 
Last edited:
Lord Avon said:
The argument for Transcendence is that since God cannot be limited by neither time nor space, he cannot exist or operate within our universe which has limits in terms of both time and space.
Click to expand...
This is as silly as saying that I can neither exist nor operate in my office on the grounds that I am not limited to my office. Aristotle had the same objection for why his Unmoved Mover could not be immanent, but Aristotle failed to take into account that the Unmoved Mover moves everything else in the universe, so that to interact with the things He moves is ultimately to interact with his own motion. Analogously, to object that my office limits the number of things I can do fails to appreciate that I am the builder of my offce, and that I can arrange it to do whatever I please. There is nothing about transcendence that precludes immanence.

The Trinity isn't an effort to solve the paradox of Immanence and Transcendence, although it does answer that paradox fairly neatly. After all, the Pharisees of St. Paul's day believed in a YHWH Who was both immanent and transcendent, but they vehemently quoted Deut. 6:4 -- "YHWH our God is one YHWH" -- against the early Christians as they persecuted them for insisting that Jesus was also God. And it wouldn't be so hard to picture for oneself an Allah who is immanent (although he is not, in Islamic theology).

Really, the doctrine of the Trinity's greater importance is that it is a necessary precondition for Jesus' role as Savior. If Jesus was merely a man only, then he must have been conceived by natural means. If he was conceived by natural means, then he was polluted with the seeds of original sin. If he possessed a sinful nature, then he was not the perfect sacrifice for the sins of His elect. Moreover, if Jesus was merely a man only, then it is difficult to believe that he eternally mediates between his Church and the Father with regard to sin, because, as the anti-Trinitarian Arius put it in the 3rd Century A.D. (according to Alexander of Alexandria), "the Father [would be] inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither [would] the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither [could] he distinctly see him." Thus, if you do not have the Trinity, you do not have the Christian doctrine of atonement and mediation. You have Islam, or modernist theology, where the most that Jesus can ever be is a great prophet or moral teacher who inspires us.

The first half of The Bible, the Old Testament, concerns itself only with God. No Jesus or Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
That depends on your hermeneutic. If you do things the way Fundamental Baptists do, reading the OT independent of the progress in revelation that we get with the NT, then you are liable overlook references to Jesus prior to the First Coming, but you could hardly miss the reference to God's Spirit in places like Numbers 11, where It rests on Moses and seventy elders. However, if you read the OT in light of the NT, then you would be hard-pressed to conclude that the fourth figure in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace (Daniel 3) was not Jesus, or that God was not talking to the Word when He said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Gen. 1:26).

It's a shame fundies don't bother with theology.
Click to expand...
This depends on what you mean by "fundies." If, by that term, you mean the Fundamentalist movement and its methodologies, then I'd agree to a limited extent. But if you mean anyone who believes in "the Fundamentals", e.g. biblical inerrancy and historical veracity of Jesus' miracles and resurrection, then you are engaging in total caricature. A simple historical example will suffice to illustrate why: J. Gresham Machen was kicked out of what is now the Presbyterian Church USA because of his unyielding efforts to call the laity's attention to the fact that the authorities in that denomination were undermining "the Fundamentals." Yet when asked whether he called himself a Fundamentalist, Machen did not wish to be associated with that movement because, in its effort to oppose the "intellectual" skeptics who were seizing power in American Protestantism, the Fundamentalist movement was fast becoming overrun by a theological method (or lack thereof) and sociocultural isolationism that Machen found appalling.

The point is, there's such a thing as a theological conservative who disavows "fundies." I myself have no respect for the modernist "intellectuals" who, instead of honestly bowing their way out of the Church, have sought to sieze power within her and lead her in directions that are completely contrary to anything that Christians have ever believed. But on the other hand, like Machen, I quickly become exasperated with Fundamental Baptists who can't seem to understand that "saving faith necessarily results in good works" is not equivalent to "good works save you in addition to faith."
 
The thing is...
Holy trinity is just one thing.
There's only one god. The father the son and the holy ghost.
Not three gods that act as one.
One god with three faces.
The bible was written in ancient greek and aramaic.
in those two languages the Genesis chapter is much different than the translations in latin and english.
So it's not that after the third century god was decided to be three units. It's difficult to explain this, but I've read the bible and it's easier to understand it in ancient greek.
False or not, it's not different than the ancient religion of england talking about avalon the island of druids and priests that claimed all gods to be one and all goddesses to be one as well...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top