NationStates Jolt Archive

I am having a hard time with something right now, and that something is the notion of the trinity. For those that don't know what the trinity is, its a christian belief from the third or fourth century, stating that there is essentially three God -heads. There is God, then there is the Holy spirit, and also Jesus.

However, this notion is never explicitly stated in the New Testament. Yet, it is very uncommon to see christians here in the US that believe in something other than the trinity. I personally believe in a more united Godhead, but it seems that if i don't believe in the trinity, then i am a heretic, or just plainly said, not a christian..Now can any one give me help on this? :(

this notion is never explicitly stated in the New Testament. Yet, it is very uncommon to see christians here in the US that believe in something other than the trinity. I personally believe in a more united Godhead, but it seems that if i don't believe in the trinity, then i am a heretic, or just plainly said, not a christian..Now can any one give me help on this? :(
So you're going to take the word of a bunch of random folk over the word of the Bible? Sounds like a bad move to me, in the context of Christianity.

PS: Does it really even matter that much? I don't see what difference that should make, even for a religious person. It's not like you'll burn for not looking at God in a particular way, especially if that way is not even mentioned in the Bible.

PPS: I'm not a Christian -- this just seems like common sense.

So you're going to take the word of a bunch of random folk over the word of the Bible? Sounds like a bad move to me, in the context of Christianity.

PS: Does it really even matter that much? I don't see what difference that should make, even for a religious person. It's not like you'll burn for not looking at God in a particular way, especially if that way is not even mentioned in the Bible.

PPS: I'm not a Christian -- this just seems like common sense.

Well its hard to not care, because I want to be taken serious as a christian, by my peers(and i need a lot of cleaning up to do:p), because if they don't take me seriously, then I won't get any support for my ministry in the future. So its hard to not care.

John has the Trinity in the first part (In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God). Belief in the trinity would probably not really constitute a core belief as much as the divinity of Jesus and the resurection thereof. Um... actually I'm not too sure of the cause of your issue, are you sad that you've been called non-Christian or asking if there's support for the trinity or what?

I am having a hard time with something right now, and that something is the notion of the trinity. For those that don't know what the trinity is, its a christian belief from the third or fourth century, stating that there is essentially three God -heads. There is God, then there is the Holy spirit, and also Jesus.

However, this notion is never explicitly stated in the New Testament. Yet, it is very uncommon to see christians here in the US that believe in something other than the trinity. I personally believe in a more united Godhead, but it seems that if i don't believe in the trinity, then i am a heretic, or just plainly said, not a christian..Now can any one give me help on this? :(

The 'trinity' is not only not an invention of the third or fourth century, it isn't even a judeo-christian artifact at all.

Try jumping back a few thousand years, and looking at the 'religious histories' of the soon-to-be-neighbours of that particular sect of desert nomads.

Egypt, for example, had no problems with 'aspect' deities, like Atum-Ra-Horus, or the Horus-Ra-Sekhmet trinities.

The 'trinity' is not only not an invention of the third or fourth century, it isn't even a judeo-christian artifact at all.

Try jumping back a few thousand years, and looking at the 'religious histories' of the soon-to-be-neighbours of that particular sect of desert nomads.

Egypt, for example, had no problems with 'aspect' deities, like Atum-Ra-Horus, or the Horus-Ra-Sekhmet trinities.

I'm talking about the trinity as I know it, made part of Christian theology at Nicae(is that right?)

and I'm just trying to find proof one way or another of the existence of the trinity, as by what the bible says.

John has the Trinity in the first part (In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God). Belief in the trinity would probably not really constitute a core belief as much as the divinity of Jesus and the resurection thereof. Um... actually I'm not too sure of the cause of your issue, are you sad that you've been called non-Christian or asking if there's support for the trinity or what?

Even if this was taken to be a reference to the multiplicity of 'god', we only have 'god' and 'the Word' here - two aspects. So - still no explicit support for a trinity. Also - reading the context of Genesis - where the 'word' is the 'act', there is no logical reason to assume the John passage intends two separate entities - except that it might mirror other theologies of the region.

I am having a hard time with something right now, and that something is the notion of the trinity. For those that don't know what the trinity is, its a christian belief from the third or fourth century, stating that there is essentially three God -heads. There is God, then there is the Holy spirit, and also Jesus.

However, this notion is never explicitly stated in the New Testament. Yet, it is very uncommon to see christians here in the US that believe in something other than the trinity. I personally believe in a more united Godhead, but it seems that if i don't believe in the trinity, then i am a heretic, or just plainly said, not a christian..Now can any one give me help on this? :(

Now here is an example of what I mean when I say the religion becomes more important than the deity it was estalished to worship. You are worrying about how other people will view you rather than finding your own peace with god. Read your bible, find your own personal understanding and go with it. As long as you're trying to be a good person and understand Christs teachings then I don't think you can go far wrong. All else is pomp and ceremony.

A little hypocritical perhaps comming from a non christian but, personally I feel that precise religion is irrelevant as long as people are trying to make the right choices.

Well its hard to not care, because I want to be taken serious as a christian, by my peers(and i need a lot of cleaning up to do:p), because if they don't take me seriously, then I won't get any support for my ministry in the future. So its hard to not care.
I'd think that a good Christian should care about charity, piety, and all that good stuff more than the opinions of their fellow Christians. Hey, John the Baptist wore a loincloth and ate locusts, and look how well he turned out. Well, OK, he didn't turn out very well literally speaking, but I was thinking more in the cosmic sense. :p

I'm talking about the trinity as I know it, made part of Christian theology at Nicae(is that right?)

and I'm just trying to find proof one way or another of the existence of the trinity, as by what the bible says.
Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (see Trinitarian formula).
2 Corinthians 13:13: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."
1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (This is the controversial Comma Johanneum, which did not appear in Greek texts before the sixteenth century.)
Luke 1:35: "The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Good place to start with.

I'd think that a good Christian should care about charity, piety, and all that good stuff more than the opinions of their fellow Christians. Hey, John the Baptist wore a loincloth and ate locusts, and look how well he turned out. Well, OK, he didn't turn out very well literally speaking, but I was thinking more in the cosmic sense. :p

Yeah,I suppose you are correct. I mean, here I am worried about support for my ministry, when I have lost sight of everything I once stood for :(

:mad: dang churchies getting me all outta whack!

I'm talking about the trinity as I know it, made part of Christian theology at Nicae(is that right?)

and I'm just trying to find proof one way or another of the existence of the trinity, as by what the bible says.

The word 'trinity' is never stated in the scripture. Indeed, Jews will tell you that the very concept of 'trinity' would be absolute heresy - a breach of the first commandment.

I'm not sure that the convocation of religious ministers, at the behest of a pagan emperor, should necessarily be considered the most important step in the formation of Christian theology. I find the whole idea that that should be the point at which we consider Christian theology complete... bizarre to say the least.

Regardless of which - the Trinity is not supported directly by the scripture... and even Jesus makes allusions that suggest the godhead is something 'separate' from himself. And - if jesus didin't believe in 'the trinity' - that should probably be enough to reassure any Christian... no?

Even if this was taken to be a reference to the multiplicity of 'god', we only have 'god' and 'the Word' here - two aspects. So - still no explicit support for a trinity. Also - reading the context of Genesis - where the 'word' is the 'act', there is no logical reason to assume the John passage intends two separate entities - except that it might mirror other theologies of the region.
Not explicit, no. However your reading in light of Genesis makes no sense as John is talking about Jesus, not the creation of the world. As was explained to me, the Word being referenced here is Christ, this is bore out as John really is pushing to acknowledge the divinity of Jesus.

Now it can be argued that this is just an attempt to place Jesus at Genesis, i.e. with God at the begining, but saying the OT ment this here so the NT (written many centuries later for a different purpose) means the same is questionable.

Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (see Trinitarian formula).
2 Corinthians 13:13: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."
1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (This is the controversial Comma Johanneum, which did not appear in Greek texts before the sixteenth century.)
Luke 1:35: "The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Good place to start with.

And only the John passage even hints at anything like 'trinity'. The very multiplicity implied in the other passages is one of the core reasons Jews do not accept Christian theology.

(And, of course, the John passage can be read as saying that all three are of unified mind - not necessarily one 'thing'.)

The word 'trinity' is never stated in the scripture. Indeed, Jews will tell you that the very concept of 'trinity' would be absolute heresy - a breach of the first commandment.

I'm not sure that the convocation of religious ministers, at the behest of a pagan emperor, should necessarily be considered the most important step in the formation of Christian theology. I find the whole idea that that should be the point at which we consider Christian theology complete... bizarre to say the least.

Regardless of which - the Trinity is not supported directly by the scripture... and even Jesus makes allusions that suggest the godhead is something 'separate' from himself. And - if jesus didin't believe in 'the trinity' - that should probably be enough to reassure any Christian... no?

Yeah that is very true. I want to ask a pastor friend of mine about it, because I want to know more, and since I will be dealing with Muslims in my ministry, and their biggest thing against christian theology is the Trinity, then I have to be up on it, and be able to explain it.

Not explicit, no. However your reading in light of Genesis makes no sense as John is talking about Jesus, not the creation of the world. As was explained to me, the Word being referenced here is Christ, this is bore out as John really is pushing to acknowledge the divinity of Jesus.

Now it can be argued that this is just an attempt to place Jesus at Genesis, i.e. with God at the begining, but saying the OT ment this here so the NT (written many centuries later for a different purpose) means the same is questionable.

But, John's entire intent was to imply that Jesus was there at the Creation. In the beginning, the act done and the word spoken. John carefully picks his words to try to make the parallel...but it just isn't supportable in the Hebrew theology - indeed, it is anathema.

Clearly, John was aiming at a different 'kind' of Gospel to the other writers... the native forms of the other three Gospels (before the addition of the Great Commission verses, certainly) suggest a more mortal Jesus - which fits much better with the Jewish idea of 'messiah'. John isn't content to write Jesus as 'godlike', though - he literally tries to make him god, often by just such mechanisms as rewriting the Genesis text, with the added flavour of 'local' concepts like 'logos'.

I am having a hard time with something right now, and that something is the notion of the trinity. For those that don't know what the trinity is, its a christian belief from the third or fourth century, stating that there is essentially three God -heads. There is God, then there is the Holy spirit, and also Jesus.

However, this notion is never explicitly stated in the New Testament. Yet, it is very uncommon to see christians here in the US that believe in something other than the trinity. I personally believe in a more united Godhead, but it seems that if i don't believe in the trinity, then i am a heretic, or just plainly said, not a christian..Now can any one give me help on this? :(

The original concept of trinity was pagan. One of the manifestations was maiden, mother and crone. There was a corresponding male manifestation of son, father, and wise man. The original Christian church, in an effort to make Christianity more accessible to pagans, adapted the pagan concept to Christianity, much as they took pagan gods and goddesses and made the saints or demons and built Christian churches over pagan sites.

And only the John passage even hints at anything like 'trinity'. The very multiplicity implied in the other passages is one of the core reasons Jews do not accept Christian theology.

(And, of course, the John passage can be read as saying that all three are of unified mind - not necessarily one 'thing'.)
Indeed, but as Zilam wanted some quotes, I dug these up for him (well, did a quick Wiki search, I'm feeling lazy today).

Before you start your engines to get into an argument with me, note that I am saying I don't care about what is implied in John or other parts of the Bible, I was just responding to his request.

The original concept of trinity was pagan. One of the manifestations was maiden, mother and crone. There was a corresponding male manifestation of son, father, and wise man. The original Christian church, in an effort to make Christianity more accessible to pagans, adapted the pagan concept to Christianity, much as they took pagan gods and goddesses and made the saints or demons and built Christian churches over pagan sites.

And that is the original basis for my argument against it. Much like my argument against most modern christian holidays, christmas comes to mind at first. What christianity needs is to purge the pagan side from it, and move back to its Jewish Roots.

Yeah that is very true. I want to ask a pastor friend of mine about it, because I want to know more, and since I will be dealing with Muslims in my ministry, and their biggest thing against christian theology is the Trinity, then I have to be up on it, and be able to explain it.
Pretend you're St. Patrick and use a three leaf clover. ;)

Yeah that is very true. I want to ask a pastor friend of mine about it, because I want to know more, and since I will be dealing with Muslims in my ministry, and their biggest thing against christian theology is the Trinity, then I have to be up on it, and be able to explain it.

Personally, I'd say skip the trinity. I don't think it is essential to 'christianity', since it isn't needed for resurrection (indeed, counter-productive if you think about it)... and has no impact on Jesus' earthly ministry.

'Witnesses' don't follow the idea of trinity, and it's one of the occassions where I think they have it right.

I'd honestly be surprised if the trinity was the biggest problems muslims might have with Christian theology... the fact that Jesus fails to meet the Hebrew requirements for Messiah would surely be a bigger stumbling-block.

Yeah,I suppose you are correct. I mean, here I am worried about support for my ministry, when I have lost sight of everything I once stood for :(

:mad: dang churchies getting me all outta whack!
Don't sweat it. Just remember not to get bogged down in the nitty little details. Why else do you think so many fundies are obsessed with gay marriage while ignoring (or even indirectly exacerbating) much more relevant problems like third-world suffering or environmental destruction?

But, John's entire intent was to imply that Jesus was there at the Creation. In the beginning, the act done and the word spoken. John carefully picks his words to try to make the parallel...but it just isn't supportable in the Hebrew theology - indeed, it is anathema.
Which if Christianity was Hebrewism would mean something. Sadly, the early Church made a break with that faith and then proceeded to try and break them.

Clearly, John was aiming at a different 'kind' of Gospel to the other writers... the native forms of the other three Gospels (before the addition of the Great Commission verses, certainly) suggest a more mortal Jesus - which fits much better with the Jewish idea of 'messiah'. John isn't content to write Jesus as 'godlike', though - he literally tries to make him god, often by just such mechanisms as rewriting the Genesis text, with the added flavour of 'local' concepts like 'logos'.
Yes, John is acknowleged as the Gospel that does the most to promote the divinity of Jesus, and was probably why it was written the latest (well after that particular argument started amoung the early followers).

Indeed, but as Zilam wanted some quotes, I dug these up for him (well, did a quick Wiki search, I'm feeling lazy today).

Before you start your engines to get into an argument with me, note that I am saying I don't care about what is implied in John or other parts of the Bible, I was just responding to his request.

:)

I'm not arguing with you... I'm just pointing out the weakness in the arguments of 'trinity'. :)

And that is the original basis for my argument against it. Much like my argument against most modern christian holidays, christmas comes to mind at first. What christianity needs is to purge the pagan side from it, and move back to its Jewish Roots.

The Puritans tried this, as have Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Society of Friends (Quakers). In this attempt they took a lot of festival out of the church and pretty much ignored the inherent human need for festival and celebration.

The intent of Christianity, as I understand it, was to transcend the Jewish roots and move to something more spirit driven and less law driven.

:)

I'm not arguing with you... I'm just pointing out the weakness in the arguments of 'trinity'. :)
Ok, just making sure. I know waving a religious thread in front of you is the same with waving one on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is to me, a red flag in front of a very excitable bull in other words. ;)

The original concept of trinity was pagan. One of the manifestations was maiden, mother and crone. There was a corresponding male manifestation of son, father, and wise man. The original Christian church, in an effort to make Christianity more accessible to pagans, adapted the pagan concept to Christianity, much as they took pagan gods and goddesses and made the saints or demons and built Christian churches over pagan sites.
Um... I'm confused, but IIRC the Goddess as Three Aspects is from the Northern parts of Europe, so why would they have any effect on something happening in Rome?

Um... I'm confused, but IIRC the Goddess as Three Aspects is from the Northern parts of Europe, so why would they have any effect on something happening in Rome?

The triple goddess concept was and is actually universal, based as it is on the phases of the moon (which are the same world-wide). For instance, the Roman version could be Hera, Minerva and Hecate (Hera=mother, Minerva=maiden, Hecate=crone, the other goddesses were variations, e.g Venus was a transition phase between Minerva and Hera). And, in any case, when the Roman Church began it's spread of the faith to various areas, including Northern Europe, it co-opted and adapted the various pagan religions in order to promote Christianity.

Um... I'm confused, but IIRC the Goddess as Three Aspects is from the Northern parts of Europe, so why would they have any effect on something happening in Rome?

Because the Romans adopted pretty much anything they liked the sound of. Also when it came to converting the populations to christianity the process was so much easier when you could say "That's just like what we believe see?". This is why easter is so close to the spring equinox, Christmass is close to Yule and the Winter Solstice. It's no conincidence that many of the older churches are full of "Green Man" symbology. The christmass wreath is just such a symbol. It's all lubrication to help the populace slip into the new conformity.

the Trinity appears to be a logical contradiction, plain and simple; different numbers (in this case 3 and 1) are mutually exclusive.

on the other hand, logic has repeatedly failed over and over again as a grounding even for philosophy. this is not unrelated to the fact that the only realities in logic you can be certain of are tautologies, which are pretty contentless.

so if you're looking for reasons to doubt, i can think of much better places to start. any believer with his head screwed on straight (few and far between, i imagine) will tell you that the Trinity is, at the very least, a tricky issue.

if you want to disbelieve, you need to determine that a Christian life is incompatible with how you should live.

I am having a hard time with something right now, and that something is the notion of the trinity. For those that don't know what the trinity is, its a christian belief from the third or fourth century, stating that there is essentially three God -heads. There is God, then there is the Holy spirit, and also Jesus.

However, this notion is never explicitly stated in the New Testament. Yet, it is very uncommon to see christians here in the US that believe in something other than the trinity. I personally believe in a more united Godhead, but it seems that if i don't believe in the trinity, then i am a heretic, or just plainly said, not a christian..Now can any one give me help on this? :(

Yeah. Become an agnostic. Far easier, you don't get characterised as the American religious wacko, and you get to sleep late on Sundays.:)

I see the trinity as three of many aspects of the one God. The Bible says man is the image of God. I see God the Father as the head or logic aspect, but a head is no good by itself. I see God the son as the hands or creative aspect. If you saw a movie of some hands doing a project, you would assume there was a head there someplace. I see God the Spirit as the emotional aspect. You can send your emotions to someone through a letter or phone call without them seeing the mind or hands. Just as in a human, all of these aspects are separate yet work together in one being. We talk about them as separate while still knowing they are a part of a whole.

just think about it as if god has a multiple-personality disorder. it is three figures, but it is also one. they are all whole and distinct (not fractions of a whole), but together they make up one whole indivisible figure, and not a 3 headed figure either. if you really want to believe it just don't question it or you'll end up melting your brain. alternatively, try and find out what sort of stuff the guy that invented it was smoking and start selling it. i'm sure you'll make a mint.

I am having a hard time with something right now, and that something is the notion of the trinity. For those that don't know what the trinity is, its a christian belief from the third or fourth century, stating that there is essentially three God -heads. There is God, then there is the Holy spirit, and also Jesus.

However, this notion is never explicitly stated in the New Testament. Yet, it is very uncommon to see christians here in the US that believe in something other than the trinity. I personally believe in a more united Godhead, but it seems that if i don't believe in the trinity, then i am a heretic, or just plainly said, not a christian..Now can any one give me help on this? :(

We have something like that in Hinduism. Basically a Demiurge and a trinity of gods representing the three "aspects" of existence, birth, life, and death. Not that hard to reconcile if you consider them to be individual interpretations of the same entity, but then, I'm not really into Hinduism anyway.

if you reject the idea of the trinity you still have a lot of work to do. what IS jesus? what IS the holy spirit? how to they fit together? if jesus isnt god, why are you praying to him? how can he forgive sins? if there is one god and he is a jealous god (thou shalt have no strange gods before me) what the fuck are you doing with a religion devoted to someone else?

im not trying to suggest an answer, just that you must HAVE an answer.

there are approximately 2000 years worth of thought on this subject. you should maybe read up on it.

Once, as a young student, I was given the single most valuable piece of advice ever imparted from one human to another. K.I.S.S.

Keep It Simple, Stupid!

One of the most fascinating ironies in my live is based on the fact that my sister, a rabid biblethumper, has been known to m ercilessly criticize our mom's religion (Catholicism) and yet the Trinity, one of the core teachings of her church, is an idea that originated with a Catholic Pope.

For not believing in the Trinity as so stated, I am branded by sis as a member of a cult (I'm a Mormon)

The irony of that is wonderful.

In my church, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are 3 distinct persons, united in cause. Collectively we refer to them as the Godhead.

The Trinity construct does not fit logically. It was a way for the early church to claim a Monotheistic character while still clearly acknowledging 3 separate entities in its theology.

We know that logically it doesn't work. Ask yourself this: If the Trinity is one being but 3 aspects, then:

Whom did Jesus pray to, in the Garden of Gethsemane?
Who did Jesus feel had forsaken Him as he suffered on the cross?
While Jesus was being baptized, who took the form of the white dove?
Who is "The Comforter" that Jesus promised to send before he left?
Whose voice came from above during Jesus' baptism, that said "Behold, my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased?"
Into whose hands did Jesus commend His spirit?

The answers are ridiculously obvious if you accept that Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit are 3 separate divine Beings.

Simple. Keep it that way.

Even simpler ...

The holy trinity of cuisine are the three ingredients key to a particular cuisine. The term is most commonly used in reference to Louisiana Creole and Cajun cuisine, where the trinity is chopped celery, bell peppers, and onions.

The name is an allusion to the Holy Trinity of the Christian faith.

Other common holy trinities are:

the Indian "wet" trinity of garlic, ginger and onion
the Szechuan trinity of green garlic, ginger and chili peppers
the Thai trinity of galangal, kaffir lime and lemon grass
the French Mirepoix of celery, onion and carrot
the Lebanese trinity of garlic, lemon juice and olive oil
the Italian trinity of tomato, garlic and basil
the Italian Soffritto of olive oil, onion and garlic
the Spanish Sofrito of garlic, onion and tomato cooked in olive oil

Now that's funny :p

I think the human brain is hardwired to see things in terms of "threes." Three is an interesting number and seems to indicate a completeness, as do multiples of three. You have the Holy Trinity, the Triple Goddess, the three-fold law of Karma, the rule of nine (which is really a rule of three). Three, six, and nine based things seem to be everywhere in nature, spirituality, mathematics, science, etc.

This is just an observation; I don't know about the science of it.

I think the human brain is hardwired to see things in terms of "threes." Three is an interesting number and seems to indicate a completeness, as do multiples of three. You have the Holy Trinity, the Triple Goddess, the three-fold law of Karma, the rule of nine (which is really a rule of three). Three, six, and nine based things seem to be everywhere in nature, spirituality, mathematics, science, etc.

This is just an observation; I don't know about the science of it.

It's a side effect of our base 10 system, actually. 3, and subsequently 9, are special numbers in that their component digits sum to multiples of 3 (or simply 9 in 9s case)

That may sound like an astounding mathematical fact, but it's really just an issue of the numerical system we use. If we had a base 7 system, for instance, 3 and 6 would be special numbers and the digits of multiples of 6 would add up to 6. ...I think.

So I was in Logic and reasoning just now, and the professor brought up something humorous. It was about the trinity, and how it was a scary concept.

See, God=Jesus, but God "killed' Jesus, so God killed himself, and if God is dead, then who is going to save the Queen?!?

So I was in Logic and reasoning just now, and the professor brought up something humorous. It was about the trinity, and how it was a scary concept.

See, God=Jesus, but God "killed' Jesus, so God killed himself, and if God is dead, then who is save the Queen?!?

you forgot the resurrection ;)

you forgot the resurrection ;)

Ah, but if God was dead, then he wouldn't be able to resurrect himself, right?

then i am a heretic, or just plainly said, not a christian..

Oh my, the haeresy of Arius...

Nah... you're christian. Be reassured.

Ah, but if God was dead, then he wouldn't be able to resurrect himself, right?

He totally would! He's God. :cool:

Don't believe in the Trinity. It has no proof except an undated saying from an unkown man ("John"'s "In the beginning...") and from Paul who lied (so the original Apostles believed) and who is entirely untrustworthy.

God is One in the most strict sense. This "Trinity" was invented by Constantine, who was still practicing an ancient Roman faith which is 99.9% similar to modern-day Christianity (only difference is the names and the book).

Don't believe in the Trinity. It has no proof except an undated saying from an unkown man ("John"'s "In the beginning...") and from Paul who lied (so the original Apostles believed) and who is entirely untrustworthy.

God is One in the most strict sense. This "Trinity" was invented by Constantine, who was still practicing an ancient Roman faith which is 99.9% similar to modern-day Christianity (only difference is the names and the book).

Actually, I am starting to trust Paul more now, because his writings were among the earliest, so its likely that he is more correct in his teachings and epistles, than say the gospels.

I think that the Trinity was honestly used to make the religion acceptable to pagans, and this gave power to the Christian Church.

Actually, I am starting to trust Paul more now, because his writings were among the earliest, so its likely that he is more correct in his teachings and epistles, than say the gospels.

Meh. Paul is a whole different story. But even then, he never called Jesus (PBUH) "God", he only called him the son of God.

Actually, I am starting to trust Paul more now, because his writings were among the earliest, so its likely that he is more correct in his teachings and epistles, than say the gospels.

I think that the Trinity was honestly used to make the religion acceptable to pagans, and this gave power to the Christian Church.

Please remember,

[1 Corinthians 15:8-9] Paul did not know Jesus in his earthly life; he came to faith through a vision of the resurrected Jesus

and stressed his apostolic authority was based on this ressurected vision he once received.

Meh. Paul is a whole different story. But even then, he never called Jesus (PBUH) "God", he only called him the son of God.

Interestingly enough I was reading a book by a fellow named Marcus Borg, and he was saying how Son of God/Man could mean something other than what we think it as meaning. For instance, it was used to signify certain prophets, I think Ezekiel was one. Or It could even mean a King of Israel, as they were descendents of Abraham, and somehow that made them a son of God. I foget exactly, but its opened my eyes a little.

Please remember,

[1 Corinthians 15:8-9] Paul did not know Jesus in his earthly life; he came to faith through a vision of the resurrected Jesus

and stressed his apostolic authority was based on this ressurected vision he once received.

Of course i remember that ;)

Please remember,

[1 Corinthina 15:8-9] Paul did not know Jesus in his earthly life; he came to faith through a vision of the resurrected Jesus

and stressed his apostolic authority was based on this ressurected vision he once received.

Also remember that the book of Acts states that the Apostles didn't trust Paul's story.

I know of a site which talks about Paul's unreliability a lot. But here's a simple question: Would you trust the followers of a man (who followed him around 24/7 and listened to him) to know the man best or would you trust a man who came along 100 years later to know the man best?

Also remember that the book of Acts states that the Apostles didn't trust Paul's story.

I know of a site which talks about Paul's unreliability a lot. But here's a simple question: Would you trust the followers of a man (who followed him around 24/7 and listened to him) to know the man best or would you trust a man who came along 100 years later to know the man best?

They didn't trust Paul, becuase before he converted, he was very anti-christian, and they thought he was just pulling their chain when he did convert.

I trust both men. Paul was converted not too long after Jesus ascended, and he spent alot of time with the disciples and other christians that had seen Jesus IRL, so i think he is trust worthy.

Interestingly enough I was reading a book by a fellow named Marcus Borg, and he was saying how Son of God/Man could mean something other than what we think it as meaning. For instance, it was used to signify certain prophets, I think Ezekiel was one. Or It could even mean a King of Israel, as they were descendents of Abraham, and somehow that made them a son of God. I foget exactly, but its opened my eyes a little.

Yeah, that's a common argument. One Prophet was called "the son of God", and the angels are called "sons of God". Furthermore, since we are all "children of God" (according to Christian belief), all males can be called "the son of God".

They didn't trust Paul, becuase before he converted, he was very anti-christian, and they thought he was just pulling their chain when he did convert.

I trust both men. Paul was converted not too long after Jesus ascended, and he spent alot of time with the disciples and other christians that had seen Jesus IRL, so i think he is trust worthy.

I see Paul as a poet and a false prophet. This article talks about it nicely: http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/paul_the_corrupter.htm


I love religion, don't you? :D

They didn't trust Paul, becuase before he converted, he was very anti-christian, and they thought he was just pulling their chain when he did convert.

I trust both men. Paul was converted not too long after Jesus ascended, and he spent alot of time with the disciples and other christians that had seen Jesus IRL, so i think he is trust worthy.

No - they didn't trust Paul because he never met the living Jesus, and the only assurance he could give that he was 'an apostle' was a vision he claimed he had.

Also, if you want to research it a little, many considered Paul to be so corrupt in his version of what Jesus taught, that he has been saddled with the name 'anti-christ' since about the time he appeared on the scene.

Yeah, that's a common argument. One Prophet was called "the son of God", and the angels are called "sons of God". Furthermore, since we are all "children of God" (according to Christian belief), all males can be called "the son of God".



I see Paul as a poet and a false prophet. This article talks about it nicely: http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/paul_the_corrupter.htm


I love religion, don't you? :D

Heh, I don't regard my beliefs as religion, but rather a way of life. You see, i am constantly learning, and chaging the way i think in accordance to it all, so thats why its a way of life for me, and the ritualism of religion.

No - they didn't trust Paul because he never met the living Jesus, and the only assurance he could give that he was 'an apostle' was a vision he claimed he had.

Also, if you want to research it a little, many considered Paul to be so corrupt in his version of what Jesus taught, that he has been saddled with the name 'anti-christ' since about the time he appeared on the scene.

acts 9:26 speaks a little differently. It says that paul went to become a disciple, but the others were afraid, which i take as meaning that they were afraid of Paul because of his past life.

So I was in Logic and reasoning just now, and the professor brought up something humorous. It was about the trinity, and how it was a scary concept.

See, God=Jesus, but God "killed' Jesus, so God killed himself, and if God is dead, then who is going to save the Queen?!?

When did God kill Jesus? He allowed the conservative religious leaders through their political connections to have the man Jesus killed. But he didn't kill Jesus.

When did God kill Jesus? He allowed the conservative religious leaders through their political connections to have the man Jesus killed. But he didn't kill Jesus.

When Jesus prayed, didn't he say "let your will be done"? So its pretty much God's will to have himself die, Which is odd for a God.

When did God kill Jesus? He allowed the conservative religious leaders through their political connections to have the man Jesus killed. But he didn't kill Jesus.

it takes a Calvinist "God controls my actions" stance to follow Zilam's idiocy today.

acts 9:26 speaks a little differently. It says that paul went to become a disciple, but the others were afraid, which i take as meaning that they were afraid of Paul because of his past life.

No - the very same verse explains their fear... they didn't believe he was really appointed by Christ.

His 'version' was rejected by those who had actually known Jesus.

it takes a Calvinist "God controls my actions" stance to follow Zilam's idiocy today.

So because I am trying to make sense of it all, and I am throwing things out there you don't agree with, I am an idiot? Gee thanks.

No - the very same verse explains their fear... they didn't believe he was really appointed by Christ.

His 'version' was rejected by those who had actually known Jesus.

What translation do you read? KJV says they feared him because they didn't think he was really a disciple. I am thinking its the same fear children have when they don't know if the strange man with the gun, really is an ice cream man or not.

So because I am trying to make sense of it all, and I am throwing things out there you don't agree with, I am an idiot? Gee thanks.

:rolleyes: you aren't trying to make sense of things, or if you are you aren't going to get anywhere with pop-culture T-shirt slogans as your guide.

If you want to truly understand God, you should probably ask more intelligent questions than "who will save the Queen?"

:rolleyes: you aren't trying to make sense of things, or if you are you aren't going to get anywhere with pop-culture T-shirt slogans as your guide.

If you want to truly understand God, you should probably ask more intelligent questions than "who will save the Queen?"


I was quoting the professor, who threw that in as a joke. But his point was that if Christians Equate Christ and God as the same, then didn't God kill himself? Its a logical enough question.

What translation do you read? KJV says they feared him because they didn't think he was really a disciple. I am thinking its the same fear children have when they don't know if the strange man with the gun, really is an ice cream man or not.

Primarily, I'm using the KJV - but I also refer back to the Greek for corroboration.

What is a disciple? A true follower of Christ (in this case).

The established disciples didn't accept Paul as one of them. They believed, therefore, that his claim was false. Thus, his teaching must be considered pretty suspect.

I was quoting the professor, who threw that in as a joke. But his point was that if Christians Equate Christ and God as the same, then didn't God kill himself? Its a logical enough question.

is it a logical question?

let's say you go way back to the stance that Jesus didn't resist arrest and let them crucify Him.

Sure, he committed suicide right?

the important part is not the what but the why.

is it a logical question?

let's say you go way back to the stance that Jesus didn't resist arrest and let them crucify Him.

Sure, he committed suicide right?

the important part is not the what but the why.

This reminds me: Jesus didn't do the "greatest act of love" at all. In the Bible, the "greatest act of love" was to lay down your life willingly for a friend (why God granting you life isn't the greatest act of love beats me).

However, how many times did Jesus pray that he would not get crucified in the Bible? He laid down is life unwilling and he had to do so.

Bah. This makes as much sense as saying that a Monotheistic God can have a "begotten son".

This reminds me: Jesus didn't do the "greatest act of love" at all. In the Bible, the "greatest act of love" was to lay down your life willingly for a friend (why God granting you life isn't the greatest act of love beats me).

However, how many times did Jesus pray that he would not get crucified in the Bible? He laid down is life unwilling and he had to do so.

Bah. This makes as much sense as saying that a Monotheistic God can have a "begotten son".

he laid down his life willingly, he did not have to, he was given more than one chance to get out of it, even by Pilot.

His prayer for another way was a chance for us to see true submission to God, doing not what you want, but what is His will.

he laid down his life willingly, he did not have to, he was given more than one chance to get out of it, even by Pilot.

His prayer for another way was a chance for us to see true submission to God, doing not what you want, but what is His will.

I wouldn't beg someone to not make me do it if I was doing it willingly.

One thing however: How was a Gospel written by an unknown man with serious corruptions (as is stated in the beginning of the Gospels and in the Forward of the NIV Bible) know what Jesus prayed? How the heck, if all the Apostles weren't with Jesus and/or were sleeping, know what he prayed? How the heck would the Apostles know what Pilate and others said when it is stated that all the Apostles fled?

This reminds me: Jesus didn't do the "greatest act of love" at all. In the Bible, the "greatest act of love" was to lay down your life willingly for a friend (why God granting you life isn't the greatest act of love beats me).

However, how many times did Jesus pray that he would not get crucified in the Bible? He laid down is life unwilling and he had to do so.

Bah. This makes as much sense as saying that a Monotheistic God can have a "begotten son".

He could have run, or hid, or called his angels to interfere, or made his disciples fight...but he didn't That's the willingness part.

I wouldn't beg someone to not make me do it if I was doing it willingly.
He didn't beg, He said if there was another way then let that happen, but if not then He knew what He had to do. That's not begging. He didn't run, He didn't fight, He didn't take the easy out in court. He willingly submitted. Submission isn't always fun, submitting your will to another's isn't about your will being the same. (I am not getting into the paradox of that as it pertains to Jesus right now because I have to leave)

One thing however: How was a Gospel written by an unknown man with serious corruptions (as is stated in the beginning of the Gospels and in the Forward of the NIV Bible) know what Jesus prayed? How the heck, if all the Apostles weren't with Jesus and/or were sleeping, know what he prayed? How the heck would the Apostles know what Pilate and others said when it is stated that all the Apostles fled?

don't know. Maybe it didn't happen and was there for us to learn a lesson.

He didn't beg, He said if there was another way then let that happen, but if not then He knew what He had to do. That's not begging. He didn't run, He didn't fight, He didn't take the easy out in court. He willingly submitted. Submission isn't always fun, submitting your will to another's isn't about your will being the same. (I am not getting into the paradox of that as it pertains to Jesus right now because I have to leave)



don't know. Maybe it didn't happen and was there for us to learn a lesson.

Most scholars believe that most of the Gospel of John, and the accounts of the virgin birth, and the prayer in the garden, and so forth, we stories put in there by the writers, showing the importance of what Christ meant to them. Its not saying that maybe things didn't happen, but the authors wrote it to portray christ in the view that they had of them. If you want the most reliable gospel, read Mark, or the Gospel of Thomas(gnostic)

Most scholars believe that most of the Gospel of John, and the accounts of the virgin birth, and the prayer in the garden, and so forth, we stories put in there by the writers, showing the importance of what Christ meant to them. Its not saying that maybe things didn't happen, but the authors wrote it to portray christ in the view that they had of them. If you want the most reliable gospel, read Mark, or the Gospel of Thomas(gnostic)

The Lost Books of the Bible teach against modern-day Christian teachings and are the most reliable. Such as the Gospel of Barnabas, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Apocalypse of Peter.

However, if those things were put it, what else was? You can't put something in and claim it to be the word of God. Was the word of God not good enough for these unknown writers?

He didn't beg, He said if there was another way then let that happen, but if not then He knew what He had to do. That's not begging. He didn't run, He didn't fight, He didn't take the easy out in court. He willingly submitted. Submission isn't always fun, submitting your will to another's isn't about your will being the same. (I am not getting into the paradox of that as it pertains to Jesus right now because I have to leave)

Which proves my point. There was another way, such as God just forgiving people. Jesus didn't want to get crucified, and thus didn't want to die.

He could have run, or hid, or called his angels to interfere, or made his disciples fight...but he didn't That's the willingness part.

What's the point of fighting God? If God tells you to kill your mother and says that if you don't do it, He'll slaughter both of you violently, would you resist?

he laid down his life willingly, he did not have to, he was given more than one chance to get out of it, even by Pilot.

His prayer for another way was a chance for us to see true submission to God, doing not what you want, but what is His will.

Which is like saying that he didn't lay his life down willingly.

I agree with a lot of what Icovir is saying. It seems like Jesus was only doing it because God told him to, not because he wanted to or because he loved us.

That being said, why did someone have to die for god to forgive humanity? It seems like it was all a play put forth, moreso for dramatic effect, rather than for effectiveness in faith and repentence.

I keep saying this, but god is very inefficient and often doesn't make sense.

Which is when Smunkee came and said we just can't comprehend him because he's so much more different from us than anything we know.

Which is when I say "Why even worship him, then, if he's so far away and unrelateable, and does things in such a way that make no sense to the people for whom they're supposedly done?"

Which is when she says something along the lines of "That's an interesting point" - this part is fuzzy in my mind, there coulda been more.

he laid down his life willingly, he did not have to, he was given more than one chance to get out of it, even by Pilot.

His prayer for another way was a chance for us to see true submission to God, doing not what you want, but what is His will.Who is Pilot?
And what submission to God do you speak of? Are you a Christian? And do you believe that Yeshua was God?

Who is Pilot?
And what submission to God do you speak of? Are you a Christian? And do you believe that Yeshua was God?

pardon my misspelling I was busy on the phone.

yes.

I don't know.

This is bollocks. Credulous twaddle.

Jesus was crucified because his teachings were unpalatable to Rome, and considered dissidential. He submitted because he was unable to defeat the Imperial might of the legions.

Jesus was a run of the mill Semitic prophet who simply chanced upon a more pacifist, inclusive, liberating philosophy than his contemporaries, and the nextolled it, and thus attrated followers rejected by others as "gentiles", or who echoed anti-Imperial sentiments. Thats it.