Is the Trinity Doctrine Biblical? (Page 2)

m_leonora1111: In the Bible you don't find any words says "Trinity". So,that trinity teaching is a false one.

Zanjan: The Bible doesn't mention a "godhead" either. Christians haven't understood the meaning of unity. It doesn't mean "equal with". It means " of one accord"- that is, in agreement.

If they had drawn an arrow descending from God to Christ to mankind, with that arrow being the flow of the Holy Spirit of communication, they would have been right. It would have shown the different worlds of being and ranked them appropriately.

Instead, they draw a line around them all, boxing them in, which makes all parts equal. How can they defend this image when they also say Jesus is God and Mary is the Mother of God? What you have there is the worship of multiple beings. That's not monotheism.

The Bible states that they will never see the Face of God - it was impossible.

Campion: For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity. We are not limited to just these three. Any persona that promotes our understanding of and our relationship to God is completely acceptable. God could be mother as well as father. God could be Wisdom / Word / Allah / Krishna / Manitou. God's possibilities are endless. These are merely our human images of God. God is, as always, ONE.

Zanjan: I find the ancients to be rather primitive in their perspectives, literally and figuratively. To me, they were like 6 years olds. So much was a mystery to them because they were underdeveloped with the majority not well-educated. They lived in a very small world.

This is what the ancient Revelators had to deal with. Thus, They spoke to them the way one speaks to a child, whose comprehension of anything is very shallow at best. One thing They all said was that God is inconceivable - that is, the moment we develop an image of God, we're wrong.

The easy way to instruct a child in this manner is to order them straight out not to make any images of God, especially graven images. The Christians disregarded this. Perhaps that's when mankind first entered the stage of adolescence, that phase where they think they know better than their parents and grandparents. It's also a stage where fantasy rules the waves.

I'm all in for the energy and enthusiasm of young bloods; as long as they keep their feet firmly planted on the ground of practicality, they can bring their visions onto the plane of reality.

In other words, they should focus on how God moves and learn to move like He does, in accordance to His Will.

Campion: Holy Trinity is not a description of God, but a description of a human experience of God. The Holy Trinity is a doctrine, adopted by the Christian Church in the 4th century CE, as a way of processing and understanding their experience with God. It is a product of dualistic Greek thinking which separated God from humanity; the holy from the profane; the flesh from the spirit, and the body from the soul. That was a cultural mindset and no one in that era of history knew how to step outside that frame of reference. However, that frame of reference died in that period of history we call the Enlightenment, leaving modern Christians with the impossible task of fitting a 4th century doctrine into a 21st century world view out of which it does not come and to which it cannot speak. Does that mean that the Trinitarian experience is wrong? No, I don’t think it means that, but it does mean that the Trinitarian language, which we use as we to seek to relate the Trinitarian experience is simply irrelevant. ~ John Spong

Zanjan: "Does that mean that the Trinitarian experience is wrong?"

Yes. Most Christians don't know how it all started. It was wrong from the get-go because one priest had that view and insisted that's the way everybody should perceive their relationship with God. They'd been doing fine up until then so why did he say this?

Well, he wanted to make a name for himself; he had a fondness for power so fiercely entered into debate over it. He lost tthe debate. Most Christians stayed firm, saying that wasn't THEIR experience and that position survives to this day.

The church splintered because of disagreements and desires for power; since then, Christianity hasn't stopped shattering. Therefore, I don't think any religious belief/language is irrelevant - it says something about the people and how they act on it.

Zanjan: That reminds me of Billy Graham's crusades. The majority of attendees were Christians; Mr. Graham had encouraged them to bring an unchurched friend along. Those would be the people who were invited up to the front to confess Jesus as their Saviour.

They were required to accept the divinity of Jesus; additionally, Mr. Graham said they had to believe Jesus was God (those are two different views). In practice, he overlooked the latter, otherwise, they'd leave as fast as they'd arrived.

Campion: During the late 1940's and well into the 1950's Charles Templeton was one of the leading evangelists in North America. He was a contemporary and close friend of Billy Graham and even travelled and roomed with him on joint crusades. Some, at the time, regarded him as a greater evangelist than Graham himself. In 1957, just following his greatest crusade ever, and after a long period of soul searching, he turned his back on his ministry and walked away from it. He said to himself, in effect, “how can I stand here and preach passionately to these people when I know that I am not preaching the truth.”


The evangelist Charles Templeton wrote in “Farewell to God” --- “According to Christian theology, God is omniscient and exists apart from time. Being omniscient he knows the end from the beginning. But if true, would this not mean that all temporal life is predetermined? If God knows the end from the beginning then nothing is subject to change --- otherwise it would not have been known from the beginning. This being so, prayer cannot possibly change anything and there is no point to it. Apart from its function as worship, prayer is based on the premise that God can be talked into running the universe according to the wishes of a devout person on his knees. But, again, try to imagine the chaos if every devout person's prayers were answered! Belief in the efficacy of prayer is a form of self-delusion. Our real prayers are not what we say while on our knees --- the facile words whispered during a prayer. They are the aspirations, attitudes, and desires that motivate our daily lives. It is easy to prime the pump and have the words gush forth in a torrent of pious phrases but the proof of what we really want, regardless of what we say we want, is evident in the way we live. “

Zanjan: Gee, no wonder I never heard of the guy.

" if true, would this not mean that all temporal life is predetermined? "

It means temporal life is predetermined. God is the Source of all life and He's very determined.

"Then nothing is subject to change"

All life is change - it must move in order to be identified as life. Once something is created, it can't become uncreated, it can only transform. A temporal thing may appear as "dead" but in reality, it's going through a process of transformation. Every constituent will be taken up into a new body and live again. That was how the individual's own body appeared.
The poor guy had no concept of eternity.

"This being so, prayer cannot possibly change anything and there is no point to it"

No, it isn't so. God and the creation is a fact - it has nothing to do with prayer. Before the earth appeared, and subsequently humans, nobody was praying and everything went along just swimmingly.

Prayer is communication; you've got to put everything you have into it. Quality prayer has an effect on the soul, similar to the way emotions have an effect on the physical body. Sound vibrates, prayer vibrates, the sea of life vibrates. With enough vibration, you get waves. As the Buddha once said, "When words are both true and kind, they change the world".

"prayer is based on the premise that God can be talked into running the universe according to the wishes of a devout person"

Apparently, he hadn't heard that all prayers ARE answered -> yes... no...wait. Teach this man how to pray - one doesn't pray for things that are against God's Will. He grants the request if it's in the best interest of the petitioner. How He grants it, we might not necessarily like; this is why we have to be careful what we pray for.
Sounds like he prayed "God, please let Billy Graham fail".

"the proof of what we really want, regardless of what we say we want, is evident in the way we live. "

That sounds good at first glance. Well, look again. I really don't want to dig in dirt all day and limp around with an aching back, cranky hips, and painfully swollen feet. I really want to breathe without effort and live without Tylenol. But here I am because SOMEBODY has to tend the gardens and fix broken things. Same with religion.

prairwarur: Lenora, I understand as this - man is not just a body, correct? We are really three parts; body, soul and spirit. Some say body, mind and spirit. I think this was taken from the Scriptures -
Deuteronomy 6:5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

When Jesus repeated this passage, He said it this way ...
Matthew 22:37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’

God is Spirit, so says His Word. Jesus came in the flesh, the body.
Holy Spirit is Spirit. All three have intelligence. All three are persons. All three are divine and all three are one. Nothing was done where all three were not involved together, from the beginning of time, from Creation on. "The three in one getting things done."

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.....

John 1 ~~ The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The Word Made Flesh
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Amen
Shalom, Prair

Zanjan: Prair: " All three have intelligence. All three are persons. All three are divine and all three are one. Nothing was done where all three were not involved together, from the beginning of time, from Creation on. "The three in one getting things done."

That's NOT in any religious text, anywhere in mankind's history. That's strictly human interpretation adopted by numerous Christians long after Christianity was already established. You can't preach 'sola scriptura' then make a statement like that and get away with it.

The divinity of Christ and the deity of Christ are NOT the same thing.

Campion: The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title of the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

prairwarur: I gave you the Scriptures, read them and contemplate. Nothing I said added to what is written, nor did it take away.

Shalom, Prair

Zanjan: I'd say it refutes scriptures.

PS, God is not 'begotten'. You should read what you posted again.

prairwarur: Jesus is, Zanjan. What can't you understand about John 1? He was with God in the beginning, "and the Word was God....." The Word became flesh. Jesus is the "Only begotten God,". Emmanuel, God with us. God incarnate. Prince of Peace, Mighty God, Eternal Father.

Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Aspect212: God is not begotten in the gross and fleshly sense that Muslims accuse Christians of believing, but Jesus is begotten spiritually. This is the explicit teaching of the Gospel of St. John. The problem with people like Zanjan, is that they do not believe in the Word of God. They are not converted to the Christian faith. They are false teachers and enemies of God.

Aspect212: The divinity of Christ and the deity of Christ are both affirmed in the Bible. Read "Jesus as God," by Harris.

Zanjan: Isaiah 9:6 .....doesn't apply to Jesus - it's about a Prophet after him.

Jesus never brought peace and didn't design a government structure. The prophecy is about world peace on earth. Jesus wasn't a temporal prince and no nation or government came to him for counsel. Jesus's title was, "the Christ" - neither name translates into God or any aspect of God in any language.

Of course, you'll attempt to argue that via theological interpretation, which is pathetically feeble in light of the Personage it DOES apply to.

Zanjan: Aspect, the Bible can't affirm itself nor can any man affirm the Bible. It's testimony only.

For affirmation, I prefer GOD to weigh in on this. He has, through successive Prophets. Anyone can read THEIR books for free.

Jesus belonged to a noble physical lineage yet was also a *spiritual* descendant of the Prophet Abraham (as promised). While he was a spiritual king, he was virtually a nobody on earth while he was alive.

If he were God, no one would have missed that. If God just pretended to be like a man, that would make God a deceiver. That case goes out the window on this logic, alone.

Campion: Messiah means literally "anointed one" and was the common way in which the Jews referred to kings of the dynasty of David. "Anointed" refers of course to the method of investiture of the Jewish kings. It translated into the Greek as "Christos". The Jews regarded themselves as a "theocracy"... a kingdom ruled by God. The Jews also envisaged a (metaphorical) throne room in which there were three thrones. God occupied the central throne. At "the right hand of God" was the throne of the "king messiah" who was the reigning king of the house and family of David. At "the left hand of God" was the throne of the "priest messiah" who was the high priest of the house and family of Zadok. Ideally there were always two messiahs who were known collectively as the "sons of God". All these terms, "messiah", "kingdom of God", "at the right hand of God" and "son of God" were political rather than religious statements. It was a later generation of gentile Christians who re-interpreted these phrases in a very different religious sense. Both before and after the death of Jesus the early Christians, who were, after all, practicing Jews, understood these terms in their traditional sense. Jesus in claiming to be the messiah had not committed any blasphemy... there was no religious crime that the high priest could legitimately charge him with. That is why he went to the Romans to do the job. Jesus was executed as a political dissident not for blasphemy. In fact the Sanhedrin did not lose the right to stone a blasphemer to death until AD 39.

Zanjan: Despite the literal translation of the word "Messiah", the Jews used it in reference to the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation...not just any leader.

The prophecy Moses, himself, made was about a God-sent deliverer, the same as he was - that is, a divine sent to save mankind. Moses wasn't a temporal king so why should they expect the next One to be a king?

In the latter days of that religion, many became confused. Faith was dying out. For a short time, it was the messianic era. Many misunderstood the prophecy, likely due to wishful thinking since they were a conquered people at the time. They imagined the Saviour was only for the Jews, not for the whole world.

Campion, during that period, there were numerous extremist Jewish sects professing all sorts of things, not found in the texts; what you describe was never a traditional teaching. Traditionally, on the right hand of God sits the lambs; on the left are the goats.

The Hebrews applied the term 'sons of God' to all devoted believers who performed their duties and kept the Covenant. Women who also did so were 'daughters of God'. Collectively, they were called the Children of Israel - this is a spiritual rank.

At the end of a dispensation, God has always sent two Prophets as contemporaries - the first is a herald for the second but only the second is the messiah - he brings a new Revelation.

m_leonora1111: Zanjan, you are just the enemy of the truth. If you don't believe in the Bible, you cannot believe in the creator of everything written in the Bible. All that you are doing is tried to take people their faith out of the TRUE GOD of the BIBLE. Everything that you said is the opposite of the Bible.

Zanjan: I can't remove faith where faith doesn't exist.

Fact is, those who believe the Bible are intensely divided, both in body and interpretation.

Campion: Zanjan --- it is a fact that no two Christians have exactly the same beliefs and that has been true since the very earliest days.

Zanjan: Yes, I know. However, in the earliest days, they werent divided. They dared not because Jesus told them "A house divided cannot stand".

His words were true - soon as it splintered into denominations, whatever they pontificated about didn't stand the test of truth. Had they put Christ first in their lives, they wouldn't have fallen away and misled each other. Jesus knew they would, eventually, but it was good for the time it lasted.