The truth about Trinity

[Greg]

Are you just going to post the same thing on every trinitarian thread? Lol I feel like I've read the same thing at least three times now.

I should use a link, will keep in mind.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Just an FYI as a believer in the Father Son and Holy Spirit I probably will not enter into a discussion with you. Your posts have too many issues to address and it just gets complicated to try to follow.

Welcome and please feel free to post on the introduction thread so that we can get to know you!

 

[Greg]

Just an FYI as a believer in the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Do you pray to God using the different names?

 

[Faithfulservant]

Do you pray to God using the different names?

Because you asked I pray to all three but I start my prayers out to the Father. The Father sent His Son Jesus and the Son Jesus sent us The Holy Spirit when He ascended.

I believe the Holy Spirit inhabits believers and I believe Jesus was fully God and fully man. All three are present individually in the believers lives and that all three are God.

Just a warning. You aren't the first person to join this forum with these brand new ideas and revelations of how Rome corrupted the bible. 2000 years and suddenly it's all a lie. Sorry my friend I can't get into that discussion again and right now I'm the only bible believing Christian that's posting regularly even though we have some lurking.. lol

I'm not going to convince a non believer to believe and they definitely aren't going to change my mind you will undoubtedly get support from other members that believe as you do. I do read the posts though

 

[Greg]

Because you asked I pray to all three but I start my prayers out to the Father.

Hi, if they are all the same God, what purpose does different names have? The idea is to relate to God as one personal Being. We don't relate to three, we relate to one.

(I have Christian background. Still see value but not trinity and not wrong view of Bible. Not Rome corrupted, educated Jews and others considered animal sacrifice obsolete but the system they had to work in was Rome [religious commonality]. Then later, Roman Church punished for heresy.)

 

[Faithfulservant]

Hi, if they are all the same God, what purpose does different names have? The idea is to relate to God as one personal Being. We don't relate to three, we relate to one.

The Father is my heavenly Father I come to Him as a child. A child He rewards blesses and even chastises. I revere Him and even fear Him.

The Son Jesus is my King my Lord my brother my husband and my friend. I can relate to Him because He suffered as I suffer He was tempted as I am tempted. He is my example and He is my purpose for living while on this earth. He points me to The Father. He helps me have a relationship with my Father.

The Holy Spirit is my teacher my comforter and my helper. He convicts me of my sin.. He is responsible for my sanctification. He prays with me and for me when I cannot. He lives within me and is the reason I am the temple of the Holy Spirit. He grieves when I am disobedient and silent when I'm backslidden. He calls me back every single time. He points me to Jesus and uses scripture to speak Rhema in my life

As you can see the personal relationship I have with all three and all three work differently in my life.

 

[Faithfulservant]

(I have Christian background.

I don't know what this means.

 

[Greg]

The Father is my heavenly Father I come to Him as a child. A child He rewards blesses and even chastises. I revere Him and even fear Him.

The Son Jesus is my King my Lord my brother my husband and my friend. I can relate to Him because He suffered as I suffer He was tempted as I am tempted. He is my example and He is my purpose for living while on this earth. He points me to The Father. He helps me have a relationship with my Father.

The Holy Spirit is my teacher my comforter and my helper. He convicts me of my sin.. He is responsible for my sanctification. He prays with me and for me when I cannot. He lives within me and is the reason I am the temple of the Holy Spirit. He grieves when I am disobedient and silent when I'm backslidden. He calls me back every single time. He points me to Jesus and uses scripture to speak Rhema in my life

As you can see the personal relationship I have with all three and all three work differently in my life.

Kind of you to share your beliefs. I think that is simply using different names that are associated with works of the one God. Anything that one can say "Jesus does this...", the "Holy Spirit does this..." one can also say "God does this...". When I pray, I don't pray to three persons, I pray to one personal being who is God. If one relates to three persons, then there is not one who you understand as God that you relate to, you only have the three and no distinct one. If the Father is the distinct one, then the others are merely other names or even distractions.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Ok so what are your views on the bible. Written by man? The Old testament? The New testament? You still have not explained what your Christian background was. I'm interested.

I'm sure you get that I believe the bible is inspired and God breathed. It's my sole authority on everything I believe.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Greg – welcome aboard!

Just to echo @Faithfulservant in this ...

I think that is simply using different names that are associated with works of the one God.

Yes, as presented in Christian New Testament scriptures. One God in Three Persons.

If you want to get technical, there is the 'theological Trinity' and the 'oikonomia Trinity' – the latter is better known in English as 'Economic Trinity', but the Greek is from 'oikos', which usually translates to 'household' and 'nemein' translating to 'management' or 'dispensation'.

So God reveals Himself in history in the person of Christ, and so on ...

Anything that one can say "Jesus does this...", the "Holy Spirit does this..." one can also say "God does this...".

Yes. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts succinctly:
257: God's Plan Unfolds
The Father "destined us in love to be his sons" through "the spirit of sonship" (Eph 1:4-5, 9). This plan comes from the Trinity and unfolds in creation in the missions of the Son and the Spirit, and in the mission of the Church.

258: The Work of All Three
This divine plan is the common work of the three divine persons. However, each person does the work according to his unique personal qualities. "One God and Father from whom all things are and
one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are,
and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are (Council of Constantinople II)."

Put succinctly: the mission of the Father is creation, of the Son is salvation, and of the Holy Spirit is sanctification.

When I pray, I don't pray to three persons, I pray to one personal being who is God. If one relates to three persons, then there is not one who you understand as God that you relate to, you only have the three and no distinct one. If the Father is the distinct one, then the others are merely other names or even distractions.

They are all God. God is One. The distinction is how we understand in relation to Revelation. So whether we address one Person, or all three, it's still one God.

It's made even more complex because the work of One is the work of all ...

But in the mind of the believer, it's all quite simple.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But in the mind of the believer, it's all quite simple.

Maybe in your mind..

That, presumably, is because you view Jesus as God incarnate.
..but that assumption produces all sorts of theological problems, as you know.
In fact, in trying to solve them, it split the Western & Eastern church.

 

[Thomas]

... In fact, in trying to solve them, it split the Western & Eastern church.

Sadly I think politics played a greater part in the Great Schism.

Schisms invariably arise because of both sides occupying an absolute position, as occurred between Shia and Sunni.

So it goes ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sadly I think politics played a greater part in the Great Schism..

Could well be..

 

[Greg]

Ok so what are your views on the bible. Written by man? The Old testament? The New testament? You still have not explained what your Christian background was. I'm interested.

I'm sure you get that I believe the bible is inspired and God breathed. It's my sole authority on everything I believe.

It's all written by man. "Inspired" can mean various forms of motivation. One could argue that motivation for unified religion in Roman empire that ends animal sacrifices is "inspired". This is what I believe is a large part of the basic thrust of the New Testament. The rest is the theology that became a natural consequence of the original motivation. The stories that establish the theology are mainly made up and use parables for prior religions. Huge allusion (hint) about that in Scripture itself. Scripture itself gives you a few clues as to what the real goal and methods are.

So Bible all one book. Some "inspired" and true to reality of God, others "socio-political inspired". Problem is all in one book. No electronic equipment, easiest to lump it all together to keep track of it. This practicality gives everyone the assumption that all materials are of equal weight and general relevance.

I believe probably some movement in Judaism involving possibly brilliant rabbi gifted by God, possibly named Jesus. He taught true things about God and proper application of "law" "spirit of law, not legalism". Brilliant.

Movement hijacked/changed to suit Roman unification needs.

Two key separations in practice between Judaism and polytheists: Animal sacrifice and circumcision. Key thrust of Paul's work.

New sacrifice needed to end animal sacrifices. Gentiles cooperated with Rome more than Jewish. Paul and probably many other Greek-educated elites in Senate. Paul Jewish, so probably selected to bridge Jews to Greek. Then story about "'tada, we have new 'apostle'". Still, not working, so Jewish temple destroyed. No more animal sacrifice. Still, the Jewish people understandably did not generally come on board.

 

[Greg]

...Still, the religion plowed forward, hope to convert Jews probably remained, and rest of empire getting on board. Now momentum. After all, ending animal sacrifices is actually a good thing. One could say "inspired".

Still the theology is mostly mere consequence of adaptive unification parables, and four books are mainly designed to support the new theology. Can speak much about this. Very exciting.

You said Bible authority. You probably don't view communion as actual "body". That is true, it's not, because the polytheists ate the "body" of the sacrificed animal.

Roman sacrifice was generally an act of power/violence/aggression and a ritual meal of the sacrifice. To "recreate" for polytheists, have graphic crucifix, and "re-present" the sacrifice and eat the "body". The wine/"blood" was also helpful for theater effects for Roman sacrifice. Notice, today, the wine in Roman Christianity is "optional" - no need for "bloody" imagery today ;-) Unleavened bread was for Jewish unification but didn't work much as we know.

Protestants don't eat the "body" and don't "re-present" the sacrifice. That's a step in a better direction.

I believe in God, I still consider some of the deeper messages of Jesus that are clearly in line with Jewish thought or potential developments of Jewish thought. (I also think Greeks very intelligent, again nothing wrong with end of animal sacrifices). So, other parts of the Bible, that I see as "stuff" to support the theology created for unification, I mainly ignore (sometimes a fable though, can have a good meaning, if one understands Santa Claus, however one must know what they are dealing with).

My background: Catholic of decades. The trinity was my first clue that something was amiss.

 

[Greg]

Hi Greg – welcome aboard!

Thanks kindly.

I believe:

So God reveals Himself in history in the person of Christ, and so on ...

It's not God revealing that. It's theology that was a consequence of parables for Roman religion unification. Once you call someone "Son of God" as human-like figure (image) to substitute for the human-like "gods" and "sons of gods" plus divine and divi filius emperors, then you have to explain it somehow. The man as God is a parable.

Subtle gradual changes by the "insiders" who know the truth.
"One in being" ==> "Consubstantial"

"Consubstantial" can be interpreted as "like" or "similar to", i.e. they share something in common. I know not there yet, but the direction is set and the door is open.

Loading…

www.vatican.va

"Although in Jewish scripture the Holy Spirit is never presented as a person..."

Judaism: "holy spirit", not spoken of much, understood as actions of God, probably a leftover from polytheistic tribes etc. God confirmed as one in Isaiah 44:8, so still polytheistic mentalities still an issue at that time.
Zoroastrianism (e.g. Roman Armenians): holy spirit: "source of life", "emanates"
Catholicism: "Holy Spirit": "giver of life", "proceeds"

So Judaism, "holy spirit" understood as older way of speaking (common concept with Zoroastrianism, around the same time period). Catholicism matches Zoroastrianism description basically verbatim, helpful for Roman unity. Catholicism also personified "holy spirit", in Zoroastrianism, Spenta Maynu may be considered a "god" (e.g. personified, but probably vaguely). Still, very much in common with trinity as Spenta Maynu is "part" of "Ahura Mazda"

(Now you also know where "mazda" car got its name.)

 

[Greg]

I believe:

As far as the directions of theology (e.g. in Catholicism, others may follow in trend, even though they say they are "Protestant" ). This is where we are heading 1 Corinthians 15:28:
"...then the Son himself will (also) be subjected"
I.e. When the parable of the son has served its purpose, the focus will return completely to only the one God.

"...God may be all in all."
This is the true "messianic" concept that we share with Judaism. Our Jewish friends believe that the knowledge of God will fill the earth.

So, we are shedding the Roman garments (parables). This is one example of 1 Corinthians 15:28:

One God Over All – Overview - 21st Century Reformation

21stcr.org

Not saying, I agree with all that they teach. Merely an example of the trend towards understanding about the trinity as a legacy theology.

The truth has layers, similar to software. The parables are an abstraction to help others (e.g. Roman polytheists) to understand the truth that God is one and we don't believe in multiple gods. It's "false" in one sense, but for the Roman polytheists, it may be progress considering their prior practice. The Church leaders say in creed that God the Father is the one true God. They basically kept true in the creeds, then added the rest for the unification parables. That's why big emphasis on "true God" i.e. not Jupiter (even though father in heavens/sky is parable for Jupiter ['pater']), not Apollo, not Zeus, not Orion (who walked on water),..

 

[Greg]

You still have not explained what your Christian background was.

Hi, I did add that, see prior posts. I also wanted to say that fully respect and admire your morality and faith even if we differ on details. Please pray for me, and if OK, I will pray for you.

 

[Thomas]

It's not God revealing that. It's theology that was a consequence of parables for Roman religion unification.

OK, your opinion.

I think you'd have to offer more detail and evidence to make it stick, I think. The liturgy, scripture and theology was formulated with a very Jewish framework, and then opened out to the gentile world, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'Roman religion unification'?

There were Christians in Rome, but they weren't seeking unification with the state religion – frankly I don't see how that's possible – they were, like the Jews, outsiders, who practiced in private?

You'd have to say which theology you had in mind, and evidence how the intention was such a unification.

Once you call someone "Son of God" as human-like figure (image) to substitute for the human-like "gods" and "sons of gods" plus divine and divi filius emperors, then you have to explain it somehow.

But the early Christian writings don't make any mention of the substitute theology, or argument?

Subtle gradual changes by the "insiders" who know the truth.
"One in being" ==> "Consubstantial"
"Consubstantial" can be interpreted as "like" or "similar to", i.e. they share something in common. I know not there yet, but the direction is set and the door is open.

Um ... that's incorrect. Consubstantial cannot be interpreted 'like' or 'similar to'. The Latin 'consubstantialis' is a translation of the Greek homoosios meaning 'of one or the same substance'.

A 'like' or 'similar to' theology emerged in response to the 'one and the same' theology of the Creed of Nicaea.

The conflict was over the nature of the relation of Father to Son as detailed in Scripture – nothing to do with Roman polytheism.

Judaism: "holy spirit", not spoken of much, understood as actions of God, probably a leftover from polytheistic tribes etc.

Not really. Judaism is not an absent-God Deism. God plays a part on human affairs, God is a spiritual being (as opposed to a physical or abstract mental construct). Therefore God is active – such as when a prophet makes a divine utterance. Clearly the prophet is not God, therefore the spirit of God is on the tongue of the prophet, that kind of thing ... No god would be without their spirit?

So Judaism, "holy spirit" understood as older way of speaking (common concept with Zoroastrianism, around the same time period).

I think Jewish and Christian theologians would take issue with this.

Catholicism matches Zoroastrianism description basically verbatim, helpful for Roman unity. Catholicism also personified "holy spirit", in Zoroastrianism, Spenta Maynu may be considered a "god" (e.g. personified, but probably vaguely). Still, very much in common with trinity as Spenta Maynu is "part" of "Ahura Mazda"

Actually there's an interesting discussion here, from a Zoroastrian perspective, which suggests the comparison between the Christian Holy Spirit and the Zoroastrian Spenta Mainyu is erroneous, as Spenta Mainyu was assumed to be the equivalent of the Christian Holy Spirit, by Christian interpreters of Zoroastrianism.

There are likenesses, of course, but not so strong an equivalence one might suppose.

 

[wil]

Hi, if they are all the same God, what purpose does different names have?

I'll answer this in the way a Hindu priest informed me while driving him back to the temple from an interfaith service at my church.

He informed me that Hinduism was monotheistic and all the gods were aspects of Brahman the Supreme God.

I asked how can that be with all the gods I see in your temples?

He replied, To my mother I am her son, to my sister I am her brother, to my wife a husband, to my children their father, to you a priest, to others a friend, cousin, nephew, uncle, coworker.... these are all roles and aspects I take on while simply being me, if I can do that, why can't god?