Do serve God...or a 'Trinity'?

[TheLightWithin]

I believe the shedding of blood was mistakenly believed to be required to cover sin -- the concept of sacrifice had become corrupted away from the principle of sacrifice as a gift of what was most valuable to God -- of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son -- to become the purely ritual and meaningless sacrifice of blood upon the altar.

Christ came to fix that corruption of the meaning of sacrifice, amongst the countless other mysteries that he accomplished by His sacrifice upon the cross as both priest and victim -- and bought the end to the corruption of blood as the meaningful part of the sacrifice, replaced by the consecration at the last supper of His own body and blood in the form of bread and wine, and by which He promised to be present in the Eucharist for all future generations.

IMO

To encapsulate the video I posted above in #185, they explain the blood sacrifice in terms of the blood covenant.
If one broke a covenant, one had to die.
The other option was if someone innocent stood in your place.
It sounds like something ancient people did to show you took a promise seriously.
Much of the sacrifice aspect of Judeo Christian doctrines were confusing to me, just didn't make sense to me, but if there was already something legal-cultural in place around blood covenants, then I can see the logic.

BTW the channel the video is from is not unlike what my grandpa used to say and the TV or radio or magazines and books he had used to say.
Doctrinally, AFAIK so far, and in overall feel.

 

[TheLightWithin]

his thread with recent entries goes into some detail about the active persecution of Bahai by Muslims, or at least by the Iranian Government.

Sorry, I meant to post the link to the current thread where this is being discussed

Current suppression of Baha'is in Iran

One could consider why such a peaceful message has received such persecution. How Love can be so hated. It is not love. It is a different religion which says that what all other religions believe is wrong. You too want to have a Bahai militia to make those who object fall in line. Perhaps...

www.interfaith.org

 

[RJM]

@TheLightWithin I’ve saved the video to watch later, thanks

My issue is with the idea of Christ as perpetuating blood sacrifice, which I believe He came to put an end to, amongst other things. I agree with @Faithfulservant that just because someone doesn’t “get” Jesus, it doesn’t have to become the problem of those who do

Whatever. It’s the same old roundabout with Muslims and non-Trinitarians — Paul, Constantine, Nicea, Arius, etc. It's nothing new; we've been there done that many times here.

I apologise to @talib-al-kalim for my impatience.

(edited)

 

[talib-al-kalim]

@TheLightWithin I’ve saved the video to watch later, thanks

My issue is with the idea of Christ as perpetuating blood sacrifice, which I believe He came to put an end to, amongst other things. I agree with @Faithfulservant that just because someone doesn’t “get” Jesus, it doesn’t have to become the problem of those who do

Whatever. It’s the same old roundabout with Muslims and non-Trinitarians — Paul, Constantine, Nicea, Arius, etc. It's nothing new; we've been there done that many times here.

I apologise to @talib-al-kalim for my impatience.

(edited)

@RJM @Faithfulservant (or other Christians who want to join the discussion):
What does what you call the mystery of the blood sacrifice of Jesus mean to you? In what does it influence your life?

 

[Niblo]

@RJM @Faithfulservant (or other Christians who want to join the discussion):
What does what you call the mystery of the blood sacrifice of Jesus mean to you? In what does it influence your life?

In answer to your question. Permit me to tell you a little of my paternal grandfather:

He was taken out of school at the age of ten, and set to work in one of the local coal-mines (this was unlawful, but who cared?).

Using the town’s Miners’ Institute – these Institutes were centres of learning at that time – he studied (among many other things) both Hebrew and Greek.

His second great passion – Faith and Family together being his first – was music. Able to play both violin and piano – and to transpose written music into tonic-solfa for those who could not read music – he was appointed Musical Director of the local Amateur Operatic Society. His favourite work was Handel’s Messiah. I can see him now, dressed in his black evening suit, white shirt, black dickie-bow, conducting a full chorus and orchestra, with his white baton; every word, every note engraved in his heart. I have his baton, but none of his talent!

In the 1920’s, a number of Italian families moved into Glamorgan and set up shops and cafes. One of these families (the Bassini’s) settled in Tynewydd, in the Rhondda (my home town).

When Italy declared war, and joined with Germany, the UK government issued an internment order against those it deemed to be ‘enemy civilians.’ This included the Bassini’s. The husband (I knew him as Jack) was taken away, but his wife and three children were allowed to remain in their home (they had a café and a fish and chip shop, located side-by-side).

One day, my grandfather – returning from work – discovered a mob, hurling abuse (and stones) at the Bassini’s and their home; at people they had once called friends. My grandfather told the mob to stop, and to go home. They did.

Many years later, the family’s eldest daughter (Maria) was accepted as a Carmelite nun; and my grandfather and grandmother were invited to attend the inauguration ceremony. A great honour.

My grandfather was an Elder at Blaencwm Chapel. The Elders employed the Minister.

When I was a teenager, one Minister visited my grandfather’s house. He was treated like royalty. My grandfather called him ‘Sir’. Later, I asked my grandfather why he had called this man ‘Sir’ after all, he was the Minister’s boss!

My grandfather smiled, and said: ‘I’m just an Elder. The Minister speaks the Word!’

When my grandfather died, several hundred men – of all ages – attended his funeral (women did not attend funerals in those days). They filled the cemetery chapel, and many were weeping openly.

My grandfather was able to calm a howling mob – and move the hearts of many – not because of any legal authority (he had none), but because of his character; because of the person he was. He lived his Faith as it was meant to be lived. A Christian would say that he reflected the love of Jesus; and that it was this that made him a shining beacon to others. I would say that he reflected the love of the Beloved. He led by example rather than by argument.

He is, by far, the finest man I ever knew.

 

[RJM]

Thank you for sharing this.

It's one credible interpretation of the meaning of Christ's sacrifice. There are so many levels and meanings to the crucifixion?

 

[Faithfulservant]

@RJM @Faithfulservant (or other Christians who want to join the discussion):
What does what you call the mystery of the blood sacrifice of Jesus mean to you? In what does it influence your life?

I started this long post detailing how it started in Genesis.. and then I realized you aren't asking for history you are asking what it means to me personally. I've said this before in previous threads. Let me try it a different way. Let's take the blood out of it because I feel that it gets in the way of the message.

Sin is direct disobedience to God and it separated me from Him. I broke God's law and had to pay the consequences. God as the Holy and perfect judge declared that my sin required death as I was guilty of breaking His law. Jesus who was innocent stood in my place and said I will pay the penalty for her breaking the law. He took the punishment by dying for me. God declared me innocent as the penalty had been paid for me. I was now innocent.

Expand this. He did it for the entire world.

 

[RJM]

I started this long post detailing how it started in Genesis.. and then I realized you aren't asking for history you are asking what it means to me personally. I've said this before in previous threads. Let me try it a different way. Let's take the blood out of it because I feel that it gets in the way of the message.

Sin is direct disobedience to God and it separated me from Him. I broke God's law and had to pay the consequences. God as the Holy and perfect judge declared that my sin required death as I was guilty of breaking His law. Jesus who was innocent stood in my place and said I will pay the penalty for her breaking the law. He took the punishment by dying for me. God declared me innocent as the penalty had been paid for me. I was now innocent.

Expand this. He did it for the entire world.

That's what he says:

I've always had a tough time understanding the role of sacrifice. It made little sense to me.
I subscribed to a course that talked about "why Jesus had to die" and while it was interesting I don't have any "takeaway" from it.
This little item filled in some missing pieces for me -- in the form of cultural context that clarified:

 

[TheLightWithin]

That's what he says:

Indeed, and he also explains it further in a way that gives me some missing pieces.
The idea of the blood covenant where if you break it you have to die, but an innocent could stand in your place.
The fact that was understood and practiced by ancient cultures and was taken very seriously and in some fashion enforced.
That filled in the missing pieces for me, as in the entire idea that executing someone innocent to take the punishment of the guilty, and the tie in to animal sacrifices where of all things an innocent animal had to die (innocent animals die all the time to give us food, and to give other predators food, I accept the concreteness of that) I always had a hard time making a bit of sense of the sacrifice for atonement thing and the innocent paying for the guilty thing.

I live in an entirely different kind of culture and society, a modern Western society, which has done away with those things. The idea of individual rights and people being held accountable for their own actions, and the injustice of holding someone else accountable, that always made that part of the theology make me say, Hunh??? But if I understood it fit right in to how covenants and justice were seen then and actually practised, it makes a little more sense.

After all, in today's world, there are contracts and agreements and courts to make people pay a penalty if they violate a contract. That I understood.

I had also heard of various kinds of "blood oaths" in the past. One thing that used to come up in novels, movies, or TV dramas was an old practice of becoming "blood brothers" individuals mixing their blood and declaring themselves to have the same devotion as biological brothers, if I understand correctly. There were other forms also. This website talks about it a bit, though I don't think it fully clarifies the consequences of breaking a blood oath. https://www.hearteyesmag.com/exploring-the-significance-of-blood-oaths-in-relationships/

One of the things I always check into in regular life, whenever it comes to any kind of agreement-- or even any kind of rule or law-- is what is the consequence or penalty if the agreement (or rule, or law) is broken/ not adhered to in some fashion or another.

Apparently, capital punishment was an enforceable penalty for breaking a serious oath in the ancient world. Unlike today, where even those of us who may accept capital punishment, see it as valid only for capital murder.
Apparently, unlike today's capital punishment, they did NOT have a policy of "accept no substitutions" Today, it would be seen as crazy injustice to punish ANY but the guilty.

Now that I lay out all of the pieces, I realize this all may seem perfectly obvious to others who have lived within the theology for a lifetime.

However, for me, I only learned some aspects of classical Christian theology about 15-20 years ago and have had a wretched time making logical sense of the claims and how the pieces fall into place with any rationale whatsoever.

The video I posted helped me click some pieces into place.

Interestingly enough, the video was from a group with rather heterodox views, very similar to the ones floating around in my childhood home when I lived with my grandparents. But for a myriad of reasons I didn't absorb all of it or get the logic of all of it explained to my satisfaction back then.

 

[RJM]

but an innocent could stand in your place.

The corruption at the heart of sacrifice, that Christ came to fix, imo

 

[harmonicat]

T

 

[RabbiO]

Trinity is the most divisive, destructive, and contradictory doctrine in Christianity. I believe it was devised by demons to divide the church.

It might be nice if here, or elsewhere on the forum, you introduced yourself and provided some information about who you are and what you believe. From what you've posted to date all I can determine is that you are not a Bible literalist, you are not fond of the Catholic church, you don't believe in the trinity, you seem to believe that the world is controlled by dark financial interests, you believe in demons and English may not be your native language.

 

[RJM]

Trinity is the most divisive, destructive, and contradictory doctrine in Christianity. I believe it was devised by demons to divide the church. Thousands have been tortured and murdered for rejecting it. The doctrine was devised over a period of about 300 years by the Bishops of Rome. (Not Tertullian) Some Protestants and most Evangelicals label Rome and Catholicism as the harlot of Revelation 17 and/or the beast and simply adopted it into their theology.

The history of the doctrine is clear.

1. Jesus became God in AD325 at the council of Nicaea.
2. The holy spirit became God in AD381 at the council of Constantinople.
3. Several arguments continued among the bishops - over 100 of them. They could not resolve the multiple contradictions the Trinity or 'Nature of God' presented. They overcame those contradictions in AD 451 under Pope Leo the Great. That's when Jesus acquired TWO NATURES which is the ultimate Trinitarian excuse for every contradiction.

I think it might be helpful to read the thread through and then reply to it, to avoid having to repeat the same points?

There are numerous threads on the subject, including these relatively recent ones:
Arian Christology
The Trinity: Genesis of a Doctrine
Try the Trinity

 

[EricPH]

Trinity is the most divisive, destructive, and contradictory doctrine in Christianity. I believe it was devised by demons to divide the church.

Jesus prayed, that we should be 'one', in the same way he is one with the Father. The Trinity is about relationships, how we should love God, and love all our neighbours as we love ourselves.

 

[harmonicat]

It might be nice if here, or elsewhere on the forum, you introduced yourself and provided some information about who you are and what you believe. From what you've posted to date all I can determine is that you are not a Bible literalist, you are not fond of the Catholic church, you don't believe in the trinity, you seem to believe that the world is controlled by dark financial interests, you believe in demons and English may not be your native language.

 

[harmonicat]

Jesus prayed, that we should be 'one', in the same way he is one with the Father. The Trinity is about relationships, how we should love God, and love all our neighbours as we love ourselves.

 

[RJM]

I look at things more literal and logical I suppose and there's just no logic in trinity.

But that's the whole issue is it not -- a too literal approach to spiritual symbolism?

Often words cannot explain a spiritual concept, where symbols are more successful, in a way.

It's like the symbolism of the Cross, that goes to deeper and deeper layers of understanding. The interaction between the vertical immortal Spirit axis with the horizontal mortal 'nature' axis -- Christ suspended between heaven and earth -- the bridge between Spirit and nature

There is no actual Father and no actual Son. They are words used to sketch a profound spiritual relationship of Heaven with Man in human terms.

The Trinity is an attempt to convey to natural human minds the interweaving of eternal Spirit with temporal, ever-changing nature? From the fall of Adam to the coming of the new sinless Adam in Christ.

To me the Trinity is a very useful concept ...

 

[Thomas]

Hi @harmonicat – interesting if somewhat contentious views.

Not to take issue per se, but a couple of points I think are worth making.

The doctrine was devised over a period of about 300 years by the Bishops of Rome.

I think that does Rome too much credit! It's certainly an undeserved compliment, LOL.

Pope Leo, whose letter underpinned the findings of the Council of Chalcedon (451) was the exception rather than the rule. Generally the councils were largely the work of Eastern theologians and bishops. The Arian dispute was viewed from Rome as a 'local dispute' in the east, to begin with.

Even 'the Latin Fathers' is something of a misnomer – Tertullian was North African, perhaps of Berber heritage, and Augustine definitely was.

1. Jesus became God in AD325 at the council of Nicaea.
2. The holy spirit became God in AD381 at the council of Constantinople.

This is a tad off the mark. Councils do not come up with doctrines out of thin air.

I can't pull a spiritual relationship out of something that's incoherent to me. I look at things more literal and logical I suppose and there's just no logic in trinity.

I'd say the doctrine of the Trinity is 'logical' inasmuch as it is internally coherent, bearing in mind that the Nature of God is essentially beyond human comprehension – so in that sense the doctrine is always analogous, or an approximation. The doctrine is founded on Scripture, it arose as a logical investigation into the idea and nature of Christ as revealed in the New Testament.

God, the Son and the Holy Spirit is what the early theologians thought about, but we must take into account how they thought – and the over-arching influence here is the Greek philosophical schools, and of course, notably Plato.

Meanwhile, and I might say providentially, ideas regarding a triune nature of the Divine was emerging in Hellenistic thought – Numenius (c 150AD) held a triad of gods, so did a first-century Pythagorean thinker, Moderatus. The Neoplatonist Plotinus’ (204–70AD) had a triad of the One, Intellect, and Soul, in which the latter two mysteriously emanate from the One, and “are the One and not the One; they are the one because they are from it; they are not the One, because it endowed them with what they have while remaining by itself” (Plotinus Enneads, 85). Plotinus even describes them as three hypostases, and describes their sameness using the term homoousios which was so contentious at Nicaea.

Plotinus especially argued that for the world to exist, multiplicity must exist within the Ultimate Simplicity of the One – and that without it, creation could not have occurred.

I only make this point to suggest that the Trinity is logically coherent if one accepts the premise that there is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that somehow they are distinct, yet in essence they are One.

As @RJM says, "it's a useful concept" ...

+++

I find the idea of the Trinity 'more logical' than some of the ideas of cosmology – if getting your head round God as One and Three is difficult, so is the idea of getting one's head around the idea that before 'the creation' there was no space as such, and when whatever happened, happened, it created the space in which it happened ...

... which is to say, it's all mind-boggling.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Arian dispute..

..well, you brought it up.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Trinity is the most divisive, destructive, and contradictory doctrine in Christianity. I believe it was devised by demons to divide the church. Thousands have been tortured and murdered for rejecting it. The doctrine was devised over a period of about 300 years by the Bishops of Rome. (Not Tertullian) Some Protestants and most Evangelicals label Rome and Catholicism as the harlot of Revelation 17 and/or the beast and simply adopted it into their theology.

The history of the doctrine is clear.

1. Jesus became God in AD325 at the council of Nicaea.
2. The holy spirit became God in AD381 at the council of Constantinople.
3. Several arguments continued among the bishops - over 100 of them. They could not resolve the multiple contradictions the Trinity or 'Nature of God' presented. They overcame those contradictions in AD 451 under Pope Leo the Great. That's when Jesus acquired TWO NATURES which is the ultimate Trinitarian excuse for every contradiction.

I agree with you in that the Trinity dogma is an error, and that this error encouraged to even greater sin, as you said, when the church gained power to prosecute those who rejected it.
I don't fully agree with the rest of your points.

My analysis is:
In the beginning there was the Messianic title "Son-of-God" given to the Messiah in the Psalms. (Jesus preferred the title "Son-of-men" from the vision of Daniel). That's where the notion "Son" originates.
The name of God was not pronounced in the time of Jesus. Instead of Adonai (Kyrios, Lord) Jesus taught to say "Father" to express the intimate relationship with God he had and he taught his disciples.
The Spirit of God has been mentioned and received by the old prophets. It's been this Spirit of God that helped the disciples and the later followers to confess and keep to the Word they had received under deepest oppression and many murders committed by the Roman authorities.
From there is the threefold formula for the confession of the belief "Father, Son, Holy Spirit"

Later, but before 300, some Christians had the idea that Jesus was God on Earth, and some discarded this idea with good reason.

The Trinity dogma is a kind of compromise in between.
The difference to before was that this was now decreed as the true belief, and it was supported by stately, worldly power.
It's this power through which "the demons" acted, and finally led Christianity into deeper error and injustice.