Trinity Myth

Unfortunately, there have been Christians who were also male schovinists which is why people bring this issue up, but I highly doubt that the interpreters of the bible who were so intent on interpreting from a "male point of view" somehow accidently translated that verse correctly and missed it's intended message.

Click to expand...

Until we stood up and demanded equal rights, all men were shovinistic. This is not just Christianity. Women were property of their fathers then their husbands. The world's history was all written from a male point of view. Otherwise, there would have been female writers of the Bible. Peter had a really hard time understanding Jesus's message, and the tension between him and Mary Magdelene were well noted in the bible. He did not believe that Jesus would tell her things that he did not tell the apostles in person. He was a shovinist. It's the way the world was then, and still is in many countries.

may said:

What​

is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?​

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.​

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "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 formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.​

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.​

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.​

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: "The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."—(New York, 1965), p. 899... ​

oh dear it seems to me that it is not a bible teaching and those who claim to represent God on Earth will have a lot to answer for in the coming Great tribulation (judgement from God)Oh well we dont have to be a part of it because we can get out of false religion just as revelation tells us to.​

And I heard another voice out of heaven say: "Get out of her,(BABYLON THE GREAT THE WORLD EMPIRE OF FALSE RELIGION) my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues. For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind(REVELATION18;4-5)Christendom is more deserving because she claims to represent the God of the bible but takes on babyilonish teachings not a good thing at all so i am out of there while we still have the chance. i am going to conceal myself while there is still time​

Before [the] statute gives birth to [anything], [before the] day has passed by just like chaff, before there comes upon YOU people the burning anger of Jehovah, before there comes upon YOU the day of Jehovah’s anger, seek Jehovah, all YOU meek ones of the earth, who have practiced His own judicial decision. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably YOU may be concealed in the day of Jehovah’s anger(zepheniah2;2-3)i know whos side i want to be on in the day of Jehovahs anger ​

Click to expand...

There is a lot of evidence that shows the the Trinity was added, later, and not Christ's teaching. My point is this. God made us in his image "both male and female". I did not say there was not a "Father, son, and Holy Ghost", I am saying that we have been wrongly taught this to be an all male trinity. The Holy Ghost is the Divine Feminine. I am not saying that we should all refer to God as Female. I am saying that to deny the Divine Feminine is to deny part of God. I am saying that history has made us view God as a male. We assume God thinks like a man. This is not true. We must relize that God is the perfect 'male-female'. God has just as many female 'qualities' as male. Who ever said we are mistaken by trying to make God a certain gender is 100% correct, because we cannot imagine how perfect we would be if we were not seperate males and females. We can only see the differences, and argue over them. However, God is ALL of these, not male sometimes, or female other times. But ALWAYS he is BOTH. And more.

The two shall become one flesh. This is having children. The two become one. My child is part me and part her father. Our two flesh become one in our child. And this is the Trinity. This is the miracle of God. Father, Mother, Child, and everything that is connected with that, love, compassion, understanding, grace. The family unit is the perfect mirror of what God is. It is not all male.

michel said:

Well, at least that is a concept that my mind can cope with; I wonder though if your 'definition' would upset those who really accept the Trinity 100%, as portrayed in the Bible ?

Click to expand...

This is how I believe the first century Christians may have coped with it. The doctrine of the Trinity was first concieved by the humanization of God, by defining Jesus (the human aspect) as one of the three.

i don't think you have to be a telepath to know what i think of the trinity...i've never been able to get next to the idea...

EnhancedSpirit said:

Until we stood up and demanded equal rights, all men were shovinistic. This is not just Christianity. Women were property of their fathers then their husbands. The world's history was all written from a male point of view. Otherwise, there would have been female writers of the Bible. Peter had a really hard time understanding Jesus's message, and the tension between him and Mary Magdelene were well noted in the bible. He did not believe that Jesus would tell her things that he did not tell the apostles in person. He was a shovinist. It's the way the world was then, and still is in many countries.

Click to expand...

Just a small point, the word is actually Chauvanist:-Main Entry: chau·vin·ism javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?chauvi01.wav=chauvinism')
Pronunciation: 'shO-v&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French chauvinisme, from Nicolas Chauvin, character noted for his excessive patriotism and devotion to Napoleon in Théodore and Hippolyte Cogniard's play La Cocarde tricolore (1831)
1 : excessive or blind patriotism -- compare [size=-1]JINGOISM[/size]
2 : undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged
3 : an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex; also : behavior expressive of such an attitude
I hadn't actually realized that the word has now been redefined to include '3' : the other slight objection I have is "Until we stood up and demanded equal rights, all men were were shovinistic.". It seems to me that more often than not, I come across some women who are also Chauvenistic!

The trinity doctrine that christendom have taken on is a manmade doctrine and nothing to do with the bible it is just what the bible foretold would happen

The Trinity doctrine has not honored God by bringing people closer to him. Instead, it has grossly misrepresented God. Thus it is apparent that those responsible for its development have apostatized from true Christianity.(galatians 1;8)

michel said:

Just a small point, the word is actually Chauvanist:-Main Entry: chau·vin·ism
Pronunciation: 'shO-v&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French chauvinisme, from Nicolas Chauvin, character noted for his excessive patriotism and devotion to Napoleon in Théodore and Hippolyte Cogniard's play La Cocarde tricolore (1831)
1 : excessive or blind patriotism -- compare [size=-1]JINGOISM[/size]
2 : undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged
3 : an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex; also : behavior expressive of such an attitude
I hadn't actually realized that the word has now been redefined to include '3' : the other slight objection I have is "Until we stood up and demanded equal rights, all men were were shovinistic.". It seems to me that more often than not, I come across some women who are also Chauvenistic!

Click to expand...

Thank you for the spelling lesson, Michel And I agree, women can be chauvenistic, but only very recently in our history were we allowed to be this way. Funny, you don't seem to like it. How do you think women felt for 1000's of years.

EnhancedSpirit said:

Thank you for the spelling lesson, Michel And I agree, women can be chauvenistic, but only very recently in our history were we allowed to be this way. Funny, you don't seem to like it. How do you think women felt for 1000's of years.

Click to expand...

Pretty mad, I guess, but there's no need to make all men in my generation suffer for the sins of our forefathers!!!!:jiggy:
I'm sorry, but I was brought up to be courtious; if I open a door for a lady, I don't expect her to give me a dirty, condescending look. When I was younger, I always gave up my seat on a bus for any woman who was standing; now I am disabled, the only people who seem to offer me their seat are mostly men. I was out today, taking a couple of books back to the library; I passed a young woman who was having a real fight, trying to get a baby's buggy into the entrance of a shop. I helped her by picking up the buggy and carrying it over the sill (which was a bit stupid of me, because I was regretting it after, when in pain).
After I had helped her, she didn't even thank me - I did not do it for the thanks, but.........well, maybe it's just me.

and the tension between him and Mary Magdelene were well noted in the bible. He did not believe that Jesus would tell her things that he did not tell the apostles in person.

Click to expand...

Can you please specifically validate this statement?

Sincerely,
SoliDeogloria

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says:The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th centuryThe

New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read:"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, saysThe trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."—(New York, 1965), p. 899...

Click to expand...

WOW !!! All those "ivory tower" referrences and not one of them seem to agree with what the origins of the trinity are. One states that it "developed gradually over several centuries" , another states "The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one." as if the concept never came up until Nicea. One states "Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.", another states "This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." as if the concept has always been there. So which one is it? Which one do you agree with or can you try and reconcile all of them as if they agree? Can I add a couple of "ivory tower" referrences that were conveniently excluded from this list, like the "Evanglical Dictionary of Theology", "New Twentieth-Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge", or the "Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics" so we can see even more referrences that disagree with each other?

Sincerely,
SolideoGloria

michel said:

Pretty mad, I guess, but there's no need to make all men in my generation suffer for the sins of our forefathers!!!!:jiggy:
I'm sorry, but I was brought up to be courtious; if I open a door for a lady, I don't expect her to give me a dirty, condescending look. When I was younger, I always gave up my seat on a bus for any woman who was standing; now I am disabled, the only people who seem to offer me their seat are mostly men. I was out today, taking a couple of books back to the library; I passed a young woman who was having a real fight, trying to get a baby's buggy into the entrance of a shop. I helped her by picking up the buggy and carrying it over the sill (which was a bit stupid of me, because I was regretting it after, when in pain).
After I had helped her, she didn't even thank me - I did not do it for the thanks, but.........well, maybe it's just me.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I have experienced rudeness like that up north (damn yankees ) But like I said before, I am a southern girl. And we have this thing known as Good Ole Southern Hospitality. I always say thank you when a gentlemen holds the door for me. Even when it's the homeless guy at the corner store.

and the tension between him and Mary Magdelene were well noted in the bible. He did not believe that Jesus would tell her things that he did not tell the apostles in person.

Click to expand...

Can you please specifically validate this statement?

Click to expand...

She is foremost as a witness to Jesus’ death according to all four Gospels (Mark 15:40-41, 47; Matt. 27:55-56, 61; Luke 23:49, 55-56; John 19:25), to the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-6; Matt. 28:1, 6; Luke 24:1-3, 10; John 20:1-2), and in receiving the news or appearance of the risen Christ to tell to the disciples (Mark 16:6-7; Matt. 28:5-9; Luke 24:4-10). According to Luke the women’s testimony was not believed but was later vindicated (24:11, 22-48). According to John 20:11-18 the risen Jesus appeared first to her and talked with her about his coming ascension. She rivals Peter in that she receives revelations from the risen Christ to pass on to the rest of the apostles. The Gospel of Thomas even quotes Simon Peter as saying, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."

Jesus Christ is the Son of God not God the Son, therefor the "trinity" is pagan doctrine.

Yes the trinity is a bit mixed up isnt it . at least the bible itself is not confused.in fact the trinity has its roots in ancient Babylon and i think babylon means confusion.In the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianityno wonder that the book of revelation speaks of (Babylon the great) most religions have babylonish teachings in them

According to Luke the women’s testimony was not believed but was later vindicated (24:11, 22-48). According to John 20:11-18 the risen Jesus appeared first to her and talked with her about his coming ascension. She rivals Peter in that she receives revelations from the risen Christ to pass on to the rest of the apostles. The Gospel of Thomas even quotes Simon Peter as saying, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."

Click to expand...

Thanks for validating that. I wasn't sure what exactly you meant by the statement. You actually bring up a very interesting point. You are most definitley right about how women's testimonies were treated back then, not just by Peter, but by everyone during that period in history. As a matter of fact, William Lane Craig, in his book "Reasonable Faith", points out that womens' testimony "was regarded as so worthless that they could not even testify in a court of law. If a man committed a crime and was observed in the very act by some women, he could not be convicted on the basis of theri testimony, since their testimony was regarded as so worthless that it was not even admitted into court. Women occupied a low rung on the Jewish social ladder. Compared to men, women were second class citizens. Consider these Jewish texts: ' Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt delivered to women." The fact that you indeed are right about Mary being first to witness Jesus as being resurrected just shows that these males who were so intent on writting and/or translating the Bible from a male perspective had absolutely no problem recording this despite how embarrassing it was to them to admit that the truth was that Mary had indeed been the first to witness the resurrected Jesus. In truth it actually destroys you arguement for the Bible being a strictly male book.

As far as quoting the gospel of Thomas goes, I am very drawn back at the fact that you would even quote it with supposed quotes of Jesus like " Every Woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven". I'm not even going to get into all of the arguments that prove the gospel of Thomas to be unworthy of cannonization when compared to the gospels in the cannonized Bible.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

SoliDeoGloria said:

Thanks for validating that. I wasn't sure what exactly you meant by the statement.

The fact that you indeed are right about Mary being first to witness Jesus as being resurrected just shows that these males who were so intent on writting and/or translating the Bible from a male perspective had absolutely no problem recording this despite how embarrassing it was to them to admit that the truth was that Mary had indeed been the first to witness the resurrected Jesus. In truth it actually destroys you arguement for the Bible being a strictly male book.

Click to expand...

The Roman Catholic church made every attempt to discredit Mary Magdalene, to the point that her being first witness was irrelevent to the believers. They were told by the church which details were important. Here, read this with an open heart, hear the truth:

Christianity, as we know it, has evolved as a 'composite religion' quite unlike any other. If Jesus was its living catalyst, then Christianity should rightly be based on the teachings of Jesus himself-the moral and social codes of a fair-minded, tolerant ministry, with the people as its benefactors.

But orthodox Christianity is not based on the teachings of Jesus: it is based on the teachings of the Roman Church, which are entirely different. There are a number of reasons for this, the foremost of which is that Jesus was deliberately sidestepped in favour of the alternative teachings of Peter and Paul-teachings which were thoroughly denounced by the Nazarene Church of Jesus and his brother James.

Only by removing Jesus from the frontline could the Popes and cardinals reign supreme. When formally instituting Christianity as the state religion of Rome, Constantine declared that "he alone" was the true "Saviour Messiah", not Jesus! As for the Bishops of Rome (the Popes), they were granted an apostolic descent from St Peter-not a legitimate Desposynic descent from Jesus and his brothers, as was retained within the Nazarene Church.

The only way for the Roman High Church to restrain the heirs of Mary Magdalene was to discredit Mary herself and to deny her bridal relationship with Jesus. But what of Jesus' brother James? He, too, had heirs, as did their other brothers, Simon, Joses and Jude. The Church could not escape the Gospels which state that Jesus was the Blessed Mother Mary's "first-born son", and so Mary's own motherhood also had to be repressed.

As a result, the Church portrayed Mother Mary as a virgin, and Mary Magdalene as a whore-neither of which description was mentioned in any original Gospel. Then, just to cement Mother Mary's position outside the natural domain, her own mother, Anna, was eventually said to have borne her by way of "Immaculate Conception"!

Over the course of time, these contrived doctrines have had widespread effect. But, in the early days, it took rather more to cement the ideas because the original women of the Nazarene mission had a significant following in the Celtic Church-women such as Mary Magdalene, Martha, Mary Jacob-Cleophas and Helena-Salome who had run schools and social missions throughout the Mediterranean world. These women had all been disciples of Jesus, and close friends of his mother, Mary, accompanying her to the Crucifixion, as confirmed in the Gospels.

The Church's only salvation was to deny women altogether; to deny them not only rights to ecclesiastical office, but to deny them rights to any status in society. Hence, the Church declared that women were all heretics and sorceresses!

In this, the bishops were aided by the words of Peter and Paul, and on the basis of their teachings the Roman High Church was enabled to become wholly sexist. In his Epistle to Timothy, Paul wrote: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp any authority over the man, but to be in silence." In the Gospel of Philip, Peter is even quoted as saying that "Women are not worthy of life".

The Church Father Tertullian summed up the whole Roman attitude when writing about the emergent disciples of Mary Magdalene: "These heretical woman! How dare they! They are brazen enough to teach, to engage in argument, to baptise... It is not permitted for a woman to speak in church...nor to claim...a share in any masculine function-least of all in priestly office."

From the 1100s, the powerful Knights Templars and their cathedrals posed an enormous threat to the 'male-only' Church by bringing the heritage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene to the fore in the public domain.

The cardinals knew that their whole establishment would tumble if the Messianic descendants gained the upper hand. They had to be crushed! And so the brutal Inquisition was implemented-a hideous persecution of all who dissented from the rule of the bishops.


It all began in 1208, when Pope Innocent III sent 30,000 soldiers into the Languedoc region of southern France. This was the home of the Cathars ("the Pure Ones") who were said to be the guardians of a great and sacred treasure-a mysterious secret which could overturn orthodox Christianity. The Pope's so-called Albigensian Crusade lasted for 36 years-during which time, tens of thousands of innocent people were slaughtered.

Click to expand...

I will stop there, if you would like to learn more, search for yourself. Knock on doors, and they will be opened.

SK2005 said:

Check out this website...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#II

I think of the trinity as a Snickers bar. Three parts, but all in one.

Click to expand...

The imagery that you have given to us might be considered right, but not accurate. Suppose that I'm holding a snickers. I ask you, is the snickers bar itself a snicker? Yes. Is the nut itself a snickers? No. Is the caramel itself a snickers? No.

Same logic applies here: Is the Father the God? Yes. Is the son the God? No. Is the ghost the God? No.

If you say that the nut itself is not a snickers and the caramel itself is not a snickers bar, thus it is clear that Jesus is not God neither is the ghost.

Unless that you say that the nut itself is a snickers and the caramel itself is a snickers, than you might conclude that Jesus is God and the ghost is God.

So what do you say? Is Jesus God? Still believe in trinity?

michel said:

I'm sorry, but I was brought up to be courtious; if I open a door for a lady, I don't expect her to give me a dirty, condescending look. When I was younger, I always gave up my seat on a bus for any woman who was standing; now I am disabled, the only people who seem to offer me their seat are mostly men.

Click to expand...

Michel,
*Real* women are not threatened by men who open doors or offer them their seats. *Real* men aren't either. I've opened doors for men when I'm going through first, offered them a seat on the train when it's obvious I'm far more capable of standing than they are and send flowers to my husband. I appreciate it when the courtesy is returned.

Firdaus Mardhatillah said:

The imagery that you have given to us might be considered right, but not accurate. Suppose that I'm holding a snicker bar. I ask you, is the chocolate itself a snicker bar? Yes. Is the nut itself a snicker bar? No. Is the caramel itself a snicker bar? No.

Click to expand...

No, the chocolate itself is not a snicker's bar. Without the nuts and caramel, it's just a plain ol' generic chocolate bar. Beyond that, I'm having difficulty with the candy bar analogy.

I look at the God/Christ/Holy Spirit as similar to my role as Me/Mother/Wife. They're all me but just different aspects of my existence.

God needs no explanation. Christ is the physical human manifestation of God. The Holy Spirit is the spiritual manifestation of God sent to the Apostles.

Melody said:

No, the chocolate itself is not a snicker's bar.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, that was a typo. What I was actually going to ask is: is the snickers bar a snickers? Yes. Is the nut itself a snickers? No. Is the caramel itself a snickers? No.

Melody said:

I look at the God/Christ/Holy Spirit as similar to my role as Me/Mother/Wife. They're all me but just different aspects of my existence.

Click to expand...

Looking it at that way is inaccurate as well.You are looking each of it from a different point of view. For the You/Mother/Wife, you are someone to someone outside of you: You the you, mother of your son, wife of your husband. But for Father/Son/Spirit, each of it is something to something inside of it: Father the God, son of God, spirit of God.