• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus himself denies the Trinity?

Anastasios

Member
One of the most interesting points for me in Gospel of Thomas are relating to India. Because as I believe that Jesus went to India, in order to complete his mission of finding lost tribes of Israel, which were spread on Iran, Pakistan, Afganistan and finally northern India, Kashmir.
Thomas is a quite important figure, in whose personality and writings we can see Jesus much more than the other Gospels. He is the closest person to Jesus than anyone else actually. I would like to be more acquainted with the Gospel of Thomas, to be honest.
I believe that Gospel of Thomas is also quite important to enlighten our understanding of Jesus, which was darkened by some authorities.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Halcyon said:
Unfortunatly i don't think it corroborates the LDS postion becky.

Read it again, Jesus is denouncing the idea of trinity, whether that be 3 in 1 or three separate beings.
To Jesus, there is only One.


Indeed. But what you're talking about is not the Gospel of Thomas - a gospel of sayings alone, which may have been written as early as 50 AD.

The book you describe is the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas", a book written in the 6th century.

Is he denouncing it? It could be interpreted that way. It could be interpreted a different way, too. It could mean that Jesus is part of the one God, as opposed to one member of a cluster of three gods. I'll have to dig up my copy of Thomas and read those verses.

Actually, Thomas was written earlier than 50 c.e. Most scholars agree that it was written prior to 40 c.e.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
sojourner said:
Is he denouncing it? It could be interpreted that way. It could be interpreted a different way, too. It could mean that Jesus is part of the one God, as opposed to one member of a cluster of three gods. I'll have to dig up my copy of Thomas and read those verses.
See, when i read that i see him denouncing a cluster of three gods, also known as a trinity of gods. So, i agree entirely with what you say.

sojourner said:
Actually, Thomas was written earlier than 50 c.e. Most scholars agree that it was written prior to 40 c.e.
Hey, the earlier the better. We'll never know exactly when it was written though.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Anastasios said:
One of the most interesting points for me in Gospel of Thomas are relating to India. Because as I believe that Jesus went to India, in order to complete his mission of finding lost tribes of Israel, which were spread on Iran, Pakistan, Afganistan and finally northern India, Kashmir.
Thomas is a quite important figure, in whose personality and writings we can see Jesus much more than the other Gospels. He is the closest person to Jesus than anyone else actually. I would like to be more acquainted with the Gospel of Thomas, to be honest.
I believe that Gospel of Thomas is also quite important to enlighten our understanding of Jesus, which was darkened by some authorities.
Again, we seem to have some confusion.

The Gospel of Thomas is a sayings gospel. That is, it is composed entirely of short sayings of Jesus. There are no descriptions of his life, his journeys or any journeys undertaken by the disciples - its just teachings.

The book you are referring to Anastasios is the Acts of Thomas. This is a much later text than the Gospel of Thomas. I haven't read it, but i think i will soon, it looks interesting.
 

Anastasios

Member
Halcyon said:
Again, we seem to have some confusion.

The Gospel of Thomas is a sayings gospel. That is, it is composed entirely of short sayings of Jesus. There are no descriptions of his life, his journeys or any journeys undertaken by the disciples - its just teachings.

The book you are referring to Anastasios is the Acts of Thomas. This is a much later text than the Gospel of Thomas. I haven't read it, but i think i will soon, it looks interesting.

Ok. I accept the confusion:bonk: you are right, I mixed up two sources :eek:
 

hanif

Member
Jesus never got crucified according to Islam and the early Christians' doctrines
“We can no longer accept the appalling theological doctrine that for some mystic reason a propitiatory sacrifice was necessary. It outrages either our conception of God as Almighty or else our conception of Him as All-Loving. The famous Dr. Cruden believed that for the purpose of this sacrifice ‘Christ suffered dreadful pains inflicted by God’, and this, of course, is a standpoint which nauseates the modern mind and which may well be termed a hideous doctrine, not unconnected with the sadistic tendencies of primitive human nature. Actually, it is of pagan origin, being, indeed, perhaps the most obvious relic of heathendom in the Faith”. (Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity)

 

Anastasios

Member
hanif said:
Jesus never got crucified according to Islam and the early Christians' doctrines
“We can no longer accept the appalling theological doctrine that for some mystic reason a propitiatory sacrifice was necessary. It outrages either our conception of God as Almighty or else our conception of Him as All-Loving. The famous Dr. Cruden believed that for the purpose of this sacrifice ‘Christ suffered dreadful pains inflicted by God’, and this, of course, is a standpoint which nauseates the modern mind and which may well be termed a hideous doctrine, not unconnected with the sadistic tendencies of primitive human nature. Actually, it is of pagan origin, being, indeed, perhaps the most obvious relic of heathendom in the Faith”. (Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity)

Come on, you cannot show it as a truth, do you think all the NT is lying about it? Do you think that all those jewish priest are so blind to take someone else to Cross instead of Jesus? As we believe that noone can suffer for others sins, noone can be put on cross instead of Jesus. Because, though it may mean that God saved Jesus, it also means that God cheated people. It is not the way of God. God certainly saved Christ from Cross, but not by keeping him out of Cross, but taking him alive from Cross. If you understand that Jesus was never put on cross and was taken to heaven before crucifixion, you can never explain resurrection and leter developments, and you will have to reject all information in NT. This is not a proper to me. Simply Jesus was not dead when he was taken from Cross, and continued his preaching as he promised and prophesied. And there is no contradiction to Quran with this explanation. Simple is that!
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
hanif said:
Jesus never got crucified according to Islam and the early Christians' doctrines
“We can no longer accept the appalling theological doctrine that for some mystic reason a propitiatory sacrifice was necessary. It outrages either our conception of God as Almighty or else our conception of Him as All-Loving. The famous Dr. Cruden believed that for the purpose of this sacrifice ‘Christ suffered dreadful pains inflicted by God’, and this, of course, is a standpoint which nauseates the modern mind and which may well be termed a hideous doctrine, not unconnected with the sadistic tendencies of primitive human nature. Actually, it is of pagan origin, being, indeed, perhaps the most obvious relic of heathendom in the Faith”. (Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity)

This quote only applies to western Christianity. The eastern churches do not adhere to substitutionary atonement. That does not mean that we don't believe in the Crucifixion, however, just that our understanding of it is radically different to the idea labeled pagan above.

James
 

hanif

Member
Ok James.i Think Eastern Churchs More True Than Westerns.
Dear Anastosias We Cant Know Your Expositions True Or False But It Is Sure That Jewish Could Not Kill The Jesus.
 

Maxist

Active Member
I would say no, that he was saying that there are more Gods. Interesting, thank you for this enlightenment.
 

Mz.Unbreakable

New Member
1 Peter 1:3- "Blessed be the God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!"(Repeatedly even after following Jesus' ascension to heaven, the scriptures refer to the Father as the God" of Christ)
John 14:28- "If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I."
 
Top