Problems with the Trinity

rrobs said:

What part of Hebrews would have to go if Jesus was the son of God and not God himself?

Click to expand...

The first or second line of hebrews (first paragraph) says jesus is in the image of in one translation and representation of, in another, of his father. Another part says his (the creator's) Word made flesh-THE Word.

It does not say jesus is god. It says he is the incarnation of his creator's word of salvation.

Trinitarians dont make difference to a source and its image. Non-trinitarians do, by strict definitions of both words. Bith are right. Depends on if you can understand the function of metaphors when discribing scriptural messages and facts of the christian faith.

RedDragon94 said:

Yup, the Church created the term Trinity to show that the Bible teaches God is a community.

Click to expand...

King James version:

John 4:24,
Do you really want to change that to:

John 4:24,

rrobs said:

King James version:

John 4:24,

God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
​

Do you really want to change that to:

John 4:24,

God [is] a community: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.​

Click to expand...

God can be a spiritual community.

rrobs said:

Well, that's way more convoluted that just accepting that God is the father of his son, Jesus Christ and therefore, like all father and sons, are two different people. One person praying to another is as simple as it gets.

Click to expand...

Christianity is silly that way. No scriptural book I know of other religions in that time period and area are strict literalist. Thats all new age.

1. Creator and savior (two people)
2. Creator says his message of salvation
3. Creator makes his message incarnate/flesh so people can interact with the message of salvation (make it personal)
4. Incarnation is a human. His role as salvation itself is to die on the cross for others.
5. As human and seperate in nature, he goes to his creator and prays that he doesnt want to die on the cross but he is doing his creator's will

6. The incarnation of salvation is spread to the people by the spirit from the savior's passion

He prays as a human to his creator. He isnt the creator just an incarnation of his creator's word of salvation.

Thats why the savior can "pray to himself." He isnt praying to flesh but his father/the creator within him. A form of meditation as well.

Unveiled Artist said:

The first or second line of hebrews (first paragraph) says jesus is in the image of in one translation and representation of, in another, of his father.

Click to expand...

An image of something is expressly not that something. Otherwise Caesar is not a man but a penny.

Mark 12:15-16,

John 1:1 is a bit more involved. One thing for sure is that it does not say,


Instead it uses Greek word logos. If you work that you will see that logos can be thought of as God's plan for mankind. Jesus was certainly key to that plan, but the plan was not Jesus himself. God had a plan and Jesus was the only man capable of carrying it out, mainly because he was born with innocent blood unlike the rest of us. Logos is a good word to study.

The first few verse of Hebrews says that God spoke to people in many different ways and that lately he spoke to us through his son. That does not make Jesus God any more that any of the other way he spoke to us was God.

You have to read my posts

Unveiled Artist said:

Trinitarians cant tell the difference between the father and his message of salvation. The incarnation is seen the same as the source. So he isnt praying to himself as god, but to fulfill the message his father gave him (message and source are one and the same)

Click to expand...

Unveiled Artist said:

Trinitarians dont make difference to a source and its image. Non-trinitarians do, by strict definitions of both words. Both are right.

Click to expand...

Non-trinitarians seperate source from image because, by strict definition, they are not the same

Trinitarians dont seperate the source from the image given the image is one with the source. The incarnation/salvation is not seperate from the creator/source that gave it. They feel thr savior being flesh doesnt invalidate that he is the creators words by image.

Its easier to understand the former. The latter, you have to go out if your perspective and look at it from another.

It helps with conversations.

Unveiled Artist said:

Christianity is silly that way. No scriptural book I know of other religions in that time period and area are strict literalist. Thats all new age.

1. Creator and savior (two people)
2. Creator says his message of salvation
3. Creator makes his message incarnate/flesh so people can interact with the message of salvation (make it personal)
4. Incarnation is a human. His role as salvation itself is to die on the cross for others.
5. As human and seperate in nature, he goes to his creator and prays that he doesnt want to die on the cross but he is doing his creator's will

6. The incarnation of salvation is spread to the people by the spirit from the savior's passion

He prays as a human to his creator. He isnt the creator just an incarnation of his creator's word of salvation.

Thats why the savior can "pray to himself." He isnt praying to flesh but his father/the creator within him. A form of meditation as well.

Click to expand...

Now you're getting even more convoluted.

I really don't mean to be critical. I'm sure we'd get along fine despite our theological differences. You sound like a sincere individual, but sincerity is no guarantee for accuracy when it comes to the scriptures.

Should you ever decide to break from tradition and accept only the Bible as a source of reference, I really believe things would be more clear in your mind. Again, I say that as a brother in Christ because I love all Christians. I blame the institution of the churches for wrong doctrine, not any one individual. People can only go as far as they are taught and that includes every pastor, priest, rabbi, or imam that ever went through their version of seminary.

rrobs said:

Now you're getting even more convoluted.

I really don't mean to be critical. I'm sure we'd get along fine despite our theological differences. You sound like a sincere individual, but sincerity is no guarantee for accuracy when it comes to the scriptures.

Should you ever decide to break from tradition and accept only the Bible as a source of reference, I really believe things would be more clear in your mind. Again, I say that as a brother in Christ because I love all Christians. I blame the institution of the churches for wrong doctrine, not any one individual. People can only go as far as they are taught and that includes every pastor, priest, rabbi, or imam that ever went through their version of seminary.

Click to expand...

All I am saying is the image is an incarnation of his creator's word of salvation

And that salvation cannot be see seperate from the source of it

You really must change your perspective to understand other ways of expressing the -same exact- concept of the same exact book of the same exact faith.

It takes leg work, believe me. It can be done.

Please dont assume whether I have a christian background. Im not a trinitarian. I understand both views.

rrobs said:

I really don't mean to be critical. I'm sure we'd get along fine despite our theological differences. You sound like a

Click to expand...

Dont think so. I just think (being blunt) you have to put more thought in my posts. Also, it helps me if you use my reply so I know what you are referring to and I can clarify without repeating myself.

rrobs said:

Should you ever decide to break from tradition and accept only the Bible as a source of reference, I really believe things would be more clear in your mind. Again, I say that as a brother in Christ because I love all Christians. I blame the

Click to expand...

Im not part of a tradition

Please do noy assume our differences mean I dont have clarity in scripture. I will try to break it down -not- so you can agree just understand.

Creator: person who made the universe
Savior: person who relieves someone of threat to their life (or so have you)
Spirit: grace and love from the creator
Incarnation: flesh
Incarnate: someone/thing made flesh
Image: a copy of source
Source: from which the copy was made from
Word: Salvation
THE Word: savior (person who saves)

God-creator
Jesus-savior
(Holy) spirit-nature of both

Genesis says there is a creator

The creator also is with his salvational message for people throughout the OT testement. That message is eternal

In the NT, the creator made his Word (above) salvation incarnate/flesh.

Once the word was flesh, that flesh was born to a woman in the gospels.

The flesh was baptized by the creator

He prayed to his creator once he/savior received the duty he was to perform: die for others to live aka be a savior

After the passion in acts, the spirit of the creator (his love) by salvation saved isrealites and gentiles who believed in their creator's message

The Word/a promise of salvation (English idiom) was fufilled. Last and only one savior and one salvation.

----

Trinitarians: do not seperate image from source

Non-trinitarians do by strict definition that the image and source are not the same (your post above confirms this)

I am pointing out two different views without leaning to either view as correct or incorrect. Christians say people are right or wrong. I dont do that. Its a nasty habit.

RedDragon94 said:

Winner winner chicken dinner.

Yup, the Church created the term Trinity to show that the Bible teaches God is a community. That has serious (and cool) implications for theology.

Click to expand...

Pretty much. Least thats what I learned in art history class. It seems people who dislike the church have more problems with it. One doesnt need to be christian to understand it, really.

Geek discussion...Christianity is far to filled with incredibly intelligent geeks. Jesus is a damn carpenter not that hard actually!!! Geeks.

RedDragon94 said:

Winner winner chicken dinner.

Yup, the Church created the term Trinity to show that the Bible teaches God is a community. That has serious (and cool) implications for theology.

Click to expand...

It does, indeed, for Christianity is eminently communal and relational.

rrobs said:

I guess anything goes with myths. Once the churches got people to accept myth as reality anything is on the table as far as doctrine is concerned. No need for anything to make sense. Logic goes out the door.

Click to expand...

Myth IS reality. Do you not realize the nature, purpose and beauty of myth??? Myth isn’t “made up nonsense.” Myth is a poetic and imaginative way of looking at concepts of reality and truth for which we have no concrete language (like God, for example, and salvation). So, where the mythic is concerned, it’s not an “anything goes” proposition. Rather, it’s a very specific art form that DOES make sense, if you don’t try to quantify it. It’s like love. You can’t quantify or measure it, but it’s real, and you know it when you experience it. Doctrine flows from the mythic and symbolic, not from the literal and concrete. If that were the case, we could never talk about the things that can’t be touched or measured.

Instead of picking apart the “nuts and bolts” of the Trinity, why not simply imagine it, the way you might enjoy a work of abstract art, or a Stravinsky tone poem, if you’re not too distracted wondering what they represent.

rrobs said:

It seems there are many problems caused by accepting the trinity as Biblical. For example;

Acts 10:38,

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
​

Why would God have to anoint Himself with holy spirit and with power? If Jesus were God, would he have not already had holy spirit and power?

Click to expand...

offspring of god can be plural; which is the sons of god as noted through out the bible.


BibleGateway.com -

rrobs said:

You are right, I was mistaken. I was trying to answer your posts in a respectful and friendly way, but I guess no dice. Take care...

Click to expand...

Im very particular with anyone questioning my intelligence regardless the intent. Online doesnt help. I do put a lot of thought into my replies so I am surprised if I get far, really. Im not on RF to argue and convince anyone, which is what an argument is. Im more for debate, challenging the logic with evidence of a given topic without proving the other wrong.

Not topical on RF, but I survived so far. I also notice there are god-topics I only get so far on before believers back out and non-believers shift the topic or critize something not related to the context. Dont know if its me, cultural differences, or what but its highly annoying. Trying to figure how to shfit websites that are more productive. Havent found it yet.

I just hoped you understood what I said without saying I dont have clarity in a topic I am knowledgable about via experience. I was only Catholic for four years of my adult life. I was never indocrinated so I never expressed tradition and scripture the same as an indoctrinated catholic would. I also get irritated with anyone putting down catholic doctrine. I guess it makes me think these people really wasnt part of The church just the idea they think the church is based on how they are treated. Many people tell me in person because they read the bible, they left the church. I understood the Church because of the bible.

Tradition does help but my points are basic christian view from non trinitarian and nontrinitarian.

It confuses people. I dont like taking sides that causes division. Its a nasty part of christianity but I dont know if people see it (people I know and meet in person; a lot of christians here)

sojourner said:

Myth IS reality. Do you not realize the nature, purpose and beauty of myth??? Myth isn’t “made up nonsense.” Myth is a poetic and imaginative way of looking at concepts of reality and truth for which we have no concrete language (like God, for example, and salvation). So, where the mythic is concerned, it’s not an “anything goes” proposition. Rather, it’s a very specific art form that DOES make sense, if you don’t try to quantify it. It’s like love. You can’t wuantify or measure it, but it’s real, and you know it when you experience it. Doctrine flows from the mythic and symbolic, not from the literal and concrete. If that we’re the case, we could never talk about the things that can’t be touched or measured.

Instead of picking apart the “nuts and bolts” of the Trinity, why not simply imagine it, the way you might enjoy a work of abstract art, or a Stravinsky tone poem, if you’re not too distracted wondering what they represent.

Click to expand...

The Greeks coined both muthos (myths) and logos (logic) a few hundred years BC. Suffice it to say, they didn't look at them the way you do.

You can have a 4 headed flying monster in a myth. Not so with the logos. The logos that was with God in the beginning (John 1:1) was the epitome of logic. As such it fits with the scientific laws of nature which makes no provision for a father and his son being the same person.

rrobs said:

The Greeks coined both muthos (myths) and logos (logic) a few hundred years BC. Suffice it to say, they didn't look at them the way you do.

You can have a 4 headed flying monster in a myth. Not so with the logos. The logos that was with God in the beginning (John 1:1) was the epitome of logic. As such it fits with the scientific laws of nature which makes no provision for a father and his son being the same person.

Click to expand...

Yes. They did. If you knew the first thing about literary and form criticism, you wouldn’t make that claim. Myth is a literary form. Logos is an idea. Logos certainly can (and is) expressed mythically. That’s How the Bible Works.

rrobs said:

It seems there are many problems caused by accepting the trinity as Biblical. For example;

Acts 10:38,

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
​

Why would God have to anoint Himself with holy spirit and with power? If Jesus were God, would he have not already had holy spirit and power?

Click to expand...

Not so simple. Jesus as having both a human and divine nature would set aside His glory for a time as it were and lean on the Father in his human nature. It's the hypostatic union: Jesus took on an additional nature a human nature at his incarnation

A word is 'the son of the mouth' and Jesus is the word of God made flesh

Unveiled Artist said:

Christianity is silly that way

Click to expand...

Yes, I’ll grant you, mainstream Christianity is filled with “silly” tenets...but the Bible, isn’t.

Simply put, they are not in agreement! One of em is wrong....guess which one?

(It’s to be expected, though. Matthew 7:21-23; 2 Corinthians 4:4)

Do you think that a person or group needs God’s help, ie., His blessing and spirit, to accurately understand the truths of His Word? I’m sure you’d say yes. Jesus said as much at Luke 10:21.

Has Christendom followed Christlike love, in times of conflict? Or have they killed their spiritual brothers? (John 13:34-35) They are even supposed to ‘love their enemy’! — Matthew 5:44
That’s the true test of being “children of God”. — 1 John 3:10-15

Since history bears this out, then why should we expect God to give understanding of His Word, to those who are disobedient?

Don’t get me wrong; IMO, Christianity, as taught from the Bible, is the truth....unfortunately, it’s been hijacked by apostate, paid clergy, leaders in Christendom. It’s declining it seems, but it’s still a moneymaker.

rrobs said:

Almost all denominations I know of say you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in the trinity. For the most part it is considered the absolute foundation of Christianity by the churches.

Click to expand...

Yup.

It's not much of a foundation though. It makes the Bible story pretty much unintelligible.

Click to expand...

Pretty much on par with a lot of other Christian assertions, and that's why it fits in so well.


.