Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
If you note my religion it states "Anglican heretic."
I am more a cross between an Anglican and unitarian.
or prehaps more accurately a " non subscribing Presbyterian "
Which is my family heritage in Ireland.
-
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!
I have trouble understanding the Trinity
- Thread starter Huey09
- Start date
If you note my religion it states "Anglican heretic."
I am more a cross between an Anglican and unitarian.
or prehaps more accurately a " non subscribing Presbyterian "
Which is my family heritage in Ireland.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Atonement theology, is pretty much called into question my many denominations today. As is the concept of original sin.
Our local Rector went so far as to write an article against Atonement theology. And he teaches theology to prospective and new Anglican priests.
The theology of a trinity is not expressed anywhere in the Bible
Huey09
He who struggles with God
My apologies, with so many things regarded as heretical these days I assumed you might have simply disagreed with some concepts like original sin or were a universalist.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
- Why would the Son pray to himself or say he doesn't know the will of the Father if he is on the same level
Now the first commandment is to love God before all else.
And yet Jesus puts ordinary people first.
So all that happens after that is the consequence of that action.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Quite so. I am certainly not a UU which has little to do with Christianity. But I do believe in Universal salvation and not original sin.
As the creation story in the bible is mythical rather than factual, the whole concept of Adam and Eve and the fall of man is fanciful. So anything based on it is theologically unsound.
Gospel writer Luke had access to the Jewish temple public records for all to see which lists Adam as part of Jesus' genealogical record - Luke 3:38 - No one questioned that.
Also, the Jewish ancestral list recorded at 1 Chronicles 1:1 lists Adam as a real human. - Deuteronomy 4:32
Are you stating Jesus put people ahead of his God ?
If so, what do you have in mind to conclude that ?
I think the "seeds" would be the imagination from which it was conceived, IMO.
Not apple seeds, but there are figurative ' seeds ' mentioned at Revelation 12:17
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
Well God himself would have no reason to worship himself above all else.
However when he states 'My God why has thou forsaken me?',
it can be answered 'because you placed humanity above God',
but also it may be queried as to why he is both the subject and the object of the question.
If He is God, then surely he should know why he has forsaken himself?
Perhaps he does know, but the question is asked for the sake of people
to try and understand and answer.
I suppose otherwise because the word ' name ' is used at Matthew 28:19 leads some to think God's spirit has a name.
In the 'name ' of something does Not always have to mean a person. For example: In the ' name of the law ' is Not a person.
God's spirit ( Not ghost/spook ) is ' neuter ' - Numbers 11:17; Numbers 11:25. Neuter as 'it' (KJV). Also neuter as ' itself ' at Romans 8:16,26 KJV ( some versions have changed itself to himself )
Changed itself to himself in order to try to make a person out of a neuter. God and Jesus are always in the masculine whereas God's spirit is neuter.
In Greek grammar rules a neuter can be called, or referred to, as a 'he' although remaining a neuter.
In English grammar we also call a car or a ship as a ' she ' although such things remain a neuter.
God sends forth His spirit - Psalms 104:30 - Not the spirit sending itself forth.
Last edited:
Who did Jesus say to worship at John 4:23-24 ?_______
Who did Jesus say we should pray to but Our Father who art in heaven. That includes Jesus' Father in heaven.
Jesus directed his prayers only to God - John 17:1-3
Jesus was 'forsaken' in the sense because Jesus was dying a faithful death of his own accord without outside help.
It was God who sent Jesus to earth to die for us. That is Not putting humanity above God's will ( purpose ).
Adam was unfaithful under good conditions.
Both Job and Jesus proved faithful to God under adverse conditions. They did Not compromise their integrity to get out of bad situation.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
All genealogical records should show Adam as the start point, but none do.
Modern genetics show that human kind does not have a single common ancestor.
The scriptures make a very poor source of accurate historical information, it is extremely difficult to reconcile any of it with recorded data from other sources.
The temple public records were available for everyone to see. No one wrote at that time that the records were wrong.
If they were considered as wrong they there would have been plenty of opportunity for people to point out such an error and write about it. None did.
Yes according to Luke 3:38 Adam is the starting point.
According to Ezra, Adam is the starting point -> 1 Chronicles 1:1 . No one in all those following centuries wrote that Ezra was wrong.
In what way does modern genetics show we humans are Not related ( No common ancestor )
Human kind remains humankind, and animal kind remains animalkind.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Human Kind were born to a line that did not have all the characteristics we would call human.
all creatures have changed and developed along new lines over time, we are just one branch of the animal kingdom.
We may die out as some other animals have done , or we may continue in our development into different lines.
One thing is certain is that we as a species will change. Nature is ever changing.
There is no chance at all that the temple records had an accurate trace back to the first man like creature. Creating a fable about the creation of man can never make it factual.
Huey09 in the OP said :
Hi Huey09;
As some of your respondents have mentioned, the historical context, meanings, and interpretive influences were different in early Christian worldviews. For example, in the Greek bible, (NA-27) John 1:18 says “…the only begotten god who is in the bosom of the Father…” (rather than “the only begotten son..” in later English bibles).
Though the son is divine (i.e. a begotten “god”) in this sentence, it is in the historical context of a “qualified Henotheism” (i.e. where all beings called God’s worship one God who is Lord over all) rather than a “frank, unlimited polytheism” (i.e. where all beings called God’s are equal). Thus Jesus is subservient to God the Father in this model.
For example, the great Egyptologist Budge observed that Egypt, who had many beings we translate as “gods”, was always essentially monotheistic since there was one Lord God who was Lord over all other beings called "gods" in modern translations. All of them served and honored and obeyed the Lord God over all other Gods, regardless of whether they were called “gods” or not.
Such terms carried different meanings in a different historical context in such early time periods. For example, Christians referred to Jesus as “the son of God”. However the term “son of God” (υιος του θεου) also referred to Roman Emperors. This changes the context of historical usage somewhat.
In multiple examples from early Koine Papyri we can see how this term was used in reference to emperors. For examples, in BGU II. 543.3 (of 27 B.C) the term refers to Augustus “καισαρος Αυτοκρατορα θεου υιου…”. Ιn P Tebt ΙΙ. 382.21 (of b.c. – 30 a.d.) P Grenf II. 40.4 (9 a.d.) refers to “…the thirty ninth year of the dominion of Caesar son of god..” (...Καισαρος κρατησεως θεου υιου...). and IMAe iii. 174 (of 5 a.d.) also refers to Caesar as a son of God (“…Καισαρ θεου υιος Σεβαστος...”). Since this last reference comes from Caesar himself, one assumes the Christians were making an important distinction between Caesar who claimed to be “A son of God” and Jesus who was “THE son of God”. It is the same distinction between "a God" and "The God".
Thus, if Jesus is called "a God" in John 1:18 where he is referred to as an “only begotten God” (the article lacks in this greek phrase), it was in reference to a specific religious context.
Bruce Metzger renders this phrase in John 1:18, as “the unique God”. This is an interesting distinction since the Jewish Talmud makes this same distinction in explaining the fall of Man. After the man gains knowledge from eating of the tree of wisdom/knowledge, the talmud explains the text “...The man has become like the unique one among us” (Genesis 3:22) . Part of the point in making this specific observation regarding interpretation, is that we are all affected by the bits and pieces of knowledge (and ignorance) we have, even in translation. The ancients had a different historical context than we do, and their interpretation of these concepts was different.
For example, the dead sea scrolls (e.g. 4Q, thanksgiving scrolls) are a wonderful example of the frequent use of the phrase “God-like” as it applies to individuals who reside in heaven with the Lord God. One Dead Sea Specialist, trying to create a consistent rule for using the term “God”, has suggested that the term "god" (or God-like) simply applies to any being who lives in heaven. However, the problem with using this rule is that modern, non-historian religionists might not be able to distinguish between “A god” and “THE God”, (just as “a son of God” did not distinguish between “THE son of God”). If one uses the ancient historical model of Henotheism, then this specific contextual difficulty, doesn't come up at all..
Having offered this specific historical contextual point, I personally wish the later theologians and creators of creeds had simply left the early model of The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as individuals, rather than forwarding the confusing models that came to be adopted in later Christian movements. Like you, I find the various competing models quite confusing and do not blame agnostics and other investigators of Christianity for their inability to tell what Christianity believes.
Good luck in coming up with your own models as to what you are to believe Huey09.
Clear
τςακειω
- Why would the Son pray to himself or say he doesn't know the will of the Father if he is on the same level?
- How does the three in one work without being slightly polytheistic?
- Did most early Christians movements pre-Nicea Council follow this ideology
- Can the Trinity be understood figuratively rather than literally?
Hi Huey09;
As some of your respondents have mentioned, the historical context, meanings, and interpretive influences were different in early Christian worldviews. For example, in the Greek bible, (NA-27) John 1:18 says “…the only begotten god who is in the bosom of the Father…” (rather than “the only begotten son..” in later English bibles).
Though the son is divine (i.e. a begotten “god”) in this sentence, it is in the historical context of a “qualified Henotheism” (i.e. where all beings called God’s worship one God who is Lord over all) rather than a “frank, unlimited polytheism” (i.e. where all beings called God’s are equal). Thus Jesus is subservient to God the Father in this model.
For example, the great Egyptologist Budge observed that Egypt, who had many beings we translate as “gods”, was always essentially monotheistic since there was one Lord God who was Lord over all other beings called "gods" in modern translations. All of them served and honored and obeyed the Lord God over all other Gods, regardless of whether they were called “gods” or not.
Such terms carried different meanings in a different historical context in such early time periods. For example, Christians referred to Jesus as “the son of God”. However the term “son of God” (υιος του θεου) also referred to Roman Emperors. This changes the context of historical usage somewhat.
In multiple examples from early Koine Papyri we can see how this term was used in reference to emperors. For examples, in BGU II. 543.3 (of 27 B.C) the term refers to Augustus “καισαρος Αυτοκρατορα θεου υιου…”. Ιn P Tebt ΙΙ. 382.21 (of b.c. – 30 a.d.) P Grenf II. 40.4 (9 a.d.) refers to “…the thirty ninth year of the dominion of Caesar son of god..” (...Καισαρος κρατησεως θεου υιου...). and IMAe iii. 174 (of 5 a.d.) also refers to Caesar as a son of God (“…Καισαρ θεου υιος Σεβαστος...”). Since this last reference comes from Caesar himself, one assumes the Christians were making an important distinction between Caesar who claimed to be “A son of God” and Jesus who was “THE son of God”. It is the same distinction between "a God" and "The God".
Thus, if Jesus is called "a God" in John 1:18 where he is referred to as an “only begotten God” (the article lacks in this greek phrase), it was in reference to a specific religious context.
Bruce Metzger renders this phrase in John 1:18, as “the unique God”. This is an interesting distinction since the Jewish Talmud makes this same distinction in explaining the fall of Man. After the man gains knowledge from eating of the tree of wisdom/knowledge, the talmud explains the text “...The man has become like the unique one among us” (Genesis 3:22) . Part of the point in making this specific observation regarding interpretation, is that we are all affected by the bits and pieces of knowledge (and ignorance) we have, even in translation. The ancients had a different historical context than we do, and their interpretation of these concepts was different.
For example, the dead sea scrolls (e.g. 4Q, thanksgiving scrolls) are a wonderful example of the frequent use of the phrase “God-like” as it applies to individuals who reside in heaven with the Lord God. One Dead Sea Specialist, trying to create a consistent rule for using the term “God”, has suggested that the term "god" (or God-like) simply applies to any being who lives in heaven. However, the problem with using this rule is that modern, non-historian religionists might not be able to distinguish between “A god” and “THE God”, (just as “a son of God” did not distinguish between “THE son of God”). If one uses the ancient historical model of Henotheism, then this specific contextual difficulty, doesn't come up at all..
Having offered this specific historical contextual point, I personally wish the later theologians and creators of creeds had simply left the early model of The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as individuals, rather than forwarding the confusing models that came to be adopted in later Christian movements. Like you, I find the various competing models quite confusing and do not blame agnostics and other investigators of Christianity for their inability to tell what Christianity believes.
Good luck in coming up with your own models as to what you are to believe Huey09.
Clear
τςακειω
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
This is a pretty common belief. However, I am curious, if the titles are meant to be different, why is this not clearer? One can certainly read the text, /and I believe it is inferred/, in the manner that I proposed, in my comments. I rather think that you are focusing on the theology here, almost as separate from the text and , to an extent, the Xian tradition, excluding certain groups who differed in belief.
Why the vagueness, /in the text/, if your idea is correct?
Last edited:
First of all, we can start with the foretold apostasy starting after the end of the first century - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30
We are forewarned that genuine ' wheat ' Christians would grow together with fake ( counterfeit ) ' weed/tares ' Christians until the harvest time - Matthew 13:25; Matthew 13:38; Matthew 13:41
A harvest time comes at an end or conclusion of the season. We are nearing the soon coming ' time of separation ' - Matthew 25:31-33 - to take place on earth before the start of Jesus' 1,000 year governmental rulership over earth.
Corrupted clergy seat themselves in the ' temple ' ( houses of worship) as if they are God when in reality they are anti-God - 2 Thessalonians 2:2-4; 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9
Religious superstition began to forbid saying God's name ( Tetragrammaton YHWH ) so the KJV Bible substituted LORD (in all upper-case letters ) for the Tetragrammaton.
That did Not make the Tetragrammaton disappear, but made the corrupted clergy as wrong to substitute God's personal name with titles.
Side Note: KJV did translate the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) name into the most common English pronunciation for God's name at Psalms 83:18
....on a slightly lighter note...
The title of you thread is "I have trouble understanding the Trinity" and since I've read some of the postings in this thread I've already got a feeling where this is leading to.....
So let's try it on another 'WAVE'
The Trinity =
1) Light (Father) Because it's clearly present and scientificly understood
2) Gravity (Mother) present but not too obvious and science still doesn't have a good explanation for it ...(female?......hmmmm......)
3) Spacetime (Son) from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime > In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The spacetime of our universe is "usually" interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the "fourth dimension".
- Combine all 3 together and you'll get 'God'.
- There's also an option for timetravel in there but I'm still trying to figure out how that works.....
The title of you thread is "I have trouble understanding the Trinity" and since I've read some of the postings in this thread I've already got a feeling where this is leading to.....
So let's try it on another 'WAVE'
The Trinity =
1) Light (Father) Because it's clearly present and scientificly understood
2) Gravity (Mother) present but not too obvious and science still doesn't have a good explanation for it ...(female?......hmmmm......
)3) Spacetime (Son) from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime > In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The spacetime of our universe is "usually" interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the "fourth dimension".
- Combine all 3 together and you'll get 'God'.
- There's also an option for timetravel in there but I'm still trying to figure out how that works.....
MountainPine
Deuteronomy 30:16
The Trinity is an Athanasian doctrine, not a Biblical one. It was a way for the Roman church to incorporate the Capitoline Triad into it's Christianized religion (Catholicism). The Capitoline Triad consisted of Jupiter, Juno and Venus (one of them anyway, there were two recognized versions of the Triad).
There are several passages of scripture that disproves the notion of the Trinity, or that Jesus and God are not the same substance (quoting from The Scriptures by ISR):
And as He was setting out on the way, one came running, and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit everlasting life?” And יהושע said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except One – Elohim. Mark 10:17-18
“But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father also does seek such to worship Him. “Elohim is Spirit, and those who worship Him need to worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:23-24
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me possesses everlasting life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. John 5:24
“Of Myself I am unable to do any matter. As I hear, I judge, and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own desire, but the desire of the Father who sent Me. “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. John 5:30-31
“You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming to you.’ If you did love Me, you would have rejoiced that I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I. John 14:28
"יהושע said to her, “Do not hold on to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father. But go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My Elohim and your Elohim.’ ” John 20:17
The Elohim and Father of our Master יהושע Messiah, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 2 Corinthians 11:31
No one has seen Elohim at any time. If we love one another, Elohim does stay in us, and His love has been perfected in us. 1 John 4:12
In John 1, it talks about the Word in which is described as being God and becoming flesh. Many interpret this as Jesus being the same substance as God, however this is not how I interpret it. In Greek, the Word is known as the Logos (Λογος), which means 'applied knowledge'. Jesus was the representative of the Word; the speaker of the knowledge of God. God chose Jesus to bestow his knowledge to, thus making him the Messiah, which is the office in which he served. Moses also served this office as well, hence the name Moses is English for mosheh, which means 'messiah' in Paleo-Hebrew. To say that Jesus is the Word itself is to say that the Word is not it's own entity, or that Jesus was not his own person.
Here's some more food for thought: in John 14, Jesus asks Philip "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?" If Jesus was really God incarnate, then he would have, instead, asked, "Do you not believe that I am the Father and the Father is Me?"
The reason why you're confused is because the Trinity just doesn't make any sense. I was raised as a non-denominational Christian. I was told by my parents that the trinity is like water, ice and sleet—different forms, but still H2O. That never made sense to me, of course. I prayed to Jesus, and also to God, but always recognized them as separate entities.
There are several passages of scripture that disproves the notion of the Trinity, or that Jesus and God are not the same substance (quoting from The Scriptures by ISR):
And as He was setting out on the way, one came running, and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit everlasting life?” And יהושע said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except One – Elohim. Mark 10:17-18
“But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father also does seek such to worship Him. “Elohim is Spirit, and those who worship Him need to worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:23-24
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me possesses everlasting life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. John 5:24
“Of Myself I am unable to do any matter. As I hear, I judge, and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own desire, but the desire of the Father who sent Me. “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. John 5:30-31
“You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming to you.’ If you did love Me, you would have rejoiced that I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I. John 14:28
"יהושע said to her, “Do not hold on to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father. But go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My Elohim and your Elohim.’ ” John 20:17
The Elohim and Father of our Master יהושע Messiah, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 2 Corinthians 11:31
No one has seen Elohim at any time. If we love one another, Elohim does stay in us, and His love has been perfected in us. 1 John 4:12
In John 1, it talks about the Word in which is described as being God and becoming flesh. Many interpret this as Jesus being the same substance as God, however this is not how I interpret it. In Greek, the Word is known as the Logos (Λογος), which means 'applied knowledge'. Jesus was the representative of the Word; the speaker of the knowledge of God. God chose Jesus to bestow his knowledge to, thus making him the Messiah, which is the office in which he served. Moses also served this office as well, hence the name Moses is English for mosheh, which means 'messiah' in Paleo-Hebrew. To say that Jesus is the Word itself is to say that the Word is not it's own entity, or that Jesus was not his own person.
Here's some more food for thought: in John 14, Jesus asks Philip "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?" If Jesus was really God incarnate, then he would have, instead, asked, "Do you not believe that I am the Father and the Father is Me?"
The reason why you're confused is because the Trinity just doesn't make any sense. I was raised as a non-denominational Christian. I was told by my parents that the trinity is like water, ice and sleet—different forms, but still H2O. That never made sense to me, of course. I prayed to Jesus, and also to God, but always recognized them as separate entities.
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
This isn't a debate I've just decided to mull it over again after having been trying a Unitarian path for about three years. The principal parts I have confusion over are:
Again I'm trying to debate I just really want to understand it but have great trouble wrapping my head around the concept.
- Why would the Son pray to himself or say he doesn't know the will of the Father if he is on the same level?
- How does the three in one work without being slightly polytheistic?
- Did most early Christians movements pre-Nicea Council follow this ideology
- Can the Trinity be understood figuratively rather than literally?
P.S I haven't been on here in I think years so if there have been great changes help to adjust and its good to be back
I am a dad and a son. There is no conflict in my having two roles.
Jesus specifically said things like (paraphrasing) "Father, I don't need to pray to you but I'm praying so they get it," so please pray to Jesus and search His Word and it will answer so very many of your questions.
Three that ARE one isn't polytheistic. My wife and I are different persons with different minds but One in marriage and outlook (Genesis 2:24). God is on the same page on all things while having three persons in eternal fellowship.