Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[Brian2]

I agree with you saying Jesus is God's son.

Jesus is called God's son before birth, as a young child, at his baptism, at the transfiguration and again at his resurrection.

- He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. --before born a Human.
- “Out of Egypt I called my son.” --As a young child.
- “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.” --Jesus baptism
- “This is my Son, the one who has been chosen. Listen to him.” --At The Transfiguration.
- And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? --At Resurrection. Hebrews 1:5, Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33, Romans 1:4

Before Jesus was even born as a human:
You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, --Luke 1:31-32 NIV

When Jesus was a young child:
him.” 14 So Joseph got up and by night took along the young child and the child’s mother and went into Egypt. 15 He stayed there until the death of Herod. This fulfilled what was spoken by Jehovah* through his prophet, saying: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” --Matt. 2:15 NIV

At Jesus baptism:
And a voice came out of the heavens: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.” --Mark 1:11

At The Transfiguration:
Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying: “This is my Son, the one who has been chosen. Listen to him.” --Luke 9:35

Jesus is declared God's son at his resurrection:
but who with power was declared God’s Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead—yes, Jesus Christ our Lord.
--Romans 1:4

I will proclaim the Lord’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father. --Psalm 2:7

For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? --Hebrews 1:5

God has completely fulfilled it to us, their children, by resurrecting Jesus; just as it is written in the second psalm: ‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’ --Acts 13:33

Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

 

[joelr]

I will proclaim the Lord’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father. --Psalm 2:7

For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? --Hebrews 1:5

God has completely fulfilled it to us, their children, by resurrecting Jesus; just as it is written in the second psalm: ‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’ --Acts 13:33

The Gospels are the works writing the historical fiction.

But Psalms is not talking about Jesus, it's talking about David and shows in the story god refers to messianic figures being referred to as a "Son" of God.

We know it was Solomon, David’s son and successor, who build God’s temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 6). But Dvid had 13 sons, none Jesus.

Sons/Daughters of a supreme god came into Judaism from Greek Hellenism far later. Christianity looks to be a blending of the two, among other things.

 

[wellwisher]

A person that believes in the Trinity has scriptures to support this belief.

A person that believes Jesus is really God's son has scriptures too.

What would happen if a person collected the scriptures from both persons and drew a new conclusion based on including all the scriptures from both people? A Conclusion based on the scriptures from both sides?

Websites say it is essential to believe in the Holy Trinity. Did Jesus or an Apostle ever say this? Or that 3 are one God all equal and co-eternal?

Is anyone interested in just collecting these scriptures and drawing their own conclusion from them? And sharing with us the conclusion they came up with?

The modern computer concept of multi-core processors is a good way to look at the trinity. You no longer need three processors; polytheism, but rather one processor with three cores can do the same things even better. This allows one processor to operate as three separate zones for multitasking, or one large combined zone for larger projects that need more of an integrated network effect with minimal time lag; tiny nano-wires.

If you look at the term, Judeo-Christian it combines two distinct expressions of God in one compound word. This is the bi-core processor that is implied by the New Testament and the Son of God, and the Old Testament, God the Father. People still worship the Father, while others worship the Son, with the one processor; God, using two cores, one for each worship angle to God. Some combine the two cores; Evangelical.

Where the Trinity or the three core God; processor, comes in was the promise that Jesus made of leaving behind the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Truth. Other than a few mentions of this Spirit, in the New and Old Testament, it does not say much more. However, it has been 2000 years since the promise of the Spirit, yet there is not yet any compilation of the works of the Spirit, to add a third core to the Bible; Old, New, and Future Testament.

The Catholic Church alone has 10,000 Saints, who were people of exemplary character who had an impact on history, which could be attributed to the Spirit; one aspect of the third core output. The spirit may have even moved many characters of history; DeVinci, Newton, Einstein, Lincoln, Churchill, etc, since all are connected to the first two cores in some way.

For years, I have been hinting that scholars should attempt to compile the third Testament, connected to the works of the Holy Spirit over the last 2000 years, so the Trinity can make more sense for more people. So much has happened in 2000 years, that it will be hard to summarize and do justice to it all, with a similar number of pages as the first two books of Bible; Trinity Bible. I am not sure is this is something we can start on this Religious Site. I am not a historian to do it justice. I have a vision, but I plant seeds and periodically water and fertilize. Maybe the Spirit needs to motivate someone or many to write it. I wait until then.

 

[Brian2]

Yes. religion is syncretic, ideas are passed on, we see this in Judaism and Christianity as well. Not sure what point you are making.
The earliest indication of the Israelites is from 1200 BCE.

William Dever :
Dever: No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.

Q: Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?

Dever: It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription.

Your faith is in the atheism which says that "religion is syncretic."
The Egyptians know of a group of people in Canaan where they should be according to the Bible and politically as they should be according to the Bible. "a loosely affilitated tribal confederation".
Merneptah witnesses to the truth of the history in the Bible.

Hebrews and Israelites are basically the same. I am aware of this. The first known mention is 1200 BCE.

Biblically the Hebrews left Egypt about 1450 BC and were not then known as Israelites. There is an inscription on the Egyptian Soleb Temple about a nomadic group of people whose God was Yahweh around 1st quarter of the 14th century BC (around 1375 BC) This imo was Israel in Canaan as a nomadic people, defeating Canaanite cities and beginning to settle there. There was no land called the land of Yahweh, so the name Yahweh was the God of those people.

The Soleb Inscription: Earliest-Discovered Use of the Name 'Yahweh'

And evidence for the much-debated era of the Exodus

armstronginstitute.org

First, no, early Israelites were also polytheistic. Yahweh was under EL and given Israel as his inheritance.

YHWH in Genesis is El the Highest God. That is who YHWH is, the Most High God, but nobody at that time used the name YHWH.

FRANCESCA STAVRAKOPOULOU on the Bible, Jesus, death threats, Asherah,

47:40 Many temple sites found figurines of a common goddess Ashera.
Most scholars now agree we should probably consider Ashera to have been Yahweh’s consort.

Yes the Israelites and Canaanites did their syncretic thing and made YHWH into a Canaanite God who probably had Ashera as consort. That sort of thing is in the pages of the Bible narrative and those whose faith is that there is no God turn it around and say that the Bible history is false and it did not happen that way, but that the Bible history was made up later, just as you have done.

What's funny is it happens after the Hellenistic Greeks occupy Israel and is the same thing that happened in every nation occupied by the Greeks.
Jesus represents is what was trending at the time, Greek Hellenism - savior demigods, salvation for souls which belong in an afterlife, much has been written on this in scholarship.

Of course scholarship that does not allow for the existence, the truth of anything supernatural, including any gods, analyses the evidence as if the YHWH story in the Bible is not true and comes up with their own version of history which does not need any gods, but which tells us that man made up god stories and specifically that Israel made up their history and theology after having been influenced by other cultures.

 

[Brian2]

The Gospels are the works writing the historical fiction.

But Psalms is not talking about Jesus, it's talking about David and shows in the story god refers to messianic figures being referred to as a "Son" of God.

We know it was Solomon, David’s son and successor, who build God’s temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 6). But Dvid had 13 sons, none Jesus.

Sons/Daughters of a supreme god came into Judaism from Greek Hellenism far later. Christianity looks to be a blending of the two, among other things.

Of course you have to deny the legitimacy of the OT and NT if you are an atheist and as many atheist do, make up your own story to explain the OT and NT.
The Jesus Myth idea is not seen as sensible by most historians and when the evidence is considered.

 

[metis]

Furthermore, I used to work for publishing companies and see yes, how they are going for the money in deciding what to publish. They don't have research teams to check out facts and figures of authors, but in many cases put their trust in two things: the background of the author, and the idea that the information (book or publication) will sell.

This is why science uses peer-review so as to make other scientists have the opportunity to see, review, and report on their own findings.

 

[metis]

Yes that also. Early scripture paints him as a warrior.

Exodus 15:3:

Yahweh is a man of war;

Yahweh is his name.

Isaiah 42:13:

Yahweh goes forth like a mighty man;

like a man of war(s) he stirs up his fury.

Zephaniah 3:17: Yahweh, your God, is in your midst,

a warrior who gives victory.

Psalm 24:8:

Who is the King of Glory?

Yahweh, strong and mighty;

Yahweh, mighty in battle.

Yes, and according to research posted in BAR, it is likely that YHWH was originally a war deity within the beliefs of those in the southern Arabian Peninsula that was eventually brought north possibly by Jewish traders.

 

[Kenny]

This is why science uses peer-review so as to make other scientists have the opportunity to see, review, and report on their own findings.

And yet that in and of itself is being questioned...

https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common

Loading…

www.sciencedirect.com

Peer-review and publication does not guarantee reliable information - Students 4 Best Evidence

Even though a comparison of treatments has been published in a prestigious journal, it may not be a fair comparison and the results may not be reliable. Peer review (assessment of a study by others working in the same field) does not guarantee that published studies are reliable.

s4be.cochrane.org

I think peer-review is good… but sometimes we trust it too much.

 

[metis]

And yet that in and of itself is being questioned...

Which is integral to the peer review process itself.

I think peer-review is good… but sometimes we trust it too much.

What's the alternative? And how about if we apply your reasoning to scripture as well, which I think needs to be done. I've often mentioned that the enemy of good theology is certainty.

IOW, nothing is perfect-- not even me. But I'm close, just ask my wife.

Wait! Don't ask my wife!

 

[Kenny]

Which is integral to the peer review process itself.



What's the alternative? And how about if we apply your reasoning to scripture as well, which I think needs to be done. I've often mentioned that the enemy of good theology is certainty.

IOW, nothing is perfect-- not even me. But I'm close, just ask my wife.

Wait! Don't ask my wife!

All this is true… even about your wife! The point is simply that when we give a blanket statement “It is true because it is peer-reviewed so don’t question it” is taking it a bit too far.

LOL Then again, to say “well peer-reviewed doesn’t mean a thing” is also too far. So we have the best of the worst or the worst of the best.

 

[walt]

The modern computer concept of multi-core processors is a good way to look at the trinity. You no longer need three processors; polytheism, but rather one processor with three cores can do the same things even better. This allows one processor to operate as three separate zones for multitasking, or one large combined zone for larger projects that need more of an integrated network effect with minimal time lag; tiny nano-wires.

If you look at the term, Judeo-Christian it combines two distinct expressions of God in one compound word. This is the bi-core processor that is implied by the New Testament and the Son of God, and the Old Testament, God the Father. People still worship the Father, while others worship the Son, with the one processor; God, using two cores, one for each worship angle to God. Some combine the two cores; Evangelical.

Where the Trinity or the three core God; processor, comes in was the promise that Jesus made of leaving behind the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Truth. Other than a few mentions of this Spirit, in the New and Old Testament, it does not say much more. However, it has been 2000 years since the promise of the Spirit, yet there is not yet any compilation of the works of the Spirit, to add a third core to the Bible; Old, New, and Future Testament.

The Catholic Church alone has 10,000 Saints, who were people of exemplary character who had an impact on history, which could be attributed to the Spirit; one aspect of the third core output. The spirit may have even moved many characters of history; DeVinci, Newton, Einstein, Lincoln, Churchill, etc, since all are connected to the first two cores in some way.

For years, I have been hinting that scholars should attempt to compile the third Testament, connected to the works of the Holy Spirit over the last 2000 years, so the Trinity can make more sense for more people. So much has happened in 2000 years, that it will be hard to summarize and do justice to it all, with a similar number of pages as the first two books of Bible; Trinity Bible. I am not sure is this is something we can start on this Religious Site. I am not a historian to do it justice. I have a vision, but I plant seeds and periodically water and fertilize. Maybe the Spirit needs to motivate someone or many to write it. I wait until then.

I feel there are many ways to look at things, and each way could be a good way! I just like Jesus words, or The Fathers words or the Apostles as a fine way, it's God's word the Bible. Everyone likes a different way.

My way of thinking, is just one of many.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is why science uses peer-review so as to make other scientists have the opportunity to see, review, and report on their own findings.

Peer review is also at the behest of the publishers, and obviously the publishers are not doing these things for free, are they?

 

[YoursTrue]

I feel there are many ways to look at things, and each way could be a good way! I just like Jesus words, or The Fathers words or the Apostles as a fine way, it's God's word the Bible. Everyone likes a different way.

That is so true, walt. For instance, someone was trying to convince me that the Bible's understanding of many ways of life is wrong, it's outdated. Yet those of us who love God and Jesus stick with what God considers right as described in the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

All this is true… even about your wife! The point is simply that when we give a blanket statement “It is true because it is peer-reviewed so don’t question it” is taking it a bit too far.

LOL Then again, to say “well peer-reviewed doesn’t mean a thing” is also too far. So we have the best of the worst or the worst of the best.

Again, our knowledge is limited and so I always remember what I read about Dr. Semmelweis, a beleaguered physician who was hounded, insulted, and hurt by his scientific contemporaries. He was right, his contemporary physicians were wrong. Dr. Semmelweis spearheaded under great duress antiseptic conditions for physicians assisting in childbirth. Simple hand washing, for which he was berated and assailed by his educated contemporaries. From the Wikipedia article (my heart hurts when I read about him):
"Despite his research, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum, he was beaten by the guards. He died 14 days later from a gangrenous wound on his right hand that may have been caused by the beating." Ignaz Semmelweis - Wikipedia
(P.S. I look forward to meeting Dr. Semmelweis one day. )

 

[metis]

Peer review is also at the behest of the publishers, and obviously the publishers are not doing these things for free, are they?

That same charge could be made by the publishers of various Bible editions. No, any publisher who does go against the process of allowing free speech amongst scientists would be ignored by the scientific community as a whole.

 

[metis]

In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum, he was beaten by the guards. He died 14 days later from a gangrenous wound on his right hand that may have been caused by the beating." Ignaz Semmelweis - Wikipedia

First of all, consider the date.

Secondly, what about all the fraudulent Christians over the last 150 years, so are you going to get out of the Christian faith or is it just the scientific community that you want to go after?

 

[YoursTrue]

First of all, consider the date.

Secondly, what about all the fraudulent Christians over the last 150 years, so are you going to get out of the Christian faith or is it just the scientific community that you want to go after?

So then all those examining the issue should decide. And I'm sure many educated people decided against Semmelweis. He introduced hand washing and many doctors thought he was crazy. Interns and doctors would go from dissecting cadavers to the maternity ward. When he introduced hand washing, the rate of mortality went down dramatically. Yet again, many of his contemporaries thought he was crazy.
Yet according to the Mosaic Law, which dates back many centuries, anyone touching a corpse became unclean for seven days and had to undergo a cleansing procedure that included bathing and washing his garments. During this time, the person was to avoid physical contact with others. I'm sure you can find that in your Bible at Numbers 19:11-22.
So what is this saying to me? That God knew how to protect His people to a large extent before science took hold.

 

[YoursTrue]

That same charge could be made by the publishers of various Bible editions. No, any publisher who does go against the process of allowing free speech amongst scientists would be ignored by the scientific community as a whole.

I would have to say about various Bible editions you are correct.

 

[YoursTrue]

First of all, consider the date.

Secondly, what about all the fraudulent Christians over the last 150 years, so are you going to get out of the Christian faith or is it just the scientific community that you want to go after?

I spoke to a lady who was very devout. I did not ask her religious affiliation, although she said she was Christian. We were sitting at a lunch table. She began telling me how her husband cheated on her many times yet went to church with her. I didn't say anything about that. Then I asked her what Bible she uses. She said she uses the "Christian Bible." I asked her what translation or version she uses at home. She insisted it was the "Christian Bible."

 

[YoursTrue]

I think Yours wants to know what the specific testing methods were. My guess is that he doubts the technology and will attack the methods if told what they are.

by the way, he is a she (in my case). Just so you know.