Trinity

mymind

The three God heads from what I understand are (God the Father having the power all controlling and Knowing being all in all) (Jesus the Son of God having the same mind as God and knowing the thoughts and hearts of Men having the Power of salvation and resurection) (The Holy Spirit having the Power and influence to change each Mans heart to give gifts and to calm our lives). From what I have always been taught is that the trinity is like water you can freeze it turns to ice. Boil water and it turns into a vapor but all in all it is still water. Without believing in the trinity and Jesus having a claim to the thrown of God they cannot be Christian and have no salvation! Then what is Jesus a pupet? Is he a Prophet at best? Is the Holy Spirit a cold wind in the night? Do we argue and banter like the Pharasees and Saducees about resurection? Please try to support the theory of no trinity. By there fruits you shall no them. If anyone has a clear definition of what Messiah means please bring this forward.

JimiTime

I believe in God, Yehowah(I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be). I believe in Jesus his only 'begotten' son, who was our ransom and saviour and who is now our King. His authority as king was given him by The Father. If he was the Fathers equal, he would not need to be given it. He is The Word of God. Ask yourself what does that mean. He never claimed to be God. In fact he even directed his worship to God, who he called Father in the same line. When he says 'I am' in the Garden of Getsemane, refering to the burning bush. look back at the burning bush scripture. Is God talking, or is it Gods Angel? Think again about what 'The Word of God' means. He gives accounts that the Father is greater than he is. He also refers to 'oneness' among his apostles, just as he and the father are one. This obviously not being a literal 'same being'.

God is God, Yehowah, our Father. Sovreign creator of all things good.
Jesus is his 'Only Begotten' Son (beget: to sire or generate). Who has been given a name above all in heaven and earth by his father Yehowah. He is our King and saviour.

madhitchhiker

JimiTime wrote:

I believe in God, Yehowah(I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be). I believe in Jesus his only 'begotten' son, who was our ransom and saviour and who is now our King. His authority as king was given him by The Father. If he was the Fathers equal, he would not need to be given it. He is The Word of God. Ask yourself what does that mean. He never claimed to be God. In fact he even directed his worship to God, who he called Father in the same line. When he says 'I am' in the Garden of Getsemane, refering to the burning bush. look back at the burning bush scripture. Is God talking, or is it Gods Angel? Think again about what 'The Word of God' means. He gives accounts that the Father is greater than he is. He also refers to 'oneness' among his apostles, just as he and the father are one. This obviously not being a literal 'same being'.

God is God, Yehowah, our Father. Sovreign creator of all things good.
Jesus is his 'Only Begotten' Son (beget: to sire or generate). Who has been given a name above all in heaven and earth by his father Yehowah. He is our King and saviour.

And that ,makes Him lord over us.;)

JimiTime

madhitchhiker wrote:

And that ,makes Him lord over us.;)

Absolutely:) and over all of creation, heaven and earth.

Juza1973

The Holy Trinity can't be explained using examples from the real world nor by human logic since it over both these things. That doesn't means that theologician didn't use these, only that the concept of Holy Trinity is a concept we can't really understand and are not supposed to really understand since it's above us.

robindch

Juza1973 - what's the point in believing something you don't understand?

InFront

Don't think I've posted here before, so hi:)
I'm not trying to be rude at all just have a few genuine questions because I just bought a book called Christian Theology an Introduction by A.McGrath, a Christian Scholar.

I just don't understand the Trinity and the book seems to presuppose that you understand it. Is there any 'easy' way you use to approach the idea, or any appropriate analogy in trying to understand the idea of the Trinity? If one thing is the very same as another thing... how is it different as well?
Is Juza1973 correct, it's something that Christians believe is just not supposed to be understood? Any help would be appreciated!

JimiTime

Just in response to how to explain the trinity, and the trinity cannot be understood posts.

Firstly, It was the explaination that the trinity is a 'mystery' and that we cannot truly understand it that got me thinking, 'i've got to look at this'. While trinitarians hold fast that Jesus is in fact part of a three being Godhead, I.E. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. All being the same God but seperate persons thus having equal authority. My search through prayer and examination of scripture, has lead me to conclude that God is The Father, the scriptures in context would suggest that strongly. However God has given his Son authority and kingship over all creation. So Christ is our king and Lord by the power and authority of his Father, God. Some Non-trinitarian minimise Jesus' role in our lives, but like in so many things, there is a middle ground. Jesus is our lord and king, that is certain, however, while he is in unity with God he is not in fact, the Most High God. If you read even the book of Collosians, it is clear that The Father is God and all of Christs authority comes from the Father.

I honestly don't know why the trinity doctrine developed, but Christ came to reveal not to muddle. i think there is a sense among pro-trinity Christians, that to call Jesus anything less than God is doing a great blasphemy or at least a great dis-service. One thing that does trouble me, about much of the worlds christian organisations is that they have a creed of some description. Personally, i think they are not needed, nor to they benefit. If a creed has you say that the trinity is so, then to question it, is to go against your religion. Christ is our Faith, in him accurate knowledge and the good news of the kingdom lie. Lets not minimise his role, but lets not say that he has the same authority as the father, for it is the Father who has given him his authority.

God is The Father.
Jesus is his 'only begotten' son. He is our lord and king. Authority over all creation has been given by God unto him.

There need not be any mystery.

robindch

> I honestly don't know why the trinity doctrine developed

Some historians of religion claim that it's an import from the Egyptian religions, where trinities of one kind or another are quite common. Athanasius, believed to be the principal author of the Nicene Creed which asserted the existence and equality of trinity, was an Egyptian and would have been familiar with the ideas of heavenly trinities. The idea of the trinity is largely absent from the NT, while the holy spirit is entirely absent from the OT -- two omissions which are rather odd in the circumstances, to say the very least.

> There need not be any mystery.

Perhaps there doesn't need to be. But there is certainly confusion amongst different groups of believers. And I'm fascinated to understand how people can have absolute belief and absolute faith in something that they openly admit they do not understand. What value could faith have in this context?

mymind

Looking back to Abraham, Was it not said to his son Issac that God will provide himself a sacrifice? If you look and read in the book of Hebrews starting at chapter 2 to chapter 5 you can see a much closer and deeper conection to the God head. In Johns gospel he was reffered to as the truth, life and word of God. What did God tell Moses to tell Isreal what His name is? I am that I am. in Johns Gospel chapter 9 verse 54 to 58 did Jesus say before Abraham ( I am)? How many (I ams) are in Johns Gospel? Then Go to chapter 10 Verse 38. Did Jesus say that the Father is in him and I in Him? Read chapter 10 the whole chapter and chapter 17 as well. Was it said in Mathews gospel that all things are possible with God? Why do we marvel at the trinity? We may not understand it but it is worth believing in. Let me put in another way if God would have refused Jesus sacrifice He would have no part in the trinity. Now with that said, again I will say if you do not believe in this Holy trinity God the Father, Gods Son Jesus and The Holy spirit as being 1 intertwine and the same you cannot be christian!

As a help I read from KJV either Old english or KJV American version. I do believe that this was the true intended word of God after the dark ages because the Holy Spirit protects this.

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

The idea of the trinity is largely absent from the NT, while the holy spirit is entirely absent from the OT

Classic case of Robin's dishonesty. I can't imagine that you are unaware of the opening lines of the opening book of Genesis, are you?

You haven't read the Psalms yet, have you?

The Trinity is a term never used in the Bible but there are three distinct persons of God presented throughout; YHWH, Logos and Pneuma which become for us today, Father, Son and Spirit.

The doctrine is well recorded historically as an expression of the relational attributes to God revealed especially in Jesus (think about the final pre-Passion chapters of John and Jesus' great prayers there). If you are interested in something more than lurid airport paperback versions of history I would advise you to pick up Karl Barth or Jurgen Moltmann or even a contemporary like Miroslav Volf who have all written extensively on trinitarian theology.

robindch

> Classic case of Robin's dishonesty.

Uncharacteristically waspish this morning -- I hope all is well with you!

> I can't imagine that you are unaware of the opening lines
> of the opening book of Genesis, are you?
> You haven't read the Psalms yet, have you?

Well, I've read sizable chunks of both and I can't immediately recall coming across much about either logos or pneuma in either. And, as I understood that both concepts had been filched from Plato and turned into christianity in the NT, I'd certainly be interested to see where the biblical authors prefigured Plato. Can you provide a few quotes from genesis, psalms etc, if it's not too much trouble?

I'd be much obliged!

Excelsior

Call me crazy but I believe that the Genesis tale is at least 6000 years old and certainly compiled in written form about 3400 years ago. This precedes Plato by, ooooh, almost 1000 years.

Genesis 1:3, "And God said, "Let there be light,"" The word creates. The word who is Logos (cf: John 1, Col 1)

Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image"".

Daniel 3, Genesis 32, Proverbs 8 or Psalm 51 are all passages off the top of my head that would be interestingly in conflict with your blasé discrediting of a trinitarian god that you offered earlier in the thread.

I apologise for being waspish. That is a suitable word for it. If I could rewrite my entry I would but I can't believe that someone so knowledgeable would be unaware of these famous texts or even honest in your presentation of the formation of trinitarian doctrine.

Cognitive bias at work there Robin?

robindch

> I apologise for being waspish.

No hard feelings.

> Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image"".

Yes, the use of the plural form here is unusual -- some people have suggested that this usage is the "Royal We" that exists in many languages including English; other people have other suggestions. In any case, the following verse (number 27) says "So god created man in HIS image, in the image of God HE created him; male and female HE created them.", suggesting that while god refers to himself in the plural, he actually exists in the singular. There is also the unusual text of Deuteronomy 6:4, which quite explicitly asserts the singularity of the biblical god: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one".

Regardless of the singular/plural discrepancy, the text still says nothing at all about either logos or pneuma which, as I said above, were concepts which were taken from the greek philosophers of the fifth to third century BCE and integrated into the theological ideas of the OT, to produce the outline -- later crystallized at Nicea to a theological reality -- of the trinity.

> Genesis 1:3, "And God said, "Let there be light,"" The word creates.
> The word who is Logos (cf: John 1, Col 1)

Erm, but John et al, were written *after* Plato. That's rather the point I'm trying to make!

> Call me crazy but I believe that the Genesis tale is at least 6000 years
> old and certainly compiled in written form about 3400 years ago.
> This precedes Plato by, ooooh, almost 1000 years.

I'll refrain from calling you crazy, but you seemed to have missed the central point of my post above which is that the ideas of logos and pneuma are absent from genesis. However, you do kindly suggest that I should look to:

> Daniel 3, Genesis 32, Proverbs 8 or Psalm 51 are all passages off the top
> of my head that would be interestingly in conflict with your blasé
> discrediting of a trinitarian god that you offered earlier in the thread.

Well lets take a look at them! In brief, they are texts in which:

Daniel 3 -- Nebuchadnezzar tries to burn three Jews and fails
Genesis 32 -- Jacob gives animals to Esau
Proverbs 8 -- Religion/god explains that religion/god is wisdom
Psalm 51 -- David has sex and feels sorry

Now, on a quick read over a sandwich, I can't find anything in any of the above which says anything at all about a trinity. Perhaps you could be more specific about the exact piece of text which clarifies the issue?

> I can't believe that someone so knowledgeable would be unaware of
> these famous texts or even honest in your presentation of the formation
> of trinitarian doctrine.

The problem is that I am aware of these texts and they do not answer my question. What I'm looking for is some piece of text amongst the six hundred thousand-odd words of the OT where god says unambiguously that he exists as a trinity as currently believed. And if there isn't any such piece of text, then isn't it worth asking *why* there isn't?

Now, over to you and your much better knowledge of the text!

> Cognitive bias at work there Robin?

I would suggest cognitive independence, but your opinion may differ

Excelsior

I think the last post, in its grand detail, reveals for all to see that in fact you were being disingenuous in your initial laissez faire disregard for the Biblical texts.

I suspect you are doing the same with our three martyrs in the fire, Jacob's wrestling with an "angel", the personification of wisdom and the appeal to let not YHWH's "Holy Spirit" depart from David.

Furthermore, you pass over the issue of the Creation narrative's use of Logos and insist that the Johannine text is a Platonic derivative. However, the translation of spoke in the Septuagint and the use of Word in John 1 is accepted uncontroversially to be a Jewish allusion made by a Jew to the Jewish creation narrative.

While you play the game of asking for more detail, please do share with us your substantiative argument for claiming the Gospel writers (excluding Luke) and Paul were Platonic Hellenists instead of the apparent Second Temple Jews they claim to be.

I'll point out for my own benefit, lest I stray over here again, the absurdity, not often enough declared I feel, in arguing about the nature of a God you don't believe in. Devil and idle hands...

robindch

> in fact you were being disingenuous in your initial laissez faire
> disregard for the Biblical texts.

I'm sorry to hear that you think so. FWIW, I'm not being disingenuous in that post, as I wasn't being dishonest in the previous one. Perhaps you would care to answer the questions I've asked, rather than casually dismissing them?

> Furthermore, you pass over the issue of the Creation narrative's use of
> Logos and insist that the Johannine text is a Platonic derivative.

Logos (λογος = "word"), as you are aware, is a central concept in the world of greek philosophy and in platonic terms, describes reason or rational discourse. It was one of innovations of christianity that "logos" as a platonic ideal was said to have come to an imperfect earth, in the form of Jesus ("logos/word made flesh"), to help to make the world a perfect place (an idea the eastern Orthodox churches still stick to, while the western churches see themselves as a road to a perfect place somewhere else).

Logos also existed in contradistinction to mythos -- ie, the idea that you could convey an ultimate truth by means of rational discourse, rather than by means of non-rational story-telling.

And so, the line "in the beginning was the word..." within the terms of platonic philosophy, is intended as a strong statement to the effect that christianity is both reasonable and that christianity is real.

I should, of course, point out that John didn't simply life Plato's ideas and provide a few twists of his own. Instead, it seems quite possible that John had ingested Plato via Philo of Alexandria who had interpreted Greek philosophy within the Judaistic framework (which obviously includes the Judaic works that you refer to).

> I'll point out for my own benefit, lest I stray over here again, the
> absurdity, not often enough declared I feel, in arguing about the
> nature of a God you don't believe in.

I am not arguing, per se, about the shape and limits of the god you believe in -- as you're aware, whether or not you believe that your own chosen deity has three parts, or any other attribute, is unimportant to me. What I am trying to do, as I've said before a few times, is to understand the nature of religious belief, the use of reason in a religious context, and the history and evolution of ideas which determine how people make decisions.

JimiTime

mymind wrote:

Looking back to Abraham, Was it not said to his son Issac that God will provide himself a sacrifice? If you look and read in the book of Hebrews starting at chapter 2 to chapter 5 you can see a much closer and deeper conection to the God head. In Johns gospel he was reffered to as the truth, life and word of God. What did God tell Moses to tell Isreal what His name is? I am that I am. in Johns Gospel chapter 9 verse 54 to 58 did Jesus say before Abraham ( I am)? How many (I ams) are in Johns Gospel? Then Go to chapter 10 Verse 38. Did Jesus say that the Father is in him and I in Him? Read chapter 10 the whole chapter and chapter 17 as well. Was it said in Mathews gospel that all things are possible with God? Why do we marvel at the trinity? We may not understand it but it is worth believing in. Let me put in another way if God would have refused Jesus sacrifice He would have no part in the trinity. Now with that said, again I will say if you do not believe in this Holy trinity God the Father, Gods Son Jesus and The Holy spirit as being 1 intertwine and the same you cannot be christian!

As a help I read from KJV either Old english or KJV American version. I do believe that this was the true intended word of God after the dark ages because the Holy Spirit protects this.

Firstly, I'm confused about your point about Issac Could you quote the scripture you refer to? As for the 'I am' scenario. Jesus is referred to as 'the Word' of God. Refer once again back to the burning bush and you will see that its 'Yehowahs angel' that was in the midst of the bush speaking to Moses. look at most of Pauls letters and they begin something like
'Paul, Silas and Timothy,
To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace to you.

Now at no point is it ever said God the Son, or God the holy spirit. Always and I mean Always, God The Father. Jesus even referred to God as The Father. He is in Union with God. Just like he says regarding his apostles, 'Father let them be as one, just like you and I are one'. You can see from this what 'oneness' meant. Even in relation to marriage, 'a man and a woman will become one flesh'. Collosians also describes jesus as 'the firstborn of all creation'. God has never and could never have this attested to him as He was not created. Again I will state that, the scriptures in context are clear that The Father is God most high. Jesus is his Son. The very term Father and Son, shows that The Son came after The Father, as a son cannot sire his own father. Now if your arguement is, we cannot understand it, then I will say to you, that you don't understand because you cannot understand such a lie. However I understand it, because it is not that complicated. I have the wonderful advantage of not having to believe in the trinity doctrine to have faith in Christ. Even the fact that so many people have the trinity down as a cornerstone of christian faith, convinces me more of how much of a deception it is! Where is it written that i must believe that Jesus is God? Where is it written that I must believe there is a trinity? The council of nicea thats where. The wonderful thing, is that that same council left the means to discover the doctrine false, thanks be to God. However, the church also became like the pharisees, putting a fence around the truth and guarding it from the layman, so that they became the self proclaimed yielders of 'truth'. These same people, created the indulgence systems etc etc. Now, if they were capable, while supposidly being the continuation of the apostles, to do the countless horrible things history records them doing, then it makes it even easier to see how the trinity doctrine can be false.

I've heard the trinity arguement time and time again. However, why would I leave knowledge to go into confusion? I know Jesus is my lord, my King, my saviour. I know he has his authority from The Most High God, The Father, Yehowah. I don't have to be confused, or have no understanding, for all is clear. Like I've said in the past to Briancalgary, you are indoctrinated, a form of brainwashing. The horrible thing about this type of brainwashing, is that it has you believe that you have come to your conclusions yourself. Add to the mix, the fact that the trinity is held up as a cornerstone of your faith (something that is not biblical) makes it even harder to see the woods from the trees, as to question it, is to put yourself as 'marked' in your religious environment.

mymind

Jimitime I understand your confusion and I completely understand the bewilderment as to why I make this a central belief. I wish I could make it more clear but as with anything else it is something after reading for years the scriptures become one and this is faith building. I do not want to sound at all like the pharasees or anyother religious hinge. What I am doing is not minimizing Jesus position and the speacial relationship with God the Father. Though we change from time to time as we grow. The three that never change is the Father, Son and Holy spirit. The three must agree or salvation and the universal exsistance would be not. Most Christians can't agree on many pieces of scripture thanks be to God we have 3 to teach us as we walk. Now let me try to show you, Remember when Abraham offered his son Issac as a sacrifice? Issac asked his father where is the sacrifice? Abraham answered, God will provide himself a sacrifice. Who do you really think was behind the burning bush? Who was it that in Proverbs chapter 8 is talking about? Who was it that was in the midst of the fire when the three were thrown into the furnace at the time of Babalon. We must be careful and always look at the Old Testament showing the Mesiah (which means God with us). The Old Testament is a picture of Jesus going forward to Jesus and Gods governmental rule as well. Jesus was the word and it was made flesh and it dwelt amonst us. Who's word? Gods word? Jesus own words? I realize also that the trinity is not in the bible neither is rapture. I do understand that God the Father, Jesus the Son and The Holy spirit have different funtions but they all opperate in complete agreement together. I believe this was the definition that Old christions such as Darby and many others used the word trinity. The emphasis needs to be brought out to an exact because we cannot allow Jesus to be minimized or reduced to something equal to another human or prophet. He was much more than we can imagine and we barely have a glimps of all His accomplishments. As Paul said we look through a darkly colored glass. So in other words we don't see everthing promised and we don't have the ability to be all in all. That is why we each in the body are instruments and the eye cannot be a foot nor can the finger be the nose. The closer we know the Lord Jesus We may have a grasp of 3 parables and 4 feasts then we die.

JimiTime

mymind wrote:

Jimitime I understand your confusion and I completely understand the bewilderment as to why I make this a central belief.

Just to be clear, the confusion lies in the fact that I wonder why so many believe Jesus is God Most high.

What I am doing is not minimizing Jesus position and the speacial relationship with God the Father. Though we change from time to time as we grow. The three that never change is the Father, Son and Holy spirit. The three must agree or salvation and the universal exsistance would be not. Most Christians can't agree on many pieces of scripture thanks be to God we have 3 to teach us as we walk.

I totally agree with this statement, but like I have said before, there is a middle ground. While some anti-trinity religions do minimise Jesus' role, pro-trinity maximise it. Jesus is our Master, our King, The way, the truth. He is the Word of the living God and is in union with him. However, he gets his authority from God. God will place his enemies as a stool beneath his feet. If Jesus was in fact God, he would not need to attain authority from anyone as he would be the most high authority. So the fact that he has his authority from The Father shows that the father is most high. However Jesus is our lord and master on the authority of his father. This is not minimising, it is just being clear and unambiguous. Jesus himself said the Father was greater than he.

Now let me try to show you, Remember when Abraham offered his son Issac as a sacrifice? Issac asked his father where is the sacrifice? Abraham answered, God will provide himself a sacrifice.

What has this to do with the trinity? The question Issac asks referred to the fact that they had nothing to make a burnt offering, as issac did not know yet, that it was he to be offered.

Who do you really think was behind the burning bush?

The Word of God.

I realize also that the trinity is not in the bible neither is rapture. I do understand that God the Father, Jesus the Son and The Holy spirit have different funtions but they all opperate in complete agreement together.I believe this was the definition that Old christions such as Darby and many others used the word trinity. The emphasis needs to be brought out to an exact because we cannot allow Jesus to be minimized or reduced to something equal to another human or prophet.

Absolutely. They are in agreement, but they are not part of a Godhead. there is only 1 Most high God, and he is The Father as scripture states. His Son is from his loins, His Word, through which all was created. The fact that God created through his Son makes us all Gods children, but Jesus is his only 'begotten' son as he came directly from the Father. Jesus is our only mediator with God. Through him we were created and through his sacrafice we were reconciled to God.

He was much more than we can imagine and we barely have a glimps of all His accomplishments. As Paul said we look through a darkly colored glass. So in other words we don't see everthing promised and we don't have the ability to be all in all. That is why we each in the body are instruments and the eye cannot be a foot nor can the finger be the nose. The closer we know the Lord Jesus We may have a grasp of 3 parables and 4 feasts then we die.

Again, in relation to the trinity, it is clear. There is no ambiguity. God is the father and Jesus is his only begotten son. I know that in this life we have only partial knowledge, but we know what is revealed in the scriptures regarding God and Jesus. God is our Father, Jesus our Lord and King through Gods authority. He is the means that we reach God, for he is in union with his Father. He is much more than a man or prophet, he is the closest being to God, who has been given a name above all others.

robindch

Excelsior -- did I answer your question up above about Plato and the NT?

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

Logos (λογος = "word"), as you are aware, is a central concept in the world of greek philosophy and in platonic terms, describes reason or rational discourse...Logos also existed in contradistinction to mythos -- ie, the idea that you could convey an ultimate truth by means of rational discourse, rather than by means of non-rational story-telling.

Firstly, it would be hard to argue that such a complex and thought-through narrative as the Johannine Gospel could be considered as distinct from the Greek category of mythos. It is written to be spoken. It is a tale to be told. The Gospel of John is many things, but a philosophical discourse it is not.

Since JAT Robinson, (hardly an ally of us fundies on this board) introduced his New Look at John in the 50s, the idea that we refer to Greek ideas as the touchstone alluded to by the author has been discredited. Cana is not the Dionysian myth re-done. Rather, we find its meaning (and the reason it is placed in the narrative where it is) from the repeated Old Testament concept of the New Wine being brought by a Messiah who may even offer a New Covenant.

The sacramentalism, eschatology and Christology of the Gospel which are its major themes are all drawn using Jewish concepts. His constant debating partners are the prophets and his contemporary Jews of the 2nd Temple Era.

This is a brief outline of how the Johannine Gospel breaks down into its constituent parts that would be accepted as a valid reconstruction in pretty much any seminary in any university in the world.:
1: A basic collections of Jesus's sayings
2. A church community forms around the apostle. It struggled for existence from opposition amongst their Jewish neighbours. Many argue this might be a group connected or evolving from John the Baptist's movement.
3. A "pre-Gospel" is formed and recorded for distribution. It may have begun with the Baptist's call in the desert and ended in chapter 20 (ie, still lacking the thought through theological reflection of the prologue etc)
4. The growing church community faces the typical division and opposition from Gnostic interlopers as other communities (see 1 Cor, 2 Cor, 1 Tim, 2 Tim, actually, see all the NT letters! ). John writes his 3 letters as a defence against the widespread misinterpretation of the ministry of Jesus. The Christological prologue is added now.
5. The apostle dies and his community gather all the stories together to form the finalised edition of the Gospel. He is reverently referred to as the Beloved Disciple. His eyewitness testimony is attested to, where once he could have attested it himself.

Although I totally reject the idea that John's writings are written out of Greek ideas and not Jewish scriptures, you'll enjoy me citing Russell as I say, "Not enough evidence Robin, not enough evidence!" since the idea of Jesus being the person through which the creative force of the Universe is expressed, the Word referred to in Genesis is repeated throughout the New Testament. Colossians, Philippians and Ephesians all refer to it. Revelations swims in it.

PDN

robindch wrote:

And I'm fascinated to understand how people can have absolute belief and absolute faith in something that they openly admit they do not understand. What value could faith have in this context?

If we only believed in things we can understand then our lives would be very limited.

For example, I am not mechanically or scientifically minded at all. I don't understand how a fax machine, a television, or the internet works. But the fact that I happily use these things presumably proves that I believe in them.

Faith in God, in my opinion, becomes valuable when I trust God even when I don't understand. If God was small enough to be comprehended by my feeble intellect then He wouldn't be much of a God.

I would find it incredibly arrogant to think that I should only believe something to be true if the almighty I can fully understand it.

"I think, therefore I am" would become "I don't understand, therefore it is not."

robindch

> If we only believed in things we can understand then our
> lives would be very limited.

I think you've missed my point.

Most christians will say that they "believe in" the trinity, even though the concept has no meaning which they can either agree upon, or even if they can agree upon a meaning, cannot understand it -- this is openly admitted.

The comparison to technology is inappropriate: while you personally may not understand how things work, plenty of other people do and generally have fairly unambiguous explanations for them. This is certainly not the case with incomprehensible religious dogmas.

The question I'm asking is -- if you don't understand something (like the trinity), then why do you think that god would reward belief in it? Surely a belief which rests upon something which has no meaning, is meaningless itself? Unless god rewards a belief without evidence in a concept without meaning, but I think that presupposes the existence of a god which requires too much of his believers.

PDN

robindch wrote:

> If we only believed in things we can understand then our
> lives would be very limited.

I think you've missed my point.

Most christians will say that they "believe in" the trinity, even though the concept has no meaning which they can either agree upon, or even if they can agree upon a meaning, cannot understand it -- this is openly admitted.

The comparison to technology is inappropriate: while you personally may not understand how things work, plenty of other people do and generally have fairly unambiguous explanations for them. This is certainly not the case with incomprehensible religious dogmas.

The question I'm asking is -- if you don't understand something (like the trinity), then why do you think that god would reward belief in it? Surely a belief which rests upon something which has no meaning, is meaningless itself? Unless god rewards a belief without evidence in a concept without meaning, but I think that presupposes the existence of a god which requires too much of his believers.

Ah, I think I see your position now. You're saying it's OK to believe in stuff you don't understand, providing that other people understand it?

In that case you have now moved to the realm of faith. You are prepared to believe that other people understand it, and you trust enough to put your faith in those people. But, if something involves trusting God's understanding (who many, if not most human beings, would see as being infinitely more trustworthy than other people) then you make a leap of logic to declare that the concept is meaningless.

What about physical phenomena that no-one yet understands? For example, for centuries no human being understood why eclipses occurred, due to their limited scientific knowledge. I guess, under your philosophy, they should have refused to believe that what they were seeing since they were unable to understand it. Or is it OK to believe in something that no-one understands if your faith in other people is so devout that you believe somebody else will understand it one day?

PDN

mymind wrote:

From what I have always been taught is that the trinity is like water you can freeze it turns to ice. Boil water and it turns into a vapor but all in all it is still water.

I don't know who taught you this, but what you are describing is Modalism, which has been condemned as a heresy since very early days in Christianity. Modalism sees God as One Person who manifests Himself in different ways at different times, with a different name being assigned to each mode in which He expresses Himself.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the way that Christians have historically explained several revealed Biblical truths.
1. There is One God, not three gods.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Holy Spirit is God.
5. There is a distinction between the Father, Son and Spirit. So, for example, Jesus (the Son) prayed to the Father, "Not My will but Your will be done". Similarly, the Holy Spirit was not nailed to the Cross, but the Son was.

The doctrine of the Trinity, while difficult to understand, is the only explanation that has reconciled these revealed truths in a way that most Christians find intellectually and biblically satisfying.

Of course atheists & unbelievers may mock this doctrine, but that is hardly surprising since they reject the Bible as an authoritative source for revealed truth. Therefore they will argue against any biblically-based belief.

Of course the idea that God is triune (three distinct Personalities while remaining as One God) is hard to grasp - but no more than the concept of a God who has existed for all eternity without a beginning, a God who will exist for all eternity without end, a God who is omnipresent and therefore fills all of time & space, or a God who is omnipotent. The very concept of God Himself (as opposed to some limited tribal deity) is beyond our feeble imaginations, bounded as we are by time, space & number.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

I think you've missed my point.

Most christians will say that they "believe in" the trinity, even though the concept has no meaning which they can either agree upon, or even if they can agree upon a meaning, cannot understand it -- this is openly admitted..

True enough.

robindch wrote:

The comparison to technology is inappropriate: while you personally may not understand how things work, plenty of other people do and generally have fairly unambiguous explanations for them. This is certainly not the case with incomprehensible religious dogmas..

it is very apprpriate. Along with my Technology comes a manual put together by the creator of the technology explaining to me how to use it.

Along with my life came an owners manual written by God explaining to me how to live. He tells me that the trinity is real.

There is much in the computers owners manual that I don't understand, as the trinity I don't understand.

robindch wrote:

The question I'm asking is -- if you don't understand something (like the trinity), then why do you think that god would reward belief in it? Surely a belief which rests upon something which has no meaning, is meaningless itself? Unless god rewards a belief without evidence in a concept without meaning, but I think that presupposes the existence of a god which requires too much of his believers.

You believe in the trinity because God tells us that it exists. It is God telling us who He is adn then we choose whether or not to accept Him based on many things.

I have never met you and only see your character and personality through these pages, I choose whether or not I want to meet you through these communications. As it is with God, I choose to meet Him as a result of His communication with us.

robindch

> [PDN] You're saying it's OK to believe in stuff you don't understand,
> providing that other people understand it?

Nope, I was making a different point, but I don't seem to have made it very well. I'll try again with a different question below as I'm trying to understand what you (collectively) believe about your beliefs.

> [BrianCalgary] You believe in the trinity because God tells us that it exists.

As you're aware, the trinity is never directly mentioned in the bible, but rather implied in a pretty odd way. The current dogma of the trinity is a later development from the largely unknown men who attended the council of Nicaea held centuries after the bible was written and Jesus was no longer around to correct any errors.

Anyhow, I'll try again:

Christians believe that they will be rewarded for believing the right dogma -- stuff like the trinity, amongst other unusual things. The trinity is incomprehensible, so that means that any belief in it must be a worthless belief for the simple reason that the belief means nothing, because it's based upon nothing meaningful. (An alternative view is that the belief could mean anything you want to, since it's incomprehensible, so if people attach a firm meaning to it, that must mean that lots of people must be believing the wrong thing (since they'll probably be believing different things) and are therefore in danger of believing a heresy, as PDN has pointed out above, and therefore in danger of going to hell).

What I would like to know is why people believe god will reward a meaningless belief?

.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

As you're aware, the trinity is never directly mentioned in the bible, but rather implied in a pretty odd way. The current dogma of the trinity is a later development from the largely unknown men who attended the council of Nicaea held centuries after the bible was written and Jesus was no longer around to correct any errors..

Not really, that is just when the doctrine was finalized. People understood from the time of Jesus that God was three in one. Arminius came up with Jesus having a different nature centuries after Christ was around. The council of Nicea was held to discuss teh nature of God and Christ.

robindch wrote:

Anyhow, I'll try again:

Christians believe that they will be rewarded for believing the right dogma -- stuff like the trinity, amongst other unusual things. The trinity is incomprehensible, so that means that any belief in it must be a worthless belief for the simple reason that the belief means nothing, because it's based upon nothing meaningful. (An alternative view is that the belief could mean anything you want to, since it's incomprehensible, so if people attach a firm meaning to it, that must mean that lots of people must be believing the wrong thing (since they'll probably be believing different things) and are therefore in danger of believing a heresy, as PDN has pointed out above, and therefore in danger of going to hell).

What I would like to know is why people believe god will reward belief in something which they do not understood and what value can be put upon such a belief.

People are 'rewarded with eternal life' for believing on Jesus as Messiah and responding to His call to repentance and nothing else. Not for a belief in any doctrine.

It is fair to ask who is Jesus, then we examine the Bible to find out.

Jesus claims to be God, one with the Father. We also know He is human, He therfore in two natures in one. We also know that the Holy pirit is God. We also know that theFather is God.

Hence the nature of God is three persons in one Godhead. That I fully understand, I just can't easily explain the how, behind it. I find the 'is' rather simple.

There is apparently much that science doesn't understand. I don't think science understands the attraction at amolecular level between protons, neutron and electrons, they just know it is.

robindch

> The council of Nicea was held to discuss teh nature of God and Christ.

...and to try to pin down something solid to believe about the holy spirit, about which virtually nothing tangible is said in the bible.

> People are 'rewarded with eternal life' for believing on Jesus as
> Messiah and responding to His call to repentance and nothing
> else. Not for a belief in any doctrine.

But it's a doctrine that you must believe Jesus as Messiah (etc)! That's what a doctrine is and it's the point of what I wrote -- there is something which you must believe in order to get a reward. And if there's no agreed meaning, then isn't the reward in doubt too?

> There is apparently much that science doesn't understand.

While I'm not aware of anybody who's claimed that science understands everything, I am certainly aware of plenty of religious people who believe that they do have answers to everything -- wouldn't you agree?

> I don't think science understands the attraction at a molecular level
> between protons, neutron and electrons, they just know it is.

Not at a molecular level, but at a subatomic level. The force that holds protons and neutrons together in an atom's nucleus is called the strong nuclear force and the force carriers are called gluons, evidence of which has been available since the early 70's. I believe electrons hang around because they're negatively charged and therefore attracted to the positively charged protons within the atomic nucleus.

philologos

Heres a good video on GodTube explaining the Trinity.
(Based for Muslims but it explains it well to anyone really)
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=5b6bbd91822c0c7b835f

ISAW

robindch wrote:

Juza1973 - what's the point in believing something you don't understand?

Do you believe in photons? Quarks? Big bang cosmology? Genetic engineering? Stellar Nucleosynthesis of elements? The Rhesus factor in blood groups? The proof showing Fermats Last Theorem to be true? that we can build ships which can travel to the Moon? Organic chemistry? that the central bank can control interest rates?

Do you understand all the above?