Is the Trinity an essential doctrine?

[edie19]

you can call me a heretic

I simply find it funny that pagan greek, romans and hindus all worshipped trinities long before the messiah came.

I've never heard that - my understanding from studying mythology in school and from discussing hinduism w an Indian friend is that all have multiple gods (each a totally separate being, each with different attributes, personalities, purposes and capabilities).

That's very different than our Triune God who is a single divine being existing as three distinct persons each having the whole divine essence.

 

[Vaneeza Malkah]

I've never heard that - my understanding from studying mythology in school and from discussing hinduism w an Indian friend is that all have multiple gods (each a totally separate being, each with different attributes, personalities, purposes and capabilities).

That's very different than our Triune God who is a single divine being existing as three distinct persons each having the whole divine essence.

Well I've never studied mythology in school, just history, but it's true that hindu greek and roman g-ds were all triune in nature, three grouped into one g-d.

The Hindu trinity is of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are respectively the creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe. They are also aligned as the transcendent Godhead, Shiva, the cosmic lord, Vishnu and the cosmic mind, Brahma. In this regard they are called Sat-Tat-Aum, the Being, the Thatness or immanence and the Word or holy spirit. This is much like the Christian trinity of God as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The trinity represents the Divine in its threefold nature and function. Each aspect of the trinity contains and includes the others.
Each God in the trinity has his consort. To Brahma is Saraswati, the Goddess of knowledge. For Vishnu is Lakshmi, the Goddess of love, beauty and delight. For Shiva is Kali (Parvati) , the Goddess of power, destruction and transformation. These are the three main forms of the Goddess, as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the three main forms of the God. The three Goddesses are often worshipped in their own right as well as along with their spouses.

TRINITY is part and parcel of many religions such as Babylonian religions, Greek religions apart from Hinduism. In Hinduism Trinity appears as LORD BRAHMA, LORD VISHNU and LORD SIVA. In Greek mythology, TRINITY appears as ZEUS, ATHENA, and APOLLO. In Pagan religions of Rome, Trinity appears as JUPITER, JUNO, and MINERVA. In Egyptian civilization the same triad appears as OSIRIS, ISIS, and HORUS.

 

[Vaneeza Malkah]

bump! any objections?

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

Elohim/God is plurality but is it a plurality of persons? Plurality takes on breadth, depth and complexity. See the article "Shopping For Gods" at the following:

http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/hayom/elohei.html

Shalom,
David.

 

[PaladinValer]

Are you saying you reject the Trinity?

If so, you should not be posting in the Christian-Only section nor should you be using a Christian icon. This website bases its definition of Christian just like the faith always has, by the agreement and belief in what is pronounced in the Nicene Creed.

 

[5stringJeff]

bump! any objections?

You make the false assumption that just because other religions had/have similar premises, that the premise is false. If we used your logic, we could say that the Golden Rule, which is found in many religions in one form or another, is also a false doctrine.

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

It seems the arguments and debates will continue until the end. But one should really consider seriousily the arguments about Yeshua. Is Yeshua, the son of God, which the bible says; or is Yeshua, God come in the flesh? Then, in all consideration one should look at the arguments between the Eastern & Western churches that fleshed out this argument. In 1995, there was reconcilation between the Assrian Eastern and Western Churches. But one should see that within the Eastern Church, there are the Greek Orthodox, the Assyrian and the Nestorians, and others. And, it is really the fine lines that defined Yeshua. Here are two controversies and it is really between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius.

l. The 1st one , the starting point of this whole thing, is about Mary. Is Mary Theotokos...the mother of God, which is a popular term in the West and the East. Whereas, the Nestorians, use Christotokos...the mother of Christ since it describes Mary´s relationship to Yeshua. This leads us into the 2nd argument.

2. How to maintain this human and divine unity in Jesus without mixing the two. Cyril emphasized the divine nature of Yeshua and accused Nestorius of teaching that Yeshua was a mere man. Cyril saw Christ´s humanity as that of humanity in general, not that of an individual man, and that salvation was accomplished by the personal Logos who assumed impersonal human nature, thus uniting it with divine nature. He got support from the Eastern & Western emperors and the pope and in short, this became doctrine as we can read in the Chaledonian Creed.

What Nestorius taught was speaking of the two natures of Christ (one divine and one human). He spoke of Christ as "true God by nature and true man by nature. The person (parsopa) is one...There are not two Gods or two Sons.

The problem lays in the translation of the word Greek word prosopon which meant "PERSON".

This how Cyril understood the term and accused Nestorius of 2 person teaching. Nestorius at no time denied Christ´s deity, he merely insisted that it be clearly distinguished from his humanity. The catch phrase in Nestorius teachings it at of the 2 (Qnuma) essences in one person of the Messiah. But for Cyril, again, this meant "person."

This is according to my studies into the subject. Also, the terms "LOGOS" is interesting because Philo saw this terms as a manisfestation of God.

For now and shalom,
David.

 

[hlaltimus]

The question, really, should be, "Is the historic doctrine of the Trinity a true doctine?" If one can establish it to be a true doctrine, then never doubt of it's necessity.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Is the Trinity an essential doctrine? .

Only for Christians.

 

[Sentry]

Greetings,

Just a quick question that I wanted to get other people's take on: Is belief in the Trinitarian nature of God an essential Christian doctrine?

I will post my answer a little later, I just wanted to know what others think.

One has to wonder how people can claim it is so vital to the faith when a three person God is never identified in Scripture.

 

[depthdeception]

One has to wonder how people can claim it is so vital to the faith when a three person God is never identified in Scripture.

Well, as Christians do not believe in a "three-person God," your criticism is misdirected.

 

[Sentry]

Well, as Christians do not believe in a "three-person God," your criticism is misdirected.

That was not the point. The point is that the Bible never mentions or identifies a three person God.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

The point is that the Bible never mentions or identifies a three person

The Holy Scripture does identify the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. In fact, all three Persons are mentioned by name by Jesus Himself. "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

Your brother in Christ.

 

[Sentry]

The point is that the Bible never mentions or identifies a three person

The Holy Scripture does identify the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. In fact, all three Persons are mentioned by name by Jesus Himself. "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

Your brother in Christ.

Once again this does not prove a three in one God. It only demonstrates the existence of three. It does not demonstrate that these three are the one God.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

The point is that the Bible never mentions or identifies a three person

The Holy Scripture does identify the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. In fact, all three Persons are mentioned by name by Jesus Himself. "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

Your brother in Christ.

Once again this does not prove a three in one God. It only demonstrates the existence of three. It does not demonstrate that these three are the one God.

Only if you refuse to accept what is plainly stated by Christ Himself.

 

[mazbeth]

I hope it's ok to put this here, but it seems the right place, as it is closely connected with the Trinity, and I can't see anywhere that it is being discussed specifically.
I would like to discuss it just with convinced Christians of that is ok

It is something I began to think of in more depth yesterday....

If I can just provide something to show what I have been thinking about...

God the Son. Eternally Subordinate to the Father, Or Voluntarily and Temporarily?

If Jesus the Son of God is not God in human form, then he did not perfectly reveal the Father, and he could not save, for only God can save. In this critical hour, (see context earlier in article, if wished) God raised up one of the greatest theologians of all times, St. Athanasius (296-373 AD).13 His grasp of the whole of Scripture was profound and his theological acumen far exceeded that of his adversaries.
In reply to the Arians’ appeal to the Bible, Athanasius argued that they had failed to grasp the whole “scope” of scripture and failed to recognize that Scripture gives a “double account” of the Son of God—one of his temporal and voluntary subordination in the incarnation, the other of his eternal divine status. On this basis he argued that texts that spoke of the divinity of the Son and of his equality with the Father pointed to his eternal status and dignity, and texts that spoke of the subordination of the Son pointed to his voluntary and temporal subordination necessitated by him becoming man for our salvation. For Athanasius, the Son is eternally one in being with the Father, temporally and voluntarily subordinate in his incarnate ministry. Athanasius had no problems with the many texts that spoke of the Son’s frailty, prayer life, obedience, or death on the cross. For him these texts affirmed unambiguously the Son’s full human nature temporally and voluntarily assumed for our salvation. Such human traits, he argued, were not to be read back into the eternal Trinity.
As part of their case, the Arians claimed that if the Son is “begotten” (they took this to mean created) by the Father, then he must be less than the Father because all human sons are less than their father. In reply to this reasoning, Athanasius first argued that the biblical metaphor of “begetting” when applied to the Son of God did not imply creation. The Bible did not teach that the Son was one of God the Creator’s works, but rather God himself differentiated from the Father by origination. For Athanasius, the Son was “begotten” of the Father, not created by the Father. The terminology of begetting differentiated the persons, but did not subordinate the persons. In regard to the Arians’ claim that all sons were less than their human fathers, Athanasius next argued that in fact all sons are one in being with their fathers.
A third incredibly important insight into what the Scriptures taught about the persons of the Trinity was made when Athanasius pointed out that in the Bible what God does reveals who God is—the being of God is made manifest in the works of God. He thus argued that it is because Jesus does what only God can do (raise the dead, heal the sick, forgive sins, offer salvation, reign as Lord and head over all, etc.) that we are to know he is God (cf. Jn. 5:19). So, for Athanasius, in contrast to Arius and his followers, the being/nature/essence and the works/operations/functions of the Father and the Son are one. The three divine persons are one in being and one in action. Who they are and what they do cannot be separated.
In enunciating this principle, Athanasius perfectly captured biblical thinking. This unity of being and action between the Father, Son, and Spirit, first spelt out by Athanasius, is a constant theme from this point on in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. On this basis it is held that to eternally subordinate the Son or the Spirit in work/operation/function by necessity implies their ontological subordination. If one person on the basis of personal identity alone must always take the subordinate role, then he or she must be a subordinated person, less than his or her superior in some way.
Athanasius believed that in the incarnate Son, God was truly present in the world in human form. The texts he quotes most of all are, “The Father and I are one” (Jn. 10:30), and, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn. 14:9). So emphatic was he that the Son was fully God, he repeatedly says, “The same things are said of the Son which are said of the Father, except for calling him Father.”
excerpt from http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_a...n%20Giles.shtml

I would just like to add one more phrase from another article which may help us...

To our occidental type of Mind the terms "Father" and "Son" carry with them, on the one hand, the ideas of source of being and superiority, and on the other, subordination and dependence. In theological language, however, they are used in the Semitic or Oriental sense of sameness of nature. It is, of course, the Semitic consciousness which underlies the phraseology of Scripture,...
from http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfi.../trinity/t6.htm


OK guys... after that introduction to what I meant...
what do people think?
Is Jesus, God the Son, eternally subordinate to the Father, or was it temporal during His Incarnation?

 

[depthdeception]

That was not the point. The point is that the Bible never mentions or identifies a three person God.

I agree. That is why Christians do not believe in a "three-person God." We believe in the Triune God. Moreover, even if you were using the right language (which you are not), it would not matter. Christians are defined by their belief in the Trinity and in the deity of Christ. If you do not believe in these realities, you are not a Christian. Period.

 

[Sentry]

Only if you refuse to accept what is plainly stated by Christ Himself.

Really?

And what did Christ "plainly state"?

 

[Sentry]

I agree. That is why Christians do not believe in a "three-person God." We believe in the Triune God.

LOL. Same thing my friend.

 

[depthdeception]

LOL. Same thing my friend.

No, not at all.