trinity idea

[ToHoldNothing]

How much understanding do you have about the Trinity that you don't already admit is based primarily, if not wholly in faith? Any explanations about the Trinity from a philosophical viewpoint are from a general theological perspective viewed as analogical and not equivocal. Any notions of the ideas (hypostasis, etc) don't suffice to truly explain God as it is, but only as people experience and believe God to be manifest vicariously in creation.

This is where it becomes purely subjective as to the nature of the multiplicity/plurality/diversity of "God", since even if there was some supposed "orthodox" standard about what Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit were in relation to each other, it doesn't give one justification to completely dismiss the other perspectives as complete fabrications by necessity except that independent thinking seems to be viewed as something dangerous, which hardly seems to sync up with the idea that the bible advocates philosophy, at least if we take Aquinas' understanding as an example.

 

[razeontherock]

How much understanding do you have about the Trinity that you don't already admit is based primarily, if not wholly in faith? Any explanations about the Trinity from a philosophical viewpoint are

Are completely irrelevant. Whatever is not of faith is sin. Remember, you're the one who can't figure out how any of these terms are used.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

If you're going to pull the "no true scotsman" fallacy on me as to my understanding of Christians communicating their beliefs not synching up with yours, then try pulling it on someone who can't recognize it regularly as you seem to be doing.

Your beliefs about faith, sin, etc, are your own and any claims that they reflect orthodoxy tend towards your individual perspective as you see yourself lining up with what you believe to be orthodoxy.

You have yet to define faith or sin in any significant or objective sense, considering these ideas are supposed to be somewhat self evident, albeit according to you also derived from revelation, so any definition you put forth would need to be qualified as tentative. But why not take the plunge and engage in a genuine dialogue?

 

[dlamberth]

3. This is the significance of Paul. You might consider checking into this some day. Or not. But please don't run around thinking you can speak for the Bible w/o making a mess of it, ok?

No one is making a mess of anything. Just speaking a bit of historical truth is all.

I'm looking at those first 2 or 3 generations of Jewish followers of Jesus. As you know, the NT Bible did not even exist at the time. That took another 375 years to make happen. So the teachings about Jesus, as were most teachings of those times, was primarily pass on by oral traditions. Oral tradition is mostly how Paul learned about Jesus. But by the writings that have bubbled to the surfaced we can now see that there was a wide variety of beliefs about Jesus in those ancient times.

It wasn’t until 185 years after the death of Jesus that the 4 gospels were pronounced as authority. And even than, for the next following 200 years the four gospels would be coupled with a myriad of different letters, epistles, stories and apocalypses, according to what a particular congregation judged as relevant to their understanding of Jesus Christ and his message.


.

 

[dlamberth]

Yes, you are right then about there being divergent views but when we know there was actually a central church in association with the Apostles that spanned across the entire realm of Christiandom -

For 325 years the early church could not agree on something as important to doctrine as the Divinity of Jesus Christ. One wonders what the Apostles really did teach being that it did take so long for this important element to be agreed upon…and with so many different beliefs about Jesus in the world during those ancient times.


.

 

[Booko]

You said ask the Jews, and my point which is very clear (and I don't believe you didn't get) is some Jews did believe it, and modern Jews are not a reliable authority on their own tradition in regards to Christianity since they have purposefully changed it in order to undermine Christianity.

I'm sure I must be misunderstanding something here. I don't understand how if someone earnestly believes something is from God, they would purposefully change it because they want to undermine something else.

I especially don't understand what you mean since it's an unsupported statement.

 

[Booko]

What Jesus taught and what those who followed afterwards and what they taught are two different things. We can see by the wide array of early Christian writings that there was no clear cut understanding about Jesus among the Jews who followed Him.

Which is why it had to be cleared up at Councils. In other words, it could hardly be called obvious.

The Church Fathers had a heck of a task trying to keep a nascent faith together. Seems they did that.

Would it really have been preferable for Christians to commit violence against each other over views of the nature of God and Christ's relationship to God? I don't think so.

(And for reference, I'm not a Trinitarian.)

 

[dlamberth]

Not true. Those who held divergent views did not know Jesus personally, but his Apostles all held the same view and the Bishops that they taught did as well. A good reference for this is Irenaeus.

Wait, there's more. Talking about divergent views, I was just looking through what Wiki says about Irenaeus, and I see that many of his views are much different than what Christians hold today, and different than others of his time.

.

 

[semper_virens]

Wait, there's more. Talking about divergent views, I was just looking through what Wiki says about Irenaeus, and I see that many of his views are much different than what Christians hold today, and different than others of his time.

.

Such as what? Saint Irenaeus is still taught and there are no problems with his ideas.

And yes, again, there were divergent views but they were not views of actual Christians who recieved their teachings from verified Bishops. All the divergent ideas like Marcion or Valentius, all the early Christian writings in contradiction to orthodox belief have known authors whose contemporaries told us were not Bishops, so that they existed is frankly immaterial. Counting the opinion of people who didn't even have Apostolic succession as making early Christian beliefs diverse makes about as much sense as counting my belief that Baha'u'allah' is not a prophet as a Baha'i opinion.

 

[semper_virens]

I'm sure I must be misunderstanding something here. I don't understand how if someone earnestly believes something is from God, they would purposefully change it because they want to undermine something else.

I especially don't understand what you mean since it's an unsupported statement.

The current Hebrew bible (the Masoretic text) has dropped several books (the Deuterocanon) that previously were uncontested as being part of the bible.

 

[Booko]

The current Hebrew bible (the Masoretic text) has dropped several books (the Deuterocanon) that previously were uncontested as being part of the bible.

OK, so uh how does that explain who purposefully changed the text because they wanted to undermine something else?

Who are the people who did that, what did they seek to undermine, and how do we know their motivations for their actions?

Thanks.

 

[dlamberth]

Whatever is not of faith is sin.

I'm sorry, that strikes me as a ridicules statement. And I start with the experimental aspect of the Trinity as an example for why. When one stops and open their heart to each aspect of the Trinity and "experiences" each part of God, that moment becomes an awareness of experience. That heart opened experience is way beyond faith. And it's not sin.

But than when one takes it a step further towards the God Head and follows each aspect of the Trinity down to where they become One, again we find a heart opened experience that is beyond faith. And that's not sin either.

.

 

[Truth light]

I'm sorry, that strikes me as a ridicules statement. And I start with the experimental aspect of the Trinity as an example for why. When one stops and open their heart to each aspect of the Trinity and "experiences" each part of God, that moment becomes an awareness of experience. That heart opened experience is way beyond faith. And it's not sin.

But than when one takes it a step further towards the God Head and follows each aspect of the Trinity down to where they become One, again we find a heart opened experience that is beyond faith. And that's not sin either.

.

Actually, trinity for non-christians makes no sense.
For christians, it's beyond their comprehention.

jesus himself didn't know that word

 

[Truth light]

why was it only discovered by christians ?
ALL NATIONS BEFORE AND AFTER THEM DON'T ACCEPT IT
OT didn't ever mentioned it
such a serious beleif is easy to kept secret ?!
do you know ?

N,B
indians have nothing to do with this

Any ideas ?

 

[Supreme]

Actually, trinity for non-christians makes no sense.
For christians, it's beyond their comprehention.

jesus himself didn't know that word

Jesus didn't speak English. (He spoke Aramaic).

 

[dlamberth]

Actually, trinity for non-christians makes no sense.

For this non-Christian, the Trinity does make sense. It's where they meet and become One that I direct my worship and prayers.

.

 

[Jim99]

Tis a shame and I feel sorry for these posters who limit the ability of God.

In the beginning, it is clear, to me anyway, that the Lord, God All Mighty is capable of manifesting himself in any form or combination He desires to reveal Himself to the world.

Tis a shame that there are those that limit His ability to that of a mortal.

 

[Nick T]

The Old Testament Trinity​

Genesis 18:1-2: 1 The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

The Trinity before even the New Testament

 

[peaceful soul]

For this non-Christian, the Trinity does make sense. It's where they meet and become One that I direct my worship and prayers.

.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit don't become anything. God "IS". Never was there a time when they weren't as they are. You represent it as if 3 things merged at some point into one thing or that they are bridged at one central object of commonality. That never happened. God is: YHWH--"I AM WHO I AM".

The Trinity is three divine persons of one substance/essence, indivisible, co eternal, and coequal.

Persons of the Trinity posses the following characteristics:

1) an infinite spiritual being
2) a non material existence
3) mind, but a divine one--more complex
4) emotions, but not like ours, although similar
5) love, but in a more complex and profound way that human beings.
6) can communicate, but not with physical parameters such as ears, mouth, and hands
7) has awareness, but unlike mine
8) has a will, but unlike mine
9) has intellect, but more complex and profound than human persons
10) can speak and be spoken to.
11) eternal--uncreated

From the above characteristics, one can begin to understand why we are made in God's image; for, we are similar to Him in some ways. The list above are not exhaustive, but will suffice for the sake of discussion.

Christ didn't need a body to be a person. He existed as a person (divinity) from eternity and later took on flesh (human person). As a result, Jesus took on an additional nature (human) along with his already eternal nature as the divine Son of God. These two natures coexist in what is called a hypostatic union--totally separate, but not separate.

A human person is:

1) a body--material
2) a creature
3) bounded or limited to space
4) not as complex and as profound as a divine person of God.
5) non eternal

The point to this entire descriptive analysis is to help everyone to understand how the concept of Trinity applies to the Bible. I hope this helps.

 

[peaceful soul]

Actually, trinity for non-christians makes no sense.
For christians, it's beyond their comprehention.

jesus himself didn't know that word

It doesn't make sense to you mainly because you have been taught to see it that way; yet if I were to quiz you on some of the things of Islam, you would have the same problem trying to understand or make sense of them.

Think on that for a bit before you respond.