trinity idea

[yamin]

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 ?

There is no such thing as trinity. The problem is Christians tend to separate God from Jesus. However, the fact is Jesus was always God but simply in the second person.

God operates in three manifestations: spiritual, earthly, and both. Now in Islam, Allah sometimes refers himself to "Us". Why is that?

 

[Booko]

God operates in three manifestations: spiritual, earthly, and both. Now in Islam, Allah sometimes refers himself to "Us". Why is that?

It's a convention in some languages referred to as the "royal We"?

When Queen Victoria declared, "We are not amused" it should not be assumed she had a twin somewhere or suffered from multiple personality disorder.

How that convention may apply to Arabic or the text of the Qu'ran I don't know, but if there's some Arabic convention meant to convey sovereignty, any good translator would use the "royal we" when translating to English to preserve that meaning.

 

[Islam_mulia]

TRANSLATION: lalala, I can't hear you.


*yawn*

I enjoyed your defence of the trinity.

 

[Islam_mulia]

There is no such thing as trinity. The problem is Christians tend to separate God from Jesus. However, the fact is Jesus was always God but simply in the second person.

OK. So you think there is no trinity. What do you call your version of Jesus being god then?

 

[GeorgeTwo]

OK. So you think there is no trinity. What do you call your version of Jesus being god then?

Ever hear of the incarnation? The Word became flesh?

 

[Truth light]

When your Allah says "Be" and things are created, his word proceeds from your Allah. Muslims do not believe Allah's "word" is another god besides Allah.

you mean "says" ?

There are some sects of Christianity who are not considered Christians. JW's and Mormons to name two.

who has the right to judge ?

The vast majority of Christians are Trinitarians.

Romans 1:25

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Are you sure that's the case ?

 

[Islam_mulia]

Ever hear of the incarnation? The Word became flesh?

I think I know what you think of incarnation, although my reply was to Yamin who does not believe in the trinity although he believes in some sort of "god being man" and I was curious what he call this belief.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I'd lay better odds on the Egyptians.

And even better odds on the Romans.

Triads of deities were not uncommon in the region. One doesn't have to go all the way to India.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Actually the trinity idea was foreign to both Egyptian mythology and Roman mythology, whom did not recognize the cohesiveness of a plurality of forms of a single God. Their gods were separate entities. In fact, the religion of Roman paganism was more of a hindrance to Paul and the disciples attempting to get people to believe in Yeshua. This was because a bodily resurrection was EXTREMELY foreign to them. And this is also consistent with the Bible, as we read for instance in Acts, where he is run out of Greece for teaching against Artemis.

 

[hamashiachagape]

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

Why do you have a problem accepting a hypostatical union of Jesus as God?

 

[merryheart]

When did it become wrong to urinate while standing? Why was this only discovered by Muslims? All nations before and after don't accept it.

well they should its filthy!

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by ToHoldNothing

I wasn't going with a demographic, I was going with a general set of characteristics of Christianity through history, particularly focus on Jesus and the God of Abraham with a new covenant to replace the old and such.

OK, but what is the standard for who is a Christian?

Affiliation doesn't equal association with the characteristics. It follows that Christians in the most general and scholarly sense are those that follow the teachings of one called Jesus Christ in relation to a belief in a creator God, whatever description they may give of it, without explicitly saying they are polytheistic in any sense of Greek or Roman religion for obvious examples. A group practicing cannibalism calling themselves Christians doesn't suggest that we should automatically recognize them as such. The reason scholarship tends to consider Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians by a general standard is because they're not considering the truth value of their statements,but the shared qualities with themselves and Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox for example.

My point was that anyone who says that they are Christian must be one because they say they are. There must be some minimum standard to determine this with. We just can't accept is as fact just because one says it is so. Even historically, we will find groups making the same claims; so, I don't see a standard to judge by if heretical groups are part of the landscape.

For another example, just because Tibetan and Mahayana Buddhism differ in many ways from Theravada doesn't mean they're not Buddhist in nature and essence.

It all depends upon the definition of Buddhism. We work from there and determine.

Similarly, there are different forms of Christianity, but the essence is virtually identical in the centering on Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ or Messiah.

There are different forms of everything. That gets us nowhere unless we have a working definition. The definition of Christianity is defined by Jesus and His early followers who were taught and appointed by Him.

Of course this does make a confusion with regards to Messianic Jews, but I suppose that's a distinction of cultural and religious Jewish identity

This may be a problem with some things, but not on who is a Christian. Jews are a different subject since there are ethnic Jews and converts of non Jewish origin. We also have to deal with the culture and traditions of Jews.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

OK, but what is the standard for who is a Christian?

One could start with the belief that Jesus is the core focus for attaining salvation and a relationship with "God"

My point was that anyone who says that they are Christian must be one because they say they are. There must be some minimum standard to determine this with. We just can't accept is as fact just because one says it is so. Even historically, we will find groups making the same claims; so, I don't see a standard to judge by if heretical groups are part of the landscape.

Heresy doesn't deny one the standing of being considered as part of a religion in the historical and general scholarly sense. Otherwise we wouldn't still basically accept that even if the Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants call each other heretics or false Christians, that they are all Christians by a very particular common idea that I noted above

It all depends upon the definition of Buddhism. We work from there and determine.

BUddhism is more fraught with difficulty because many insist it is more a philosophy than a religion, which can be a large divide of sorts in classification

There are different forms of everything. That gets us nowhere unless we have a working definition. The definition of Christianity is defined by Jesus and His early followers who were taught and appointed by Him.

It's defined by what we extrapolate and draw from general texts. Canon or otherwise, even.

This may be a problem with some things, but not on who is a Christian. Jews are a different subject since there are ethnic Jews and converts of non Jewish origin. We also have to deal with the culture and traditions of Jews.

I just admitted that, even including non Jews becoming Jews by conversion in the religious sense. Honestly, the same difficulty persists with those who have a Jewish identity and hold Christian beliefs and then the "Gentiles" that are converted from more "pagan" beliefs in the early history.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

OK. So you think there is no trinity. What do you call your version of Jesus being god then?

The one yamin seems to be advocating is Binitarianism, which if I remember correctly, regards the Holy Spirit as more metaphorical and reflective of the relationship of human with divine than a real entity in any sense. I could be wrong though

 

[Islam_mulia]

Why do you have a problem accepting a hypostatical union of Jesus as God?

If you have asked me, I would say that Jesus, whom you associate with God, never ever mention or claim such in the gospels.

 

[Montalban]

If you have asked me, I would say that Jesus, whom you associate with God, never ever mention or claim such in the gospels.

Based on your reading of the gospels!

 

[GeorgeTwo]

If you have asked me, I would say that Jesus, whom you associate with God, never ever mention or claim such in the gospels.

The "hypostatic Union" is a theological term to explain how the Christ could be both human and divine, based on the claims in the NT.

Jesus' Two Natures: God and Man | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[Booko]

OK, but what is the standard for who is a Christian?

At the core, Christian = follower of Christ. Having the Gospels as a central text would probably be a good addition to that.

They may be good or poor followers or they may be orthodox or heterodox, but if the main focus is Christ than logically they would be classified as Christians, as opposed to Buddhists, Hindus, Parsees, Muslims, Jews...etc.

There must be some minimum standard to determine this with.

I agree. And the standard above does that without getting into grey areas of who won what historical theological battle or trying to bend the uses of language into pretzel-shaped figures.

It also doesn't require orthodox Christians to accept heterodox beliefs as somehow normative when they clearly are not.

We just can't accept is as fact just because one says it is so. Even historically, we will find groups making the same claims; so, I don't see a standard to judge by if heretical groups are part of the landscape.

Sure there is. You could say for example that Mormons are heterodox Christians. Or heretical Chrsitians if you like. But they're still Christians of some sort.

That's accurate, fair-minded, not insulting, and I seriously doubt even Mormons would have a problem with that since they don't want to be seen as normative Christians anyway.

Really, I would hope that orthodox Christians might give us non-Christians a little credit for being able to read the Bible ourselves, learn about Christian history and practice, talk to Christians and learn from them, and figure out that the fringe elements claiming the name Christianity are...fringe.

Honestly, we're really not that stupid.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by ToHoldNothing

One could start with the belief that Jesus is the core focus for attaining salvation and a relationship with "God"

Absolutely!

Then add specific things such as 1) Jesus died for our sins, 2) the Holy Spirit is divine, 3) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not the same; each is God; and God is One; and 4) Jesus has a dual nature--of God and man.

Just those alone create a problems for many sects that claim to be Christian.

Heresy doesn't deny one the standing of being considered as part of a religion in the historical and general scholarly sense.

I do agree with you at least in part; but theologically speaking, we must actually look at the criteria within the Bible. Jesus and the Apostles tell us what the requirements are. In general terms, if one is not born again, he is not of God. The question becomes what determines who is born again. That is not always easy to determine by looking outwardly towards behavior. Even some people will answer yes to a series of questions but are far from being born again; but in general, we can tell upon closer examination. When looking at individual groups, their creeds become central to determining whether that group is Christian or not. The Nicaean Creed is a very good litmus test.

Otherwise we wouldn't still basically accept that even if the Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants call each other heretics or false Christians, that they are all Christians by a very particular common idea that I noted above

But, this has more to do with dogma than scripture. In general, both Protestants and Catholics agree to a minimum amount of requirements stipulated by the Bible and early Church creeds as do other orthodox Christians. We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ is not just repeating some creed, but the internal acceptance of who Jesus is and what He did for our salvation and how He dealt with our sins. If they don't believed that Jesus saved us from our sins, then they are not Christians since they have no mind and will to accept Him. They have not confessed Christ as their savior. No Christ--no salvation--no Christian.

BUddhism is more fraught with difficulty because many insist it is more a philosophy than a religion, which can be a large divide of sorts in classification

But can one be a Buddhist and not accept Buddha? I am sure there are some set of minimal requirements to be a Buddhist. If not, then the door is open for many types of beliefs.

It's defined by what we extrapolate and draw from general texts. Canon or otherwise, even.

Exactly! Isn't there an agreed upon set of minimal requirements?

One difference in Christianity is that Salvation only come through Jesus; so, one way or another--no matter what differences one may have with another--no one can claim to be a Christian without accepting Christ and His salvific works. There is no way around it! The other stuff that we call differences, heretical, etc. doesn't matter at that point. Our foundation rests upon who we believe Christ to be. The Apostles make it quite clear who Christ is. Apostle Paul makes is very clear that any teaching of Christ different from what has been preached by the Apostles is not of Christ. We do have those teachings available to see and read.

I just admitted that, even including non Jews becoming Jews by conversion in the religious sense. Honestly, the same difficulty persists with those who have a Jewish identity and hold Christian beliefs and then the "Gentiles" that are converted from more "pagan" beliefs in the early history.

There were difficulties at the beginning, but they were worked out as we see from the various meetings undertaken by the early Apostles and Church elders along with the help of the Holy Spirit. Even some of the very early Church councils helped to shape understanding of who was a Christian. They did a lot of the ground work for us today.

I do agree with you about the difficulties that may be present in identification of groups, but we have criteria to separate the various sects from orthodoxy. The reality is that some sects are marginal and are not as easily to separate because they agree very closely with establish creeds, but deny something that may or may not be deemed as essential; however, denying Christ and His salvation is not one of those negotiable ones.

 

[razeontherock]

Correct, there is no trinity.

What do you do w/ the passages where Jesus refers to "the Name of" the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

 

[razeontherock]

If you settle for truth "light," then

the Holy spirit is not God himself

you can be satisfied with blasphemy such as this. If you want the whole Truth, you will need to get to know the Holy Spirit, too ...