Trinity puzzle solved...?

TruthSeeker

Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey
Valued Senior Member
I got this idea some days ago. I compared the Trinity with the three aspects of God. That's what I've got...

.......Father
....../.........\
...../............\
Son-----------Holy Spirit

...............Ominipotence
.................../....\
................../......\
................./........\
Omniscience-------Omnipresence

The Father is usually referred in the Bible when we are talking about the power of God.

The Son is mostly referred with omniscience, as He knows God.

The Holy Spirit is the easiest one to get. It's said in the Bible that the Holy Spirit is everywhere.

Love,
Nelson
 
I HAVE A BETTER GRAPH

.......Father
....../.........\
...../............\
Son-----------Holy Spirit


...............................mythology
...................... ....../..............\
............................/................\
.......misunderstanding---------pure fantasy
 
Fantasy is reality, illusion is reality, all is real and all is equal.
What some perceive as real may only SEEM like unreal to others if they have not the proper set of eyes to look through.
 
Bebeline,

First I read I didn't understand.
The second time I thought like Xev
Now I start to think like you:D (been listening all day to trance music, so my mind is tuned up now;))
A little analysis.

Fantasy is reality......it is real for your brain as electrical signals, It may be fully real in your mind, but it can't be a material object.

Ilusion is real for the ones who observe it.

All is real ir you choose your defiition of real carefully;):D

All is equal.......we all consist of particles, don't we

We perceive spacetravel as real- tell it to a bishop in 10th century and you'll get burnt.

I'll sound up tht trance, Bebelina serves the weed or smth other she's got for me and Xev. What a nice evening we shall have:p
 
Well, I´m sorry, I haven´t had anything to smoke for months! Anyway, drugs are bad for you, didn´t you know? Especially for little custards. ;)
See me as a warning example. :D

Avatar, I think you got it...somehow. :p
Keep listening to that trance and it will get even clearer soon.

 
Anyway......wasnt the trinity invented about 200 years after Jesus lifetime. A quote from the watchtower


"In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."
http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_03.htm

The trinity has no basis in the BIble, the concept of it didnt exist in the New Testament. Why do some Christians firmly believe it when it was clearly created a couple of centuries later. Wont those Christians go to hell for worshipping a false 3 headed God?
 
"""""""The trinity has no basis in the BIble, the concept of it didnt exist in the New Testament. Why do some Christians firmly believe it when it was clearly created a couple of centuries later. Wont those Christians go to hell for worshipping a false 3 headed God?""""""

It didn't come later. I think if one understands the Jewish monotheism of the period they will see that the Gospels clearly ascribe deity to Jesus. I think Mark even offers us a high Christology and its the earliest of the group.

Joe Nobody.
 
This topic has been on sciforums before (at http://www.sciforums.com/t5647/s/thread.html ) but there was a really good posting done by Markx, which showed that Jesus himself taught his followers that he wasnt an equal to God, whether he was Gods son or not.

Originally posted by Markx

Re: Re: 1+1+1=1? What's Up with the Trinity?
Randolfo,
Nothing against you and no disgrace to your religion. But it seems to me that Jesus was trying to tell you all something, and entire christian world miss that and follows what paul,mark and matthew wrote in there. Now let me give you little expample what jesus was trying to say, and yet you still will miss this point.



"Some Forgotten Sayings of Jesus"

Any believer can call God “Father” according to the Bible
Jesus, at the end of his mission, made it clear that God is not only his father, but father of all, and God of all, and even his own God whom he worshipped throughout his earthly career. He said:
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17 RSV 1952)
The writer who is Paul also made it clear that any believer can address God as “Father.” He wrote:
"We cry, Abba, Father" (Romans 8:15 KJV 1611).
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
“. . . Do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. (Matthew 23:1,9 NIV 1984)
According to Matthew, Jesus taught the crowds to call God ‘Father’. He said to them:
“This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name . . .’ ” (Matthew 6:9 NIV).

Jesus made it clear that he is not God when he said:
“Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 10:18)
A man had ran up and knelt before Jesus and called him “Good Teacher.” Jesus used the opportunity to make it clear to people that they must not praise him more than a human being deserves to be praised.

Jesus depends on God for Authority: God depends on no one.
Jesus said:
“I can do nothing of my own authority” (John 5:30).
“I do as the Father has commanded me” (John 14:31 RSV).
Needless to say, God does not receive commands from anyone. Jesus said:
“The words that I say to you I do not speak of my own authority.” (John 14:10 RSV)
“I do nothing of my own authority but speak thus as the Father has taught me.” (John 8:28 RSV)
God has full authority, and full knowledge. He cannot be taught, but He teaches.

Jesus is not Equal to “The Father”
Jesus said:
“The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28 RSV).
People forget this and they say that Jesus is equal to the Father. Whom should we believe—Jesus or the people?

Jesus Does Not Know Everything
Speaking of the Last Day, Jesus said:
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” (Matthew 24:36).

Did Jesus Raise Himself up?
God raised him up. (Acts 2:24)
Jesus did not have power to raise himself up. God had to raise him up, as the author of Acts says.

Jesus prayed to God: God prays to no one. Jesus prayed, saying:
“Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt.” (Mark 14:32)
Jesus fell on his face and prayed to God, begging God to save him from crucifixion. This also shows that Jesus had a will different from God’s will. The writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us that it was Jesus’s wish to be saved from crucifixion, but it was God’s will to let the crucifixion take place. This shows that Jesus had a will different from the will of God, at least for a moment. Therefore he was not God. He declared in a moment of desperation:
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

Jesus did not know the tree had no fruit
He [Jesus] was hungry. And on seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it , he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs (Mark 11 12-13).
When he saw that the tree had leaves, he thought that he might find fruit on it. But when he came up close to the tree he realised there were no fruits. After all, it was not even fig season.

Bible calls Jesus Servant of God
“Behold my servant whom I have chosen.” (Matthew 12:18 In this passage God calls Jesus His servant)
"The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus" (Acts 3:13).

For truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus. . . (Acts 4:27).
Everyone, except for God, are God’s servants. Jesus, too, is God’s servant.

Who was real Worker of Miracles?
Bible says it was God who did the miracles through Jesus:
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: (Acts 2:22 KJV)
People say that since Jesus worked many miracles, he must be God. But here we see that God did the miracles; Jesus was the instrument God used to accomplish His work. Jesus was a man whom God approved of. This means he was a righteous man.

Jesus cannot guarantee positions
“To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father” (Matthew 20:23).
Therefore if we want to secure our position with God in the life hereafter we must turn to God and ask Him.

A Misunderstood saying
I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)
People like to quote this saying, but they forget the following saying:
John 17:11: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."
This shows that what was meant was one in purpose, not one in substance as people think. The disciples could not become one human, but they can pursue the same goal. That is to say, they can be one in purpose, just as Jesus and the Father are one in purpose.

Did Jesus say everything John says he said?
Consider the following sayings of Jesus found in John's Gospel alone:
John 14:9: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."
John 6:35: "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life."
John 8:12: "I am the light of the world."
John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am."
John 10:7: "I am the door of the sheep."
John 11:25: "I am the resurrection, and the life."
John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life."
John 15:1: "I am the true vine."


Christian scholars tell us that if Jesus had made all these fantastic claims about himself, the first three gospels would surely have recorded them. Mark was written around 70 C.E., followed by Matthew and Luke somewhere between 80-90 C.E. John, written around 100 C.E., was the last of the four canonized gospels. The Christian scholar James Dunn writes in his book The Evidence for Jesus:

“If they were part of the original words of Jesus himself, how could it be that only John picked them up and none of the others? Call it scholarly skepticism if you like, but I find it almost incredible that such sayings should have been neglected had they been known as a feature of Jesus’ teaching. If the ‘I ams’ had been part of the original tradition, it is very hard indeed to explain why none of the other three evangelists made use of them.” (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 36)

Similarly, the New American Bible tells us in its introduction, under the heading How to Read Your Bible:
“It is difficult to know whether the words or sayings attributed to Jesus are written exactly as he spoke them. . . . The Church was so firmly convinced that . . . Jesus . . . taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus’ sayings.” (St. Joseph Medium Size Edition, p.23)


What we have in John, then is what people were saying about Jesus at the time John was written (about 70 years after Jesus was raised up). The writer of John simply expressed those ideas as if Jesus had said them. Rev. James Dunn says further in his book that, almost certainly, the writer of the fourth gospel
“was not concerned with the sort of questions which trouble some Christians today — Did Jesus actually say this? Did he use these precise words? and so on.” (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 43)

Scholars have concluded that this gospel was originally written in a simple form. But this gospel was later on, as the New Jerusalem Bible says, “amplified and developed in several stages during the second half of the first century.” (The New Jerusalem Bible: Introduction to John, p. 1742)

It says further:
“It is today freely accepted that the fourth Gospel underwent a complex development before it reached its final form.” (p. 1742)
On a previous page, the same Bible says:
“It would seem that we have only the end-stage of a slow process that has brought together not only component parts of different ages, but also corrections, additions and sometimes even more than one revision of the same discourse.” (The New Jerusalem Bible, p. 1739)


The New American Bible says that most scholars “have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original.” (The New American Bible, Revised New Testament, p. 143)


Please read and think. Thank you.
 
Dracula's Guest,

I think I were in that tread...

Anyways... you are right. The trinity was "invented". It's a concept invented to "facilitate" the comprehension. That's because the Bible talks about the Father (God), Son (Christ) and Holy Spirit. They seem, actually, to be all ONE. The Bible says that they are One in Spirit. The fourth element is ourselves, which creates the relationship. The three "deities" are actually three aspects of the same god (or at least seems to be...). It's the best interpretation I've ever got. Better think further... ;)

Love,
Nelson
 
The trinity is a pure invention designed to romanticise the relationship between God, his son and the holy spirit. Markx made it clear in the original thread that Jesus wasn't an equal to God. I suggest you re-read his postings and the quotes he used from the new and old testament.

Some quotes from the watchtower website
http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_03.htm

The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."

Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: "The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the "Old Testament"] suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers."—Italics ours.

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."

Jesuit Fortman states: "The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."

Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it."—Origin and Evolution of Religion.
 
I know that... I'm just saying that the "Trinity" is convenient...
The Bible talks about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Bible doesn't say nothing about "Trinity"... but the relations between them are clear in the Bible...

Love,
Nelson
 
From the site...

"The book "The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals" says regarding a Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: "Shiva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction transformation, actually. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance. . . . To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form."—Published by A. Parthasarathy, Bombay."

That's what I'm talking about. But in my case, it's Christianism. They are certainly related to each other... :D:D:D

Love,
Nelson
 
Perhaps its conveniant, but are the relations between the Father, Son and Holy spirit actually "clear". I mean if you firmly believe the trinity then it might be possible to find signs of it in the Bible when its not actually there, while if you were to toss a copy of the Bible to an alien who has no knowledge of Christianity, they might arrive at a different conclusion. For instance, they might believe that the Holy spirit could be a highly sophisticated tool constructed by God to help him carry out his work (Like a spiritual equivalent of a swiss army knife), rather than an actual part of his being, and might regard Jesus as an independant spiritual power. Being Gods son might not necessarily mean they are part of the same entity.

The quote about the Hindu belief has confused me slightly, are you suggesting that Christianity has simply adopted the Hindu idea because some Christians in the 2nd or 3rd century needed to fill in some gaps? :confused:

Dont get me wrong, I'm not after anyone's blood, I'm just not convinced
 
Dracula's Guest,

Well... the Bible says that they are One in Spirit. That's the meaning of the "Trinity". That's what is written in the Bible. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One in Spirit. And we are to be One with them. Jesus is referred in the Bible as the "Son of God", but He is also referred as "Son of Man". I believe this means that Jesus, actually Christ, is a bridge between God and humans. The Bible says that Jesus IS the way to God... so this makes sense. An actual diagram to explain the Trinity with the element US is...

God-----Holy Spirit
...\........../
.....\....../
.....Jesus
........|
....Humans


About the Hindu quotation... that's just to show that all the Religions are actually the same with a different cultural and historical background. If you throw away the background and look to the Essence, they will all be the same. You see how similar they are... We can relate Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu to God Jesus and Holy Spirit (not respectively)...

Love,
Nelson
 
I have a better graph

a little edit continuing our tradition;)


Seeker


God-----Holy Spirit
...\........../
.....\....../
.....Jesus
........|
....Humans

----------------------
Avatar-

............Humans-----Yeshua...
.....................\.........../...........
........imagination and fantasy
.................|....................|
...........holy spirit...............|
...................................mythology
.........................................|
.............................christian god
 
Avatar... :D

Haha...
Do you remember what we are talking about in another thread...?
Don't hijack this one please... :D

Love,
Nelson
 
just expressing my opinion on the subject as everyone else. with a little graph
 
Back
Top