Trinity

[-=T=-]

Do you believe that the Trinity was invented during the Nicene creed, or rejected until then? How could the Nicene Council enforce something if it was rejected by everyone? Please substantiate.

Sorry, I should have said "The Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and didn't gain widespread acceptance until at least the Nicene creed."

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."
~ The New Catholic Encyclopedia - (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

 

[duendy]

dont know whether you will LISTEN but here goes. we are talking about the "Trinity" and the "Son" right...?

ok, listen: the idea of the Trinity as used by patriarchal christianity was a complete rip off from the Goddess mythic poetical associations of the phases of the moon with the Feminine....ie., Waxing/Maiden, Full Moon/Mother, Waning/Crone........how does this originary trinity differ from the proceeding masculinized trinity of "God"? well the Goddess-Moon trinity is inclusive of the ciycles of lifedeathregeneration, whereas the patriarchal trinity is goal-directed to a 'heaven' or 'transformed earth, thus implying the one wees got is not-right! meaning the NATURAL world. not the godawful mechanical desacrilized 'world' we are oppressed in


The "Son"......again the patriarchas apporpriated the idea of the "Son of God" from the much much more primeval Son/lover of the Goddess
in the latter's much more sensible myth, the Son is Nature/ the everlivingeverdyingeverregenerating son/sun/`Divine Child'..and hallucinogenic phallic-shaped mushroom, who when eat dies and is reborn. for example the celebrant who eats the hallucinogen becomes 'possessed' by the god and 'both' die and are reborn. meaning that any rigidity to the sense of being intimate with Nature cosmoc and community of people animals and so on is re-solved and one is 're-born'

 

[-=T=-]

"No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity . . . Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands of martyrs . . . The Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such person, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."
-- Thomas Jefferson: Letter to James Smith, Dec. 8, 1822

 

[Cyperium]

Lol, ok now i see that my original post was a little to long with to many questions anyway thank you fore your response:




So you are saying that Jesus(pbuh) was a sinner and not perfect?

Romans 6:10
10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

Romans 8:3-4
3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

2 Chorinthians 5:21
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 Peter 2:24-25
24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Well i get this from everyday life....to be a son means that your father was there 1st right? who was here 1st you or your father? usually who knows more the father or son? are you and your father ever the same person?

I can understand that, but everything that God tells Jesus to do, Jesus does. When it comes to the first father, and the first son, it must be considered another way.

Ive been taught that this means that to live like the "son" lives means that you will see God one day but this does contridict(sp?) what the Bible says elsewhere doesnt it?

It doesn't have to mean that.

Turn your attention to Matthew 5:8
Matthew 5:3-10
3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Well then ALL of us are God's sons? thought Jesus was God's only begotten son?(david is also called this in Psalms though)

Well, if we live in Jesus then we are considered sons of God from what I can understand.

Kinda important though dont you think??

Yes, but anyway that God had to save us, we would still ask ourselves "wasn't there another way?", even Jesus asked if there wasn't another way, but He also said "but do not my will, but yours". Thus this is beyond my understanding, and I don't know.

Didnt Lazurus also?

Jesus brought Lazarus back by Gods will. This doesn't mean that Lazarus himself defeated death.

Why would there be any mistakes if it was inspired by God? God isnt the author of confusion right? How do you know the difference between mistakes and truths?Although man did write it if God inspired it then it would be error free right?

Well, it's not that easy. First of all, men wrote it allthough they were inspired by God. But the error-free interpretation comes when you also inspired read it.

The words of the Bible can be used in many different ways. It was written by spirit and thus can only be fully understood by spirit (it wasn't written with the understanding of men, but men wrote words moved by the holy spirit).

But he said his mission wasnt universal he was sent to the Jews ( i do agree that we should live our lives like Jesus lived his though)

He didn't say that His mission weren't universal, He said that He was sent to Israel. He didn't, for example, do signs here in my country (Sweden), He did signs in Israel. Through Israel the rumor of Him was spread throughout the world.

Peace to you

Peace to you too.

 

[Jenyar]

Why should the true nature of God be "comprehensible to the human mind"? The trinity wasn't invented to satisfy some crazy whim. It had to be formulated to explain what was plainly evident from the earliest beliefs - and the words of Jesus recorded in the New Testament.

How would you describe the relationship Jesus implied:

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

1 John 5:6 "This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth."​

Or this formulation:

Luke 1:35
The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."​

This was way before Nicene. You don't have to call God a trinity, but what do you think with the verses above in mind? Reading them, how do you manage to keep the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit separate, keeping in mind there is only one God. One more:

John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.​

 

[-=T=-]

The trinity was invented to satisfy some crazy whim.

Your slip is showing.

It had to be formulated to explain what was plainly evident from the earliest beliefs - and the words of Jesus recorded in the New Testament.

I might feel better about this idea, if it was as "plainly evident" as you suggest. I don't see it that way.

As you know, John is the only place in the Bible where Jesus claims divinity (esp. John 10:30). Why? There are many things in John that conflict with the Synoptics. Shouldn't the teachings of Jesus that actually agree (the synoptics), be given "more weight" than the ramblings of a much later, anti-semitic, probably Greek, mystical writer (the author of John)? Why does Jesus not mention his divinity in the other gospels?

Why is something this critical only found here? Why not in the historical narrative of Luke?

If this concept of Trinity was as evident as you suggest, there would have been no questions about it. There would have been no need to add the Filioque Clause to the Nicene Creed.

How would you describe the relationship Jesus implied:

1 John 5:6 - This, to me, also does not necessarily imply a trinity. Your interpretation may vary.

In Luke 1:35, I really can not see any evidence of a trinity concept. Indeed if anything it seems to underscore the separateness of "the three".

John 14:26 - Again, emphasizes separateness, imo.

"The fourth gospel is of exceedingly little worth as a historical document and the Christian theologians themselves describe it as 'pneumatic'-that is, spiritual-Gospel because it can be accepted only as a philosophical Christological dissertation."
Marcello Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p312

P.S.... Let's not forget:
John 14:28
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

 

[Jenyar]

Jesus forgave sins, and that was someting only God himself could do. Jesus clearly implied that He did it with special authority. The text in Luke indicates a clear and direct relationship between Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit (the Spirit has been understood since the Old Testament to signifify the holy presence of God). The most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus did not expect people to believe things only because he said so: he let them come to their own conclusions. It's easy to claim authority, but God wanted their faith to be justified, not their doubts.

You question John's credentials, but you can still use John 14:28 to support your case? The traditional answer is that Jesus, being a mortal man, cannot consider himself to be equal to God in authority, but that does not exclude the fact that God considers him so.

In John 14:26, Jesus says God will send the Holy Spirit in Jesus' name - that's significant considering who the Holy Spirit is.

But the real question was whether early Christians considered Jesus to be one with God (not even the Jews had a problem considering the Holy Spirit to be "of God" and yet not separate from Him, so only the the third "essence" remains: Jesus) before Nicene.

Colossians 2:6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.​

As you can see, this is from Paul's epistle to the Collosians. Judging from the fact that we still have the epistle, it is evident that at least they accepted this. People would have noticed if Collosians was only slipped and pronounced authorative when Nicea needed it to be. The whole chapter should be of interest to you. Unless you are going to denounce John and Paul now.

Why does Jesus not mention his divinity in the other gospels?

Matthew 28:17
When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."​

You have to ask yourself: what did these words mean to the people who heard it? What conclusions could they come to?

 

[surenderer]

Jesus forgave sins, and that was someting only God himself could do. Jesus clearly implied that He did it with special authority. The text in Luke indicates a clear and direct relationship between Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit (the Spirit has been understood since the Old Testament to signifify the holy presence of God). The most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus did not expect people to believe things only because he said so: he let them come to their own conclusions. It's easy to claim authority, but God wanted their faith to be justified, not their doubts.

You question John's credentials, but you can still use John 14:28 to support your case? The traditional answer is that Jesus, being a mortal man, cannot consider himself to be equal to God in authority, but that does not exclude the fact that God considers him so.

In John 14:26, Jesus says God will send the Holy Spirit in Jesus' name - that's significant considering who the Holy Spirit is.

But the real question was whether early Christians considered Jesus to be one with God (not even the Jews had a problem considering the Holy Spirit to be "of God" and yet not separate from Him, so only the the third "essence" remains: Jesus) before Nicene.

Colossians 2:6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.​

As you can see, this is from Paul's epistle to the Collosians. Judging from the fact that we still have the epistle, it is evident that at least they accepted this. People would have noticed if Collosians was only slipped and pronounced authorative when Nicea needed it to be. The whole chapter should be of interest to you. Unless you are going to denounce John and Paul now.

Matthew 28:17
When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."​

You have to ask yourself: what did these words mean to the people who heard it? What conclusions could they come to?

You defend your opinion very well but can you not see how people would be confused(remember God says he isnt the author of confusion) when you have nothing that Jesus(pbuh) says that DIRECTLY says he is part of a "threesome" for example:

For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak." [John 12:49]

I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master,
nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him." [John 13:16]


"Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me,
for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord,
but he sent me." [ John 8:42] (doesnt that sound like God created Jesus and sent him down to us not that Jesus was "always there")?

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in
heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." [Mt 13:32](so when Jesus came to earth although he was God he wasnt all knowledgable?)

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of
heaven, but My Father only." [Mt 24:36]


Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." [Mt 7:21]
Wasnt he Lord? (Doesnt this show what he thought of people who called him that?)

"And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges." [John 8:50]
etc.....etc.....etc..... can you see the confusion?

 

[okinrus]

Sorry, poor choice of words. I should have said "The early church screwed up big time by allowing the publishing of bibles".

I'm uncertain what you mean exactly by early church and publishing of bibles. Iranaeus records that Scripture was only within the Church and that the gnostics did not have copies.

Of course, the availability of the Bible really exploded with the advent of English translations and the press, and even up until that time (15th century) there was still resistance to the idea of a Bible for the "common" man.

There were (I think incomplete)english translations before that, but they weren't widely used because those who could read could also read latin.

"Canon Law" is still a human construct, and is subject to "tweaking"-- witness the Codex Iuris Canonici (Code of Canon Law, CIC), which was published in 1983.
Some Orthodox canon scholars point out that, had the Ecumenical Councils (which deliberated in Greek) meant for the canons to be used as laws, they would have called them nomoi/????? (laws) rather than kanones/??????? (standards).

The point that I'm making is that the Pope cannot proclaim doctrines at will, but must go through an extensive process.

No. I guess that is the point that Thomas Hart was making in that quote.

Well, without a reference to back up, there's no proof that one would dominate. Does the virtue of kindness dominate justice?

Can you recognize the unnecessary complexity that was introduced into the religion by the adoption of the man-made trinity doctrine?

I don't think it's that complex. If you believe that God knows the future, someone could also make a claim that a given man was destined not to commit some sin(read incapable of commiting).

 

[-=T=-]

You question John's credentials, but you can still use John 14:28 to support your case?

Heh... that was supposed to be ironic. It's not exactly my case. It just seems to me that there is very compelling historical (AND scriptural) evidence to suggest that the Trinity doctrine was foisted upon Christianity by political figures for political reasons.

not even the Jews had a problem considering the Holy Spirit to be "of God" and yet not separate from Him

Examples? (note: I infer that it is your view that to be "of God" is the same as being God Himself?)

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

"Do you believe that this scripture shows us that Jesus is the Almighty God ? If so, then to be fair and consistent, you would have to believe that we are Christ because it says that Jesus is the fullness of the Deity Or Godhead and we are the fullness of Christ. No one uses this verse to say that we are Christ yet many use it to say that Jesus is the Almighty God."*

Unless you are going to denounce John and Paul now.

Don't even get me started!

...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

You have to ask yourself: what did these words mean to the people who heard it? What conclusions could they come to?

Sounds like three distinct entities to me. Why would it mean otherwise to "the people who heard it"?

There are many sects of Christianity that reject the Trinity doctrine--Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, the Unification Church, Unitarian Universalists, and Oneness Pentecostals, among others.... What of them?

For a fascinating (and exhaustive!) discussion of this topic from a totally scriptural POV please check out:
http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity.htm
Every scripture that you can quote to support trinitarian belief is addressed at this site.

* From the heaven.net link.

 

[okinrus]

=-T-=, the rejection of Scriptural points such as John 1 are made with the false understanding of Greek grammar as noted <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-r001.html">elsewhere</a>

Revelation tells us that Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, and Isaiah tells us that there is no Savior, no Redemption, and no Judge but Yahweh. Hence, you cannot really be Christian while denying that Jesus is God. To deny Jesus is God means that Jesus is neither a Savior nor a Judge.

 

[-=T=-]

Hence, you cannot really be Christian while denying that Jesus is God.

Perhaps not ...using your particular definition of "Christian". I think I prefer Thomas Jefferson's definition...

(Please forgive my extensive use of quotes, but I feel they are important to the topic.)

=====================================
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics of deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature."
----- To C. Thompson, 1816
=====================================
The genuine and simple religion of Jesus will one day be restored: such as it was preached and practised by himself. Very soon after his death it became muffled up in mysteries, and has been ever since kept in concealment from the vulgar eye. To penetrate and dissipate these clouds of darkness, the general mind must be strengthened by education.
----- To Van der Kemp, 1820
=====================================
"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.

1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing.
3 That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in its faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.

Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.

But much I fear,* that when this great truth shall be re-established, its votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of creed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the religion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama; that they will give up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato. How much wiser are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale of common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren. Be this the wisdom of Unitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within its charitable circumference all who believe in one God, and who love their neighbor! I conclude my sermon with sincere assurances of my friendly esteem and respect.
----- To Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June 26, 1822
=====================================
"Altho' I rarely waste time in reading on theological subjects, as mangled by our Pseudo-Christians, yet I can readily suppose Basanistos may be amusing. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. If it could be understood it would not answer their purpose. Their security is in their faculty of shedding darkness, like the scuttlefish, thro' the element in which they move, and making it impenetrable to the eye of a pursuing enemy, and there they will skulk."
----- To Van der Kemp, 1816
=====================================
* Sadly, it would appear that Jefferson's fears have been realized.

You are certainly free to believe in the trinity, but please do not impose this belief on others who do not, and who would (rightfully) call themselves Christians.
Take care.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: duendy, what if, say, you and I got together to write a new bible filled with the TRUTH?

 

[786]

=-T-=, the rejection of Scriptural points such as John 1 are made with the false understanding of Greek grammar as noted <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-r001.html">elsewhere</a>

Revelation tells us that Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, and Isaiah tells us that there is no Savior, no Redemption, and no Judge but Yahweh. Hence, you cannot really be Christian while denying that Jesus is God. To deny Jesus is God means that Jesus is neither a Savior nor a Judge.

Hey, sorry for budding in. But this is funny you bring this up. Here is a link that you should read. It is about "Alpha and the Omega".

http://www.logon.org/english/s/p229.html

Here is a quote from the article.

The titles Alpha and Omega and the other terms used particularly in the book of Revelation answer Greek philosophical concerns as well as state the obvious facts of the delegation of the position of elohim to the elect through Jesus Christ.

Revelation 1:11 in the KJV has a reference to Alpha and Omega as applied to Jesus Christ. This title is absent in the RSV and the ancient texts (cf. Companion Bible note to the text). It appears only in the Receptus and hence the KJV.

The importance of this addition is in its use to conceal the sequence of what is happening in the application of the titles from God to Christ in the sequence of the prophecy of Revelation.

Hence the original text which reads more or less as the RSV:

Revelation 1:11 11 saying, "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Per'gamum and to Thyati'ra and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to La-odice'a." (RSV)

This text becomes in the KJV:

Revelation 1:11 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (KJV)

This insertion in the text is done specifically to support Trinitarianism and negate the intent of the rest of Revelation in this matter.

Revelation 1:8 explains this reference as applying to God who Revelation 1:6 says is the God and Father of Christ.

Revelation 1:8 8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. (RSV)

We see again the KJV using the Receptus deletes the words ho theos or The God and uses only kurios or Lord. The text then carries the entirely different and fraudulent intent of both texts referring to Christ when Alpha and Omega are distinctly vested in the Lord God and Father of Christ and not applied to Christ at all from the beginning. This has much to do with the theology as it was developed from the Greek philosophical and Trinitarian concerns we see here. It was a deliberate attempt at concealing the true nature of the position of Christ in relation to his God and elevating him in the false structure of the Trinity.

Revelation 1:8 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (KJV)

Revelation 1:17 and 2:8 do not contain the words Alpha and Omega. They use protos and eschatos which imply another concept in distinction to the Alpha and Omega.

Revelation 1:17 17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, (RSV)

Revelation 2:8 8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: `The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life. (RSV)

The terms protos and eschatos carry the concepts contained in Revelation 3:14 where Christ is the arche or beginning of the creation of God as prototokos or first begotten as a spiritual son. He later became the only born God of John 1:18 (as theos or elohim or monogene theos).

This function is increased. At the return of Messiah and in the end process with the advent of the City of God, we see Messiah as Alpha and Omega. These titles were not applied to him initially, which is the motivation behind the false translations and additions.

In Revelation 22:13-16 we see the two titles become merged in Messiah as he comes as the bright and morning star.

Revelation 22:13-16 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood. 16 "I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star." (RSV)

He is given these titles as delegated power from God. As the protos of the creation he becomes one with the Alpha. As the eschatos of the creation he becomes one with the Omega as God becomes all in all (Eph. 4:6).

Revelation 21:6 shows the point when this event happens. Christ becomes the Alpha and the Omega and the arche and the telos. He is stated as arche or the beginning of the creation of God from Revelation 3:14. Here we have arche as beginning and telos as end. The word occurred is the collective neuter plural gegonan (cf. Rev. 16 and 17 and Marshall's Interlinear RSV). It is translated as it is done. However it means and Marshall renders it as it has occurred.

Revelation 21:6 6 And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment. (RSV)

It has occurred is translated as it is done to conceal the concept that this process of God becoming all in all commences with Christ who was not that way in the beginning.

We are thus dealing with a progressive concept of the activities of Messiah and the elect. "Behold I make all things new".

God is becoming all in all. Thus God is the Omega or end result of His own creation. The Trinitarian translators of the KJV deliberately hide this fact and concept from its readers.

This just shows how unreliable your Bible "interpretations" are.

Anyways, who told you that a Savior has to be a God? I'm just curious.
BTW I hope you search more into your religion. You will soon see the deceptions in your Bible.

Peace be unto you

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: Why should I waste my time? Because the world needs to be cleansed from evil xianity. That's why.
*************
Jenyar: "Why should the true nature of God be "comprehensible to the human mind"? The trinity wasn't invented to satisfy some crazy whim. It had to be formulated to explain what was plainly evident from the earliest beliefs - and the words of Jesus recorded in the New Testament.
*************
M*W: Why shouldn't the true nature of God be understood by the human mind? Are you saying you PREFER to stay brainwashed and ignorant. Well, I know SourStar does. But, why shouldn't we know? Maybe then we WOULD have more faith! That's so undeniably BLIND FAITH, and it's insane!
*************
Jenyar: How would you describe the relationship Jesus implied:
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
*************
M*W: Paul said that, but I know you don't know that. There's no difference in what Jesus ALLEGEDLY said than what I have said: God is Humanity, Humanity is God. "I and my Creator are One."
*************
Jenyar: 1 John 5:6 "This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth."
*************
M*W: First of all, Mary Magdalene is now believed to have written the gospel of John, so in interpreting this verse as I think she would have, she was saying that Jesus was born by a natural birth as anyone else -- by "water and blood." It was a very human and natural (as opposed to godly and supernatural) birth!

Mary Magdalene was probably more mystical than Jesus, and I believe it was Jesus who learned the ways of mysticism from MM!
*************
Jenyar: "Or this formulation: Luke 1:35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."
*************
M*W: The holy spirit is nothing more than a bioelectrical impulse that dwells in all creation. Please see duendy's explanation on an earlier post. We are ALL children of our creator, which is entirely explanable and not so divine or spiritual as you people think! To use the term "Son of God" is simply patriarchal verbage. Humanity is the "son" or more correctly "Child of God."
*************
Jenyar: "You don't have to call God a trinity, but what do you think with the verses above in mind? Reading them, how do you manage to keep the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit separate, keeping in mind there is only one God."
*************
M*W: "God" is not a "trinity." God is a natural force of pure positive energy that dwells within and enlivens the "body," "mind," and "spirit" of all creation, including that of humanity. The "trinity" concept of life was around before Jesus' time. In fact, the concept of the "trinity" was around about 35,000 BC. The idea of the "trinity" was masculinized about the 4th century AD. The original concept of the "trinity" was "Maiden," "Mother," and "Crone." The Triple Goddess. It was Paul's way of the further destruction of the feminine goddess principle. I understand you don't believe this, because, first, you are a misogynistic male. Secondly, the true "God" of the Universe was the creative female spirit. Thirdly, it is your Christian "god" who embodied the male aspect of "god." This god doesn't exist. Jesus MAY have lived, but he WAS NOT God! There is only ONE god, and not three in one nor one in three. The "trinity" aspect is the Body-Mind-Spirit of all creation.
*************
Jenyar: One more: John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
*************
M*W: Mary Magdalene was wise in the ways of mysticism and Goddess wisdom. She was saying here that the bioelectrical energy called the "holy spirit," comes from our creator, a pure force of positive energy, who has given humanity the capacity to learn above the lower mammals. MM promises that through the wisdom (sophia) she has been given from her "god" who I don't believe to be the xian god but a mother-goddess, she will remind those followers of Jesus about every teaching she has given them.

Finally, there is no salvation from a masculine (man-made) dying demigod savior. Salvation is already with us, "as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end."

 

[okinrus]

What I mean is that belief that Jesus is not divine would require you to believe that he neither saves nor judges. Because these two beliefs are fundamental Christian believes, and are recorded in the Bible, my understanding is that someone who holds such believes is not doctrinally Christian. That's not, however, to say that they cannot call themselves Christian, or that they won't be found to be Christians.

Anyways, who told you that a Savior has to be a God?

It is recorded in Isaiah along with Jeremiah.

 

[786]

What I mean is that belief that Jesus is not divine would require you to believe that he neither saves nor judges. Because these two beliefs are fundamental Christian believes, and are recorded in the Bible, my understanding is that someone who holds such believes is not doctrinally Christian. That's not, however, to say that they cannot call themselves Christian, or that they won't be found to be Christians.

Oh Really! Well I don't know much about Christian beliefs.

It is recorded in Isaiah along with Jeremiah.

Could you provide some verses.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

surenderer: You defend your opinion very well but can you not see how people would be confused(remember God says he isnt the author of confusion) when you have nothing that Jesus(pbuh) says that DIRECTLY says he is part of a "threesome" for example:

For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak." [John 12:49]
*************
M*W: Hi, surenderer, I'd like to add my three cents in, if you don't mind. Biblical scholars have recently determined that Mary Magdalene wrote the gospel of John. There are several related verses where John and MM appear together. That's what led the researchers to conclude that John was a code name for MM. As you know, MM was despised by the other male apostles. She, MM, was the Beloved Disciple, a title formerly attributed to John. With that in mind, I'd like to take a stab at what "John," the Beloved Disciple, is saying:

"I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master,
nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him." [John 13:16]

This is Mary Magdalene speaking, and there was no way MM could have been influenced by Paul, because Paul never knew her. I interpret her to be saying, "I, Mary Magdalene, tell you the truth, that no servant (meaning MM) is greater than the master (Jesus), nor is the message I bring to you greater than Jesus who sent me.
*************
surenderer: "Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me." [ John 8:42] (doesnt that sound like God created Jesus and sent him down to us not that Jesus was "always there")?

Mary Magdalene was snubbed by the male apostles, so Jesus told them that, "If God were YOUR father, you would love MM, for she proceeded and came forth from God; she came not on her own accord, but God who sent her."

Replacing MM where John is speaking, replacing she with he, tells the story from MM's point of view. I don't want to hear any xian comments about this, because I did not CREATE this theory. But I believe it.
*************
surenderer: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." [Mt 13:32](so when Jesus came to earth although he was God he wasnt all knowledgable?)
*************
M*W: This could be ambiguous, because when the Son is mentioned, it could be the son of Jesus and MM. However, in this case, I believe when the Son is mentioned, it refers to MM, and Father refers to Jesus. Hence the 2000 year confusion about the trinity. Of course they had to make up the concept of a trinity to suppress the knowledge about Jesus and MM!
*************
surenderer: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." [Mt 24:36]
*************
M*W: Matthew was influenced by Paul. Paul's epistles were written BEFORE the gospels, so Mark, Matthew and Luke (Paul's good friend and later enemy) repeated what Paul had said NOT Jesus! Here Jesus is implying that he is not God. Jesus believes god is omniscient and is admitting that he, himself, is NOT GOD!
*************
surenderer: Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." [Mt 7:21]
*************
M*W: Written by Matthew, who is speaking FOR JESUS and NOT translating what Jesus may or may not have said. Matthew is implying here that Jesus believes his followers are his friends in name only, calling him 'lord, lord,' and urges them to do the will of their creator.
*************
surenderer: Wasnt he Lord? (Doesnt this show what he thought of people who called him that?)
*************
M*W: In those days, and even into the middle ages, the title 'lord' meant a 'governer' or 'procurator.' Jesus may have been called lord as he was a rabbi over the temple which was his jurisdiction. The title Joseph means close to that, but I believe the title 'Joseph' means more like a 'mayor' or leader of a larger area. Josephs were usually land-owners. Lords could be land owners, but they were more like landLORDS!
*************
surenderer: "And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges." [John 8:50]
*************
M*W: Again, this is MM speaking, trying to explain to those MCP apostles that she does not seek her own glory, but God, who is the one who seeks and judges."

I believe MM was teaching about the creator and the metaphysical spirit in us all. Do you ever wonder why Jesus chose MM as the Apostle of the Apostles? As much as I've read about MM, I believe she was Jesus' spiritual teacher.
*************
surenderer: etc.....etc.....etc..... can you see the confusion?
*************
M*W: As clear as day!

 

[Jenyar]

You defend your opinion very well but can you not see how people would be confused(remember God says he isnt the author of confusion) when you have nothing that Jesus(pbuh) says that DIRECTLY says he is part of a "threesome" for example:

For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak." [John 12:49]

I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master,
nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him." [John 13:16]

And:

Matthew 11:27; cf. Luke 10:22
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.​

"Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me,
for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord,
but he sent me." [ John 8:42] (doesnt that sound like God created Jesus and sent him down to us not that Jesus was "always there")?

God was always there, and Jesus proceeded and came forth from Him - not "was created" by Him. To confirm this, read the rest of John 8 (which isn't written by someone else):

54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in
heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." [Mt 13:32](so when Jesus came to earth although he was God he wasnt all knowledgable?)

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of
heaven, but My Father only." [Mt 24:36]

It is not knowledge that God has made available to Jesus as a man. Can God keep knowledge from himself? Aparently yes. Your hand is still part of your arm, and still part of your body, even though it has no brain of its own. Jesus was doing God's will and only God's will (John 5:19). Part of God's will was not to let anyone know the time of his judgment, and Jesus did not go outside God's will, not even for more knowledge than he was given.

Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." [Mt 7:21]
Wasnt he Lord? (Doesnt this show what he thought of people who called him that?)

It shows that words mean nothing if they are not supported by actions. Jesus refutes the idea that you can do what you like and still go to heaven just because you're a "Christian" or a "believer". Obedience to God is to accept Christ as His son, who adopted us as sons:

Ephesians 6:6
Obey them ... like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.​

"And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges." [John 8:50]
etc.....etc.....etc..... can you see the confusion?

Again, see John 8 above. Especially v.43: "Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say."​

 

[Jenyar]

Heh... that was supposed to be ironic. It's not exactly my case. It just seems to me that there is very compelling historical (AND scriptural) evidence to suggest that the Trinity doctrine was foisted upon Christianity by political figures for political reasons.

You first have to prove that our understanding of who Christ (and the Spirit) is in relation to God is not implicit in the Bible, even though not expressed in the formulation of "trinity". The disciples and first Christians understood many things, but they didn't explain everything they believed. We have to infer it from what they said to each other. There understanding wasn't complete, but it was sufficient.

Examples? (note: I infer that it is your view that to be "of God" is the same as being God Himself?)

This is from the Sepher Yetzirah, the Jewish book of formation:

9. The ineffable Sephiroth give forth the Ten numbers [the Ten Commandments]. First; the Spirit of the God of the living; (20) Blessed and more than blessed be the Living God of ages. The Voice, the Spirit [ruach], and the Word [DBR], these are the Holy Spirit.
10. Second; from the Spirit He produced Air... Third; from the Air He formed the Waters, and from the formless and void... - Sepher Yetzirah​

The same word for Spirit, "ruach" appears in Genesis: "Now the earth was formless and void, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the ruach (Spirit) of God was hovering over the waters (Genesis 1:2). Present before creation, in other words. In the Babylonian Talmud:

...fear of sin leads to saintliness, saintliness leads to the [possession of] the holy spirit, the holy spirit leads to life eternal - ‘Abodah Zarah 20b​

How was the Spirit active in the Old Testament?

Numbers 11
29 But Moses replied, "Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the LORD's people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit [ruach] on them!"

Psalm 51:11
Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.

Isaiah 63:10
Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them.

Now how would you describe this, keeping in mind that these are quotes from the Jewish Bible, who have no time for the Trinity either. Was the Spirit of God from God, of God, part of God, or separate from God - and what's the difference? If it was "just the inspiration" of God, how could it be present before any man existed to be inspired, and how can it be grieved? What is this "spirit" that God commands and makes people speak words that are from God (prophecy)? We see that it makes God's will known, and it is the experienced by people as the power, presence (Shekinah) and wisdom of God.

"Do you believe that this scripture shows us that Jesus is the Almighty God ? If so, then to be fair and consistent, you would have to believe that we are Christ because it says that Jesus is the fullness of the Deity Or Godhead and we are the fullness of Christ. No one uses this verse to say that we are Christ yet many use it to say that Jesus is the Almighty God."*

They missed the part "in bodily form" aparantly, because nowhere does it say we are Christ "in bodily form". Now compare this:

Galatians 4:6
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."​

Sounds like three distinct entities to me. Why would it mean otherwise to "the people who heard it"?

Because they, like Christians, believe in only One God. Jesus is not a different or a separate entity, and made it exceptionally clear that His "Father" - the One in whose relation his claims stood or fell - was none other than this God.

There are many sects of Christianity that reject the Trinity doctrine--Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, the Unification Church, Unitarian Universalists, and Oneness Pentecostals, among others.... What of them?

Each is a case to explore on its own. I'm not interested in what they say, but what the Bible says - it's what they claim to be their source as well, isn't it?

For a fascinating (and exhaustive!) discussion of this topic from a totally scriptural POV please check out:
http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity.htm
Every scripture that you can quote to support trinitarian belief is addressed at this site.

I'm not sure what they're trying to do. They call people out of the church and into the Church at the same time. I don't know how you can read their website and not be confused in this respect, unless I've missed something.

They quote the following verses in great confidence that it shows Jesus is "just" the Son of the Living God:

Colossians 1:12-16
12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light.
13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

Hebrews
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.​

They agree that Jesus was not created, but begotten (appointed). But they don't say what this means. I have no problem with someone not willing to formulate these things as a "trinity", but that's no excuse not to believe what Jesus did say about himself. At least these people do. Their faith is genuine, and though they might condemn my belief, I won't condemn theirs. They include the following:

1 Corinthians 1:24
but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.​

Christ is considered the uncreated Son from whom all sons proceed. From our perspective, we cannot see God without looking through Jesus. It's as simple as that. We are God's work, and He has given us Christ to present the life He gave us through his Spirit.

The problem with seeing Jesus and God's Spirit as destinctly separate from God is that you can conveniently take God out of the picture when you talk about them. That's most people's goal when attacking the Trinity. To make God's work more human and less significant, and our response to it less compulsory.