The Holy Trinity?

[emilynghiem]

Just kidding. I happen to love these funny creatures in these Nature shots that fascinate me. I just adore that little frog, who has no idea I am looking at him. Reminds me of a higher process going on in the world.

Do you see God as Life or Nature? Truth or Wisdom? Laws of Creation or the Universe
Do you see Jesus as Justice, or as the Antichrist that abuses people?
When you think of the Holy Spirit, do you think of the Human Spirit, healing and unity?
Or do you think of a premature baby hedgehog with a wrinkled up face, rescued from under a barn where his mother was trapped. (Isn't he cute??) I see divinity in life, and believe people were designed to study, understand and admire the beauty in the world as an intelligent, interactive and creative process of learning and growing. It's not about being self-centered and "anthropomorphic" but accepting full awareness and responsibility for how we impact the world around us, and vice versa. (And I like funny baby hedgehogs....)

What fascinates you most about the world, what captures your imagination and inspires you?
How does this affect the way you express your beliefs about life, and your perception of religious expressions and the future of humanity?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no Trinity. Jesus was clear, he is NOT his father.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Just kidding. I happen to love these funny creatures in these Nature shots that fascinate me. I just adore that little frog, who has no idea I am looking at him. Reminds me of a higher process going on in the world.

Do you see God as Life or Nature? Truth or Wisdom? Laws of Creation or the Universe
Do you see Jesus as Justice, or as the Antichrist that abuses people?
When you think of the Holy Spirit, do you think of the Human Spirit, healing and unity?
Or do you think of a premature baby hedgehog with a wrinkled up face, rescued from under a barn where his mother was trapped. (Isn't he cute??) I see divinity in life, and believe people were designed to study, understand and admire the beauty in the world as an intelligent, interactive and creative process of learning and growing. It's not about being self-centered and "anthropomorphic" but accepting full awareness and responsibility for how we impact the world around us, and vice versa. (And I like funny baby hedgehogs....)

What fascinates you most about the world, what captures your imagination and inspires you?
How does this affect the way you express your beliefs about life, and your perception of religious expressions and the future of humanity?

Holy Trinity? "Star Wars," "Empire," and "Jedi?"

"God" is (I believe) something we've taken to calling everything we don't yet understand. It's the old 'God is in the Gaps' thing. There's still so much we don't understand in the Big Questions area that there's enough room for God that people convince themselves there is one. Coupled with our built-in fear of death the stage is set for religion.

 

[Sonny Clark]

There is no Trinity. Jesus was clear, he is NOT his father.

What did he mean when he said, "if you've seen me, you've seen my father"? The trinity is the father ( creator ), Jesus ( the son ), and the holy spirit ( what he left us with when he went to be with the father in heaven ). Also, he said, "what you asked in my name, will be granted to you by my father in heaven". And, he said, "there is no way to the father except through me". It's actually GOD in three persons.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is no Trinity. Jesus was clear, he is NOT his father.

Hi RetiredGySgt
It is BOTH not either/or.
God as Creator Author or Source of Life is "greater than all"
But at the same time, Jesus is one with God;
Jesus represents God's divine will or Justice embodied in man,
where there is no "separation" but oneness with God's will.

See John 10:29-30

John 10:29-30
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all;
no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.
30 I and the Father are one.”

Jesus had no problem saying both things at once, that
the Father is greater than the Son, yet are one inseparable.

It's people who perceive these as either separate or as one,
and then can't reconcile with each other that BOTH are true at the same time.

We can make the distinction with Government:
that the Judicial is separate from the Legislative and Executive.
Yet there is only ONE Government. These three are not three separate govts.

But when it comes to religious terms, we can't agree because
we are so caught up in one person's way being right and another wrong.
The idea we could all be equally right at the same time is disturbing, so we reject that.

 

[BluePhantom]

There is no Trinity. Jesus was clear, he is NOT his father.

Depends on which gospel you refer to. According to John he was, according to Mark he wasn't. Matthew and Luke depict Him as slightly more divine but not nearly as much as John. In John, the author starts to establish Jesus and God as one right from the very beginning

 

[LittleNipper]

There is no Trinity. Jesus was clear, he is NOT his father.

Depends on which gospel you refer to. According to John he was, according to Mark he wasn't. Matthew and Luke depict Him as slightly more divine but not nearly as much as John. In John, the author starts to establish Jesus and God as one right from the very beginning

The gospels cover different angles. Their focus varies. Son of Man, Son of God, I AM.

 

[BluePhantom]

There is no Trinity. Jesus was clear, he is NOT his father.

Depends on which gospel you refer to. According to John he was, according to Mark he wasn't. Matthew and Luke depict Him as slightly more divine but not nearly as much as John. In John, the author starts to establish Jesus and God as one right from the very beginning

The gospels cover different angles. Their focus varies. Son of Man, Son of God, I AM.

Well kind of yes, but if you look at the depiction of Jesus in the order in which they were written you will notice that the divinity of Jesus increases over time. For example, in the Epistles of Paul Jesus is simply portrayed as the "first fruits". That's a thread unto itself, but just take it and run for now. Later in Mark, the author goes to some extreme measures to differentiate between insiders and outsiders. Insiders refer to Jesus as "teacher" while outsiders don't use a title at all or refer to Him as...oh....what would be a good translation? "Sir" maybe...kinda sorta. There's not a great English translation.

Later in Matthew everyone refers to Jesus as "teacher" whether they are insiders or outsiders. But Matthew takes great pains to establish Jesus as the new authority of God, not necessarily God Himself. In Matthew, Jesus is kind of a "new Moses" who is bringing a new covenant for mankind. He does have some divine suggestion as the Son of Man but he is not God Himself. In Luke, Jesus is often referred to as "teacher" but the Greek word used is a very specific kind of teacher. It refers specifically to a teacher of philosophy so in Luke, Jesus is portrayed kind of like a "new Socrates". Again he has some divine elements as the Son of Man but He is still not quite God.

Now in John...oh it's right from the start. "In the beginning....". The author quotes Genesis directly from the Septuagint. In the beginning the word was God, in God was the light of mankind. John the Baptist came to testify to the divinity of the light. The light was Jesus. Hence Jesus is God and was from the beginning of time. This is a very different depiction than Mark or the letters of Paul and it's no surprise (nor coincidence) that the depiction of Jesus' divinity increased over time.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is no Trinity. Jesus was clear, he is NOT his father.

Depends on which gospel you refer to. According to John he was, according to Mark he wasn't. Matthew and Luke depict Him as slightly more divine but not nearly as much as John. In John, the author starts to establish Jesus and God as one right from the very beginning

The gospels cover different angles. Their focus varies. Son of Man, Son of God, I AM.

Well kind of yes, but if you look at the depiction of Jesus in the order in which they were written you will notice that the divinity of Jesus increases over time. For example, in the Epistles of Paul Jesus is simply portrayed as the "first fruits". That's a thread unto itself, but just take it and run for now. Later in Mark, the author goes to some extreme measures to differentiate between insiders and outsiders. Insiders refer to Jesus as "teacher" while outsiders don't use a title at all or refer to Him as...oh....what would be a good translation? "Sir" maybe...kinda sorta. There's not a great English translation.

Later in Matthew everyone refers to Jesus as "teacher" whether they are insiders or outsiders. But Matthew takes great pains to establish Jesus as the new authority of God, not necessarily God Himself. In Matthew, Jesus is kind of a "new Moses" who is bringing a new covenant for mankind. He does have some divine suggestion as the Son of Man but he is not God Himself. In Luke, Jesus is often referred to as "teacher" but the Greek word used is a very specific kind of teacher. It refers specifically to a teacher of philosophy so in Luke, Jesus is portrayed kind of like a "new Socrates". Again he has some divine elements as the Son of Man but He is still not quite God.

Now in John...oh it's right from the start. "In the beginning....". The author quotes Genesis directly from the Septuagint. In the beginning the word was God, in God was the light of mankind. John the Baptist came to testify to the divinity of the light. The light was Jesus. Hence Jesus is God and was from the beginning of time. This is a very different depiction than Mark or the letters of Paul and it's no surprise (nor coincidence) that the depiction of Jesus' divinity increased over time.

Simple BluePhantom
The Gentiles focus on Jesus as teaching natural justice under natural laws by example.
This is no more more less "divine" than the concept of Equal Justice which is faith-based.

The Believers under church law and authority recognize Jesus as representing God's divine justice and perfect will. And see a spiritual process of redemption, healing and reconciliation.

BOTH are going on, both are true, consistent and valid.
There is no either/or about it.

Both Jews and Gentiles are governed under the same Christ Jesus,
one see the spirit of the laws manifest as Restorative Justice fulfilling natural laws and joining man's laws with universal laws; the other sees the spirit of the laws manifest as Salvation and Healing Grace, Justice with Mercy,
and God's unconditional love joining the love of man with the love of God as one.

Again, both are valid. All of the above.
Only man's fear and selfish division over conflict makes these adverse to each other.
Church and State laws ideally agree, science and religion, faith and reason.
The truth encompasses and fulfills all these approaches without contradiction.

The fault lies with our own biases and perceptions causing projection and division.
The real universal truth, by definition, includes and explains all things without conflict or omission.

 

[BluePhantom]

There is no Trinity. Jesus was clear, he is NOT his father.

Depends on which gospel you refer to. According to John he was, according to Mark he wasn't. Matthew and Luke depict Him as slightly more divine but not nearly as much as John. In John, the author starts to establish Jesus and God as one right from the very beginning

The gospels cover different angles. Their focus varies. Son of Man, Son of God, I AM.

Well kind of yes, but if you look at the depiction of Jesus in the order in which they were written you will notice that the divinity of Jesus increases over time. For example, in the Epistles of Paul Jesus is simply portrayed as the "first fruits". That's a thread unto itself, but just take it and run for now. Later in Mark, the author goes to some extreme measures to differentiate between insiders and outsiders. Insiders refer to Jesus as "teacher" while outsiders don't use a title at all or refer to Him as...oh....what would be a good translation? "Sir" maybe...kinda sorta. There's not a great English translation.

Later in Matthew everyone refers to Jesus as "teacher" whether they are insiders or outsiders. But Matthew takes great pains to establish Jesus as the new authority of God, not necessarily God Himself. In Matthew, Jesus is kind of a "new Moses" who is bringing a new covenant for mankind. He does have some divine suggestion as the Son of Man but he is not God Himself. In Luke, Jesus is often referred to as "teacher" but the Greek word used is a very specific kind of teacher. It refers specifically to a teacher of philosophy so in Luke, Jesus is portrayed kind of like a "new Socrates". Again he has some divine elements as the Son of Man but He is still not quite God.

Now in John...oh it's right from the start. "In the beginning....". The author quotes Genesis directly from the Septuagint. In the beginning the word was God, in God was the light of mankind. John the Baptist came to testify to the divinity of the light. The light was Jesus. Hence Jesus is God and was from the beginning of time. This is a very different depiction than Mark or the letters of Paul and it's no surprise (nor coincidence) that the depiction of Jesus' divinity increased over time.

Simple BluePhantom
The Gentiles focus on Jesus as teaching natural justice under natural laws by example.
This is no more more less "divine" than the concept of Equal Justice which is faith-based.

The Believers under church law and authority recognize Jesus as representing God's divine justice and perfect will. And see a spiritual process of redemption, healing and reconciliation.

BOTH are going on, both are true, consistent and valid.
There is no either/or about it.

Both Jews and Gentiles are governed under the same Christ Jesus,
one see the spirit of the laws manifest as Restorative Justice fulfilling natural laws and joining man's laws with universal laws; the other sees the spirit of the laws manifest as Salvation and Healing Grace, Justice with Mercy,
and God's unconditional love joining the love of man with the love of God as one.

Again, both are valid. All of the above.
Only man's fear and selfish division over conflict makes these adverse to each other.
Church and State laws ideally agree, science and religion, faith and reason.
The truth encompasses and fulfills all these approaches without contradiction.

The fault lies with our own biases and perceptions causing projection and division.
The real universal truth, by definition, includes and explains all things without conflict or omission.

Well you can look at it that way. That is certainly a popular theological interpretation of the phenomenon. I personally think that in order to advance that theory you are forced to pre-suppose a lot of things about the authors of the gospels and their intentions. I think you are also forced to ignore the apocryphal writings as well and that's an important point because the four gospels in the canon were not originally considered the only sources available. There were dozens of gospels in wide use and it was only those four that made it into the Bible for various reasons, and not until a couple centuries later. I think you also have to ignore the amount of time between the writing of each of the canonical gospels. Like I said, you can make that argument but it's up to the individual as to whether they find it convincing.

For myself, I tend to think it's much more simple. I think that as time went on, the stories and legends of Jesus, His identity, and His acts grew and became more and more exaggerated. This, to me at least, is the most reasonable explanation for why His depiction went from a man, to a great teacher, to a sage, to God Himself. Indeed, later apocryphal gospels record His acts as even more fantastic and His miracles get more and more amazing. Of course that is a historical explanation and not a theological one and it is important to distinguish between the two.

Now just a point I want to make here. I am not saying that Jesus was or was not God. I am not advancing a position on that question right now. I am merely making the literary and historical observation that the earliest Christian authors, that we know of, either did not see Jesus and God as one, or at the very least they did not make it a point of emphasis in their writings. That didn't happen until the latter part of the 1st century CE. How one wishes to interpret that is best left up to the individual, I think.

 

[HaShev]

Trinity only makes sence when you know the original configuation not the revised trio. Also helps to know who they are masking the worship of.
Originally the trinity was:
Father/Mother/Son
Then became Father-word-son
before word turning into holy spirit.
Since Jesus is simply a mask for Baal worship plagiarizing the same exact stories and birthdate of Baal then it's easy to see the trio with the admission at the very end of the book.
Rev22:16 Jesus is claimed the morning star which was the son of Baal And Ishtar(Easter), Baal's wife was Isis.
So the original trinity was Baal-Isis-morning star Jesus
Then Baal -the storys in the word borrowed-Jesus the new mask for Baal.
Even the Canaanites had a mythology on this called the dying son rites whereby the son-they called the morning star surpasses his father Baal on the throne by dying and making this dying son as the new god, but really still the old god with new image. It was called dying son mythology of Athtar the fierce.

 

[BluePhantom]

Trinity only makes sence when you know the original configuation not the revised trio. Also helps to know who they are masking the worship of.
Originally the trinity was:
Father/Mother/Son
Then became Father-word-son
before word turning into holy spirit.
Since Jesus is simply a mask for Baal worship plagiarizing the same exact stories and birthdate of Baal then it's easy to see the trio with the admission at the very end of the book.
Rev22:16 Jesus is claimed the morning star which was the son of Baal And Ishtar(Easter), Baal's wife was Isis.
So the original trinity was Baal-Isis-morning star Jesus
Then Baal -the storys in the word borrowed-Jesus the new mask for Baal.
Even the Canaanites had a mythology on this called the dying son rites whereby the son-they called the morning star surpasses his father Baal on the throne by dying and making this dying son as the new god, but really still the old god with new image. It was called dying son mythology of Athtar the fierce.

Well I was hesitant to comment on this post but I will. Let me bullet point it.

- The origins of the trinity in regards to cultural appropriation (one culture borrowing from another) is not a specific topic I have spent a great deal of study on, so I want to be careful to point out that I can neither confirm or refute HaShev's point specific to where the trinity is concerned a great deal of confidence. However, I can provide some other considerations that may relate to the point in a secondary way.

- It is completely plausible that the concept of the trinity came from another culture. That would be consistent with all the religions of that area during the couple thousand years prior to Jesus and continuing thereafter. It was not just a Jewish or Christian thing. Everyone borrowed from everyone. That's just the way it worked.

- The Revelation, however, is probably my strongest book so I can speak very confidently on 22:16. First, I will say that it was the standard M.O. for John of Patmos to take a well known concept or image and make a caricature of it or twist it into a Christian concept. The Great Whore of Babylon is an excellent example where he makes a mockery of an image on a Roman coin that circulated at the time.

However, in my opinion I think you are misunderstanding a couple things in regard to that passage. First, the morning star was a very common way to describe a prince or a member of royalty. This is seen throughout the Bible and in many other cultural writings. In Revelation 22, John of Patmos is ending his Apocalypse with a bang. He is having Jesus Himself attest to the truth of what John has written and Jesus says of Himself He is the root of David, the offspring of David, and the morning star. Jesus is simply firmly establishing His royal authority and a divine nature. He describes it three ways because three was a common convention in ancient writing. Often the same story is told three different times in the same book, or you may see somewhere were someone says "Have you not heard, is it not written, has it not been said...." This is just stereotypical of ancient writing and John of Patmos did that a LOT. Say it once, say it twice, third times the charm.

Actually, in modern culture we can still see this convention in some ways. In many of our jokes for example there are threes. Three guys walk into a bar. The first guy does something, the second guy does something, and the third guy delivers the punch line. It's a similar thing. The joke doesn't sound right unless you tell it a certain way and in ancient writing it was the same thing. Say it once, say it twice, and BAM...you get them with the third to sink the point.

So when Jesus refers to the morning star, He is not referring to the son of Ba'al. He is delivering the third example of royal authority. It really has nothing to do with the holy trinity. It's just a coincidence where the "three convention" is being used. The concept of the trinity certainly could have come from the ancient sources HaShev suggests but Revelation 22:16 would have nothing to do with that

 

[HaShev]

No I was talking about Christian trinity changing it's concept before it's present idea, not another cultures trinity being reinvented. The original trinity is found in old scrolls thought to be used for Rev. called the truth gospels.
Which brings us to your comments about Rev.
what part of Rev 1:13 do you have trouble understanding?
The problem is with being in an affiliation is if the word says something different then what you are taught you will resort to protecting the affiliation rather then be honest with the word. The word clearly states Jesus is not son of man, he's merely emulating as in "Like unto son of man." Remember Lucifer is the imposter who is like unto moshiach hence Rome admuts it's icon is the fallen morning star Lucifer. I'm not repeating this topic as to why morning star=Lucifer because you should know this stuff by now, the info is readilly available and your reinvention of the term contradicts dictionaries, collegiate dictionaries and encyclopedias, ancient script and mythologies, theologians..etc...

 

[BluePhantom]

No I was talking about Christian trinity changing it's concept before it's present idea, not another cultures trinity being reinvented. The original trinity is found in old scrolls thought to be used for Rev. called the truth gospels.
Which brings us to your comments about Rev.
what part of Rev 1:13 do you have trouble understanding?
The problem is with being in an affiliation is if the word says something different then what you are taught you will resort to protecting the affiliation rather then be honest with the word. The word clearly states Jesus is not son of man, he's merely emulating as in "Like unto son of man." Remember Lucifer is the imposter who is like unto moshiach hence Rome admuts it's icon is the fallen morning star Lucifer. I'm not repeating this topic as to why morning star=Lucifer because you should know this stuff by now, the info is readilly available and your reinvention of the term contradicts dictionaries, collegiate dictionaries and encyclopedias, ancient script and mythologies, theologians..etc...

ok. "When Christ promises that he will give the "morning star" to his faithful ones, he "promises that he will give to them himself, that he will give to them himself, that he will impart to them his own glory and a share in his own royal dominion; for the star is evermore the symbol of royalty (Matt. 2:2), being therefore linked with the sceptre (Num. 24:17)." Morning star Define Morning star at Dictionary.com

"He is David’s Lord and David’s Son, possessing David’s throne" Revelation 22 16 Commentaries I Jesus have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David the bright morning star.

"It is not uncommon to compare a prince, a leader, a teacher, with that bright and beautiful star which at some seasons of the year precedes the rising of the sun, and leads on the day....The reference here is to that star as the harbinger of day; and the meaning of the Saviour is, that he sustains a relation to a dark world similar to this beautiful star. At one time he is indeed compared with the sun itself in giving light to the world; here he is compared with that morning star rather with reference to its beauty than its light." Revelation 22 16 Commentaries I Jesus have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David the bright morning star.

"Lenski thought that the imagery had to do with the “royal splendor” of Jesus. “The adjective ‘of the morning’ suggests unfading, glorious brilliance both for Jesus in 22:16, and here [2:28] for us. The Victorious King Jesus is the brilliant Morning Star in royal splendor; and he gives to every faithful believer the gift to be like him in royal splendor”

“Jesus Christ is described as the ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1:19 (phosphoros) and in Revelation 2:28 (aster proinos), and He identifies Himself as ‘the bright morning star’ (ho aster ho lampros ho proninos) in Revelation 22:16” (413). He goes on to point out that this “star” symbolism reflects the Old Testament and inter-testament emphasis on the “celestial” nature of the coming Messiah (cf. Numbers 24:17; Malachi 4:2)." The Messiah was prophesied to be of the royal line of David. What Is the Morning Star Christian Courier

ok Lucifer came about due to translation in the Latin Vulgate in the 4th century CE. Prior to this, there was no "Lucifer" in Christian theology. Lucifer is simply the Latin translation of the Greek "phosphoros" or Hebrew ן בֶּ ר חַ שָׁ meaning "light bearer" or "morning star". 2 Peter 1:19 in the Vulgate reads:

"Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem: cui benefacitis attendentes quasi lucernæ lucenti in caliginoso donec dies elucescat, et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris:" Vulgate 2 Peter 2 Peter Chapter 1

or from the NIV:

"We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts".2 Peter 1 - Simon Peter a servant and apostle of - Bible Gateway

In Rev 1:13, John of Patmos is simply quoting Daniel 7 and connecting Jesus to that figure in the vision of the four beasts. It is written in Daniel:

"13 In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." Daniel 7 - Daniel s Dream of Four Beasts - In - Bible Gateway

John of Patmos is simply quoting Daniel directly saying 'Jesus is the guy Daniel was referring to'.

 

[HaShev]

Not true about Rev 1 talking about like Daniel's son of man. But bringing up Dan 7 means you have no excuse not comprehending that Daniel is not the one giving him the message, Dan is conveying the message. John is saying as eell as other passages thatJesus isn't the son of man, not the father on the throne, not the one who sent him, not the messenger, just like unto the messenger relaying the message like Dan you say.
Lesson 1) clouds meant gathering of priests, son of man comes out of the Aaronic lineage says the scrolls, the Kohanim gathered for the Temple procession he comes with his gathering of hosts and out of that group.
Now reread Theslonians it's Michael's call to the temple IN HIS NAME (MikDash) the one who comes out of the Kohanim to the Mt Zion calling us up to the GATHERING OF HOSTS (CLOUDS). Jesus being like unto Michael is the reason why so many sects like SDA, JWs, Urantians, Coptics, some Mormons mistake Jesus for being Michael.

 

[September]