Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching? IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. A PROTESTANT publication states: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God."—New Catholic Encyclopedia. The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: "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." 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]." "The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One."—The Paganism in Our Christianity.
Also, if the trinity is true why does Jesus say he is goiing to pray to his heavenly father, and that he doesn't do anying of his own initiative, but he does the will of his father that sent him...
2006-11-13 01:29:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well you apparently wrote your own best answer, but you could use some correction. Logos is not a Greek concept; Logos was first used in Sumerian cuneiform (the oldest language known to man). Logos is such an old word that it precedes the name "God" itself. Logos is not a Jewish concept, so John was obviously targeting his gospel for the Gentiles, because when he explained that God was the Word and the Word became flesh, the Greeks would understand very well what he meant. This fits in with the context of the times, when the early Christian church was trying to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles and explain to them how Jesus is, in one degree or another, from God.
The early Christians borrowed many concepts from the Gentiles, such as the word apostle (apostolos) which originally referred to an admiral of the Greek navy, and by applying it to themselves, the Christians indicated who were the admirals, as it were, of Christ.
The word that was translated into disciple was not a Greek word; in fact disciple comes from the Latin Vulgate. The Greek word essentially meant one who ascertained, comprehended, understood, and learned - it meant a student in essence.
Many people have taken the concept of the Trinity too far, I believe, and they conclude that Jesus was God, period, and make that belief a core belief. We know the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible, yet what is clear is that Jesus consistently claimed to be set apart from the rest of mankind, that he had the ability to forgive sins, accept prayer, revise traditional Jewish laws, that he had authority over life and death. Simply put - normal and ordinary people do not have that authority. Biblically, you can know that Jesus is above mankind, the angels serve him, the devil is worried about him, and that righteousness cannot be attained if you are apart from Jesus.
However, judging by how profusely the name of Christ is written in the New Testament, it is obvious that, whether he is God or the beloved of God, he is definitely far greater than a mere moral teacher, and even if you totally excluded the Gospel of John and Paul's epistles, you would still get that exact same conclusion.
2006-11-13 09:08:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
For Newcov - "Let Us make man...." in no way implies that there were 3 entities involved it could have been 2 or even 2,000. You can use that verse to say there was a trinity involved.
I'm not sure what the other person meant about "knowing the hebrew language" but the word Elohim in hebrew dos not mean more than 1 god or 3 in 1 or anything like that. Again, even if it did, why just 3? Why not 2 or 2,000? If you study hebrew you will see that they call the "im" ending in the word Elohim a "plural of majesty".
Trinity is a pagan concept that was used in almost all ancient religions.
2006-11-13 08:58:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by james.parker 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
there are many words that are not in the bible. gracious look at a dictionary from today and one only 50 years ago.... there are many new words added every year. while to word Trinity isn't there, the conept sure is! Silly reference but – my name is there, is yours? That doesn’t mean it is wrong if it's not. cars are not in the scriptures, neither is internet.....
Mt 28:19 where Christ tells to go forth to all nations baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
another favorite is when a priest ends mass and quotes 2 Cor 13:14 The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Love of God and the communion/fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with yo all. 1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
2006-11-13 09:34:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Marysia 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Trinity had no origin. However, the origin of our knowledge of the Trinity is the teaching of Jesus Christ, Who clearly demonstrated His own divinity, and repeatedly referred to the other two divine Persons as well. At His baptism, God the Son stood in the water as God the Father spoke audibly from heaven as God the Holy Spirit descended in visible form. All three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity present simultaneously and acting independently.
2006-11-13 09:10:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by PaulCyp 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
In spite of having been pronounced dead even by intelligent skeptics, the thesis that Judaism and Christianity consist merely of stolen pagan myths and ideas continues to be promulgated by the uncritical and accepted by the gullible. Acharya S and her Christ Conspiracy are simply the latest recycling of the general thesis, but now, even Robert Price has promulgated aspects of it in his Deconstructing Jesus.
This series of articles will serve as detail-supplements to Glenn Miller's general essay refuting the pagan-copycat thesis. We will make specific studies of religions or ideas that the critics claim are the source for some Jewish or Christian belief or concept.
Some notes on alleged parallels between Christianity and pagan religions -- an introductory commentary by a classical scholar
Pharaoh Game: Did Akhenaten Influence Jewish Monotheism?
Accept No Imitations: Did the Stories of Apollonius of Tyana Influence the Gospels?
Mighty Mithraic Madness: Did the Mithraic Mysteries Influence Christianity?
Dealing Down Dionysus: Did the Greek God of Wine Influence Christianity?
Phrygian Phreakazoid Phare: Did the Legends of Cybele and Attis Influence Christianity?
Zamloxis Shazam: Is the Story of Zalmoxis a Parallel for Christianity?
Is the Christian fish symbol derived from pagan symbols?
Is Easter a pagan holiday? -- see here for the same question regarding Christmas
What's the Buzz on Tammuz?: Did the Ancient Sumerian Shepherd-god Influence Christianity?
Close But No Cigar: Did Zoroastrianism Influence Christianity?
Was the creation account "stolen" from the Babylonian creation account?
Give It Some Muscle: On Alcides of Thebes
Is That the Chattanooga Chu Chu? On Chu Chulainn
No Beddru, One Bath: On Beddru of Japan
Do the Dazhdbog: On a Russian Copycat Savior
Hesus Freaks: On Hesus of the Druids
Another Copycat Con Job: On Alexander of Abonuteichos
Fire and Ice: On Prometheus and Pratfalls
Crites! Another Fabrication? On Crite of Chaldea
Walk Like an Egyptian: Comparing Jesus, Osiris, and Horus
Have No Fear -- Sargon is Here!
Exodus Redux: Did the Story of Sinuhe Influence the Exodus Story?
On Krishna and this also
Balder Burgers with Freys
East Indian Giver: Salivahana as Copycat Christ
Baal of Hay
Don't Mourn for Adonis
Zoar Losers
Serapis Shazam
Querying Quetzalcoatl
Lining Up Against the Lotus -- on Buddha
I Tawt I Taw a Deva Tat! -- on "Deva Tat"
Raglan Reduced by "Justin Martyr"
On Napoleon as Myth translated by "Justin Martyr"
The More Things Change -- a humourous look at how we're just having to reiterate things over the centuries
2006-11-13 08:50:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by williamzo 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
In Orthodox theology this is the Trinity:
3 = 1
It's confusing, but one can't really know the mind of God, however, that shouldn't stop one from trying. The three essences are 1.
2006-11-13 08:46:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by mmmb 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
The triune God is a Trinity, and has no beginning and no end.
Jesus, the seond person of that Trinity, told us about it ... not some old Greek.
The old chestnut about pagan origins of all things Christian is just about worn out.
Try something different for a change.
2006-11-13 09:02:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The trinity doctrine is not christian.
31 missapplied or mistranlated verses in the Bible are used to support the trinity doctrine.
The trinity is a doctrine that make the Bible contradict itself.
2006-11-13 08:59:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by rangedog 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
O thou seeker after Truth!
The question of the Trinity, since the time of His Holiness Christ until now, is the belief of the Christians, and to the present time all the learned among them are perplexed and confounded. All have confessed that the question is beyond the grasp of reason, for three cannot become one, nor one three. To unite these is impossible; it is either one or three. If we say the Essence of Divinity is divided, even in some aspects, division is one of the necessities of the contingent world and of generation, but the Ancient is holy (i.e., whole and indivisible). If we say that the Trinity was 513 originally one and was later divided, change and transformation will be necessarily applied to the Essence of Oneness, and change and transformation are necessities of the contingent world and not of the Essence of Divinity. If we say this number is Ancient, three Ancients become necessary, and among the three some are distinguished which are also Ancients. In this wise five Ancients are the result, and among the five are those who are distinguished and thus nine Ancients become necessary, and so on ad infinitium.
Thus considered, Trinity is made a necessity, although the falsity of Trinity is evident. Furthermore, the signs of oneness are evident and plain in all existence. If thou shouldst gather all existent beings, thou wouldst be unable to find two alike in all states and qualities; of necessity there is a difference. Thus the signs of oneness are manifest and evident in all things. How much more is the Creator of all things!
But there are, in the Gospels, clear expressions indicative of Trinity; among them: “The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.” As Christians did not understand the meaning of this expression, their thoughts were scattered.
The reality of this question is as follows: Divine Oneness is proven and He revealeth Himself in the Holy Essences. The sun is one sun but manifesteth itself in different mirrors. If thou lookest into the mirror and seest the manifestation of the sun, thou wilt way, the sun is in the mirror and this sun manifest in the mirror is the same sun of the heavens; although two suns, yet in reality they are one. The sun hath not descended from its high and lofty station, it hath not 514 taken up its abode in this mirror, but hath manifested itself therein.
The Christ reality was like unto a pure mirror and the Sun of Reality shone upon it from the Holy Horizon. Therefore, it bcame evident that the sun is one with regard to reality but manifesting itself in all mirrors.
This question was explained in full for Miss …, who translated it upon paper. Thou wilt soon learn thereof 1 . This difficult question in its entirety was elucidated, explained and proven.
1. Incorporated in book entitled “Some Answered Questions,” compiled by Miss L. C. Barney and published in 1908 by Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., London, Eng. [ Back To Reference]
2006-11-13 08:47:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by GypsyGr-ranny 4
·
0⤊
2⤋