Right? view on the Holy Trinity.

reply to post by Kgnow


You are profound pondering the issue. Be perfect!

I was referring to the "Trimurti" trinity of Hinduism;
Brahma = Creator
Vishnu = Sustainer
Shiva = Destroyer

I do not adhere to nor propagate Hinduism. Simply, the qualities of their trinity makes the most sense.

There are a multitude of Trinity gods that predate both Judaism and Christianity.

Triple Deity

Peace.

Laz's view:

The Revelation mentions the Seven Spirits of God, sooooooo...

Seven Spirits + the Father + the Son = nine Members of the Godhead, or a Nine-Fold Godhead.

I sincerely believe that is a more accurate and Biblical view than simply Father + Son + Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
Isn't the trinity just a reinvention of the old pagan triple goddess meant to illustrate the phases of life.

No. As JMDewey said, it is a theological construct which is intended to understand a key concept of Christianity, evidenced by both historical and theological points -- the divinity of Christ.

Wrong, Christ was the son of God. Because he not only never said that he was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3.

Originally posted by adjensen
testified to him having power and authority that only God would have, and flat out referred to him as God.

Where?

Originally posted by adjensen
In that conundrum, the Doctrine of the Trinity arose. It has nothing to do with pagan anything, it is a philosophical / theological explanation of Christian belief.

Wrong! It WAS an attempt to unify the population around a combined religion. It is ignorant to just accept what the RCC tells you.

reply to post by MrBigDave

. . . spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God.

Wrong, he was not speaking of God.
Jesus, in the verse that you quoted, was praying directly to God.
This is not inconsistent with Arian (pre-Council of Nicea) trinitarianism, that God the Father was at one "time" (actually before time and space existed, according to Arius) one, the Monad, who became the Dyad.
Even though there was a split, Jesus (unlike "orthodox" trinitarianism) did not consider himself to be the equal of The Father, so could still think of Him as singular, in that there was nothing or no one who is of the same status as Him.

Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong, Christ was the son of God. Because he not only never said that he was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3.

Did you not read all of John? Did you forget about John 10:30?

Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong! It WAS an attempt to unify the population around a combined religion. It is ignorant to just accept what the RCC tells you.

Consider this; also in John 17:20-22 Jesus prays that we all should be one. How can we call be one if we each have our own understanding of the Word? Which is more ignorant friend; following THE institution that Christ himself founded at Pentecost in 33 AD which Christ Himself said the gates of Hades would not prevail against, or an individual (or many individuals) interpretation of scripture?

God bless you.

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

How can we call be one if we each have our own understanding of the Word?

The "Word"?
What is that? Do you mean the Bible?
The Catholic Church has no official interpretation of the Bible.
They have these pronouncements of doctrine.
They have no official version of a biblical interpretation.
If you think there is, then you don't know very much of the cult that you worship.

Originally posted by greyer
reply to post by Angle

 

If Jesus was one thing why did he always speak in parables and metaphors, so no, you cannot label Jesus truth as one thing, but 2 or many things, and it is up to the mind and spirit to to 'hear' because 'hearing' means two things. It was specifically said to interpret as perceiving audibility but recognized as understanding.

That is why you see so many Christians today and you immediately just get one feeling about them - whatever they are thinking and whatever they are doing is wrong.

There was a reason the teachings were parables (mass produced to affect anyone that could decifer their en-coding almost like a billboard slogan). Think of it as hooks dropped in a river baited with happenstance (we caught one) what specie eats this? Oh the one that fears God? Or a fish, or a swallowing of the highest upon the high. Jinks was shillifying trying to get more time to qualify its existance EXIT strategy, thats all and his skin was not saved to its satifaction. Jesus has problems regarding its betrayal, who could blame it. This man god is very unhappy, has anyone spoken to it lately?

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
There was a reason the teachings were parables (mass produced to affect anyone that could decifer their en-coding almost like a billboard slogan). Think of it as hooks dropped in a river baited with happenstance (we caught one) what specie eats this? Oh the one that fears God? Or a fish, or a swallowing of the highest upon the high. Jinks was shillifying trying to get more time to qualify its existance EXIT strategy, thats all and his skin was not saved to its satifaction. Jesus has problems regarding its betrayal, who could blame it. This man god is very unhappy, has anyone spoken to it lately?

No, during the betrayal Jesus knew that it was actually a divine purpose.

reply to post by jmdewey60


No official interpretation? You do realize that it was the Church that put it together, yes? No Church = no Bible.

Or did Christ ascend to Heaven, drop a King James Bible, and shout "Figure it out!" as He rose?

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville

Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong, Christ was the son of God. Because he not only never said that he was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3.

Did you not read all of John? Did you forget about John 10:30?

Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong! It WAS an attempt to unify the population around a combined religion. It is ignorant to just accept what the RCC tells you.

Consider this; also in John 17:20-22 Jesus prays that we all should be one. How can we call be one if we each have our own understanding of the Word? Which is more ignorant friend; following THE institution that Christ himself founded at Pentecost in 33 AD which Christ Himself said the gates of Hades would not prevail against, or an individual (or many individuals) interpretation of scripture?

God bless you.

I have read all of John, and I think that maybe your concept of "one" is off. If Jesus is God because his is "one" with the father, then we are are also God because we are one with Christ and by proxy "one" with God.

[20] Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; [21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: - Jhn 17:20-22 KJV

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

No official interpretation? You do realize that it was the Church that put it together, yes? No Church = no Bible.

Or did Christ ascend to Heaven, drop a King James Bible, and shout "Figure it out!" as He rose?

Because in all actuality, that would be positively ridiculous in comparison with the version we all know and laugh at, right?

Originally posted by MrBigDave

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville

Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong, Christ was the son of God. Because he not only never said that he was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3.

Did you not read all of John? Did you forget about John 10:30?

Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong! It WAS an attempt to unify the population around a combined religion. It is ignorant to just accept what the RCC tells you.

Consider this; also in John 17:20-22 Jesus prays that we all should be one. How can we call be one if we each have our own understanding of the Word? Which is more ignorant friend; following THE institution that Christ himself founded at Pentecost in 33 AD which Christ Himself said the gates of Hades would not prevail against, or an individual (or many individuals) interpretation of scripture?

God bless you.

I have read all of John, and I think that maybe your concept of "one" is off. If Jesus is God because his is "one" with the father, then we are are also God because we are one with Christ and by proxy "one" with God.

[20] Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; [21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: - Jhn 17:20-22 KJV

Alrighty, I have no problem being corrected. So, how would you interpret that scripture?

And there is no "if." Jesus IS God. Jesus said so Himself.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Version of what? The Church? Or the Bible? Either way, speak for yourself, I don't laugh at either.

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

Version of what? The Church? Or the Bible? Either way, speak for yourself, I don't laugh at either.

I am speaking for myself...I laugh at both. The Vatican is the White House of the Roman Catholic movement.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


In a way, your analogy is correct as the Catholic Church is headquartered in Rome. But some movement eh? Movement would imply it will eventually stop. The Catholic Church has been going strong for nearly 2,000 years now and shows no signs of stopping.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not a fan of the White House myself.

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

But some movement eh? Movement would imply it will eventually stop. The Catholic Church has been going strong for nearly 2,000 years now and shows no signs of stopping.

Nothing lasts forever...thankfully. Immortality is a curse.

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

No official interpretation? You do realize that it was the Church that put it together, yes? No Church = no Bible.

I suppose that you mean the New Testament, and the Catholic Church.
Paul wrote and probably published the NT before there was a such thing as a Catholic Church.
Mostly what they did was go around destroying any books that did not support their own theories.

Or did Christ ascend to Heaven, drop a King James Bible, and shout "Figure it out!" as He rose?

The Apostles who wrote the NT were not Catholics.
My point was that the Catholic Church regards its own opinions over the NT, so doesn't bother interpreting it.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Paul wrote and probably published the NT before there was a such thing as a Catholic Church.

Do you even have the foggiest understanding of Christian history? Paul published the New Testament? Are you kidding me?

JMDewey, you used to be one of the voices of reason on the ATS forums that I looked to for useful insights into views of Christianity that were not my own, but were still grounded in reason, but what on earth are you up to these days?

Paul published the New Testament?

Seriously?

That ranks up there with 3NL1GHT3N3D1's "Jesus was a woman" thread.

reply to post by adjensen

Paul published the New Testament? Are you kidding me?

No.
I am not kidding.
The original New Testament was Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians, based on the oldest NT manuscripts and how they were constructed and the order of the individual books in them.

My point is that the books were not just sitting around collecting dust on a shelf in the back room of a monastery where the Catholic Church had to find them and collect them. They were already being widely published on their own, thank you very much.