The Trinity

[chaplin]

I know that the Catholic Church strongly affirms the concept of the Trinity, and that it stems almost entirely from creeds created by theologians centuries ago, e.g. The Apostle's Creed, The Nicene Creed. And I know that the idea of the Trinity is shunned by Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, but am not sure regarding all the other, many Christian denominations, and even if there is a consensus doctrinal stand among believers in the same sect.

Regarding the concept itself, I find it completely, entirely incomprehensible, which, I know, is the reason why supporters say it's true; but I don't believe incomprehensibility means more reason for divinity.

Of course, the specifics and higher truths of a God's rule are supposed to be unfathomabaly lofty, but it seems to me it should be essential for the God's own children to be able to comprehend His very nature and form.

[Stieg]

I also would love to hear the Muslim views on Jesus and the Trinity.

[motherhubbard]

Ice, steam and water are all H2O. The trinity is also called the Godhead. There is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and the three are one. It also says that when a man and women are married they become one flesh. It’s a bit of a mystery, but having been married for some time I can tell you that it’s true.

[Madhuri]

Ice, steam and water are all H2O. The trinity is also called the Godhead. There is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and the three are one. It also says that when a man and women are married they become one flesh. It’s a bit of a mystery, but having been married for some time I can tell you that it’s true.

or Soul?

[motherhubbard]

You know, I’ve never given that any thought. It’s a good question. I can’t think of any biblical writings that say anything about the two souls becoming one. With my husband it’s like we are physical extension of each other. But how does that relate to the trinity?

[wrestle-135]

This is actually an interesting subject about God. Many people do believe that there are actually three different beings that all work together. But if you read throughout the bible you will see where God Jesus Lord and the Holy Spirit eventually are one person. The bible states that God is a jealous God. So if he's a jealous God how could he share his throne with two other beings. In Deuteronomy 6:4 the Bible states "Hear O' Israel the Lord our God is one." So that makes Lord and God one person not two. If you take this verse and connect it to John 1:1 Where the Bible says " In the begining was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God." Then John 1:14 says "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." These passages come together to show that Lord and God are one then in john it shows that the word and God are the same and then john 1:14 puts everything together with the word became flesh. So The Lord our God is one which is the word and the word became flesh! There is only one God. There is no trinity!!!

[Turk]

I also would love to hear the Muslim views on Jesus and the Trinity.

According to İslam Jesus is one of the most important prophets with Hz. Muhammed, Hz. Musa (Moses), Hz. İbrahim (Abraham). We believe God is one. He doesn't need a son and there wasn't original sin. Because Adam and Eva was already forgiven after they regret their sin.

At beginning there was no trinity in Christianity too, trinity accepted in Nicea Council in 326, even in that council there was two different view some Christians believed there is only one God and Jesus was prophet and some defended trinity, and trinity accepted in council also there was tonss of Gospels before this council and in council today's 4 gospels accepted. After Justinianus (Roman Emperor) accepted Christianity Roman Paganism affected Christianity a lot. Especially Roman Pagan holidays turned into Christian holidays.

The origin of trinity goes back to Alexandria school and thoughts of Plato.

[motherhubbard]

According to İslam Jesus is one of the most important prophets with Hz. Muhammed, Hz. Musa (Moses), Hz. İbrahim (Abraham).

Turk

Thanks for sharing so much good information. I have a question that is not really about the trinity, but about the prophets. How can Muslims consider Jesus a prophet when he was not in agreement with Muhammad? I’ve never known anyone I could ask before.

[Turk]

According to İslam, Jesus was a man just like all prophets. And all prophets are like branches of one tree. They all defended same thing; unity and oneness of God. So we don't believe there was disagree between prophets, they all came from same source.

[rosseau]

I have been thinking a lot lately about the concept of the Holy Spirit. A lot of Pentacostals, Non-denominational churches, etc. believe in the manifestations that come after being "filled with the Holy Spirit." e.g. being slained, or falling down, speaking of tongues, prophecy, and a lot more (these are referred to 'gifts of the Spirit' in the Christian bible). They especially believe that speaking in tongues is almost necessary b/c they truly believe that when you get this gift you are now at a higher level of faith that allows you to 'communicate with God.' And no one else can understand you, unless ofcourse there is an interpreter (see I Corin. 12 if you're interested).

I find this so fascinating and intriguing. Any thoughts on this? It would be nice to hear what all of you think of this...from a Christian, Muslim, agnostic, etc. point of view. Is there something equivalent to this in a different religion?

[chaplin]

The bible states that God is a jealous God. So if he's a jealous God how could he share his throne with two other beings.

God being "jealous" doesn't mean that he thrusts aside all others to retain all power and glory for himself, and would not be able to tolerate another actual, seperate being in the Godhead.


This is actually an interesting subject about God. Many people do believe that there are actually three different beings that all work together. But if you read throughout the bible you will see where God Jesus Lord and the Holy Spirit eventually are one person. In Deuteronomy 6:4 the Bible states "Hear O' Israel the Lord our God is one." So that makes Lord and God one person not two. If you take this verse and connect it to John 1:1 Where the Bible says " In the begining was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God." Then John 1:14 says "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." These passages come together to show that Lord and God are one then in john it shows that the word and God are the same and then john 1:14 puts everything together with the word became flesh. So The Lord our God is one which is the word and the word became flesh!

All those verses quoted, I feel, do nothing to prove or support the concept of the Trinity. The New Testament is the best proof against the Trinity, because it is the account of the Son, on Earth, doing His Father's work, who he was one with, not literally, not physically, but spiritually.

The baptism of Jesus shows this perfectly. The Father is presenting His Son with His voice from Heaven, the Holy Ghost is descending upon Christ in the form or sign of the dove, and the Son is being baptized by John under the eye of the previous two.

Turk is right in saying that the original, primitive Church, immediately after Christ did not believe in or preach the concept of the Trinity. They spread the Gospel of the Son presenting the kingdom He suffered for to His Father, and after resurrecting into a perfected body, sat at the right side of the Father in equal, yet seperate glory.

The Trinity was created by theologians centuries after Christ's death in a variety of councils creating a variety of creeds, for whatever reason they felt it was necessary to do so, and then these creeds became, really, the sole origin and foundation for the teaching of the Trinity to the billions of people since then.

[chaplin]

Ice, steam and water are all H2O. The trinity is also called the Godhead. There is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and the three are one.

The analogy of the "ice, steam and water", I feel, is perfect for describing the Godhead, but not the Godhead of the Trinity. All three are "H2O", divine, and each is a different form and manifestation of that divine perfection. Ice cannot simultaneously be steam, just as steam cannot simultaneously be ice. Their link is their divinity and purpose and not their actual being.

[wrestle-135]

God being "jealous" doesn't mean that he thrusts aside all others to retain all power and glory for himself, and would not be able to tolerate another actual, seperate being in the Godhead.



All those verses quoted, I feel, do nothing to prove or support the concept of the Trinity. The New Testament is the best proof against the Trinity, because it is the account of the Son, on Earth, doing His Father's work, who he was one with, not literally, not physically, but spiritually.

The baptism of Jesus shows this perfectly. The Father is presenting His Son with His voice from Heaven, the Holy Ghost is descending upon Christ in the form or sign of the dove, and the Son is being baptized by John under the eye of the previous two.

Turk is right in saying that the original, primitive Church, immediately after Christ did not believe in or preach the concept of the Trinity. They spread the Gospel of the Son presenting the kingdom He suffered for to His Father, and after resurrecting into a perfected body, sat at the right side of the Father in equal, yet seperate glory.

The Trinity was created by theologians centuries after Christ's death in a variety of councils creating a variety of creeds, for whatever reason they felt it was necessary to do so, and then these creeds became, really, the sole origin and foundation for the teaching of the Trinity to the billions of people since then.



I wasn't proving that the trinity belief was right I was showing that it was false and that there is only one God. I don't believe in the trinity belief at all. I don't know how someone could even believe in three different gods. I am oneness. Sorry for the confussion.

[Lote-Tree]

The analogy of the "ice, steam and water", I feel, is perfect for describing the Godhead, but not the Godhead of the Trinity. All three are "H2O", divine, and each is a different form and manifestation of that divine perfection. Ice cannot simultaneously be steam, just as steam cannot simultaneously be ice. Their link is their divinity and purpose and not their actual being.

By this same argument we can argue that we are all divine - we are all part of God because we are all made of water.

[chaplin]

I wasn't proving that the trinity belief was right I was showing that it was false and that there is only one God. I don't believe in the trinity belief at all. I don't know how someone could even believe in three different gods. I am oneness. Sorry for the confussion.

The Trinity is the belief in only one God, that has three divine personalities in Him, but remains only one being, one God.

Thus, technically, if you don't believe in the Trinity, then you do believe in three "Gods". Not three God the Fathers, but God the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. All three are described as divine and referred to as Gods in the scriptures, and all three are part of the Godhead, thus three Gods.

[weepingforloman]

Umm... I'm gonna go ahead and blatantly rip off C.S. Lewis. What he talks about is the inability of something lesser to comprehend something greater. He uses the hypothetical of a two-dimensional being, and a three-dimensional being trying to explain the concept of depth. There is simply no way to fully grasp it, there can be a shadowy sort of recognition of truth, but no true comprehension. Furthermore, Christ, the Spirit, and the Father are not referred to as "Gods" but as God. There is a difference. John Calvin talks about each part of the trinity as a "hypostasis," that is, a part of a whole. Think about them as equal fractions, only those equal fractions are limitless... Kinda hard to explain, isn't it?

[chaplin]

Umm... I'm gonna go ahead and blatantly rip off C.S. Lewis. What he talks about is the inability of something lesser to comprehend something greater. He uses the hypothetical of a two-dimensional being, and a three-dimensional being trying to explain the concept of depth. There is simply no way to fully grasp it, there can be a shadowy sort of recognition of truth, but no true comprehension. Furthermore, Christ, the Spirit, and the Father are not referred to as "Gods" but as God. There is a difference. John Calvin talks about each part of the trinity as a "hypostasis," that is, a part of a whole. Think about them as equal fractions, only those equal fractions are limitless...

As I said above, a degree of comprehensibility, I feel, is required for the whole of God's plan to work, to function. Not a inherited comprehension of all the facets of God and His rule, but a comprehension of His, and thus our, form, nature, and character.

The concept of the Trinity, I feel, "commits a violence against human reason", which I think you'd agree with, and thus alienates and belittles the role of the human mind in religion, which I don't think was or is God's will in the slightest.


Kinda hard to explain, isn't it?

Which doesn't make it any more right, or more probable to be right.

[weepingforloman]

Do you really think, based on what you see in day-to-day life that the human brain is all that great? If it is, why do we still fight in wars? Why haven't we all figured out that it's best not to hate? Why do we still live "in clouds of ignorance?" (I think that's from the play "Our Town," correct me if I'm wrong). I don't really care all that much about human reason, and I don't see how you can commit a crime against it, just as well say I commited a crime against my hammer (they're all just tools). Also, God's form is different from our form, so understanding this concept isn't a life-or-death manner. And I never said that it's being hard to explain makes it more probable. It's possible that someone may some day come up with a philosophical movement based on the concept that that cheese is the answer to all life's problems, and it might be very complex, but that doesn't make it right. The complexity of the trinity has little to do with its veracity. I'd also disagree with you about comprehension being a vital part of God's will. I doubt many, if any, people really totally understand the workings of the digestive system, but the human body has been stripping nutrients from food for a very long time. As you probably noticed, especially if you've seen some of my other postings (not that I recommend them, I'm a shoddy writer and thinker), I have the utmost respect for John Calvin. I'm a Calvinist. One of his (best in my opinion) ideas was that human reason is fairly weak and not very far reaching, and so it should be subverted to Scripture. No doubt you will think that's foolish, and I can understand that. Why should you think that's right, after all? But, from the position of faith, I think it's perfectly reasonable to accept something too complicated to fully grasp. I think we'll grasp it when the world is remade.

[chaplin]

Do you really think, based on what you see in day-to-day life that the human brain is all that great? If it is, why do we still fight in wars? Why haven't we all figured out that it's best not to hate?

The mind, as it is now, is imperfect, just as ourselves are imperfect, but should we cast aside all hope for all Man merely because we are not impeccable? The mind will progress, Man will progress, through the help of God. And just because some use his or her mind to destroy and harm others, it does not mean that it is a faulty, hopeless entity.


I don't really care all that much about human reason, and I don't see how you can commit a crime against it, just as well say I commited a crime against my hammer (they're all just tools).

So none of your faith, not one bit, is tied up with human reason? I'm afraid mine is because we cannot know perfect truth in this life. Human reason is essential in belief, I think you just can't recognize it standing there.



Also, God's form is different from our form, so understanding this concept isn't a life-or-death manner.

Understanding God's form isn't a "life-or-death" matter, it is an existence-or-no-existence manner.


And I never said that it's being hard to explain makes it more probable.


You didn't say it directly but you are implying it throughout your post.
You can understand and use human reason, thus it is not part of something divine, it can be used for evil, thus there is no potential for it to increase to something better.

God's form is different from ours, and we don't know what that form is, thus ours is terribe and not at all God-like. God's difference to us is that he's perfect and we're not. That is all. We have the same innate eternality, and the innate, eternal ability to better our body and mind to be more like His.

You obviously have a firm belief in your interpretation and it is expressed well, I just, respectfully, disagree with it.

[weepingforloman]

Very well. And, for the record, I believe human reason plays a part, but that it is more important to have faith, by far... Also, I think that it cannot be an existence-or-nonexistence matter, because we don't understand God's form but we're still here.

[kari]

I didn't have the time to read through all these posts, but I have always had a tough time trying to understand what others think of the trinity. I personally, (which I have NO idea if it is tied to what any specific religion believes) believe that there is God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I believe they are 3 seperate antities (or whatever word would work better there), but are all 3 working towards the same goal, for the same purpose. So I at times always took that as meaning there could be a trinity...the 3 entities...working together for a higher purpose type of thing. Then other times...it sounds like some religions believe in the trinity, but the way they talk sounds like all 3 are one, and that they believe Jesus was actually God walking on the earth. Is that what others believe? I would be interested to hear any comments, and I will try to find the time to read through the previous posts as well..
Kari

[kari]

[QUOTE=rosseau;373330]I have been thinking a lot lately about the concept of the Holy Spirit. A lot of Pentacostals, Non-denominational churches, etc. believe in the manifestations that come after being "filled with the Holy Spirit." e.g. being slained, or falling down, speaking of tongues, prophecy, and a lot more (these are referred to 'gifts of the Spirit' in the Christian bible). They especially believe that speaking in tongues is almost necessary b/c they truly believe that when you get this gift you are now at a higher level of faith that allows you to 'communicate with God.' And no one else can understand you, unless ofcourse there is an interpreter (see I Corin. 12 if you're interested). [QUOTE]

I remember when I was in my early 20's, I had a friend, and she was friends with a nun. I remember once I was hanging out with them all, and she started speaking in tongues, and I have heard the same understandings or teachings on it as you had mentioned, it being a gift and such. But to be honest, being there and hearing it....it was extremely creepy, and I could not understand WHY God would do that. So, at the time, I was attending the LDS church...and inquired about it, because it didn't make sense to me. I learned that their teaching of it, or explanation...is that speaking in tongues is for a purpose. For example, someone is trying to spread the word of God, and they come among people who speak another tongue or language, and the person trying to share the Gospel, will of course stumble onto quite a difficulty, and at that time...is when God might bestow this gift onto that person, to help him speak in their language for that purpose of sharing the Gospel. I have also known missionaries that have had this happen to them before, where they just all of a sudden are speaking in a foriegn language, they otherwise knew nothing about...and were conversing with others in that tongue to share the Gospel. This made sense to me. I never really take anything just for someone saying it, but it truly did sound right to me. That God would not just bestow this incredible gift upon someone, just hanging out with friends for no apparent reason...this nun was also drinking at the time. I couldn't imagine that God would be bestowing the gift of tongues onto her at that moment...seemed rediculous really. In that situation, I was told it isn't something coming from God. That- I have no comment on...but I do believe God would only do that for us, if it was truly needed and for a purpose.
Kari

[kari]

oops...I didn't quote correctly..sorry.
Kari

[kathycf]

oops...I didn't quote correctly..sorry.
Kari
Hi, just a quick note Kari. When you end a quote, you have to use a / symbol inside the ending set of braces [ ]. So it would look like "["quote=soandso]blahblah[/quote]...minus the quotation mark. :)

[mtpspur]

I have a deep and adbiding suspicion of the 'speaking in tongues'. For a number of reasons. In truth I encountered it only once at a prayer gathering where a translation was immediately provided. This was done by a young Christian lady I respected as being sincere in her faith but also young in it. Most the of the time I have read and heard of incidents in its use it has seemed to be that the user of the 'gift' was exploiting their own sprituality. This goes much against the grain of miracles in the Bible where the point of the miracle is to present God (or the Lord Christ) in a glorious sight. Not to show how cool a believer we are. Or so it seems to me.

[chaplin]

I couldn't imagine that God would be bestowing the gift of tongues onto her at that moment...seemed rediculous really. In that situation, I was told it isn't something coming from God. That- I have no comment on...but I do believe God would only do that for us, if it was truly needed and for a purpose.


I have a deep and adbiding suspicion of the 'speaking in tongues'. For a number of reasons. In truth I encountered it only once at a prayer gathering where a translation was immediately provided. This was done by a young Christian lady I respected as being sincere in her faith but also young in it.

Not to be a prude or killjoy, but this thread is really mostly about the Trinity.

[mtpspur]

No problem. Was just assuming the religious thread was well on its wandering off tangent and responded as appropriate. Won't happen again. Firm believer in the Trinity. They are all equal and all have a purpose amongst themselves in their revealed works to mankind. Back on track now we hope. I really stay off these threads--I'm way to stuck in my beliefs.

[chaplin]

No problem. Was just assuming the religious thread was well on its wandering off tangent and responded as appropriate. Won't happen again. Firm believer in the Trinity. They are all equal and all have a purpose amongst themselves in their revealed works to mankind. Back on track now we hope. I really stay off these threads--I'm way to stuck in my beliefs.

Good man, we'll have ya back anytime.

[mtpspur]

Ok I just got done perusing some of the Trinity posts to see where it derailed so now I can add my two cents. I speak only of my own viewpoint here. First off I find the doctrine of the Trinity makes perfect sense. Yiu have God the Creator/parent of mankind unable to accept mankind because they are no longer holy in His eyes due to sin. His Son, the Lord Christ dies as asacrifice to bring mankind back into a relationship with God that He can look upon them with favor. The Holy Spirit spends His time proclaiming this good news in the absence of the Lord Christ on earth.

Further I see no evidence in history that man has progressed in a spiritual and moral sense though I freely acknowledge man's growth in knowledge and creature comforts. Otherwise, we live, we make merry, we love, we have children, we die etc etc. This attitude of man's progress I actually feel is demeaning to the the previous generations and leads people to a fasle sense of security--providing they have all that leisure time to contemplate it.

Nor do I believe thatman should have to comprehend all of 'God' before believing in him. To me the best anology is the family one. My kids did not have to know how I understood a hot stove can burn little fingers in order to see the wisdom of taking my word for it. Said wisodom always learned the hard way. Progress indeed.

Bottom line for me will always be if it glorifies the God of the Bible, puts man in a state of need and in a position of being blessed then it's probably safe. If I even begin to think it's all about MY activities and thouyghts of God then I'm on a slippery slope to genuine spiritual hypocricy--which must always be guarded against. With respect and submitted--Rich--also known as mtpspur though I often embarass the man that's named for.

[mtpspur]

By the by-Chaplin---I may and do disagree with SOME of your thoughts but you at least do think them-- more then can be said of most

[weepingforloman]

I didn't have the time to read through all these posts, but I have always had a tough time trying to understand what others think of the trinity. I personally, (which I have NO idea if it is tied to what any specific religion believes) believe that there is God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I believe they are 3 seperate antities (or whatever word would work better there), but are all 3 working towards the same goal, for the same purpose. So I at times always took that as meaning there could be a trinity...the 3 entities...working together for a higher purpose type of thing. Then other times...it sounds like some religions believe in the trinity, but the way they talk sounds like all 3 are one, and that they believe Jesus was actually God walking on the earth. Is that what others believe? I would be interested to hear any comments, and I will try to find the time to read through the previous posts as well..
Kari

Yes, it is the orthodox belief of Christianity that Jesus was in fact God in human form--the Incarnation, as it is called. And, yes, the orthodox belief is that the trinity is three "persons" in one being--also called the "Godhead." I say orthodox because more liberal theologians have occasionally departed from this, notably people like Hans Kung, etc., although I think there has been a general slow down in that regard since most of those theories come from the Catholic Church and John Paul II started up heresy trials again in the 80s (he didn't kill anyone, but he did issue what are in effect gag orders to people he felt were teaching heresy).

[wrestle-135]

Oneness is the belief in One God. Trinity is the belief in three persons beoming one. I belive that there is only one God which makes up oneness not trinity.

[wrestle-135]

The Trinity is the belief in only one God, that has three divine personalities in Him, but remains only one being, one God.

Thus, technically, if you don't believe in the Trinity, then you do believe in three "Gods". Not three God the Fathers, but God the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. All three are described as divine and referred to as Gods in the scriptures, and all three are part of the Godhead, thus three Gods.


Now hang on. I'm not trinity and I know for sure that there is only one God. Which is called oneness. The trinity belief is that there are three different spirits or beings. Your not trinity and believe in one God! The definition for trinity is, the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being. So your telling me the union of three persons is the belief in one God. I think oneness is believeing in one God and only one person making up God is oneness. NOT trinity. Trinity is the union of three persons. The definiton is right there. There is one God. The bible said he manifested himself to become man. so there for, there isn't another being that became son. The Holy Ghost is Gods spirit upon you. Not a third person. I've been raised in the Apostolic Pentecostal belief all my life and there is no way you can convence me that Trinity is the belief in one God. There is one God which is the Holy Ghost and which manifested to become man. Making only one person which in return makes only one God. Which is oneness not trinity!!!!

[Whifflingpin]

"Trinity is the union of three persons. The definiton is right there."

Unfortunately, the meaning of the definition is lost. "Person," when the doctrine was defined, meant mask, not individual.

Diversity within unity of Godhead was not an idea invented by Christian theologians. Janus, for instance is a two person unity. More famously, the Triple Goddess, usually presented as virgin, matron and crone, was another divine three-in-one, with whom the Christians would have been familiar and against whom they set their triune God.

.

[weepingforloman]

Now hang on. I'm not trinity and I know for sure that there is only one God. Which is called oneness. The trinity belief is that there are three different spirits or beings. Your not trinity and believe in one God! The definition for trinity is, the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being. So your telling me the union of three persons is the belief in one God. I think oneness is believeing in one God and only one person making up God is oneness. NOT trinity. Trinity is the union of three persons. The definiton is right there. There is one God. The bible said he manifested himself to become man. so there for, there isn't another being that became son. The Holy Ghost is Gods spirit upon you. Not a third person. I've been raised in the Apostolic Pentecostal belief all my life and there is no way you can convence me that Trinity is the belief in one God. There is one God which is the Holy Ghost and which manifested to become man. Making only one person which in return makes only one God. Which is oneness not trinity!!!!

And I quote, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh." That's Christ, God the Son, the Word. And I quote, "I will send another to you." That is Christ's promise of the Spirit. "Anyone who sees me sees the Father." That also is Christ's word. The Trinity is indeed one God. But, as God is a being of an entirely higher order than us, He is composed of more than one Person (read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis). The Word was with God and was God. How can something be with something it is no different from? How can something be one with something it was also with? The only answer is the Trinity.

[Mortis Anarchy]

Now hang on. I'm not trinity and I know for sure that there is only one God. Which is called oneness. The trinity belief is that there are three different spirits or beings. Your not trinity and believe in one God! The definition for trinity is, the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being. So your telling me the union of three persons is the belief in one God. I think oneness is believeing in one God and only one person making up God is oneness. NOT trinity. Trinity is the union of three persons. The definiton is right there. There is one God. The bible said he manifested himself to become man. so there for, there isn't another being that became son. The Holy Ghost is Gods spirit upon you. Not a third person. I've been raised in the Apostolic Pentecostal belief all my life and there is no way you can convence me that Trinity is the belief in one God. There is one God which is the Holy Ghost and which manifested to become man. Making only one person which in return makes only one God. Which is oneness not trinity!!!!

But, they are all the same thing. I think I used this in another thread, but an apple is one thing. But it is made up of a skin, meat and core. If you seperated them they would still be an apple!

[chaplin]

But, they are all the same thing. an apple is one thing. But it is made up of a skin, meat and core. If you seperated them they would still be an apple!

Someone used an analogy earlier to help describe the Trinity, and I don't particularly think they help too much. For example, the "skin, meat and core" of an apple are each separate pieces of the whole, they are of the same essence (Divinity), but the skin is also not simultaneously the core and the meat not simultaneously the skin, etc., which is what the concept of the Trinity attempts to expound.

[Gorilla King]

Boiled down to it's most simple level, the trinity is three whos and one what.

[Derringer]

God in christianity cannot be viewed as three seperate entities. It is three-in-one or one. Christianity is monotheistic.

[Turk]

I don't understand the motto "the one is three and the three is one". One is one. There was Christians who believed this (search for Nicea Counsil in 325). But they rejected by the church.

[Gorilla King]

I don't understand the motto "the one is three and the three is one". One is one. There was Christians who believed this (search for Nicea Counsil in 325). But they rejected by the church.

A tree's trunk produces branches and from these branches proceeds fruit. And yet, all are part of the same tree. 3 elements of one thing. Three "whos"....one "what."

[Bakiryu]

I believe the concept of the Trinity is based on the ancient concept of the mother goddess who is described as: The Maiden, The Mother, and The Crone. Tweak that a bit and you got a brand new god!

[Turk]

This is Aristoteles logic. "All birds are animal, all birds can fly; all cats are animals, then all cats can fly". I am talking about God, and you give me a tree trunk as an example. Completely unacceptable and contradictory.

[Unbeliever]

I'm curious why no mention has yet been made of the "Comma Johanneum", at 1 John 5:7-8.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Maybe it was mentioned, and I simply failed to see it. If so, sorry.

[dzebra]

I'm curious why no mention has yet been made of the "Comma Johanneum", at 1 John 5:7-8.


Maybe it was mentioned, and I simply failed to see it. If so, sorry.

That verse was in the Latin Vulgate Bible I believe, but was removed later because manuscripts deemed "more reliable" worded that same section differently, not including all three parts of the Trinity.

[stephofthenight]

so basicly the belife in the trinity is the belife in god the schitzo, who has multiple personality disorder?

[weepingforloman]

Nope. He actually DOES have three Persons within Him, though He remains one Being.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Nope. He actually DOES have three Persons within Him, though He remains one Being.

Please cite if you can the definitive origin of this concept. Sacred text or an ecumenical council?

[Unbeliever]

I've heard Christians explain the trinity by using the example that a man can be (for example) a husband, a father, and a son, all at the same time. Three persons in one, yet all the same person - and at family reunions, the same all at once.

I think the flaw here is that the man can't be all of those things to all persons. A father can't be a son to his son or his wife, can't be a husband to his son, etc. And yet God can be Father, Son and Holy Ghost to an individual Christian all at the same time

Any other flaws I've missed?

[weepingforloman]

Please cite if you can the definitive origin of this concept. Sacred text or an ecumenical council?
The scriptures do not, as you clearly know, explicitly state the existence of the Trinity. But I refer you to the Gospel of John, and the Pauline epistles.

Unless I am very much mistaken, the doctrine of the Trinity was first articulated by Irenaeus in "De Trinitatum."

I've heard Christians explain the trinity by using the example that a man can be (for example) a husband, a father, and a son, all at the same time. Three persons in one, yet all the same person - and at family reunions, the same all at once.

I think the flaw here is that the man can't be all of those things to all persons. A father can't be a son to his son or his wife, can't be a husband to his son, etc. And yet God can be Father, Son and Holy Ghost to an individual Christian all at the same time

Any other flaws I've missed?

First off, I've never heard this explanation and would say it's wrong. God is the Father, Son, and Spirit to all men, not just Christians. Quite frankly, if this explanation was true, the Incarnation would have meant the end of the world: God could not at once be a man in the flesh and yet rule in Heaven if He were not more than one Person. There is a reason this doctrine is counted among the "sacred mysteries" (a term I believed used mostly by the Catholics).

[Annabel Lee]

First off I would like to quote John Calvin: "A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."

I am not "Trinitarian", I am not "Oneness", I am not Catholic; my beliefs are found in the Bible. I guess you could call me a Biblical. The term "Trinity" is not even in the Bible, so of course people that say they are trinitarian can not explain themselves!
Someone here mentioned I John 5:7; and just so you know: that scripture was not in the original Bible. When Desiderius Erasmus was translating the Bible, Pope Something Or Other, (Catholic!) ordered for the phrase "and these three are one" to be added. Probably because he knew that his beliefs were not Biblically supported. So the scripture that most trinitarians or oneness people base their beliefs on was not even in the original Bible!!!
I posted in another thread about the trinity, so I am going to copy/paste my comment here. Here's what I said.-

This is actually a simple doctrine to understand. I don't know why every one wants to make it more complex than what it is. I believe that there is a Father and a Son. Even though throughout the Bible they share the same name, it does not mean that they are the same person. A son in this natural world may share the name of his father but it doesn't mean that they are the same person. God the Father sent His only begotten Son into this world to be a living sacrifice, that we might be saved. And as for the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, it is simply God's spirit, and He sends it as a gift. When one is filled with the Spirit they are filled with the ability to communicate with God, and to be led by God. And actually, the words spirit and ghost are translated from the same word from which we translate breath, wind, and air. Any time the Bible talks about the Breath of God, or like in Acts where it talks about a rushing mighty wind, the Bible is talking about the same things. Think of a man doing CPR, he breathes his breath into someone else so that they might live. But the man doing the CPR does not actually enter the other person's body, only his breath does. So I believe there is a Father, a Son (two separate people), and the Spirit of God. I also believe that everything in the Bible is understandable. 1st Corinthians 2:14 says "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (or the things that God reveals to us through His spirit) for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them (the things of God), because they are spiritually discerned." Something that one has to remember when trying to understand the Bible is that it explains itself. But you have to know where to look for your answers. We have a saying in our church "The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed." You can't understand one without the other. God would not write a love letter such as this that we could not understand. To those that truly want to know Him, He WILL reveal himself. He's not some complex God out in the far universe that doesn't care about mankind. When you love someone you want them to understand you right? Well God love's us, He wants us to understand Him; and we can.

[chaplin]

I am not "Trinitarian", I am not "Oneness", I am not Catholic; my beliefs are found in the Bible. I guess you could call me a Biblical.

So what denominations hold to this concept? I know for certain only that Roman Catholics do, and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses do not.

[weepingforloman]

First off I would like to quote John Calvin: "A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."

I am not "Trinitarian", I am not "Oneness", I am not Catholic; my beliefs are found in the Bible. I guess you could call me a Biblical. The term "Trinity" is not even in the Bible, so of course people that say they are trinitarian can not explain themselves!
Someone here mentioned I John 5:7; and just so you know: that scripture was not in the original Bible. When Desiderius Erasmus was translating the Bible, Pope Something Or Other, (Catholic!) ordered for the phrase "and these three are one" to be added. Probably because he knew that his beliefs were not Biblically supported. So the scripture that most trinitarians or oneness people base their beliefs on was not even in the original Bible!!!
I posted in another thread about the trinity, so I am going to copy/paste my comment here. Here's what I said.-

This is actually a simple doctrine to understand. I don't know why every one wants to make it more complex than what it is. I believe that there is a Father and a Son. Even though throughout the Bible they share the same name, it does not mean that they are the same person. A son in this natural world may share the name of his father but it doesn't mean that they are the same person. God the Father sent His only begotten Son into this world to be a living sacrifice, that we might be saved. And as for the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, it is simply God's spirit, and He sends it as a gift. When one is filled with the Spirit they are filled with the ability to communicate with God, and to be led by God. And actually, the words spirit and ghost are translated from the same word from which we translate breath, wind, and air. Any time the Bible talks about the Breath of God, or like in Acts where it talks about a rushing mighty wind, the Bible is talking about the same things. Think of a man doing CPR, he breathes his breath into someone else so that they might live. But the man doing the CPR does not actually enter the other person's body, only his breath does. So I believe there is a Father, a Son (two separate people), and the Spirit of God. I also believe that everything in the Bible is understandable. 1st Corinthians 2:14 says "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (or the things that God reveals to us through His spirit) for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them (the things of God), because they are spiritually discerned." Something that one has to remember when trying to understand the Bible is that it explains itself. But you have to know where to look for your answers. We have a saying in our church "The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed." You can't understand one without the other. God would not write a love letter such as this that we could not understand. To those that truly want to know Him, He WILL reveal himself. He's not some complex God out in the far universe that doesn't care about mankind. When you love someone you want them to understand you right? Well God love's us, He wants us to understand Him; and we can.
Philippians 2:5-6 "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Biblical? I think you're not.


So what denominations hold to this concept? I know for certain only that Roman Catholics do, and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses do not.

Most Christians do. Presbyterians of all kinds, Baptists, Congregationalists, Anabaptists, Methodists, Free Evangelicals, and, unless I misunderstand them, the Orthodoxes.

[Whifflingpin]

Annabel Lee said "Someone here mentioned I John 5:7; and just so you know: that scripture was not in the original Bible. When Desiderius Erasmus was translating the Bible, Pope Something Or Other, (Catholic!) ordered for the phrase "and these three are one" to be added. Probably because he knew that his beliefs were not Biblically supported. "

Wikipedia says "The first work to use the Comma Johanneum as an actual part of the Epistle's text appears to be the fourth-century Latin book Liber Apologeticus, probably written by Priscillian of Ávila (died 385), or his close follower Bishop Instantius.[5] ... Raymond E. Brown's Epistle of John specifies the Liber Apologeticus as the Comma's source.

This part of the homily, possibly originating from Cyprian, then became worked into copies of the Vulgate, roughly around the year 800"

800, of course, being about 700 years before Erasmus and the Pope Something or Other.

[Annabel Lee]

So what denominations hold to this concept? I know for certain only that Roman Catholics do, and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses do not.

No I'm not Roman Catholic; I'm a Christian. I guess you could call us Pentecostal; but through the years we've used the phrase Nondenominational.

Whifflingpin:
"Wikipedia says "The first work to use the Comma Johanneum as an actual part of the Epistle's text appears to be the fourth-century Latin book Liber Apologeticus, probably written by Priscillian of Ávila (died 385), or his close follower Bishop Instantius.[5] ... Raymond E. Brown's Epistle of John specifies the Liber Apologeticus as the Comma's source."

Yes, but this book was not the Bible.

One can not read the Bible from a philosophical or scientific mindset, or perspective. If you do, it will be a mystery; and you wont understand it.
I Corinthians 2:14 says that "the natural man cannot understand the things of God for they are foolishness to him." Only through God's spirit can one understand the things of God. The understanding of the Bible has to be revealed to you by God, through His spirit. That's what the spirit is for.

Philippians 2:5 actually says "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" Where it says Let this mind be in you its referring to the previous verses, which talk about being meek and loving one another, and putting others first.

There are only a few scriptures that refer to Jesus as God (and it never refers to God as Jesus or Son). But God is not a name; the word god is like lord or king. But this God is the LORD of lords. In Psalms 110:1 "The LORD said unto my Lord" even David recognizes a difference between God and Jesus. When he says LORD, he means sovereign, and when he says Lord he is showing that they are both lords, but one is sovereign. And when he says "my Lord", he is showing that Jesus is the mediator between us and the sovereign LORD.
A name is a name, and just because a father and son have the same name it doesn't mean that they are the same person.
God is not a name. The only name that God gives himself is I AM (Ex. 3:14). "I AM" meaning (even though it isn't proper English) I IS. He wants us to know that he IS always present; he is omnipresent, or always present. He IS, and will be forevermore.

Proverbs 2:1-9 "My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou cry after knowledge, and lift up thy voice for understanding; If thou seek her as silver, search for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly. He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints. Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path." (The rest of the chapter is good too.) Where it says "sound" wisdom, it means wisdom that is good, solid, reliable, and understandable.

This is the understanding that God has revealed to me; and I understand it. But whether you do or not, is your decision to make; I can't make you understand.

Being young in the Lord, I am not as quick with "the sword" as I'd like to be; I have stated my beliefs as best I know how.

And since my explanations and beliefs are not easily understood around here I think I'll stick to posting in the Literature section. It was a pleasure (though I wasn't understood) to have the opportunity to share my beliefs with you. My prayer now is that you will find God and be filled with understanding; because the things of God are not meant to be a mystery. Though they are, to the natural man.

Over n' out.

[Whifflingpin]

Whiff: "Raymond E. Brown's Epistle of John specifies the Liber Apologeticus as the Comma's source."

Annabel Lee: "Yes, but this book was not the Bible"

Of course it was not - to that extent I was agreeing with your statement that the Comma Johanneum was a later addition.

What I disagreed with was your implication that it was added, with malicious or dishonest intent at the command of Pope Something or Other. In fact, the phrase was an accepted part of discussions about the Trinity for centuries before it was formally included in the Bible.

I am not in the least challenging any belief you have in or about God.

I ask you, however to be very cautious about attributing malice or ignorance to others.

I also suggest that you check your evidence, before making an argument. You may have noticed a post of mine in the closed thread on this subject, mysteriously edited to blank. I edited that because, when I wrote it I knew that the Comma Johanneum was in the Vulgate translation of the bible, and assumed that it had been there since St Jerome, i.e. early 5th century. It did not take much checking to show me that I was wrong, hence I deleted my post.

"Philippians 2:5 actually says "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: ...:" Where it says "Let this mind be in you" it's referring to the previous verses, which talk about being meek and loving one another, and putting others first."
And that, I think, includes putting a charitable interpretation on the actions of renaissance scholars and unknown popes, unless good proof exists to the contrary.

[weepingforloman]

No I'm not Roman Catholic; I'm a Christian. I guess you could call us Pentecostal; but through the years we've used the phrase Nondenominational.

Whifflingpin:
"Wikipedia says "The first work to use the Comma Johanneum as an actual part of the Epistle's text appears to be the fourth-century Latin book Liber Apologeticus, probably written by Priscillian of Ávila (died 385), or his close follower Bishop Instantius.[5] ... Raymond E. Brown's Epistle of John specifies the Liber Apologeticus as the Comma's source."

Yes, but this book was not the Bible.

One can not read the Bible from a philosophical or scientific mindset, or perspective. If you do, it will be a mystery; and you wont understand it.
I Corinthians 2:14 says that "the natural man cannot understand the things of God for they are foolishness to him." Only through God's spirit can one understand the things of God. The understanding of the Bible has to be revealed to you by God, through His spirit. That's what the spirit is for.

Philippians 2:5 actually says "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" Where it says Let this mind be in you its referring to the previous verses, which talk about being meek and loving one another, and putting others first.

There are only a few scriptures that refer to Jesus as God (and it never refers to God as Jesus or Son). But God is not a name; the word god is like lord or king. But this God is the LORD of lords. In Psalms 110:1 "The LORD said unto my Lord" even David recognizes a difference between God and Jesus. When he says LORD, he means sovereign, and when he says Lord he is showing that they are both lords, but one is sovereign. And when he says "my Lord", he is showing that Jesus is the mediator between us and the sovereign LORD.
A name is a name, and just because a father and son have the same name it doesn't mean that they are the same person.
God is not a name. The only name that God gives himself is I AM (Ex. 3:14). "I AM" meaning (even though it isn't proper English) I IS. He wants us to know that he IS always present; he is omnipresent, or always present. He IS, and will be forevermore.

Proverbs 2:1-9 "My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou cry after knowledge, and lift up thy voice for understanding; If thou seek her as silver, search for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly. He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints. Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path." (The rest of the chapter is good too.) Where it says "sound" wisdom, it means wisdom that is good, solid, reliable, and understandable.

This is the understanding that God has revealed to me; and I understand it. But whether you do or not, is your decision to make; I can't make you understand.

Being young in the Lord, I am not as quick with "the sword" as I'd like to be; I have stated my beliefs as best I know how.

And since my explanations and beliefs are not easily understood around here I think I'll stick to posting in the Literature section. It was a pleasure (though I wasn't understood) to have the opportunity to share my beliefs with you. My prayer now is that you will find God and be filled with understanding; because the things of God are not meant to be a mystery. Though they are, to the natural man.

Over n' out.

The fact that God is never "referred to" as Christ, or Jesus, is no argument: if Christ is God, it would make sense to specify that it was the Godman that was being discussed, not the Father, and therefore, the term "Christ" would be used. Paul continually refers to Christ as "Lord." The use of the term "God" for God the Father is a consequence of the Judaic understanding of a God totally united. The term God the Father is only used to distinguish Him from His other Persons.

[Annabel Lee]

Whiff: "I am not in the least challenging any belief you have in or about God."

Thank you.


Whiff: "What I disagreed with was your implication that it was added, with malicious or dishonest intent at the command of Pope Something or Other."

I was not trying to indicate that it was done in malice; and if it was taken that way than I'm sorry. I was just pointing out that it was most likely not written by any of the Apostles.


Whiff: "In fact, the phrase was an accepted part of discussions about the Trinity for centuries before it was formally included in the Bible."

(though I do use exclamation points, read this with a sweet voice, I'm not trying to sound harsh)

And because of this I find it hard to believe it as truth! How can any one believe something like this that was not written by one of God's chosen Apostles?!

If you or any one else chooses to base their beliefs on a phrase that was not in the original Bible, and was probably not even written by an Apostle, than go ahead. If what I have already said has not made an impact on any one, than there's nothing more I can do here.

I rest my case.

[weepingforloman]

There are many other proofs of the Trinity. Just because the Vulgate contained an inaccurate verse that EXPLICITLY stated the existence of the Trinity does not mean there are no verses that IMPLICITLY point to the Trinity. You have defeated one verse, now face the many others.

[kiobe]

Maybe someone has already answered this but, wouldn't the trinity qualify catholicism as a henotheistic religion rather than a monotheistic religion?

[Whifflingpin]

"Maybe someone has already answered this but, wouldn't the trinity qualify catholicism as a henotheistic religion rather than a monotheistic religion?"

I could be wrong, but, as I understand it, henotheism is the belief that one's own god is supreme amongst gods. A henotheist, then worships only one god, but recognizes the existence of others. I think henotheism better describes, for instance, the belief of those Israelites of the Old Testament, who argued that Yahweh was greater than Baal, while still acknowledging Baal as a god.

This does not apply to Christians who believe that there is only one God, manifest to us in three persons.

[kiobe]

"Maybe someone has already answered this but, wouldn't the trinity qualify catholicism as a henotheistic religion rather than a monotheistic religion?"

I could be wrong, but, as I understand it, henotheism is the belief that one's own god is supreme amongst gods. A henotheist, then worships only one god, but recognizes the existence of others. I think henotheism better describes, for instance, the belief of those Israelites of the Old Testament, who argued that Yahweh was greater than Baal, while still acknowledging Baal as a god.

This does not apply to Christians who believe that there is only one God, manifest to us in three persons.

Hi Wiff. I read that henotheism is the belief in a supreme Being in addition to other spirits and Gods. I think I am confused about the role of the Holy Ghost in the trinity and why some christians feel that Jesus is God.

[Whifflingpin]

Kiobe: "I read that henotheism is the belief in a supreme Being in addition to other spirits and Gods."
I think that is correct, but the Trinity is not a supreme God ruling over two subordinate gods - it is a way of describing three aspects of one God.

" I think I am confused about the role of the Holy Ghost in the trinity and why some christians feel that Jesus is God."
It is confusing if you think about it, and easy if you live by it -

The Holy Spirit is, simply enough, God as He works normally in the universe. Acceptance of the Holy Spirit is just recognition that God did not simply create the universe and walk away from it, but that He continues to sustain it, not by proxy, through angels or whatever, but in person.

Christians feel that Jesus is God because it makes sense, provided that you start in the right place - if not then its just twaddle.
Accept, if you can, that there is evil. And accept also that evil needs to be paid for. (I've skipped a bit about responsibility for evil, but no matter.) Payment may be imposed - that is punishment. Or it may be made voluntarily - that is sacrifice.
Now any human might make enough sacrifice to pay for his own evil, but not enough to pay for all the evil that there is.
Only God could be a sufficient sacrifice to pay for all the evil that there is - but to do that He has to be in the same place and condition as that evil, i.e. in the universe, not outside it.
So, He becomes part of the universe He created (don't ask me how, I don't know) Why does he become a human, rather than a cockroach or a pebble? I don't know that either, but it could be that, alone in the universe, humans make conscious moral choices. Just accept that He does.
As a human (and as God-in-the-universe) he is sacrificed, and universal evil is paid for.

Christians believe that Jesus is that God-in-the-universe because those who knew him saw in him something that was beyond mere human - they recognized him as a life force that could not be stopped by some mere accident to the body - the only explanation that made sense to them was that he was, in fact, God-in-the-universe, and that his sacriice, as God and man, had overwhelmed the evil of the universe.

[kiobe]

Kiobe: "I read that henotheism is the belief in a supreme Being in addition to other spirits and Gods."
I think that is correct, but the Trinity is not a supreme God ruling over two subordinate gods - it is a way of describing three aspects of one God.

" I think I am confused about the role of the Holy Ghost in the trinity and why some christians feel that Jesus is God."
It is confusing if you think about it, and easy if you live by it -

The Holy Spirit is, simply enough, God as He works normally in the universe. Acceptance of the Holy Spirit is just recognition that God did not simply create the universe and walk away from it, but that He continues to sustain it, not by proxy, through angels or whatever, but in person.

Christians feel that Jesus is God because it makes sense, provided that you start in the right place - if not then its just twaddle.
Accept, if you can, that there is evil. And accept also that evil needs to be paid for. (I've skipped a bit about responsibility for evil, but no matter.) Payment may be imposed - that is punishment. Or it may be made voluntarily - that is sacrifice.
Now any human might make enough sacrifice to pay for his own evil, but not enough to pay for all the evil that there is.
Only God could be a sufficient sacrifice to pay for all the evil that there is - but to do that He has to be in the same place and condition as that evil, i.e. in the universe, not outside it.
So, He becomes part of the universe He created (don't ask me how, I don't know) Why does he become a human, rather than a cockroach or a pebble? I don't know that either, but it could be that, alone in the universe, humans make conscious moral choices. Just accept that He does.
As a human (and as God-in-the-universe) he is sacrificed, and universal evil is paid for.

Christians believe that Jesus is that God-in-the-universe because those who knew him saw in him something that was beyond mere human - they recognized him as a life force that could not be stopped by some mere accident to the body - the only explanation that made sense to them was that he was, in fact, God-in-the-universe, and that his sacriice, as God and man, had overwhelmed the evil of the universe.

Thanks, that's a lot to work on. I'll chew threw it.

[k_krishy20]

I did some research on the Trinity and I have found out that in the Hindu religion they believe in the power of trinity and they have gods that represent the trinity. This is the picture of the 3 gods; the first one is brahma, the second one is vishnu and the third one is Mahesh.

http://widgets.bestmoodle.net/images/hindugods/Trimurti200.jpg (http://www.2and2.net)

[Video Drone]

I do not believe in Trinity, I think it's just another thing the Church made up.

[Bookworm4Him]

It's a very confusing idea, but here is a simple analogy that might help. The Trinity can be compared to an egg. An egg is made of the shell, the white, and the yoke. The shell itself is not the egg, but if you show it to someone, they will tell you that it is part of an egg. Same with the other parts. Seperate, they are things, but they are not complete 'til combined. Likewise with the Trinity. There is God the Father, then there is Jesus, God the Son, then there is the Holy Spirit. Seperate, but together, they make God.

I posted this on the other Trinity forum, but thought it might be good to address it here as well.

As to us not being able to understand God as being mumbo jumbo, consider this- how big and all-powerful of a God could He be if our small minds could comprehend Him and His complexity? He'd be on a human level, not a powerful God who created the universe.

[Redzeppelin]

I do not believe in Trinity, I think it's just another thing the Church made up.

"Made up?" What would be the benefit of "making up" the rather complex concept of the Trinity? What else has the church "made up"? I'm rather curious.

[kiobe]

Someone here mentioned I John 5:7; and just so you know: that scripture was not in the original Bible. When Desiderius Erasmus was translating the Bible, Pope Something Or Other, (Catholic!) ordered for the phrase "and these three are one" to be added. Probably because he knew that his beliefs were not Biblically supported.

How are we to know, difinitivly and factually, what was in 'the original' bible?

[weepingforloman]

Hi Wiff. I read that henotheism is the belief in a supreme Being in addition to other spirits and Gods. I think I am confused about the role of the Holy Ghost in the trinity and why some christians feel that Jesus is God.
I refer you to the first chapter of the Gospel according to John for our basis of Christ's divinity.

I do not believe in Trinity, I think it's just another thing the Church made up.
And I believe that atheistic evolution is wishful conjecture on the part of science. Jump ball.


How are we to know, difinitivly and factually, what was in 'the original' bible?
Because the "original Bible" was canonized by a group of people we know, at a location we know, on a date we know.

[Whifflingpin]

kiobe : I read that henotheism is the belief in a supreme Being in addition to other spirits and Gods. I think I am confused about the role of the Holy Ghost in the trinity and why some christians feel that Jesus is God.

Weepingforloman: I refer you to the first chapter of the Gospel according to John for our basis of Christ's divinity.

John is included in "some Christians." I suggest to you, W, that it is not much use quoting the bible as an authority, except in discussion with other Christians, especially in such an off-hand manner, and more especially when that same reference has been made already, by yourself and others, in the same thread.

You need, I suggest, to understand why John believed and wrote what he did. And don't just say "he was divinely inspired." He was not writing as a prophet, but as a friend and follower of Jesus, and as a theologian, so he had good, understandable reasons for his views. I made one attempt to explain how John and his fellows arrived at their position - you may have a better one.

.

[weepingforloman]

kiobe : I read that henotheism is the belief in a supreme Being in addition to other spirits and Gods. I think I am confused about the role of the Holy Ghost in the trinity and why some christians feel that Jesus is God.

Weepingforloman: I refer you to the first chapter of the Gospel according to John for our basis of Christ's divinity.

John is included in "some Christians." I suggest to you, W, that it is not much use quoting the bible as an authority, except in discussion with other Christians, especially in such an off-hand manner, and more especially when that same reference has been made already, by yourself and others, in the same thread.

You need, I suggest, to understand why John believed and wrote what he did. And don't just say "he was divinely inspired." He was not writing as a prophet, but as a friend and follower of Jesus, and as a theologian, so he had good, understandable reasons for his views. I made one attempt to explain how John and his fellows arrived at their position - you may have a better one.

.

I did not intend to use it as a proof-positive argument: I meant to show Kiobe where we get the idea of Christ's divinity. That is our basis. It is not yours, but it is ours.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I did not intend to use it as a proof-positive argument: I meant to show Kiobe where we get the idea of Christ's divinity. That is our basis. It is not yours, but it is ours.

You and others might be fascinated by "The Bible and Christianity - The Historical Origins" on http://www.bidstrup.com/

[Whifflingpin]

"I meant to show Kiobe where we get the idea of Christ's divinity. That is our basis. It is not yours, but it is ours."

It may be yours, but it cannot be John's.
Can you guess, do you know, where John got "the idea of Christ's divinity?"

[PrinceMyshkin]

Because the "original Bible" was canonized by a group of people we know, at a location we know, on a date we know.

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

[AngelEyes714]

"Can you guess, do you know, where John got "the idea of Christ's divinity?"

Christ said it. Not just once, but many times in different ways. Even his miracles proclaimed him as God...but because we aren't a part of that culture, we don't understand the full dynamic of that...

Healing a blind man and declaring that he was the light of the world (in a sense, God).
He actually, quite literally, said "I and the Father are one."
By forgiving the sins of the lame man, he declared that he had that authority, again asserting his unity with God.

John, in his beginning speech, is declaring that God and Jesus existed at the very beginning of creation - and that the plan all along was to provide the world with a redemptive power that was big enought to destroy sin for any who believed. He saw that God was dropping hints all through history pointing to this ultimate sacrifice that he would make as Jesus Christ.

Now, as to the legitimacy of the Bible, there can be proof of what the "original" scriptures say because scholars are finding older copies of manuscripts periodically...and multiple manuscripts that are incredibly similar. I can't provide enough details to support this simply because I'm lazy and don't feel like looking it up, but you should do some research on it if you really are concerned about it or really do believe that the Bible is only so reliable.

[Whifflingpin]

Whifflingpin: "Can you guess, do you know, where John got "the idea of Christ's divinity?"

AngelEyes714: "Christ said it. Not just once, but many times in different ways. Even his miracles proclaimed him as God..."

Good - that is a reasonable basis - Christ claimed divinity for himself and demonstrated it. I agree that those are good enough grounds for someone to base a belief on.

[Thinkerr]

I agree. A theory is proved when a logical claim is made and then backed up by supporting evidece. That is definently a good basis for a system of belief. Another reason is Christians were probably the most hated people during the beginings of their religion. If they didn't believe that what they were being hated and attacked for was true then their religion would have fallen apart and we wouldn't have Christians today.

[Gene McKnight]

Actually, speaking in tongues is the lesser gift. Paul said seek the higher gifts. Loving, teaching, prophesying and preaching are what you should seek. Don't get hung up on tongues. Your friend, Gene

[weepingforloman]

Hmm? This looks like the wrong thread... Or else I missed something.

[Pendragon]

I thought I had posted this before, but if I have, it has been removed for some reason. OK. Absolutely 1 John 5:7 in the KJV says the three are one. In some later translations, this has been left out, or merged with verse 6.

In the Old Testament we had God Above Us, Yahweh.
Isaiah said: "call his name Emmanuel, for he shall save his people from their sins"

"Emmanuel" means "God With Us" Youshua: Jesus in Hebrew: "Yahweh Saves"

Jesus stated he would go away and send the Comforter, The Spirit of Truth. He also said, "I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you. I will be with you, even in you, even until the end of the world."

The best description I ever heard of it was a egg. Shell, white, yoke, it's all egg. Every piece is different, yet totally and instantly recognizable as egg. The egg is never whole without all three. But all three instantly are known as egg.

You may have had fried eggs from breakfast. Hey, wait a minute. That egg was missing the shell, it wasn't an egg! Yes, it was! My wife cannot stand egg white from boiled eggs, so when we have deviled eggs she eats only yolks. She isn't eating egg, no white, no shell! Oh yes, she is eating and enjoying eggs. I'll eat the whites, and without shell or yoke, I enjoy the eggs.

God is like that. You cannot really split Him up, because any part is still God.

God Bless

Pen

[Thinkerr]

I agree with that whole-heartedly! That is the best explanation of the Trinity I've heard. Some people can't figure this out, like Moslems, but it really does make sense.

[Pendragon]

I must ask you not to speak evil of the Muslim people. They steadfastly believe in ONE GOD, and in the end, that is the mystery of the thing we call the Trinity revealed, that there is but ONE GOD. In my times of sorrow, some Muslims have had more compassion in their hearts than many of my fellow Christians. Did not Christ say the whole of the law came down to Loving God and Loving Thy Neighbor, whom he defined as "anyone in need?"

God Bless

Pen

[Thinkerr]

I am sorry, I did not mean that. The Muslims I know definently believe in one God, but do not understand how there can be three aspects of God without us being polytheistic. They think we see God as three different elements: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; not one God with facets, like a diamond.

[weepingforloman]

I don't think any one image can be used to sum up the Trinity. It is, in some ways, like a faceted diamond, but in other ways it is just what it most often says it is: a relationship between three Persons. The triune God might be said to be a loving relationship crystallized and made alive. Obviously this is not the total summation of His character, but it is an aspect of God.

[Pendragon]

I don't think any one image can be used to sum up the Trinity. It is, in some ways, like a faceted diamond, but in other ways it is just what it most often says it is: a relationship between three Persons. The triune God might be said to be a loving relationship crystallized and made alive. Obviously this is not the total summation of His character, but it is an aspect of God.This is a question I have often asked of people, Loman. You are no doubt thinking of the baptism of Christ, when the Father speaks from heaven, Jesus is rising from the water, and the Holy Ghost descends like a dove and object that One cannot be in three places at once. Then I will ask you, do you feel that you as a Christian have Christ indwelling within you according to scripture? If your answer is yes, how many people attend your church? They are all lost. You have Christ in you and He can't be in more than one place, so everyone else is out in the cold. But if the truth is that God can be anywhere and everywhere at once, there is no mystery to the Trinity. God was in all three places at the same time. Now, as He is God In US, the Comforter, with us, even in us until the end of the world, we all have Him if we invite Him in. One God, everywhere at once. Read 1 Timothy 3:19

God Bless

Pen

[weepingforloman]

I am aware that He is one God- I am not quite sure what you are arguing. Surely you cannot be denying that Christ, in the Incarnation, was in fact physical, and, like all physical beings, restricted to one place at one time? And the fact that God is omnipresent- what exactly that has to do with trinitarian theology, I cannot comprehend. So God is omnipresent- does that mean that He cannot be one, or that He must be three? I don't follow your argument. And surely when someone says, "Christ is in my heart" He means that He has the grace of God- which might rightly said to be both the redeeming action of Christ and the sealing and sustaining power of the Spirit, no?
I'm sorry, I just can't see what you're arguing, here.

To try a different tack, if God is perfect in love, whom did He love before creation? The answer is: there was love between the Persons. The Father begat the Son before all creation: Christ is first born over all creation. And the Spirit of love was between the two.

[Pendragon]

I will only say this for this may help and it may not, but it will not be a word of bad mouthing.

The Pleasant Grove church needed repainting very badly. The congregation spent time and investment on a fund raiser, and managed to come up with all the money required to purchase the paint and hire a local crew to do the work. On the next fortnight, the congregation arrived to find the outside of the church all aglow with it's nice fresh coat of paint. But upon entering the sanctuary, everyone gasped in horror. The old cracked, peeling paint was still on the walls. In the center of the floor was a pallet containing the cans of new paint ready to be put up, along with the rollers and brushes.

The Pastor was on his cell phone in five seconds. The contractor protested. "My guys said they put the paint in the sanctuary."

"So they did." The Pastor shot back. "But unless they scrap off the old stuff and apply the new paint it isn't going to do us any good to have it in here, is it?"

There is a difference in having something and applying it to your lifestyle.

God Bless

Pendragon

[weepingforloman]

I'm very much afraid I don't know what you are trying to say.

[Pendragon]

I am saying it is one thing to know the truth about the Godhead, that the there are actually one, and there has never at any time be anything but one God.I Timothy 3: 16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Without any arguing about it, GOD was made flesh. That would be Jesus. Justified in the spirit, seen of angels. That would be the Holy Ghost. Preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the word, received up to glory. Who did Paul preach. Christ and Him Crucified, the savior of. the world. Note that it starts by God being made flesh, the Creator taking on the shape of the created.

God Bless

Pen

Take the paint out of the can and start to apply it. Realize the reality of who God is. Be still and know...

[weepingforloman]

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that the Trinity is simply different actions or roles of God: this is simply incorrect. If God- all of Him- became incarnate, how did the universe keep ticking? To whom was Christ praying if not to the Father? To whom did He speak on the cross? What voice spoke and said "This is my Son" if not the Father's? Make no mistake- the Godhead is in fact three seperate, and yet also united, beings. Truly, three in one, and one that is three.

[Pendragon]

This is because people simply refuse to believe that God could become a helpless baby on the straw, seemingly. That the voice that said ""Peace: Be still" and the water obeyed was the same voice that thundered from Mount Saini. Well, my friend, let me ask you a question: In Genesis 18, the Lord and two angels come to Abraham in the plains of Mamri. And Abraham fixed a calf and butter and milk for them and they ate it in human forms. The angels then went on to Sodom, but The Lord remained with Abraham who pleaded down to 10 righteous men. Who weren't found. Four went out and one of them looked back.

Where was the power of the universe that day?

God is anywhere and everywhere at once, but if Jesus was not God in the flesh then Isaiah was wrong when he "said call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is "God With Us."

I'll not argue with the willfully blind, but it's there in black and white. Your church tradition makes the word of god of no effect even as the pharisees and scribes did. They knew every word of those scrolls by heart, but no of it ever got into their heart. It was knowledge without understanding. Like the Ethiopian prince and Philip. The man had the scroll to read but lacked the understanding, until Philip showed him.

God Bless
Pen

[RichardHresko]

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that the Trinity is simply different actions or roles of God: this is simply incorrect. If God- all of Him- became incarnate, how did the universe keep ticking? To whom was Christ praying if not to the Father? To whom did He speak on the cross? What voice spoke and said "This is my Son" if not the Father's? Make no mistake- the Godhead is in fact three seperate, and yet also united, beings. Truly, three in one, and one that is three.

A good starting point would be to consider a careful analysis of the Nicene creed, the Cappadocian Fathers, or Augustine's de Trinitate. (He also discusses this idea in Book X of Confessions.)

One argument used by Augustine in the latter work runs something like this:

1) We are the imago dei (image of God -- Genesis).
2) Looking interiorly we see (intelligibly, not sensibly) our soul.
3) The soul is a single entity.
4) The soul consists of mens (mind), will (voluntas), and memory (memoria). The mind is not the will, the will is not the memory, the memory is not the mind.
5) I can think about what I will, I can will what I remember, I can remember what I think.
6) I do the thinking, the willing and the remembering, and I am one entity. There is not a separable part of me that does one of these activities and not the other.
7) By analogy (since we are the image and not God): The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the HS, the HS is not the Father. There is only one God.

The distinction of the Persons is technically one of hypostasis or relationship, while the unity is in the substance ousia. The three Persons form one God since they have only one will.

[Pendragon]

I will say the same to you, Ricard, the Bible has it all in black and white. If you chose Augistine or anyone else's traditions to make the word of God of non effect as the pharisees did, I'm sorry, but you're out of line with the Bible.

God Bless
Pen

[RichardHresko]

I will say the same to you, Ricard, the Bible has it all in black and white. If you chose Augistine or anyone else's traditions to make the word of God of non effect as the pharisees did, I'm sorry, but you're out of line with the Bible.

God Bless
Pen

There is a Biblical basis for the Trinity, as Augustine showed in the first seven books of de Trinitate. If you like we can discuss the argument here book by book.

[Whifflingpin]

Pen.: "the Bible has it all in black and white."
Only if there are no colour illustrations. You'd be hard put to find any two people agreeing on what exactly was meant by the rest.

"If you chose Augustine or anyone else's traditions to make the word of God of non effect as the pharisees did, I'm sorry, but you're out of line with the Bible."
You can only charge someone with being out of line with the Bible if their arguments contradict the Bible. Augustine & co. were making their best efforts to make sense of the Bible and establish a coherent philosophy and theology based on it. Since the bible was written for shepherds by fishermen and tent-makers, it is hardly surprising that systematic theologians make it look a bit different - but God loves even systematic theologians (though I guess He chuckles over systematic theology) so don't abuse them for trying to make sense of the Bible in a way that meets their intellectual needs.

[Pendragon]

There is a Biblical basis for the Trinity, as Augustine showed in the first seven books of de Trinitate. If you like we can discuss the argument here book by book.Not to be rude, but when it takes someone seven tomes to explain what the Bible says in one or two scriptures, the term "over analysis" begins to come through. It is as simple as one actor playing multiple roles. Change the mask, different character, same actor. Three are One. The One is the three. Never is there more than one God.
You can't slice him up and give him to a Muslim. Or to a Jew. Nor to a Christian who has been shown the truth. One God, only my friend. I am not interested in any seven tomes that argue with 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.
[8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

These three are one Did I miss something there? Well, someone wrote seven tomes explaining about it.

1Tim.3 [16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Did I miss something there? God was manifested in the flesh? God was Justified in the Spirit? God was? Of course, the three are one, you know. Oh but we have seven tomes to explain, explain what? How do you get around the fact we have only One God? Here oh Israel! The Lord thy God is One Lord!
That didn't change, you know.

God bless,

Pen

[RichardHresko]

Not to be rude, but when it takes someone seven tomes to explain what the Bible says in one or two scriptures, the term "over analysis" begins to come through. It is as simple as one actor playing multiple roles. Change the mask, different character, same actor. Three are One. The One is the three. Never is there more than one God.
You can't slice him up and give him to a Muslim. Or to a Jew. Nor to a Christian who has been shown the truth. One God, only my friend. I am not interested in any seven tomes that argue with 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.
[8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

These three are one Did I miss something there? Well, someone wrote seven tomes explaining about it.

1Tim.3 [16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Did I miss something there? God was manifested in the flesh? God was Justified in the Spirit? God was? Of course, the three are one, you know. Oh but we have seven tomes to explain, explain what? How do you get around the fact we have only One God? Here oh Israel! The Lord thy God is One Lord!
That didn't change, you know.

God bless,

Pen

One symbol used to indicate that a figure in a painting or sculpture represented St. Augustine was a sea shell. The story goes like this -- Augustine was walking along a seahore and saw a small boy with a shell by the shore. The boy had dug a hole and was running back and forth from the sea with water in the shell, pouring it into the hole. When Augustine asked him the purpose of this the child with perfect seriousness said he was trying to pour the ocean into his little hole. Augustine laughed and told the child that it couldn't be done. The child replied, "But you are trying to write a book that explains the Trinity."

So perhaps the nature of God is not something so simple for one to understand? In fact, the Greek Fathers (Augustine was Latin) argue that God is beyond Godhead. Or perhaps God is so simple that he is beyond our comprehension. (Divine Simplicity was something that the scholastics like my avatar-sake often discussed.)

There is nothing at all wrong with wanting to deepen our understanding of what is a deep mystery of Christian faith. Nor is it anything but reasonable to consult those who have been recognized by many as providing valuable insights for assistance in developing our own thoughts. As long as it is done with humility, and with love of both neighbor and God, that is.

I would argue that claiming that something that is simple and needs no reflection can dangerously approach an attitude that is not compatible with humility, since it is not cognizant that the thought may be wrong.

Frankly, I assume all my arguments are wrong. Either because I have somewhere misunderstood those whose thoughts I am attempting to convey, or even when I have done so correctly that they have missed something. But each time I attempt to think it through I take another step on a journey without end.

I look forward to continuing the discussion when I return at the end of next week.

Pax vobiscum!

[Pendragon]

Richard, your words are full of wisdom. power, and humility. You do not charge in like a lion to defend your point, you admit you could, after all, be wrong. When my process began to try to free myself from the ideas of others and hear only the still small voice, I was among a group of people to who being wrong is not an option. And yet in my visitations as am evangelist, I had more Pastor Studty arguments thab anybody else. Questions of wrong and right came before me, even to thee point of should this minister even be talking about this to me and I never backed down. I was called back allot which told me this minister was wrestling with problems I couldn't solve. This happened in other churches, gossip, things not right. At this time I came across the snoopy cartoon that has been the basis of my life and many sermons. He was writing a theological study called: "Has It Ever Occurred To You That You Could Be Wrong?" I find then words to live by, When you got it all figured out you're wrong.

God Bless

Pen

[RichardHresko]

Richard, your words are full of wisdom. power, and humility. You do not charge in like a lion to defend your point, you admit you could, after all, be wrong. When my process began to try to free myself from the ideas of others and hear only the still small voice, I was among a group of people to who being wrong is not an option. And yet in my visitations as am evangelist, I had more Pastor Studty arguments thab anybody else. Questions of wrong and right came before me, even to thee point of should this minister even be talking about this to me and I never backed down. I was called back allot which told me this minister was wrestling with problems I couldn't solve. This happened in other churches, gossip, things not right. At this time I came across the snoopy cartoon that has been the basis of my life and many sermons. He was writing a theological study called: "Has It Ever Occurred To You That You Could Be Wrong?" I find then words to live by, When you got it all figured out you're wrong.

God Bless

Pen

We are in full agreement here. The reason I present many of my arguments in "geometric proof form" is not to prove that I am right but to make it easier for others to critique.

I also agree that we must, in the final analysis, use our own minds to decide what we honestly think and feel is the right interpretation. That I use many sources is not a sign that I feel no need to think, but rather that I recognize that considering the thoughts of others enriches my own thoughts. Which is, by no coincidence, why I enjoy corresponding with you and many others here.

Pax

[weepingforloman]

"These three agree in one."

Yes. The Trinity is one. But it is also three. It is called one of the mysteries of the faith for a reason- we cannot comprehend a non-arithmetic unity. And yet we must accept it on the authority of scripture, just as we must accept our notion of God as a noncorporeal, omnipresent being on the authority of scripture. Part of the beauty of God is that He is so fundamentally counter to the same old- He is the only true revolutionary against the world.

[Pendragon]

"These three agree in one."

Yes. The Trinity is one. But it is also three. It is called one of the mysteries of the faith for a reason- we cannot comprehend a non-arithmetic unity. And yet we must accept it on the authority of scripture, just as we must accept our notion of God as a noncorporeal, omnipresent being on the authority of scripture. Part of the beauty of God is that He is so fundamentally counter to the same old- He is the only true revolutionary against the world.If your Bible says that about the three that bear record in heaven, then you have a Bible where the verses have been spliced. That isn't what it says: 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.
[8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

They splice verse 7 and 8 to make it say something it doesn't say. Revelations has strict warnings about this type of thing. I don't mind people updating language in the Bible. But this section is fairly clear, (I think I have seen a Bible that points out that a human body is made of water, blood, and spirit. And born with that order of appearance: first water, then blood, then life.) but to remove half of one verse and half of the next and spice them together as one, no.

God Bless

Pen

[aabbcc]

Could somebody point to some place in Tanakh (=OT) from where one might argue about Trinity? All the evidence you seem to give is NT-based.