[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: The Trinity – a Bible teaching, or, a false teaching? The Trinity – a Bible teaching, or, a false teaching? Before we start, I wish to point out a couple of important things. First off, this is not being written in an attempt to convert anyone. That is not possible. Only you can make such a decision. I am not capable of making such a decision for you, nor, do I wish to be responsible for such a decision. This paper is being written in the desire to give to you, each and everyone, a reason to begin to study the Bible. The Truth, and Jehovah, awaits all men, but it is available only to those who will make the effort to discover it, and Him. John 17:3; This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. If you understand this Scripture, you know that everlasting life is only available to those who make the effort to learn the Truth. For that reason, my only desire is to motivate you to begin your quest, just as I have continued my quest. That being said, let us begin this study. Trinity Definition: Within the nature of the One True God, there simultaneously exists three eternal Persons, namely, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All three Persons are co-equals in all the attributes of the Divine Nature. The Trinity Dogma http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system. There, that is so that we all know what we are talking about, and, so we each understand exactly where this dogma originated; with the Roman Catholic church. Even people who profess to hate the Roman Catholic church, accept this dogma. Why is that? And especially since we have a witness from the Roman church that tells us this; The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. WHAT!! Since Scripture was finished in the first 100 years C.E., then the Trinity CAN NOT BE A BIBLE TEACHING!! Note this comment above; Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective What does that mean? It means that the Apostles, those who personally knew the Christ Jesus, did not teach, nor write about, the Trinity. And we have another witness that many consider to be very, very good; The New Encyclopedia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4)…. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies…. By the end of the 4th century … the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.” – (1976), Micropaedia, Vol. X, p. 126. Let us repeat part of what is here revealed; “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers What can we gather from this? That the Christ Jesus DID NOT TEACH the dogma known as the Trinity. And if He did not teach it, by what right does man hold to it? Proverbs 30:6; Add nothing to his words, that he may not reprove you, and that you may not have to be proved a liar. It is interesting, to me, that the Roman church uses as a major part of their proof of the Trinity; Proof of the doctrine from Tradition It is also important to note what the Roman church says about dogma; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm "But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church." It is pretty clear from this that the Roman church does not restrict itself to Scriptures. Were we warned, in Scripture, about such teachings? Remember, as witnessed above from the Roman church, the Trinity came into Christianity late in the 4th century; Acts 20:28-30 "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock ... I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." 2 Peter 2:1 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies." 2 John 7; "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh: such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist." In view of this clear prediction by the Holy Spirit that the primitive faith would be corrupted, the modern church needs to do more than justify its belief in the Trinity by claiming uninterrupted acceptance of the doctrine back to the third or fourth century. It needs to demonstrate that the tradition went back further still, right to the days of the apostles. This it cannot do. It can only point to a gradual growth of a doctrine that reached maturity at the Council of Nicea. This introduces the possibility, which the authors sincerely believe to be the reality, that the doctrine of the Trinity was not an original Christian belief, but a prime example of the development of false teaching as predicted by the apostles. Only one authority Faced with this possibility the only satisfactory course is to accept as authoritative nothing but the original teaching expressed by the founders of the Christian church. In other words our knowledge of God must be obtained exclusively from the words of Jesus and the Apostles and any writings whose trustworthiness they endorse. This means that the Bible, and that alone, is the source of the information about God that is so vital for human salvation. Every genuine follower of Jesus should therefore agree wholeheartedly with Paul's assessment of the authority of Scripture as the infallible guide to Christian doctrine and behaviour: 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." There is no escaping the meaning of these words. The Scriptures are inspired by God, and are the source of all doctrinal information. The Authority of the Roman Church But some will say "Surely, this is also the position of the Church. No Christian would deny that the Bible is the ultimate source of appeal in theological questions." It is true that this is the theoretical position, but in practice the authority of the Church itself is given equal or even greater weight than that of Scripture. One of the dominant ecclesiastical figures of the nineteenth century was John Newman, an Anglican vicar who in later life switched to Rome and eventually became a Catholic Cardinal. If he is at all remembered today it is for his hymn "Lead, kindly Light", but in his day he was well known for his prolific doctrinal writings. He wrote about the doctrine of the Trinity as follows: "It may startle those who are but acquainted with the popular writings of this day, yet, I believe, the most accurate consideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce in the statement as a general truth, that the doctrines in question (viz., the Trinity and the Incarnation) have never been learned merely from Scripture. Surely the sacred volume was never intended, and is not adapted to teach us our creed; however certain it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been taught us ... From the very first, the rule has been, as a matter of fact, for the Church to teach the truth, and then appeal to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching". Notice the clear implication of these words. The Church formulates the doctrines and then appeals to Scripture in an attempt to support them. This is very different from coming to the Bible with an open mind in order to learn what it teaches. Another Catholic priest, the Rev James Hughes, was even more outspoken about the real source of Church doctrine in general and the Trinity in particular: "My belief in the Trinity is based on the authority of the Church: no other authority is sufficient". But not all Christians are members of an Established Church. Many non-conformists and evangelical groups claim to have by-passed the Church and to have gained their teaching directly from Scripture. And they, almost without exception, believe the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet how accurate is their claim that they are guided solely by the Bible and not by church tradition? Professor F.F. Bruce, the noted Manchester University theologian, keenly observed: "People who adhere to sola scriptura (as they believe) often adhere in fact to a traditional school of interpretation of sola scriptura. Evangelical Protestants can be as much servants of tradition as Roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox Christians; only they don*t realise that it is ‘tradition*" The seeker after truth, then, will test every belief by Scripture, and will accept nothing that cannot be clearly demonstrated by the Word of God. All this being said, where, exactly, does the Trinity come from? Can we actually believe the Roman church when they claim that it is a Divine revelation? First, let us define Divine Revelation. A Divine Revelation would be something new, something first being revealed from God, directly to someone on the earth. The last book of the Bible, Revelation, is a good example. A Divine Revelation revealed to the Apostle John, the last of the Apostles to die. The book of Revelation contains information never before revealed to mankind. Therefore, it should be an historical fact that the Trinity did not exist on the earth prior to the Divine Revelation made to the Roman Church sometime prior to the end of the 4th century. Is this a historical fact? No, it is not. The Trinity doctrine has been around for more than 4,000 years. http://reluctant-messenger.com/Lost-Doctrines-Christianity009.htm “All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon have adopted in one form or another a Trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods. In Babylon it was Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz. In Egypt it was Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Within Israel paganism it was Kether, Hokhmah, and Binah. In Plato's philosophy it was the Unknown Father, Nous/Logos, and the world soul. In the book, A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy … The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists. (MY NOTE: It is important to note that the original Trinity doctrine was from Babylon, and was comprised of Nimrod, his wife, Semiramas, and their son (the son of god) Tammuz. Nimrod has been worshipped as the Sun god, and under various other names, such as Baal and Marduk, down through the ages. The son of god noted in Roman Catholic theology, Tammuz, was supposedly born on December 25th. This celebration, Xmas, has been going on more or less continuously for about 4,000 years, in conjunction with the worship of a triune god in various forms and in many different parts of the earth.) Historians also know that the Trinity doctrine is not authorized in the New Testament. There is no evidence the Apostles of Jesus ever heard of a Trinity. The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word Trinity itself, nor such language as one in three, three in one, one essence or substance or three persons, is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient Church, taken not from the Bible but from classical Greek philosophy. Long before the founding of Christianity the idea of a triune god or a god-in-three persons was a common belief in ancient religions. Although many of these religions had many minor deities, they distinctly acknowledged that there was one supreme God who consisted of three persons or essences. The Babylonians used an equilateral triangle to represent this three-in-one god, now the symbol of the modern three-in-one believers. The Greek triad was composed of Zeus, Athena and Apollo. These three were said by the pagans to 'agree in one.' One of the largest pagan temples built by the Romans was constructed at Ballbek (situated in present day Lebanon) to their Trinity of Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. In Babylon the planet Venus was revered as special and was worshipped as a Trinity consisting of Venus, the moon and the sun. This triad became the Babylonian holy Trinity in the fourteenth century before Christ. Although other religions for thousands of years before Christ was born worshipped a triune god, the Trinity was not a part of Christian dogma and formal documents of the first three centuries after Christ. That there was no formal, established doctrine of the Trinity until the fourth century is a fully documented historical fact. Clearly, historians of church dogma and systematic theologians agree that the idea of a Christian Trinity was not a part of the first century church. The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it. So how then did a trinitarian doctrine come about? It gradually evolved and gained momentum in late first, second and third centuries as pagans, who had converted to Christianity, brought to Christianity some of their pagan beliefs and practices. ……………………… There is only one passage in the Authorized Version of the Bible used by Trinitarians to support their view. I 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. AV Editors added the bracketed words in the early fourth century to the Latin Vulgate translation. They are not in the older Greek manuscripts. For this reason, modern translations omit them. Bible commentaries explain that these words were never in the apostle John's manuscript or any existing early copies of it. You are more than welcome to go to the site quoted and read more information. Or, simply type trinity and Babylon into any search engine, and start reading. The pagan roots of the Trinity dogma are easy to find and verify. And is this the only witness that we have on this subject? Certainly not. On the net here is a free book; http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/ The title of this book is The Two Babylons by Rev. Alexander Hislop. Another name for this book could be; The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife. The basis of the book, and after you read it there is no doubt about it, is that the Roman church is the same as the old mystery religion of Babylon. Same festivals, same rituals, same gods, everything is the same right down to the vestments of the pope and the priests. This book is free, it is a good read and well worth your time. Especially if you believe, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, the trinity dogma of the Roman Catholic church. I will also tell you this. If you will simply open up the internet site listed above and read the chapter and sub-chapter headings you will get a very, very good idea of just how far off of Christianity the Roman church truly is. But that creates a very, very big problem for anyone who attends and professes to believe in any of the mainstream so-called Christian churches. To be sure you understand, this includes the Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Church of England, and all other organized religious groups who accept the Roman church dogma of the Trinity, all of the holy days and festivals that originated in Babylon and were passed on through the Roman church, the immortal soul dogma, and all other pagan beliefs that have entered into Christianity through the Roman church. If you are confused about what that means, perhaps we should return to Scripture for just a moment; Revelation 12:9; So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. Misleading the entire inhabited earth. Would you think that this has something to do with this Scripture? Revelation 17:5; And upon her forehead was written a name, “Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.” Babylon the Great refers to organized religion, and all of the disgusting pagan beliefs that they have brought into the Christian faith to mislead the people of the earth. We are told, in the Bible, that all things of the world are enemies of Jehovah, because it is all under the power of the evil one. 1 John 5:19; We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the(power of the) wicked one. This is why we are told the following; John 17:15,16; "I request you, not to take them out of the world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one. They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. To be separate. Is that so difficult? And then there is this Scripture; John 17:3; This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. After you begin to see some of the deceptions that have deluded mankind for so long, it is difficult, at least it is for me, not to begin to be serious about learning. Perhaps this Scripture will also explain some of the reasons why; Matthew 6:13; “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it. How can you not understand that if you are a part of organized religion, if you believe as the vast majority of mankind believes, then you are headed for destruction? How much clearer does it need to be made? What does it take to make you accept the need to study the Bible, to learn the Truth, and to get the veils lifted from your eyes? I can not do it for you. You must act; not I. I already have, and have been doing so for many years. Now, it is your turn. Blessings, Richard If you have any questions, please ask, privately if that is what you wish.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 42.
#3. To: richard9151 (#0)
The Trinity – a Bible teaching, or, a false teaching? Can't it be both.
That is for you to decide. Depends on if you actually believe in God or not. This I will tell you; the Bible is far, far different from what most people think it is.
If your Jehovas "witness" buddies are teaching there is no trinity. Punch them in the mouth and run as far away from those cultists as you can.
So you believe in the Babylonian Trinity, along with the rest of the world, right? Tell me, what parrt of this do you not understand? Matthew 6:13; “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it. If you wish to believe as the vast majority does, and are not willing to do the work neccessary to learn, so be it. But you will remember this day, when you had the opportunity to change, and did not accept even common sense.
The bible is bullshit so the fact that the Witnesses are the truest to it really is immaterial to me. As a word of caution I will warn you to be extremely skeptical, question everything, and think critically about what you are doing and I strongly recommend doing so before you go too far down the path you are going. When you get to a place where you've alienated yourself from all of your "worldly" friends and family and you have nothing left but witnesses, you will then find yourself in a precarious position; one that can take years to get away from. I don't think the witnesses are bad people by any means and I've been exactly where you are today. I'm sure they will be quick to tell you I'm someone who was weak in my faith but I can tell you it took a lot more strength to think for myself and remove myself from that environment that it did to go along with what I was being told. Just because they incessantly call it "the truth" doesn't make it anymore true. Ultimately you will make, be responsible for, and have to live with the decisions you make so I strongly advise you to proceed with extreme caution. Beyond that I won't advise you either way because ultimately I became a better person through the experience, but that didn't happen without a cost. Here's a couple of videos I recommend and there's plenty more I could, but I'll leave you to do your own research. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGE8DWaCDg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkeZkrtSHS0 All of that said, if you do continue down the path your are on and decide this will be a forum for you to preach what you are learn you should think again. I will be very quick to offer my personal experiences and viewpoints in extremely fierce opposition. I can' think of an unhappier time in my life as when I was associated with the witnesses and if I can serve as a warning to others I will be more than happy to do so.
This is by no means questioning your statement and I'm not a bible puncher or a biblical scholar however where did you get your moral direction from? I am assuming you do have a moral direction
This is a very common argument to any statement made by someone that discredits the bible, or any other religious guide for that matter. The premise of your argument makes some false assumptions in that it asserts that morality only comes from the bible. If you would like to support how that claim is true, I'm all ears. Conversely I could make a very strong argument that the bible is an extremely poor moral guide. Furthermore, it begs the question, what about those people who have had no exposure to the bible? Where do they get their morals? Where did you get your morals? If you think about it, such a statement is completely ridiculous and probably only comes from religious conditioning. Anyway, all that said, the short answer to a very complex subject is much of it a product of your parents and a your ability to reason (which is a product of evolution and your genetic makeup). The genetic make-up only points to potential though and doesn't necessarily mean that potential will be realized. Brain development plays a part, along with environment and culture (a huge factor). Morality is a product of several factors which explains why people have varying levels of morality and there isn't a universal morality (although religion would like to impose one). Morality is religion's straw man argument against atheism. I really don't want to ramble on about it. Simply do more research and you will easily see that someone absent of religion can have morals, even morals that exceed those provided by religion. Miracles and morals www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKcx0biHPR0 Penn & Teller - Bible is Bullshit (short version) www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E
Maybe I should of added I come from Africa where unlike America morality is limited I guess I come down on the side of Jefferson who spent the better part of life dealing with this very issue and wrote for his personal use only what is known as The Jefferson Bible The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels Compiled by Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William Canby, "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus." He described his own compilation to Charles Thomson as "a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen." He told John Adams that he was rescuing the Philosophy of Jesus and the "pure principles which he taught," from the "artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms as instruments of riches and power for themselves." After having selected from the evangelists "the very words only of Jesus," he believed "there will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."
I really don't follow what point you are trying to make if you are in fact trying to make one. Your argument is an appeal to authority at best, although I'd argue it more of an appeal to false authority since I don't recall Thomas Jefferson being the authority on morality. Furthermore, it doesn't support your implied argument that one cannot attain moral direction without belief in the bible. I learned many moral values well before I learned to read so I still fail to see how your argument holds any water. Don't even get me started on the logical fallacies of using the bible as some sort of moral guide. If you would like to make a logical argument with factual evidence to support your claims, I welcome the discussion. However, what you have presented so far is a complete waste of time in that you made half-assed assumptions based on false premises. Surely you can do better than this?
Maybe you are the one that does not get it ...a lost cause if you will maybe a little book learning would be in order the bases of freedom (morality) as outlined by Edmund Burke and Jefferson was that our freedoms come from higher authority and that governments role is to protect those rights even if you are a athieist
In dealing with people such as Ncturnal, the Bible has some sage advice, knock the dust off of your feet and go on to the next, that you may find fertile ground for the planting of seeds. (I paraphrase, of course.) Anyone looking around at the world understands how few morals there are in it, but deliberate blindness permits such as Nc. to argue any point of view they wish. Besides which, I would bet that he would give you an excuse for most of the bad morals of the nations, cause it ain't really bad, such as fornication and homosexuality. Its just what people want, don't ya know.
Genesis in Hebrew states; God (plural) created Mankind in THEIR own image. Now that is meant to reflect the masculine and feminine aspects of God, of Man, AND EVERYTHING else. There is a duality of Nature, be it in man, animals, plants, insects, energy, matter, and most anything else.
Doesn't Genesis the very first book in the bible say "let us make man in our image". I'm not looking it up but it says something to that effect.
#45. To: Old Friend (#42)
The original Hebrew says that, yes.
Yes, it does, see number 48.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||