[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 # 59.
#34. To: richard9151 (#0)
My view on this question is thus; The Trinity relates to many different aspects of Nature, Man, and the Universe. The Divine Masculine aspect of God is represented in Christian teachings as the Father, whereas the Divine Feminine aspect is hidden, but is represented as the Holy Spirit. The bond between those two forces creates a new Divine aspect, the Created Child (Jesus). It can also represent Nature in regards to life, death, and rebirth through offspring. Think about how all plants and animals go through this cycle. In various religions, it represents birth, death, and resurrection. Even the Egypians had a trinity, consisting of Horus (father), Isis (mother), and Osiris (son).
Does that give value to such a religion? Is there some hidden strength in the idols of stone that they worshipped that, perhaps, I have missed? whereas the Divine Feminine aspect is hidden, but is represented as the Holy Spirit. If you really believe this, my friend, then you need to do some serious reading in the Bible. These are not subjects that are open to interpetation. They either are or they are not; and it is not up to us to make such decisions. We have neither the authority nor the ability to see such. That is why we must be taught what the Truth is.
The Bible is but a series of interpretations of older works. In fact, the original Hebrew was written in such a way as to present something on the surface to the unenlightened, but it's true and deeper meaning is hidden in Gematria, or so I've read. But even the original Hebrew has been interpreted through various translations, and a group of mortals decided what was going to go into it and what wasn't. God didn't write a book, God created the tools that enabled the book to be written, but it is not the only book that exists, nor is it definitive. It was written by a simple people, FOR a simple people. The lineage of the New Testament is highly suspect, and was more than likely assembled with ancient forgeries of the letters of the Apostles. What matters is the Spirit within you, not your belief in words written on paper that may have nothing to do with what is true.
If the Bible is an example of a simple book, I never want to tackle something complicated. And it is somewhat simplistic to declare that any organized society is simple. The lineage of the New Testament is highly suspect, and was more than likely assembled with ancient forgeries of the letters of the Apostles. Or so men say. The same men that are sinners, and will pay for sins with death, as do we all, or, so says the Bible. The point is that, once you understand the Bible, the New Testament is nothing new, and the witness to the New Testament is the Old Testament, which tells us that there will be a Savior and a New Covenant. Plus, in much of the New Testament, the Old Testament is quoted, extensively. but it's true and deeper meaning is hidden in Gematria That, my friend, is Jewish non-sense. What is veiled in the Bible is revealed to those who humble themselves to Jehovah and ask for guidance and enlightenment. And that is the only way in which it is revealed. But even the original Hebrew has been interpreted through various translations, There have been found enough old manuscripts and fragments thereof that there is not much question as to what the original said. The only questions raised today are by those who do not wish to accept what the Bible actually tells us and teaches. Which is to be expected, and the problem comes in that those who wish to question the Bible are those who have control of the press and news sources, so that is what most people hear. Few hear anything about the work being done to clear up any lingering questions about the sources or intent in the Bible.
When you take away the written words, what do you have left? God exists regardless of the existance of any particular book, and the Bible is just a creation of man written in order to attempt to explain his world, life, death, and the Beyond. I don't want to sound patronizing, but my faith is in God, not any book. As far as Gematria, that so-called Jewish nonsense was part of the spiritual tradition that led to the belief of a Messiah in the first place, so you're on shakey ground if you want to bash Judaism, as without it, there is no Jesus since the core of Christianity revolves around the belief that he IS the Messiah of the Jewish faith.
Ok, then I would suggest a really honest heart to heart talk with Him, telling Him how you wish to humble yourself before Him that you may learn what is neccessary to please Him. If you are humble, and ask for guidance, He will grant it. And this is where He will lead you; 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. Taking in knowledge of Him. That is the only answer we have. But you are claiming in what you are saying that you believe that God left us alone on this planet to stumble around looking for Him. Does that really make any sense to you, if, indeed, you believe that He exists? so you're on shakey ground if you want to bash Judaism, I do not have to bash Judism; the Jews do it for me. I posted 3 long, detailed papers written by a Jew about this subject; The Truth about the Khazars 1 & 2 & 3. In part 1, near the end, we find this interesting information; Religious worship known and practiced today under the name "Judaism" by so- called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world was known and practiced in Judea in the time of Jesus under the name "Pharisaism" according to Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, head of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and all the other most competent and qualified recognized authorities on the subject. The form of religious worship known as "Pharisaism" in Judea in the time of Jesus was a religious practice based exclusively upon the Talmud. If you really want to begin to understand, do a Bible study on the Pharises. Judism is a new invention, and never existed until late in the 19th century. Just as the Jewish race is an invention. Just as I have posted info about countless times in 4um. Now, if you are going to turn this into a debate, you had better load up a bunch of material, cause I gots lots from the more than 3,000 books I have read and the detailed research that I have done on these subjects. And many more besides.
Religious worship known and practiced today under the name "Judaism" by so- called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world was known and practiced in Judea in the time of Jesus under the name "Pharisaism" according to Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, head of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and all the other most competent and qualified recognized authorities on the subject. The form of religious worship known as "Pharisaism" in Judea in the time of Jesus was a religious practice based exclusively upon the Talmud. If you really want to begin to understand, do a Bible study on the Pharises. Judism is a new invention, and never existed until late in the 19th century. Just as the Jewish race is an invention. Just as I have posted info about countless times in 4um. Now, if you are going to turn this into a debate, you had better load up a bunch of material, cause I gots lots from the more than 3,000 books I have read and the detailed research that I have done on these subjects. And many more besides. There seems to be some contradiction, or confusion here, richard. Finkelstein, et al, say that whats practiced today, i.e. Judaism, was called Pharisaism in Christ's day...and goes on to say that Pharisaism was exclusively based on the Talmud. But then you write that "Judism (spelling?) is a new invention...didn't exist til lthe 19th century. If based strictly on the Talmud, then the O/T scriptures recited by Christ and others in the N/T bring in the question, from where did they come, i.e, the Septuagint? I say this based on what I've read about the Talmud which could very well be wrong/somewhat wrong/right/somewhat right--I've not read the Talmud.
There is no confusion, honest. When you read the Bible, the New Testament, pay close attention to what Jesus said to and about the Jews. Those He was speaking too were not Israelites as much as a polygot group that formed in Jeruslem after the return of the Israelites from captivity in Babylon. Which is where the Talmud was begun. The Talmud was written by so-called Rabbis from the lit. and religion found in Babylon, which is the old religion of Nimrod/worship of Nimrod. It has nothing to do with Scripture, and in fact, is the polar opposite of the Bible; they can not touch in any way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud The Talmud (Hebrew: —4;’3;’8;–0;‘6;–2;•3;’8;•1;) is a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs, and history. It is a central text of Rabbinic Judaism, second only to the Hebrew Bible in importance. The part about it being second to the Hebrew Bible in importance is a lie, as is revealed in the three posts I put up. Just as it is a lie that the Jews are a Semitic race. http://www.talmudunmasked.com/chapter1.htm The Talmud Unmasked; THE TALMUD gets its name from the word LAMUD — taught, and means The Teaching. By metonymy it is taken to mean the book which contains the Teaching, which teaching is called Talmud, that is, the doctrinal book which alone fully expounds and explains all the knowledge and teaching of the Jewish people. As to the origin of the Talmud, the Rabbis(6) regard Moses as its first author. They hold that, besides the written law which Moses received from God on Mount Sinai on tables of stone, which is called Torah Schebiktab, he also received interpretations of it, or the oral law, which is called Torah Shebeal Peh. They say that this is the reason why Moses remained so long on the mountain, as God could have given him the written law in one day.(7) This site is pretty good, but be prepared to be shocked.
There are no replies to Comment # 59. End Trace Mode for Comment # 59.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||