Explain the Xian Trinity

[CurtC]

I’m surprised no one has yet posted Ingersoll’s famous quote about the Trinity, so I guess I will:

@Robert Green Ingersoll

Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost third.

Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both.

The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son.

The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the same age as the other two.

So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son and the Holy Ghost God, and these three Gods make one God. According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three time one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar: if we add two to one we have but one. Each one equal to himself and to the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity. 

Anyone not familiar with the bloody history of the Trinity doctrine should read this.

[Frylock]

@CurtC

I’m surprised no one has yet posted Ingersoll’s famous quote about the Trinity, so I guess I will:

Hadn’t seen that before. Its statements characterizing the Trinity doctrine are ludicrously off base.

-FrL-

[ITR_champion]

@Frylock

Hadn’t seen that before. Its statements characterizing the Trinity doctrine are ludicrously off base.

That’s the point. The people who devote their lives to anti-Christian hate speech are proud of saying things that are ludicrously off base. They compete to be the most ludicrous.

[raindog]

@Scumpup

The Trinitarian view is supported by Jesus addressing the Father directly. He did this at Gesthemane

Luke 22:42 Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.

Luke 23:46,Father, into your hands I commit my Spirit.

and at the moment of his death on the cross

Not only doesn’t this passage “support” the Trinity Doctrine, it is in direct conflict with it. IOW, this passage contradicts the Trinity Doctrine.

The Luke 22:42 cite demonstrates:

1. A person (Jesus) appealing to another person (Jehovah) and asking for a favor of sorts. (The possibility of avoiding a painful execution)

2. Jesus is shown to be a petitioner to his God; and clearly in a subservient role.

3. Most importantly, it shows that Jesus and Jehovah have independent wills. Jesus is clearly in agony, and appeals for some other option, but in the end he submits himself to accept the will of his Father.

4. Jesus is praying to God! ; not to himself, nor is he at war within himself. Clearly there are 2 different persons in this passage with completely positions, and the potential for different wills, power, and authority.

There is nothing in this text that supports the Trinity. *Quite the opposite! *

[raindog]

@ITR_champion

The expression of the Trinitarian Doctrine, at least in the Catholic Church and all major churches that I know of, is that God is “one nature” and “three persons”. This seems to be supported by Jesus, since he ascribes the same laws and the same desires to Himself and to God. Yet, he aslo gives different specifics. The Father is in Heaven while the Son is on earth. After Jesus ascends to Heaven, the Holy Spirit will be sent to earth.

But the doctrine holds that the three parts of the Holy Trinity are identical in nature. There differences arise from the way that they relate to each other. This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

So what Jesus means when he says “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father”, is that whoever has experienced the message of Jesus Christ has experienced the Father.

As it happens, there have been a lot more attempts in history to deny that the three are one, than to deny that the one is three, which explains why the church typically puts more emphasis on the ‘togetherness’ aspect than the ‘apartness’ aspect.

Show me where this is “supported by Jesus” in the bible. And in all due respect to the Catholic Church, show me from the bible not from the Catechism.

[Scumpup]

@the raindog

Not only doesn’t this passage “support” the Trinity Doctrine, it is in direct conflict with it. IOW, this passage contradicts the Trinity Doctrine.

The Luke 22:42 cite demonstrates:

1. A person (Jesus) appealing to another person (Jehovah) and asking for a favor of sorts. (The possibility of avoiding a painful execution)

2. Jesus is shown to be a petitioner to his God; and clearly in a subservient role.

3. Most importantly, it shows that Jesus and Jehovah have independent wills. Jesus is clearly in agony, and appeals for some other option, but in the end he submits himself to accept the will of his Father.

4. Jesus is praying to God! ; not to himself, nor is he at war within himself. Clearly there are 2 different persons in this passage with completely positions, and the potential for different wills, power, and authority.

There is nothing in this text that supports the Trinity. *Quite the opposite! *

Italics and exclamation points, both…I am overwhelmed. The quoted passages support the Trinity because Jesus is addressing the Father, not_apparently_talking to himself. One part of the Trinity submitting to the will of another part of the Trinity shouldn’t be hard to understand. Do you, a single being, never have conflicting goals and desires? Do you not, in every case, have to make one desire subordinate to another in order to take any action at all?
If there is no Trinity and Jesus is simply God, he could be speaking rhetorically. Do the Gospels show Jesus ever doing so?

[jali]

@Jayn_Newell

I see the Trinity as being different representations of the same being. The same as I’m a daughter to my parents, a wife to my husband, and a Doper to all of you, so does the Trinity represent the different aspects of God that He encompasses. God is creation, Jesus is salvation, the Holy Spirit is the divine love that He has for all of us. None of them (or even all of them together) are all that there is to Him–the Trinity is just us trying to understand the nature of God the best that we can.

I’m no longer a believer, but this is a GREAT explanation!

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

@Scumpup

Italics and exclamation points, both…I am overwhelmed. The quoted passages support the Trinity because Jesus is addressing the Father, not_apparently_talking to himself. One part of the Trinity submitting to the will of another part of the Trinity shouldn’t be hard to understand. Do you, a single being, never have conflicting goals and desires? Do you not, in every case, have to make one desire subordinate to another in order to take any action at all?
If there is no Trinity and Jesus is simply God, he could be speaking rhetorically. Do the Gospels show Jesus ever doing so?

Is God perfect? Is Jesus perfect? If so, they cannot have conflicting wills, goals, or desires. By definition, one of them would be less than perfect.

(Sits back and waits for made-up definition of “perfect” pulled out of thin air.)

[raindog]

@Scumpup

Italics and exclamation points, both…I am overwhelmed. The quoted passages support the Trinity because Jesus is addressing the Father, not_apparently_talking to himself. One part of the Trinity submitting to the will of another part of the Trinity shouldn’t be hard to understand. Do you, a single being, never have conflicting goals and desires? Do you not, in every case, have to make one desire subordinate to another in order to take any action at all?
If there is no Trinity and Jesus is simply God, he could be speaking rhetorically. Do the Gospels show Jesus ever doing so?

I am, in fact, underwhelmed.

Sure he’s addressing the Father; on that we seem to agree. The problem begins with your statement , “…One part of the Trinity submitting to the will of another part of the Trinity…” because the text doesn’t say it implicitly or explicitly. To believe this you must simply accept the Trinity and then impute meaning that the text doesn’t indicate.

As to your analogy, I am sometimes conflicted. However, I don’t talk to myself, and if I did people might question my sanity. In any event, an observer wouldn’t rationally conclude I was two persons as a result!

[Scumpup]

The whole point of the Crucifixion was that Jesus would suffer and die for all mankind. Jesus was fully man as well as God. You are man. Would you, facing the prospect of horrific torture and death, be eager for the experience?

[raindog]

@Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley

Is God perfect? Is Jesus perfect? If so, they cannot have conflicting wills, goals, or desires. By definition, one of them would be less than perfect.

(Sits back and waits for made-up definition of “perfect” pulled out of thin air.)

Actually, I’ll wait for your definition.

Furthermore, why in the world would perfection require them to always have the exact same “wills, goals, or desires”?

[Mangetout]

@Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley

Is God perfect? Is Jesus perfect? If so, they cannot have conflicting wills, goals, or desires. By definition, one of them would be less than perfect.

(Sits back and waits for made-up definition of “perfect” pulled out of thin air.)

Is it not possible then for two things to be perfect, yet different?

A perfect tomato and a perfect cucumber for example? - or can the cucumber never be perfect because the tomato is perfect, and the cucumber isn’t a tomato?

In any case, I think the argument can be made (not that I’m here to make it) that Jesus lowered himself below the status of the godhead when he took on flesh. I’m sure there are holes that can be picked in such a statement too - it’s just that I don’t think mainstream Christian doctrine finds it surprising that Jesus in human form suffered some human attributes, such as fear.

[Sampiro]

@DanBlather

It’s like water that occurs in liquid, steam, and ice form (thanks Religilous).

Even Bill Maher admitted that one took him by surprise and was one of the best analogies he’d ever heard (which, duh! It came from Jesus’s own lips [in the movie {sort of}]).

@smiling bandit

I can give a couple metaphors, but we must understand that the metaphors are NOT God. They do not, and cannot, encompass God. They can only help you begin to understand God.

God can be likened to water. Water can be a part of the great and mighty and mysterious ocean, with depths we men can hardly even experience, let alone fathom, and bursting with life in forms and fashions we can barely comprehend, and yet giving rise to all things, ultimately. The sea is always in motion, yet appears to always be the same.

I’m not religious or even what you’d call spiritual, but the Zen monk Dogen made my favorite analogy of God (or enlightenment or ultimate reality or [whatever you want to call it]) and water:

Enlightenment is like the moon reflected on the water. The moon does not get wet, nor is the water broken. Although its light is wide and great, the moon is reflected even in a puddle an inch wide. The whole moon and the entire sky are reflected in dewdrops on the grass, or even in one drop of water.

[raindog]

@Jayn_Newell

I see the Trinity as being different representations of the same being. The same as I’m a daughter to my parents, a wife to my husband, and a Doper to all of you, so does the Trinity represent the different aspects of God that He encompasses. God is creation, Jesus is salvation, the Holy Spirit is the divine love that He has for all of us. None of them (or even all of them together) are all that there is to Him–the Trinity is just us trying to understand the nature of God the best that we can.

We have had dozens of these type analogies—including a couple in this thread.

They share in common an absence of any comprehensive biblical basis to support them, or a true history or origin of the Doctrine.

The fact is, like the truth that the “burning hell” doctrine has no biblical basis and has more to do with superstition, pagan ritual, tradition and literature, the Trinity Doctrine has no biblical basis and is born of tradition and pagan beliefs.

It is a fraud.

[raindog]

@Scumpup

The whole point of the Crucifixion was that Jesus would suffer and die for all mankind.

True.

Jesus was fully man as well as God.

Not true, and not only not supported in the bible, but contradicted.

You are man.

True.

Would you, facing the prospect of horrific torture and death, be eager for the experience?

No, I would not. Relevance, however?

[raindog]

@Mangetout

Is it not possible then for two things to be perfect, yet different?

A perfect tomato and a perfect cucumber for example? - or can the cucumber never be perfect because the tomato is perfect, and the cucumber isn’t a tomato?

In any case, I think the argument can be made (not that I’m here to make it) that Jesus lowered himself below the status of the godhead when he took on flesh. I’m sure there are holes that can be picked in such a statement too - it’s just that I don’t think mainstream Christian doctrine finds it surprising that Jesus in human form suffered some human attributes, such as fear.

The bible does indicate that Jesus had a pre-human existence, and it does indicate that he “lowered himself” to become human. It does not indicate a Trinity, or that the position he lowered himself from was one of [a Triune] “godhead.”

[Frylock]

@the raindog

The Luke 22:42 cite demonstrates:

1. A person (Jesus) appealing to another person (Jehovah) and asking for a favor of sorts.

I don’t understand why you think this is incompatible with the Trinity doctrine. Please explain!

2. Jesus is shown to be a petitioner to his God; and clearly in a subservient role.

Ditto.

3. Most importantly, it shows that Jesus and Jehovah have independent wills.

Ditto again.

4. Jesus is praying to God! ; not to himself, nor is he at war within himself. Clearly there are 2 different persons in this passage with completely positions, and the potential for different wills, power, and authority.

Ditto yet again once more.

In this last bit, you seem to think that there’s a problem with their being “two different persons.” Are you not aware that the classic formulation of the trinity says explicitly that they are “different persons”?

-FrL-

[Mangetout]

@the raindog

The bible does indicate that Jesus had a pre-human existence, and it does indicate that he “lowered himself” to become human. It does not indicate a Trinity, or that the position he lowered himself from was one of [a Triune] “godhead.”

It’s perhaps as well that I was not making such an argument in the post you quoted, then.

[Strassia]

I think the problem is the Trinity is the solution to a problem, not something that is inherent in the Bible. You have passages that indicate the Jesus is more than mortal and you passages that show that Jesus was not God the Father. Ever since we have had to reconcile those with OT passages saying there is only one god. The trinity (three entities that are also one entity) is one why by saying sure they are separate beings, but they only add up to one god (three termi-gods?). This was interpolated from the text to reconcile the discrepancy.

For those that say this is biblical in origin, I would ask you to offer any set of scriptures that would cause someone who has never heard of the trinity to come up with idea independently.

Jonathan

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Strassia

For those that say this is biblical in origin, I would ask you to offer any set of scriptures that would cause someone who has never heard of the trinity to come up with idea independently.

You’re right that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. But it is at least suggested by verses like these:

@Matthew 28:19

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

@2 Corinthians 13:14

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.