I would appreciate that level of candor. The problems I would see, however, are:
If that foreign source directly contradicts the bible, (which the Trinity clearly does) any church is on dangerous ground when it essentially says that this outside source has more authority than the bible—which among many Christian denominations is said to be the Word of God.
This also places a burden on the church as there is extremely compelling examples that show this to be a form of heresy. Is there a precedent that shows pagan religions were allowed to be assimilated—in whole or in part----to either the Jewish or Jewish Christian congregations? Nope.
30 What happens when these doctrines are in opposition to the bible? How is that resolved?
Except that the Bible itself never speaks of itself as the Word of God. Certain passages make reference to things said within the text of the Bible as the Word of God. Others use the term to refer to the Good News which the Bible presumably supports. But nowhere in the Bible does any passage whatsoever equate the book itself with the term. Most specifically, the one place where the term is explicitly defined, John 1:1-18, it is equated with Jesus as the active manifestation of God’s will, acting in Creation and later taking on human form.
If you choose not to believe in the Trinity, raindog, you are certainly welcome to do so, and you have a large contingent of supporters here who would agree with you. But pray do not obfuscate by suggesting that the history of the Christian Church is other than it is.
I explicitly stated that the early Christians did not “believe in the doctrine of the Trinity” – they honored Jesus as Lord and God (and there are any number of extrascriptural sources as well as Paul using the term specifically, contrary to your assertion) and apparently likewise the Holy Spirit, without attempting to resolve the paradox. The evolution of the doctrine came later. Also, while Kyrie (Lord) was a common honorific, the Jews and the early Christians were notorious about applying it to God alone – except for also applying it to Jesus.
Thanks for your lengthy and informative post, unfortunately, I think I should have asked you to describe what you believe the Trinity Doctrine says, rather than what it is…
I can see the subject of the Holy Spirit is perplexing indeed. It seems to be one of those subjects that can never be explained.
I find it more perplexing now, God is said to be Spirit, He is Holy,so then it sounds like the Holy Spirit is a side of God, not a separate being. It makes it more perplexing as to how Jesus could be both God and man unless Man is also a manifistation of this God.as stated in Psalm 82.
It seems to me that if Jesus was the word incarnate then He would be his own father.and had the Holy Spirit in Him all the time, so I cannot understand why He had to ascend into Heaven before He could send the Spirit.
How much do we realistically *know * about how Christ and his early followers practiced Christianity? Isn’t our information sketchy? How are we expected to go forward based on that limited information?
In fact the verses that support the trinity 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
Appear in the Latin Vulgate but not in many early Greek texts suggesting they may have been added in order to support the Trinity doctrine.
I doubt the apostles all had the same understanding of where the lines were drawn concerning God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus told them he had things to teach them that they were not ready for. It isn’t unreasonable to believe that later followers of Jesus might have a clearer understanding than even the Apostles, had having built upon the understanding of their predecessors.
I’m not arguing pro Trinity but just expressing a principle. I’ve heard the argument presented that of course the Apostles understood everything having walked with Jesus, but it seems clear to me from Jesus words and the words of Paul that they did not. Aren’t we expected and encouraged to further our understanding?
Something to consider when looking at the centrality of the prevailing doctrine of the trinty in today’s Christianity is the importance of the conflict with Arian Christianity as the Church was adopted and promoted by the Roman Empire and its putative successors.
Arianism is a theological doctrine which holds that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were subordinate to God the Father. The relationship between the members of the Trinity was a hotly debated theological point, until the First Council of Nicea in 325, in which Arianism was determined to be a heresy. Thereafter, all who were unable to accept the Nicene Creed were exiled by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
Although Nicene Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire (and thus of “civilization”), many groups on the borders of the Roman Empire believed in Arian Christianity, most significantly the German “barbarians” (Vandals, Visioths and the like) that threatened and eventually sacked Rome.
Throughout the medieval period, there was a continuing military and political struggle between those who saw themselves as part of/heirs to the “civilized” Roman Empire (including Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire as well as many other groups in Europe and the Near East), – believers in Nicene Christianity – and the “uncivilized” tribes, many of which were Arian.
Although Arian Christianity was eventually reduced to extinction, the conflict most likely cemented the Nicene view of the Trinity as central to the prevailing practice of Christianity.
Polycarp’s rocking when it comes to the theological reasoning for the Trinity.
Now, two Q’s for the raindog- first, just to clarify, are you Jehovah’s Witness, a Bible Student, or a Biblical unitarian?
Second, and more to the discussion, is Jesus ever worshipped in the New Testament, either by people during his earthly stay, or by celestial beings in Heaven?
The trinity is just one of many examples across the ages of merged deities. Not the first or the last.
And maybe not in final form yet. Once there are women priests, which will surely come, there will be need to add Mary and make it a quadity.
Why is the Trinity such a difficult concept? it is like the Chemistry 101 experiment that all of us have performed:
sulphur exists in three forms:
-1) a crystalline yellow solid
-2) a dark red liquid (molten state)
-3) a rubber-like amorphous solid
All of these ststes are manifestations of one element. Why cannot God present the same ?
No need to- The Holy Spirit has enough feminine qualities to suffice.
Mary as the Personification of Redeemed Humanity does indeed make a fourth party, the Bride or the Daughter, the pinnacle of Creation sharing in the energies but not the essence of Deity.
But not the same collection of matter in all three states at once. All analogies fail in one way or another, but they’re supposed to - the doctrine of the Trinity - regardless of whether or not it is true, or whether or not you believe it - is describing something unique.
That is true, but it is different atoms of water,the the same drops.cups etc. If a frozen pond ice melts for instance, it goes into a liquid state it can not be skated on as when it was ice. nor can it be swimmed in if it is a solid.
Monavis
I’d also point out that, while Ralph is presumably not preaching it, the doctrinal position implied by his metaphor is what is called Modalism, and is one of the early church heresies. I suspect that saying “the Holy Spirit” (title in lieu of name) is obscuring the fact that He is a distinct Person different than, though united in one Godhead with, Jesus Christ our Lord and His God and Father. (Actually, Jesus is the only one with a distinct name, as opposed to title – they’re collectively YHWH.) Maybe borrowing the usage sometimes favored by Catholic theologians based on John 14 and dubbing him the Paraclete (Advocate, Comforter, Strengthener – the precise reverse of Diabolos in its original Ken Starr sense – might make it clearer.
I stlll cannot understand: if The Father(or God head) is spirit, and is Holy, why there is there a separate being who is called the Holy Spirit. If Jesus and the Father are one, How was Jesus Fathered? According to the Bible; Jesus( through Mary) was fathered by the Holy Spirit, if the human Jesus’s Father was the Holy Spirit, then How is the Father who Jesus says is One with Him also called his Father? Yet Jesus is quoted as saying: I will send the Holy Spirit and he will teach you all things?
Monavis
The Father stands “outside” of Creation, distinct & transcendent yet omnipresent, while the Holy Spirit indwells Creation, is imminent, making special residence within those people who are reborn in Christ.
Two analogies about how both the Father & the Spirit could be seen as involved in the Conception of JC-
First, the Father sends the Spirit to initiate the Conception of the Son in Mary, much as an earthly father implants the seed in the mother to conceive a child. Yeah, basically, that makes the Spirit the equivalent of Divine Sperm.
Second, the Father sends the Spirit to indwell Mary, so that the Spirit is the Divine Mother equipping Mary to be the suitable earthly mother of the Son.