I realize this could become a topic of hot debate, and i’ll move it if necessary, but firstly I am wondering if anyone can factually answer the posed question with a cite of religious doctrine? (i.e. The Bible =)
From what I know, Jesus was the son of God. Is he popularly considered a direct manifestation of God himself? and if yes, is there a cite for this? By manifestation I suppose I mean, was the dude walking in Jesus’ shoes, God? Walking and talking in all his glory? Or was it the Son of God?
Also, how does this fit into the belief that some Christian religions have that there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, if the Father and the Son are the exact same entity.
Thanks Also I am asking this question because another question currently in the queue made me raise my eyebrows and I want to make sure that I am not preachin’ nor subscribing to ignorance!
I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spigot, ur, Spirit are all manifest in the Triology. They are all aspects of the same divine entity, and yet seperate. It’s not an easy concept to grasp at first read.
So, in short, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are names we humans apply to aspects of God that we’ve perceived. At least that’s my impression of mainstream Christian Theology, ie, it’s all one God.
I’ll now step aside and let people who really know this stuff correct me.
Walloon, those are pretty good, but they seem pretty figurative to me you know what I mean? Anyone could say such things and feel it in their heart.
If I say, “I and the Father are one,” wouldn’t it sound like I meant that I was one with the Father, happy in my state of being and realized in my connection with Him?
I think something more concrete is in order Something that really answers the question, “Is Jesus God?”
If this really is a mainstream thought it has to be based on more than mere speculation, I hope!
Telemark I understand the point, remember it even. I was in seminary for 3 years, but that was 6 years ago and I haven’t looked since. I recall the concept.
I must ask, does The Trinity have a biblical origin? If not, who developed it, and on what grounds? Before I could ever seriously consider paying heed to these things I just gotta’ see how they started!
What kind of “concrete” evidence are you looking for? A birth certificate? You should know very well, having been in seminary, that these are matters of faith and doctrine, not science.
Some Christian religions accept the Trinity, and some don’t.
Some interesting Biblical passages to think about are John 14:28, which says in part (Jesus speaking): “The father is greater than I.” Also, Jesus prayed many times throughout the Bible. To whom was he praying? And John 3:16 is pretty clear, I think, when it says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 5:30 (I think) is also clear: “I can do nothing of my own self: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the Father who has sent me.”
Also, to quote the Encyclopedia Britannica (which I chose because it’s a fairly neutral source): “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the new testament.”
I believe the Trinity was established as a part of Christian religion around the end of the fourth century, which of course was hundreds of years after Jesus died.
the doctrine of the trinity (which, as has been said already, is not is the Bible) was established be the catholic church. i forget which pope it was under. apostolics (also known as "united pentecostal church or UPC or PAW - i’m not sure what it stands for but it’s the black version of UPC not trying to be racist or anything), on the other hand, believes that the idea of father, son, and holy spirit are not so much three people; they’re more like 3 jobs one person has. for example, my sister is a waitress, cleans houses, and goes to college. i’m not the best person to explain it though.
Believe it or not, the Church was not always the Roman Catholic Church. Constantinople was never “under” any Pope.
As for saying that the Trinity is “not in the Bible”, that all depends on how one reads it. If one insists upon a specific word-for-word literality, then one had first better find the statement in Scripture that requires word-for-word literality.
When taken in context that is much more ambiguous and supports either case equally.
In other words, the disciples wanted to see God, and Jesus said that seeing him was equivalent to seeing the Father. That could support the trinity, or it could just mean that the nature and works of Jesus were a true reflection of God’s nature and works.
And in context that is even more ambiguous.
Again, the people are asking Jesus is he is the Messiah, and he replies that they should know by the power he has been given, and that he has gathered followers who can not be mislead because what he wants the father wants.
It is worth noting that that verse is also commonly translated as “I am one with the Father”, “I and the Father are one heart and mind”, "I and the Father as of one accord and “I and the Father are as one”. Compare that to 1 Kings 22
Obviously the prophets were not one man, or part of some multi headed gestalt. They were separate people with a common thought. I can see how the phrase ‘The father and I are as one’ can be taken literally in John. But it can also be taken figuratively, and it is clearly used figuratively elsewhere in the Bible.
Not really. Figuratively, literally or otherwise ‘neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the new testament’. Britannica is quite correct in this. If you believe the word or the explicit doctrine is in there then please show us where.
Personally I’m in two minds on the subject, but I’m in favour of later addition. It’s such a radical depature from Jewish traditional faith that one would assume that someone might have mentioned it if it were meant to be believed.
Evidence of orthodox belief in the deity of Christ is present not only in the Scripture, but in other writings from the first century onwards. The doctrine of the Trinity took longer to develop, but was explicit in the writings of Tertullian in the early 3rd century, and was considered central to the faith in the creeds of the 4th century. Catholic Answers has a good selection of early quotes in support of both the deity of Christ and the Triune nature of God.
The vast majority of modern-day Christians are Trinitarian; from data at adherents.com, and counting only those denominations of which I am sure, I get about 86% in the Trinitarian camp.
Matthew 28:18-19 Jesus came forward and addressed them in these words: “Full authority has been given to me both in heaven and on earth; go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations. Baptize them in the name ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’”
alterego, would you mind sharing what denomination’s seminary you were in? I would think that three years in any seminary (even a non-Trinitarian one) would include a lot of material on the development of doctrine in the early Church, especially one as central as the Trinity.
Is that verse supposed to support or deny the case Walloon? Like all the rest, it seems it could be taken either way depending on your preconceptions.
If I deputise someone on the name of the legislature, the law courts and the civil police authority that means those are three separate and distinct bodies. So the verse supports unitarianism.
If I deputise someone in the name of the King of England, Protector of Scotland and Emporer of India, that means those three are the same person with three distinct roles. So the verse supports trinitarianism.
No doubt. Jesus himself said that he was a god. Of course he also pointed out that normal men and angels were referred to as Gods in the Bible. I don’t think anyine has ever disputed that Christ was at least as much a deity as an angel. That does not however support the trinity.
referring here to Psalm 82
There is no dispute in any Christian sect. AFAIK, that Jesus was a deity.
I apologize in advance for hijacking this thread, but… Telemark, where are “Jesus II: The Second Coming”. and “Jesus III: This Time, It’s Personal” from? It’s driving me nuts.
Also I am asking this question because another question currently in the queue made me raise my eyebrows and I want to make sure that I am not preachin’ nor subscribing to ignorance!