Who invented the Trinity?

[exothen]

You were stating pantheistic beliefs, so I merely pointed out that they are self-refuting and as such shouldn't be held.  It would be off topic to get into it, but since no one is interested in discussing the Trinity...

I wonder where Mohamed went to...[?]

[Tab]

I was stating the only logical way for God to be perfect.
Please explain how this is self-refuting.

[Gandalf]

Regarding the multiple aspects of god in christianity, it is interesting that in the Dead sea scrolls, possibly some of the earliest christian documents, there is a dual aspect. As well as the 'heavenly father' in heaven, we also have the 'earthly mother' who resides in the earth. The Earthly mother is responsible for all the plants and animals and cares for our earthly bodies while the father looks after the heavenly aspect. The Mother also has her own angels of the earth and so on.

There is also a copy of the Lords verse which we are all familiar with, except it is not just the lords verse, right after it you are meant to say the Mother's prayer as well, which follows the same format:
ie: 'our *earthly mother* who resides on *earth*, give us our daily bread', etc

Also while the holy trinity is refered to it is quite different from the version we know today. Rather the trinity is : 'the father, the mother, and the son' which also makes much more sense imo!

We must also take into account the influence of classical religion which had its own 'trinity'. In Rome there was the nice threesome composed of Jupiter (Lord of the gods), Juno (his wife) and Minerva (their daughter), also known as the 'Capitoline Triad', as the great temple to the triad stood on the Capitol hill in Rome. This setup was a common feature of most Roman towns and cities. (Jupiter, Juno & Minerva equal the Greek Zeus, Hera and Athena respectivly).

IMO, although I agree that the trinity concept (however it is formulated) was always a part of christianity, I believe that the concept was made a central feature of *state* christianity as the trinity idea had a similar ring to it as the classical 'capitoline triad' of traditional roman religion, and was used so that the new religion would appeal to Roman citizens; we know that many features of classical religion were used by the early christian writers to appeal to those already familiar with classical religon.

ie all the stories of Jesus healing the sick etc are all common features of hellenistic and Roman religion; Aescelipus was a popular 'god-man' during this period who did all the things that jesus did; Other NT stories such as 'the last supper' scenario and 'the three wise men' were all common features of classical religion; the Greek god of wine(!) Dionosyus (roman =Bacchus) had both a 'last supper' before being betrayed, as well as being visited at his birth by 'wise men'.

Anyway, once christianity was usurped thanks to our old pal emperor constantine (who interestingly wasnt baptised himself until on his death bed!), and christianity became a part of the machinery of roman state policy, all the feminine aspects of the old christianity were carefully excised, leaving us with the firmly patriarchal system we are all familiar with. In addition, christian writers went into denial mode, refuting that any part of christianity had any links to paganism at all. Interstingly, at this time, all temples to Aescelipus were systematically routed out and destroyed due to his uncomfortable likeness to Jesus!

In this earlier state we can also see how much earlier christian doctrine *shares* with pagan belief, such as the familiar triad/trinity concept, and esp the concept of the earth goddess which most Wiccans will be familiar with. This concept has survived in modern christianity in a watered down format, with the Virgin Mary being recognisible as really a form of the mother goddess in veiled form.
Christianity in many ways is actually a continuation of pagan beliefs, not its great enemy as many christians would have you believe.

Regards,
Douglas

[exothen]

Tab,

 

quote: God's nature is the universe, or everything that exists, therefore all must constitute him and at the same time he must be one in all and all in one, to be perfect.

This, as you probably know, is pantheism ("all is God"), or actually, may be panentheism ("all in God"). I would need to know more about your view of God to be sure. But either way, both views affirm that God is both infinite and finite, which of course is logically impossible. Also, you have not given any reason for believing your premise that God's nature is the universe. As I have just shown, this is illogical.

[Beth]

exothen,

You wrote:

quote:both views affirm that God is both infinite and finite, which of course is logically impossible

IMO, and simply put--mere man is incapable of saying what is or is not "logical" or "impossible" with God.  

Academically speaking, the problem is between "immanence" and "transcendence" (immanence=finite and transcendent=infinite) i.e., how can God be both???  Simply put, how can God be here among us and at the same time, be "located" in a transcendent realm?  Many philosophers, theologians and scholars have tried to tackle this one (from Heraclitus in 500 bce until present day)--during the centuries around the turn of the first millennium, that is what the LOGOS (or WORD) is all about.  Read John 1:1-3.  The LOGOS is both here during creation and yet is also GOD.  If you want an academic treatise that spells it out pretty well, may I suggest you read St. Thomas Aquinas' position on this??  

In summary, IMO all things are possible with "God" but also academically speaking, both "immanent" and "transcendent" are not necessarily conflicting notions--complex to wrap your head around perhaps, but not "impossible."  To me, "immanence and transcendence" are just two different ways of understanding ONE thing--that is GOD.

One more thing:  If I can take it from your posts correctly exothen, you are currently in school and taking religion classes.  I am a bit concerned about how easily you think you are "logically proving" things to be right or wrong.  

quote:As I have just shown, this is illogical.

 If I may make a suggestion, check your course listings and take a Formal Logic course in your philosophy department.  You will see how "Logical Proof" is not quite so simple. I hope you don't take this suggestion in the wrong way--I just want you to be able to state your position with a much stronger foundation.[].
 
Peace,
Beth

[Mohamed]

I would like to start off by stating that I have nothing against Christians, but I would have to debate the Trinity idea.

The three monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - all support to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as tawhid in Islam, this concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical passage known as the "Shema" or the Jewish creed of faith: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus when he said: "...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again: "And your God is One God: There is no God but He, ..." (The Qur'an 2:163)

Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century (After Jesus). This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and without the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - in one divine being.

If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter:

"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be save must thus think of the Trinity..." (Excerpts from the Athanasian Creed)

Let's put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father + one person, God the Son + one person, God the Holy Ghost = one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?

It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.

How did such a confusing doctrine get its start?

References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.
In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. While the "Great Commission" does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text - that is, not the actual words of Jesus - as can be seen by two factors:


1. Baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and
2. The "Great Commission" found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost - see Mark 16:15.

The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of I John 5:7, Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase "...there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is definitely a "later addition" to Biblical test, and it is not found in any of today's versions of the Bible.

It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.

While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a "divine Son." After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God's revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.

Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.

When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria - Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop - Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.
Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.

Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism" became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who did not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.

It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.

Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.
The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than "I believe it because I was told to do so." It is explained away as "mystery" - yet the Bible says in I Corinthians 14:33 that "... God is not the author of confusion..."

The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the preaching’s of Jesus: "...Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:

While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam.

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God." (Qur'an 5:73) It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name "Allah" as the name of God.

Suzanne Haneef, in her book WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ISLAM AND MUSLIMS (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says, "But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in." (pp. 183-184)

Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.

Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity - God being Three-in-One - is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three.

In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Qur'an, God's Final Revelations to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:

"...your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner." (Qur'an 18:110)
"...take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected." (Qur'an 17:39)

...Because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout All His Revealed Scriptures:
"...I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other)..." (Qur'an 21:92)