..The three monotheistic religions-- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-- all purport 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. 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 saved 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?
Trinity in the Bible 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 this "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" was 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 text, 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.
The Doctrine Takes Shape 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.
A Formal Doctrine Is Drawn Up 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 Church Puts Its Foot Down 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 didn't 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.
Debate Continues 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 preachings of Jesus: "... Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:8)
Islam and the Matter of the Trinity 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.
This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Qur'an sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title "Mother of God" by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verses in the Qur'an most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Qur'an as a "member" of the Trinity, is simply not true.
While the Qur'an does condemn both trinitarianism (the Qur'an 4:171; 5:73) and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary (the Qur'an 5:116), nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Qur'an is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.
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 Revelation 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." (the Qur'an 18:110)
"... take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected." (the 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) ..." (the Qur'an 21:92)
"Whoever lives amongst you will see much differing, so adhere to my Sunnah" Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه و سلم)
I first thought I'd merge it with other trinity-thread, but then It got lost since merging places posts chronologically by date, and this thread was requested 5 days ago, so I geuss I'll just leave it as separate thread then.
As I and other Christian members have pointed out time and time again, the word "Trinity" will not be found in the Bible. It is a man-made word "invented" in an attempt to explain the mystery of God. Does the word Trinity full explain the concept behind it? No.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).
The word Trinity was coined to make better sense of God and his manifestations. The New Testament makes numerous references to God being God, Christ being God, and the Holy Spirit being God. As God also makes it plain that there is no other God but Him, the only rational conclusion the early Christians could draw is a triune manifestation of the One God.
Saying the "Trinity" is man-made would be absolutely correct, it is a word invented to describe what Christians know to be true, but not how it is possible.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
The idea of the trinity, that Jesus and God are one and the same, always struck me as a bit incoherent. The bible makes litterary sense if Jesus was God's Son who lived with humans and wanted to save them, so went to God and sacrificed himself to make his case. But if Jesus IS God, then you've got God sacrificing himself to himself to convince himself to change his own mind. That just doesn't seem coherent to me. Seems to turn the whole Jesus story into a mere ritual God performed, instead of just snapping his fingers and forgiving man.
I don't want to get into a long debate about the Trinity here since there is another active thread discussing it as well. So just two quick notes.
format_quote Originally Posted by Umma Wasat
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 saved 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?
I hope you will note that the "different form" you put it together in:
one person, God the Father + one person, God the Son, + one person, God the Holy Ghost = one person, God the What?
is NOT the same as what you correctly quoted the Christian doctrine of the Trinity to express:
that God is the union of three divine persons-- the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit-- in one divine being
The reason is the terms "one person" and "one divine being" are NOT synonymous.
If, in your "different form" you would have stated:
one person, the Father + one person, the Son, + one person, the Holy Ghost = one being, God
Then, that would be stating the doctrine correctly even though in a different form.
So, please, as you consider it be sure that you are discussing the actual Christian doctrine of the Trinity and not something else that (while close) isn't really what it is saying.
Your concluding comment, "the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism" is exactly the point of the Trinity -- There is NOT a Trinity of (three) divine "beingS", but of a (singular) divine "being" (no plural).
My other comment is to the title of the thread: Who invented the Trinity?
The term was invented by the Church. It was invented to describe what they observed to be true of God. As a term, it is completely absent from scripture and was not even in use till well after the death of the last of the apostles. But that which it labels has been around for all of eternity, for it simply describes the internal relationships that God has with himself within his own singular being. The Christian understanding is that God is and has always been one (just as the scriptures proclaim) and this one God has always existed in three persons (as also revealed in the scriptures) but that reality was not always fully understood by us humans even though it has always been true of God.
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 07-10-2007 at 08:10 PM.
Oh, and btw, I'm not offended when people misunderstand the Trinity, it can be confusing. Even some Christians do not understand it properly, hence it's continuing discussion all these centuries later.
I just want people who are likely to ultimately reject it to know what it is that they are rejecting. Every now and then some of the objections to the Trinity that I hear make about as much sense as the man who said he didn't like ice cream because he didn't like the way it burnt the roof of his mouth. Obviously the man had confused ice cream with something else and was rejecting ice cream for the reasons that had nothing to do with what ice cream really was. Doesn't mean that he would necessarily like ice cream, but he ought to at least learn what it really is before offering any more objections to it. And those who think that the Trinity speaks of three different divine beings or associates partners with Allah are actually objecting to something different than the Trinity, for that is not what the concept of the Trinity attempts to speak of. Indeed, a correct understanding of the Trinity would show that it was "invented" (not really a good word, but the one in use here) to itself object to those very ideas as well.
The idea of the trinity, that Jesus and God are one and the same, always struck me as a bit incoherent. The bible makes litterary sense if Jesus was God's Son who lived with humans and wanted to save them, so went to God and sacrificed himself to make his case. But if Jesus IS God, then you've got God sacrificing himself to himself to convince himself to change his own mind. That just doesn't seem coherent to me. Seems to turn the whole Jesus story into a mere ritual God performed, instead of just snapping his fingers and forgiving man.
agreed
-
My tears testify that i have a heart
yet i feel me and shaytan never part
-
The idea of the trinity, that Jesus and God are one and the same, always struck me as a bit incoherent. The bible makes litterary sense if Jesus was God's Son who lived with humans and wanted to save them, so went to God and sacrificed himself to make his case. But if Jesus IS God, then you've got God sacrificing himself to himself to convince himself to change his own mind. That just doesn't seem coherent to me. Seems to turn the whole Jesus story into a mere ritual God performed, instead of just snapping his fingers and forgiving man.
It wasn't to change his own mind, but to satisfy his own sense of justice.
That probably doesn't dismiss your ultimate problem, that couldn't God just snap his fingers, but I wanted to clarify that slight misconception.
can i ask.. how many christians accept 100% of the bible... and if so which version...
sry if this is OT...
You can ask, but I doubt if anyone is capable of answering percentages.
As to which version, what is accepted is the integrity of the original autographs, and a belief that the copies of those originals are reliable enough from which to make reliable translations into the various langauges of the modern world. Any further elucidation would require a new thread to respond there.
The idea of the trinity, that Jesus and God are one and the same, always struck me as a bit incoherent. The bible makes litterary sense if Jesus was God's Son who lived with humans and wanted to save them, so went to God and sacrificed himself to make his case. But if Jesus IS God, then you've got God sacrificing himself to himself to convince himself to change his own mind. That just doesn't seem coherent to me. Seems to turn the whole Jesus story into a mere ritual God performed, instead of just snapping his fingers and forgiving man.
It's a good point you make. Continuing the rationale behind what you're saying, however, it would be just as rational to ask (e.g.), "Why can't God just snap his fingers and remove every trace of evil in this world?" or "Why has evil existed at all?" But such questions are inherently unanswerable, inasmuch as an answer would require a theological discussion, if the validity of the claims of Christianity (or indeed any other major religion) is to be supported. But a theological discussion will not satisfy an atheist: therefore to say (as I will, as a Christian) that there is no inconsistency or incoherence in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as generally narrated in the Bible and know as a matter of course, provided one is willing to accept a theological explanation, will not provide an adequate answer to the scruple you've raised.
You can ask, but I doubt if anyone is capable of answering percentages.
As to which version, what is accepted is the integrity of the original autographs, and a belief that the copies of those originals are reliable enough from which to make reliable translations into the various langauges of the modern world. Any further elucidation would require a new thread to respond there.
Just to confirm what Grace Seeker has said: A Christian is not in any doubt as to the composition, authenticity, veracity or fidelity of the Bible. If one approaches the Bible merely as one approaches other ancient literature and manuscripts, one may suppose that its validity may be impeached, e.g. by finding slight differences between exstant manuscripts. But by such a token the very foundation of Western civilization, as consisting in the literature and culture of the ancient Roman and Greek civilizations, is as liable to be doubted and questioned. And yet, so far as I can see, no one is willing to suggest that that foundation is a fable.
Moreover, one must bear in mind what is actually claimed about the Bible. We do not, as Christians, say that it was either through mere good fortune or through the skillful endeavours of historians or scribes alone that we happen to have the Bible in its current form. Although human input was certainly a part of the process, we do not believe it to have been the procuring cause - that we attribute to God alone. And if one were to say that we are unwarranted in such a belief, that person would seek to evert our right to believe in the very subject matter of our religion itself.
It's a good point you make. Continuing the rationale behind what you're saying, however, it would be just as rational to ask (e.g.), "Why can't God just snap his fingers and remove every trace of evil in this world?" or "Why has evil existed at all?" But such questions are inherently unanswerable, inasmuch as an answer would require a theological discussion, if the validity of the claims of Christianity (or indeed any other major religion) is to be supported. But a theological discussion will not satisfy an atheist: therefore to say (as I will, as a Christian) that there is no inconsistency or incoherence in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as generally narrated in the Bible and know as a matter of course, provided one is willing to accept a theological explanation, will not provide an adequate answer to the scruple you've raised.
So what is the theological explanation? I am not saying it is untrue (though I do believe it is) but that it is incoherent. Even as literature it contradicts itself and destroys its own apparent purpose.
So what is the theological explanation? I am not saying it is untrue (though I do believe it is) but that it is incoherent. Even as literature it contradicts itself and destroys its own apparent purpose.
The answer "in a nutshell" has already been provided by Grace Seeker, just below: "to satisfy [God's] own sense of justice". (I hope the square brackets came through OK - if they didn't, the word was "God's", replacing "his" in the original post.)
If the central obstacle to your acceptance of its validity as a Christian doctrine is its apparent incoherence or obscurity, a very much longer and more intricate explanation could easily be provided - but, to be quite honest, I'm not sure it would satisfy you any more. But if you remain unsatisfied, and put the basis of your dissatisfaction upon the doctrine's apparent incoherence, and the apparent ease with which God might have chosen some other method to accomplish what he aimed at, then I can only return to my original point: that any tenet or doctrine of Christianity is just as liable to such apparent contradictions, and with regard to any particular doctrine anyone may just as easily ask, "Why didn't God snap his fingers and just...?"
It seems to me - and I am happy for you to correct me - that you might be steering some sort of middle path, where there may be particular Christian doctrines that, although you don't believe them to be true youself, you are nevertheless happy to accept as tenable upon the basis of their internal logic; whereas others you highlight as presenting inconsistencies, or as otherwise inconsistent with reason and logic. But your approach must at least be consistent: either you accept that all propositions of the Christian faith, as proposed to be accepted upon an act of faith, are liable to exceptions from a skeptic's point of view, inasmuch as anything that requires faith for belief is irrefragably opposed to a scientific explanation. Or you must grant a certain degree of "suspension of disbelief" to Christians, and allow their explanations of their religion to stand all on the same footing. For to suppose that a non-Christian should be in a position to determine the validity of any particular Christian doctrine does not lend itself to easy approbation.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
*
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks