The Trinity Explained

[Minimalist]

Watching believers twist themselves into knots trying to explain the unexplainable is amusing but it is time to bring in an expert to sort through the centuries of xtian bullshit which preceded the invention of the "trinity."

From Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities Pages 156 -

If nothing else, Origen shows that in the second and third centuries, not
only are there clearly defined boundaries between the proto-orthodox and the
“heretics”; there are also some vague boundaries between what counts as orthodox
and what does not. The orthodoxy of one age can become the heresy of
the next. The Ebionites were arguably the first to learn this theological maxim,
as those who represented a very ancient form of Christianity, possibly rooted
in the beliefs of Jesus’ own Jewish apostles. They had numerous unlucky successors
in later ages, advocates of once acceptable views later to be condemned
as heretical.

The Beginnings of the Trinity

Neither Tertullian nor Hippolytus approached the questions of the nature of
Christ as God and man and of the relationship of the divine members of the
Godhead with the erudition, nuance, and acumen of Origen. But in some ways,
their less daring approaches became more useful to orthodox thinkers of later
times. Their opposition to patripassianist understandings (the belief that “the
Father suffered”) forced them to think in trinitarian terms, of God being distinctively
three in expression though one in essence. As Hippolytus puts it,
“With respect to the power, God is one; but with respect to the economy [i.e.,
to how this power expresses itself], the manifestation is triple” (Refutation
8:2). In Tertullian’s formulation, God is three in degree, not condition; in form,
not substance; in aspect, not power (Against Praxeas, 2). Tertullian was the
first Latin theologian to use the term Trinity.

Within the broad contours of proto-orthodoxy, then, one can see development
and variety. As time progressed, theologians became more entranced with
the mystery of the Trinity and developed a more highly refined vocabulary for
dealing with it. But that was long after the major issues had been resolved, of
whether Christ was man but not God (Ebionites; Theodotians), God but not
man (Marcionites, some Gnostics), or two beings, one man and one God (most
Gnostics). The proto-orthodox opted for none of the above. Christ was God
and man, yet he was one being, not two.24

Once that was acknowledged, the details still had to be worked out. And
they were worked out for centuries. If it were easy, it would not be a mystery.
Theologians began to be obsessed with the question of how and in what way
Christ could be both human and divine, completely both. Did he have a human
soul but a divine spirit? Did he have a divine soul instead of a human soul? Was
his body really like everyone else’s body? How could God have a body? Was
he subordinate to the Father, as in Origen?25 If he was not subordinate to the
Father, why was he the one sent, rather than the other way around? And so on,
almost ad infinitum.

In this earlier period, however, the debates were both more basic and more
fundamental. As a result, the alternatives within the proto-orthodox tradition—
as opposed to the alternatives that separated the proto-orthodox from everyone
else—were less clear and less obvious. All that was to change when the protoorthodox
found themselves to be the last ones standing and were forced then to
move forward into the orthodox forms of Christianity of the fourth and fifth
centuries.

Tertullian who invented this stupidity later went on to become a member of the Montanist heresy. So easy it was to run afoul of proto-orthodox silliness, apparently!

[DeistPaladin]

What I put in bold.

OK

Yahweh is who he was sacrificed to.

Conclusion of the logic prior to it, which was not in bold. Since that part was clear to you, why is the conclusion not clear?

But he IS Yahweh

John 1:1-14 "The Word was God... and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us"
John 10:30 "I and my Father are one"
John 10:38 "The Father is in me and I in him"
John 20:28-29 (Thomas calls Jesus "my God" and Jesus confirms this)
Phil 2:6 "Jesus being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God"
1 Tim 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh"
Rev 22:13 "I (Jesus) am the Alpha and Omega"

and so he is sacrificing himself to himself in order to convince himself to forgive us.

I know there's a passage in Paul's letters that testify that without the blood of Jesus, there could be no remission of sin. Do I need to dig that one up for you?

Now is it clear?

[Minimalist]

I'll put $1 on "No."

[Godscreated]

What I put in bold.

OK

Yahweh is who he was sacrificed to.

Conclusion of the logic prior to it, which was not in bold. Since that part was clear to you, why is the conclusion not clear?

But he IS Yahweh

John 1:1-14 "The Word was God... and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us"
John 10:30 "I and my Father are one"
John 10:38 "The Father is in me and I in him"
John 20:28-29 (Thomas calls Jesus "my God" and Jesus confirms this)
Phil 2:6 "Jesus being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God"
1 Tim 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh"
Rev 22:13 "I (Jesus) am the Alpha and Omega"

and so he is sacrificing himself to himself in order to convince himself to forgive us.

I know there's a passage in Paul's letters that testify that without the blood of Jesus, there could be no remission of sin. Do I need to dig that one up for you?

Now is it clear?

Give that man his dollar and Min don't spend it all in one place. I never said Christ was not God as a matter of fact many of those verses I also posted and not one says anything about God sacrificing Himself to Himself. The sacrifice was made for mankind not to God. The sacrifice was made to cover our sin, not to convince God to forgive us. God forgave us before He created us if He had not then why create us at all.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Why did you leave out the bold part of this verse, it does show that the Word (Christ) was seperate from the Father and Holy Spirit and the last of the verse shows He was part of the Godhead.
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. Again you've left out a verse that shows that Christ is a seperate part of the Godhead. The Greek word translated He in this verse literally means "this one" putting a strong emphasis on two seperate beings.
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." Please notice that one is not capitalized so in this instance Jesus is not referring to them as being God, His point here is they are of the same essence, sharing the same special qualities that are God. You need to read vs.27-29 to understand this.
John 10:38 the Father is in Me, and I in the Father. Again you leave out important information that makes this statement understandable. You must start reading at v.31 to understand whay Jesus is saying.
In verse 36 Jesus says that the Father sanctified Him and sent Him again showing seperate persons. What Jesus was saying in verse 38 is that He and the Father are working as one, of the same essence, sharing the same good works to show men who God really is.
John 20:28-29 This verse you are using to prove your point has far reaching meaning, Thomas first calls Him my Lord which acknowledges that Jesus did exactly as He said He would (raise from the dead). Thomas realized that Jesus was sent to accomplish a work for the Father and He did. Yes he called Jesus his God and rightfully so because the Son of the Father is part of the Godhead.
Phlippians 2:6 Once again you have taken a verse to make a point without considering the verses around it. Phlip.2:1-11 are all one lesson, the author of this book is stating that we should be like Christ and empty ourselves and become as a servant to God, as Christ did. Also because of the word robbery I think you miss understand that part of the verse, Christ was saying that is something incomprehensible for men. If you can borrow a NASV or ESV translation you can more easily understand this.
1st Timothy 3:16 Being a part of God yes He was revealed in the flesh. Do you think people would have listened to Him if He came in His God form. They surely would not have killed Him. To be revealed in the flesh means He layed down His powers So He could be killed.
Please look it up but it want say that God sacrificed Himself to Himself,Christ sacrificed Himself for all of those who will accept what He did for us.
Rev.22:13 Of course He's the Alpha and Omega He was with God from the first and will be God forever. I never said Christ was not God just a seperate part of the one true living God.

[Minimalist]

Give my dollar to a homeless guy or something....anything but in a church collection plate, D/P.

[IceSage]

Give that man his dollar and Min don't spend it all in one place. I never said Christ was not God as a matter of fact many of those verses I also posted and not one says anything about God sacrificing Himself to Himself. The sacrifice was made for mankind not to God. The sacrifice was made to cover our sin, not to convince God to forgive us. God forgave us before He created us if He had not then why create us at all.

By you saying this, you're suggesting that mandkind has the ability to control our own fate and we were able to cover up our sin at any given point. You're suggesting we even have the power to eradicate and abolish evil, without the power of God. To for whom are we giving the sacrifice to? Not us.

So, God isn't the one throwing us in an eternal Hell... We are? Because that's what you're saying.

Say I lived in those times back then, even spoke to God directly. Say I told everyone I didn't believe in God, and that I hate him after speaking to him, and that I want nothing to do with him. So... Who then would be the one judging me and throwing me into eternal torment? Would it be humanity, myself? Or would it be God? Because the individual doesn't want to harm themselves, so it must be some other entity outside of that human's control. IE. God.

Stop pussyfooting around. The sacrifice was to appease God, period.

[tackattack]

---

2-In regards to my analogy; I perhaps used the incorrect word and I apologize. I was talking about conjoined twins and you are grossly over analyzing the analogy, in this analogy and can be considered one entity.

So let's try to make sense of this, because you're still trying to tell me an apple is an orange.

You're using conjoined twins, two people attached to each other - forming a body and comparing that to a concept of 3 invisible and unverifiable entities - and making the point that 3 = 1.

I'm not saying conjoined twins don't share a physical body, but what I am saying is that they're regarded as different entities. They have different names, have their own wills, fears, emotions and dreams. They even have different fingerprints.

If we're speaking in terms of entities, which we are, then conjoined twins are just as separate as identical twins. However, what I think you're doing is trying to make the point that their physical connection is analogous to your God's connection with the other 2, which doesn't follow in the least - since one is about sharing a physical connection, and another is strictly conceptual and has nothing to do with physical reality.

In any case, ALL of the parties are separate entities, much like my Superfriends analogy. Yes, they serve a common goal, but there are distinguishing characteristics between them, not to mention a will and mind of their own, by your own admission.

Perhaps the twins aren't phenomenologically identical, but genetically they are one.

And so are identical twins. On that basis, can you refer to them as one entity? If I clone 100 sheep with the same genetic material, will I have only one sheep?

Phenotypes requires physical interaction with a physical environment and God is metaphysical in nature.

So you understand how your analogy does not apply.

I was simply trying to explain how they are one substance, like the conjoined twins are one continuous connected human form.

Yes, but they are still separate entities, as they have minds and wills independent of their sibling.

They also have knowledge of each other intimately.

And? What does this have to do with justifying 3=1?

They also share similar qualities, like a conjoined twins genetics, but have differences like the phenotype of a conjoined twin. I hope you can get the analogy now that we've over analyzed it to death.

I hope you can get how the analogy doesn't make sense and isn't applicable to an erroneous concept. Sharing similar qualities, yet being different is demonstrating that they are different entities. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

2-As far as people worshiping all three. Jesus points people to worship God John 17:1 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. and the Holy spirit points us towards God Romans 8:27 (New International Version)
27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.
So I don't know why anyone is "worshiping" anyone but God. They might be speaking of or to someone other than God out of habit or teaching, but the worship is only the singular God.

What?!

Jesus talking about praying to him:

John 14:14
If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

Praying to God:

Matthew 6:9
This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,

Praying to the Holy Spirit:

Romans 8:26
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

Jude 20:
But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.

On the all 3 as separate entities:

John 15:26
“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me"


Are we still trying to prove Homer Simpson is Barney Gumble because they're both on the Simpsons?

3-As far as time not being a noun and therefore not qualifying as being able to be sacrificed, get real??!? Do I really need to pull out a dictionary here. It most assuredly is a noun and a common enough colloquialism to say you're "sacrificing you time" for your art or whatever purpose you have.

Do you realize that an intangible sacrifice, such as effort, is much different than a tangible one, like an animal or human? It paints a vastly different picture, not to mention the sacrifice was to purchase the sin incurred by man. Please do explain, who was selling it?

You're right sacrificing time isn't an offering to a deity but it is a sacrifice. There fore you can hopefully see where the analogy I'm using is appropriate to my points listed as to why Jesus isn't sacrificing any part of him to another part of the Godhead, but he is doing a great sacrifice.

I don't understand how your analogy stands. Jesus died so he could exploit a loophole in God's rulebook because things were getting out of hand. He did it to appease the system that God implemented.

Man sins, and is destined for hell by God. Jesus offers himself as collateral for man's sins.
How is this not an offering to a deity?

---

2-Yes by my own admission they have 3 dstinct abilities and wills. The physical connection between the conjoined twins is not directly correlated to metaphysical properties, it's analogous in that it's a metaphor that at the basest substance of the Trinity of God they are of one substance, one origin, and move with a singularity. People do in fact worship Jesus or treat movements of the Holy spirit with enough attention that they've become idols. In the Bibe though Jesus tells us that what he does is to glorify God the father. he holy spirit guides us to the Father's will. They are 3 distinct entities that can and are worshipped seperately. Basic trinitarian colloguial use of the term God doesn't refer to all three, but to God the Father. Yes I agree that they are 3 distinct entities that can be worshipped, but they are from the same origen and construct, made of the same substance.
3-I'm not understanding your quesion. Who is purchasing what? I do understand that intangible sacrifices are different than physical sacrifices. It's a fundamental of Christian teaching that Jesus' sacrifice was the end of physical sacrifices; people still aren't making burnt offerings to my knowledge. Jesus died to manifest God's message to the world, because as free agents we weren't listening. Man isn't destined for hell, we weren't created to go to hell, we were created to learn to overcome our natures and better learn and love. Jesus, the man, sacrificed himself ( not to anything) by giving up his place and power temporarilt and choosing to suffer to show us the door. I've explained with the time analogy how that is not an offering to anything. If you want to call it an offering to something call it an offering to mankind. He offered himself to mankind to show us the means to attain salvation.


@Min- I'm aware it was first identified by Tertullian. Does gravity exist because of Hooke? no. How does that bear relevance to the reality (I know all you atheists are laughing at that line )of it?

[Zen Badger]

Rev.22:13 Of course He's the Alpha and Omega He was with God from the first and will be God forever. I never said Christ was not God just a seperate part of the one true living God.

You are arguing the merits of a non existant entity, but have fun.

[Godscreated]

Give that man his dollar and Min don't spend it all in one place. I never said Christ was not God as a matter of fact many of those verses I also posted and not one says anything about God sacrificing Himself to Himself. The sacrifice was made for mankind not to God. The sacrifice was made to cover our sin, not to convince God to forgive us. God forgave us before He created us if He had not then why create us at all.

By you saying this, you're suggesting that mandkind has the ability to control our own fate and we were able to cover up our sin at any given point. You're suggesting we even have the power to eradicate and abolish evil, without the power of God. To for whom are we giving the sacrifice to? Not us.

So, God isn't the one throwing us in an eternal Hell... We are? Because that's what you're saying.

Say I lived in those times back then, even spoke to God directly. Say I told everyone I didn't believe in God, and that I hate him after speaking to him, and that I want nothing to do with him. So... Who then would be the one judging me and throwing me into eternal torment? Would it be humanity, myself? Or would it be God? Because the individual doesn't want to harm themselves, so it must be some other entity outside of that human's control. IE. God.

Stop pussyfooting around. The sacrifice was to appease God, period.

You have the most unreasonable way of reading what I have written. I did not say that Christ sacrificed Himself to us nor would I ever believe that, I said He did not sacrifice Himself to Himself, He Gave His life for us (do you understand what the word for means.) We are not giving a sacrifice to any one that has been done for us once and for all, no other sacrifice needed. When Christ gave His life for us it was sufficient for all people for all time.

Yes we do have control of our own fate, God gave us freewill to insure that our eternal destiny was our choice not His. Yes our sin is covered when we accept Christ as our savior, at that given point in time. Yes a person condenms his/herself to hell and God the Father shows them why and how they did this. You are right no one wants to go into an eternal hell, that is when they realize it is a real place, so yes God is the One who puts people there, kicking and screaming all the way there.

The answer to your last paragragh is yourself, God shows you why your choices lead to this and off you go. This is not what God wants for you, it is your choice.
I do not pussyfoot around it is your misconception of what I post that must make you think I am.

[DeistPaladin]

Give my dollar to a homeless guy or something....anything but in a church collection plate, D/P.

I'll contribute it to the atheist group I belong to here in my home town. It'll go to the website and other promotions of freethought here in the buckle of the Bible-belt.