Does the Trinity really mean that God and Jesus are one?

mosesnoah · #1 Apr 16, '05, 5:12 pm

I love Catholics and served on a Catholic Finance Council until not too long ago, but would like to raise an interesting topic.

1 John 5:8 includes words that lead many religions to believe the three are as one. However, findings of religious scholars indicate differently, “it is quite certain that these words did not belong to the original text” (The One Volume Bible Commentary, MacMillan 1908). When you research this as I did you will learn that the Trinity came about in the 5th Century. The 1908 Bible Commentary written by Scholars early last Century goes on to say that the "Trinity in found in no Greek scriptues until the 14th Century and our quated by none of the Fathers until the 5th Century". "The Fathers understood the passage in its original form to symbolize the Trinity, an interpretation which may have been inserted at first as a marginal footnote and afterwords found its way into the test".

Even the new edition NIV Bible has changed 1 John 5:8 back to the original Hebrew Scriptures that the three are in “agreement” versus "one".

I love Jesus Christ the Messiah as all of you lovely God fearing Christian's do. However, if God and Jesus Christ are the same (one God…Father vs. Son?) why do we rpray through Jesus to God, are they one or two seperate entities?

Jesus Christ the Messiah rules in Heaven and we pray through him to God (two entities). Jesus prayed to God while on Earth and told the “other” Mary before he ascended not to touch him until he ascended to Heaven to be with his Father (two beings), so how could they be the only the same? Jesus himself recognized that Psalms 91-104 is about a merciful plea to give God praise as two seperate entities.

Jesus lived with his Father back when Moses wrote Genesis 3:22 “And God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…” Who is "us in this verse? “Us” implies that this means more than one (two beings). Perhaps, God and his Son Jesus are “us” in that verse?

May Jesus bless us all and enlighten us each time we open God's Words. Love Hope and Salvation to all.

Ghosty · #2 Apr 16, '05, 5:45 pm

I don't know on what grounds these "scholars" are saying that those words weren't present in the originals. They are present in all copies we have. Furthermore, there was no Hebrew version of John, so I don't know how the NIV could have gone back to the "Hebrew original". John was originally written in Greek. The very opening of John states that Jesus is God.

I won't go into a detailed description of the Trinity at this time since there are other sources available, but I can if you like. I just wanted to address the "scholarly" concerns you raised first.

EDIT: For addressing the Trinity it would be helpful to know your faith background so I can ensure that we aren't talking past eachother when the topic is addressed.

mosesnoah · #3 Apr 16, '05, 5:54 pm

Your right about the Hebrew Scriptures, the Commentary written by the Rev. J. R. Dummelow in 1908 does refer to the Greek Scriptures. But the question is, are they two seperate entities or was this added to the Scriptures after they were written???

Here's the quote from "The One Volume Bible Commentary" published in 1908, "They are found in no Gk. MS earlier than the 14th Century, and are quoted by none of the Fathers before the middle of the 5th Century"

Seeks God · #4 Apr 16, '05, 6:05 pm

So....1908 literature becomes the expert on something that was determined 2000 years ago??? oh wait, that's right you were trying to figure it out when it first appeared. It doesn't state it explicitly in the Bible, but the Early Christians did write about it in the 1st and 2nd centuries as well as the development during the Council at Nicea which explicitly stated it as Christian/Catholic doctrine. It has always been a concept and has always been written about. This concept of the Trinity is a Sacred Tradition that can be inferred from scripture. But if you were truly interested, we could find the scriptural passages that talk about Sacred Tradition as well.

Ignatius stated it in (110 A.D.) is an example. But below would be where you can find others.

Read these:
http://www.catholic.com/library/God_...ee_Persons.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp

mosesnoah · #5 Apr 16, '05, 6:11 pm

What I am specifically trying to learn from this post is who "us" is in Genesis 3:22. Blessings...

jimmy · #6 Apr 16, '05, 6:15 pm

I think you are misunderstanding the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity says that there are three different persons in God, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. They are all of the same being and of the same essence. The Father is the source of the whole Trinity. The Son is begotten of The Father, and the Spirit proceeds from The Father as an ultimate source, and through The Son to us.

Now, The Father, The Son, and The Spirit are one in being, but they are seperate in person. The Son is not The Father and The Spirit is not The Father and The Spirit is not The Son.

We know very little about the Trinity. The Son is looked at as being The Word through which all things were made.[John1][Nicene creed] Augustine describes The Son as being the truth of God.[The Confessions] We know that he is eternal and unmade.[John 6 where he says, "Before Abraham was I AM"][Nicene creed] We know that Jesus is the incarnate second person of The Trinity.

The Holy Spirit is explained as the gift of The Father and The Son and as the love between The Father and The Son by Augustine.[On Christian Doctrine] He proceeds from The Father as an ultimate source but also proceeds from The Son in a way. He is said to proceed through The Son by many Church Fathers.

Really we do not know a whole lot about The Trinity.

mosesnoah · #7 Apr 16, '05, 6:24 pm

Then, why did Jesus pray to his Father while on Earth if they are one?

jimmy · #8 Apr 16, '05, 6:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosesnoah

Then, why did Jesus pray to his Father while on Earth if they are one?

The Son and The Father are seperate. The Son is begotten of The Father. We can say that The Son is of the The Father, who is the source of The Trinity.

mosesnoah · #9 Apr 16, '05, 6:42 pm

As in Adam, all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. Were they not both sent from God?

jimmy · #10 Apr 16, '05, 6:48 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosesnoah

As in Adam, all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. Were they not both sent from God?

I am not sure how this question relates. The Son is eternal unlike Adam. Christ is the incarnation of The Son. Adam was not eternal, he was a created being.

Yes, they were both sent from The Father.

mosesnoah · #11 Apr 16, '05, 7:07 pm

Here is the mystery. Religion changed God’s glorious name to LORD by Satan to take away his praise away. Psalm 92:1 (from the 1901 American Standard Version Holy Bible) reads: “It is a good thing to give thanks unto Jehovah, And sing praises unto thy name, O Most High”. If you were in front of God on Judgment Day and told him that you knew his name from the 1901 ASV Bible studied over one hundred years ago, but rejected his glorious name, would he be pleased?Yahweh appears in the Pentateuch of the 1970 Catholic version of “The New American Bible”and as originally written in the Scriptures that appear gloriously throughout the 1901 American Standard Version Holy Bible. The name Yahweh was removed 7,000 times from original Hebrew scriptures and appears four times in the King James Version(see Exodus 6:3) until it was completely banished in any future Catholic favored Bible. See the 1990 New Jerusalem that uses Yahweh’s name 7,000 times, it’s cool and these modern day passages flow harmoniously throughout the Book. Actually Yahweh is Hebrew and appears in the entrances of ancient Buildings and Catholic Churches in Europe and is abbreviated into four letters (YHWH).

Isaiah 42:8 from the same original 1901 ASV Holy Bible reads, “I am Jehovah, this is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images”. So tell me this thru your Apologetic Department if you can, why does the Catholic Church refuse to recognize God’s glorious name? The Apologetic Department’s brochure says there is no such name and it does not exist and if it did it makes the Apologetic Department who is responsible for preparing the Catholic material a liar and hence a violation of the 10 Commandments. Surely they have seen a copy of the 1901 ASV (American Standard Version) Bible, have they not? Do you think the answer might be that the Church felt that people would misuse his name and therefore Satan won in taking Jehovah God’s praise away from true believers? I am a Christian and do not follow any one religion because of this, just what is written in the Bible and attend Christian meetings.

jimmy · #12 Apr 16, '05, 7:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosesnoah

Here is the mystery. Religion changed God’s glorious name to LORD by Satan to take away his praise away. Psalm 92:1 (from the 1901 American Standard Version Holy Bible) reads: “It is a good thing to give thanks unto Jehovah, And sing praises unto thy name, O Most High”. If you were in front of God on Judgment Day and told him that you knew his name from the 1901 ASV Bible studied over one hundred years ago, but rejected his glorious name, would he be pleased?Yahweh appears in the Pentateuch of the 1970 Catholic version of “The New American Bible”and as originally written in the Scriptures that appear gloriously throughout the 1901 American Standard Version Holy Bible. The name Yahweh was removed 7,000 times from original Hebrew scriptures and appears four times in the King James Version(see Exodus 6:3) until it was completely banished in any future Catholic favored Bible. See the 1990 New Jerusalem that uses Yahweh’s name 7,000 times, it’s cool and these modern day passages flow harmoniously throughout the Book. Actually Yahweh is Hebrew and appears in the entrances of ancient Buildings and Catholic Churches in Europe and is abbreviated into four letters (YHWH).

Isaiah 42:8 from the same original 1901 ASV Holy Bible reads, “I am Jehovah, this is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images”. So tell me this thru your Apologetic Department if you can, why does the Catholic Church refuse to recognize God’s glorious name? The Apologetic Department’s brochure says there is no such name and it does not exist and if it did it makes the Apologetic Department who is responsible for preparing the Catholic material a liar and hence a violation of the 10 Commandments. Surely they have seen a copy of the 1901 ASV (American Standard Version) Bible, have they not? Do you think the answer might be that the Church felt that people would misuse his name and therefore Satan won in taking Jehovah God’s praise away from true believers? I am a Christian and do not follow any one religion because of this, just what is written in the Bible and attend Christian meetings.

What does this have to do with the thread? It has nothing to do with it. The New Jerusalem bible is a Catholic Bible I believe.

You picked a pretty poor reason to not associate with religion. What makes the 1901 ASV bible more accurate than any other version of the bible?

mosesnoah · #13 Apr 16, '05, 8:53 pm

We are not to follow Religion and Doctines that are written by Religion, just what is in the Bible. Here's a few reasons:

Read Exodus 20:5 “You shall not bow down before them or worship them, for I, the Lord, your God am a jealous God…” Demons lurk on idols that do not walk, hear, touch, feel, think or talk. Now read Revelation 9:20, That part of mankind which escaped the plagues did not repent of the idols they had made. They did not give up the worship of demons, or of gods made from gold and silver, from bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk”. Think about this one when you see a statue in a place of worship and how it makes our jealous God feel.

Perhaps Jesus Christ was tortured and died on a Tree (see attachment three) and not a Cross as recently discussed by Scholars. If your child died by a Gun would you wear one on a chain around your neck? When the Pharisees were successful in killing Christ, it made them happy and they said it was good day to make that happen. So why do we call this terrible day when he was tortured and suffered to death before the glorious resurrection occurred “Good Friday”. Why has several church leaders encouraged their members to go see the Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” movie that portrays violence, something the Bible speaks against, rather then a movie that portrays all of his teachings? After Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the first four Chapters of the NT (the Gospel) we learn later that Peter and the apostles wrote this during their missionaries speaking to the Pharisees in Jerusalem in Act 5:30 “The God of our fathers has raised up Jesus whom you put to death, hanging him on a tree”. Read earlier remarks on how Satan has taken away worship to our “jealous” God thru the use of Graven Images made from wood, stone and bronze in Rev. 9:20. This also ties to the OT to Moses’ comments in Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven…”.

If Jesus Christ was tortured and killed on his Donkey when he road into Jerusalem, to knock over the Money Changer’s coins in front of the Temple, would we have a Donkey on top of every Catholic Church today? We probably would.

But no, the Vatican and the Oakland Diocese continue to defend them which violate the Mosaic Law and further demonstrates the point I am making about false religion. Jehovah God in the Mosaic Law says those who bring justice to criminals receives favor in the eyes of the Lord, so therefore the Catholic Religion is not receiving favor by refusing to pursue justice to the stated 2% of their Priests. Do I need to say more?

tommy4321 · #14 Jul 27, '05, 10:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy

I think you are misunderstanding the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity says that there are three different persons in God, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. They are all of the same being and of the same essence. The Father is the source of the whole Trinity. The Son is begotten of The Father, and the Spirit proceeds from The Father as an ultimate source, and through The Son to us.

Now, The Father, The Son, and The Spirit are one in being, but they are seperate in person. The Son is not The Father and The Spirit is not The Father and The Spirit is not The Son.

We know very little about the Trinity. The Son is looked at as being The Word through which all things were made.[John1][Nicene creed] Augustine describes The Son as being the truth of God.[The Confessions] We know that he is eternal and unmade.[John 6 where he says, "Before Abraham was I AM"][Nicene creed] We know that Jesus is the incarnate second person of The Trinity.

The Holy Spirit is explained as the gift of The Father and The Son and as the love between The Father and The Son by Augustine.[On Christian Doctrine] He proceeds from The Father as an ultimate source but also proceeds from The Son in a way. He is said to proceed through The Son by many Church Fathers.

Really we do not know a whole lot about The Trinity.

Hi Lazer:

I wanted to tip my hat to you for being able to tyoe in Hebrew, very impressive and astute. You do have a compelling arguement in your last post, but I brought this one up from Jimmy in this earlier post from this thread. Jimmy is saying here that Jesus and God are seperate persons, I also heard this again from a recent post on the other thread I have going from a Catholic on my Revelations are we ready post. However, I can't figure out what is meant by some Catholics when they say they are not seperate persons and some say they are seperate?

On the Bill of Rights portion that is written by nation and I gather that Jesus really did not support any nation, political powers or any other universal power other than his Father.

I will point out that JW's do like to read from their material and will not argue with you on this point, you are right here. They like to use Jehovahs name and it draws thier membership closer to the true God and I don't see this as a weakness in their organization. Notice I say their organization because as a Bible stuent I have not yet officiall converted as I still need to have the same clean standards as they do meaning dropping my materialism and non-Godly stuff from my life that I inhereted from Adman to be clean enough to share the goods news of the thruth of the Kingdom and paradise earth versus the heavenly annointed class that is not recognized by most organized religions.

Yes, I think that even the Catholics have been slow to recognize some of their mistakes. I believe it was not until 1992 that the church admitted it was wrong taking a nuetral stance against Nazi Germany. The New Jerusalem Bible uses Yahwehs glorious name, but it is still not used at a Catholic mass. This was a first century superstition not to use the devine name and here we are two thousand years later and we are not hearing from the church that this was a mistake even though it appears in written form at this point and maybe in the future they will come around and use his name verbally like many other reilions do around the world. Organized religion that takes on the form of a government sometimes acts like a government in acknowleging mistakes, would you agree. I enjoyed your post and believe you are a true christian. take care, tommy

wcknight · #15 Jul 27, '05, 11:02 am

AS in the other thread, there is no explanation for the Trinity. It is a mystery of faith anything anyone says here is pure speculation, including what I say.

There is ONLY ONE God, there are 3 aspects or persons or personalities or manifestations of God, for lack of a better term,

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same God. How that is, nobody knows.

Contrary to popular misconception the Church did NOT take a neutral stand and it most definitely did not condone or approve of any of the Nazis abuses. It did NOT come out and make a public condemnation of Nazism and it had very good reasons not to and that is a very different from saying it was neutral.

The fact is that the Pope very strongly opposed the evils of Nazism and did everything he could to aleviate the suffering and murders cause by Hitler. He did not come out with proclamation because it very clearly that was having the opposite effects on Hitler.

Whenever the Pope made any statements or wrote anything to oppose Nazism, Hilter would kill more or impose even harser penalties on both Catholics and on Jews or on whoever the Pope was trying to protect.

The Pope was wise enough to finally do everything in secret. He ordered fake Baptismal certificates for thousands of Jews. And he secretly ordered all churches, monasteries and convents to become safe havens for many more thousands of jews. It is estimated that the Pope was personally responsible for saving several hundred thousand jews. That is by far many more than any other individual, organization or country.

The Church did NOT have to appologize for anything that happened, the fact that it did (apologize) should not in any way be taken as admission of any wrong doing either directly or indirectly. The only thing it may have been guilty of is maybe not recognizing Hitler for the monster that he was earlier.

There may have been some who collaborated with the Nazis out of fear or self interest, but it clearly was not the popes either Pius XI or Pius XII, both of whom are up for canonization, and deservedly so.