Is God Three?
- Thread starter Tigger 2
- Start date
CherubRam
New member
According to history Trinitarianism has its origins in Gnosticism.
There is also a document about a Kabbalist who suggested the Godhead is triune. That was at the same time Yahshua was preaching. Perhaps that is why Yahshua quoted this verse:
Mark 12:29.
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is [one / only.]
Trinity
In the fourth-century, Marcellus of Ancyra declared that the idea of the Godhead existing as three hypostases came from Plato, through the teachings of Valentinus. Valentinus is quoted as teaching that God is three, three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:
These men also taught three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. It was believed he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but he was discovered to have taken this from Hermes and Plato.
Valentinus (also spelled Valentinius) (c.100 - c.160) was known as a early Christian Gnostic Theologian.
It should be noted that Nag Hammadi library Sethian text such as Trimorphic Protennoia identify Gnosticism as also professing Father, Son and feminine wisdom Sophia or as Professor John D Turner denotes, God the Father, Sophia the Mother, and Logos the Son.
Comments by scholars.
Historical proofs as to the way the Trinitarian doctrine effected the pure doctrine of the disciples.
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism.
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form changed by the [Catholic] church."
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the exact words of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs, The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch in (AD 180), (The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture."
"The chief Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19. This late post-resurrection saying, is not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the New Testament, it has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion. Eusebius,s text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates.
Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew, this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus.
It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit."
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61.
Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed." page 435.
The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637,
Under "Baptism," says: "Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
New Revised Standard Version: In regards to Matthew 28:19.
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity."
James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus." Acts 1:5.
Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The
formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the evidence available that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone.
It is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was changed to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published:
"The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal addition."
The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal addition. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."
Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later changed to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1: The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord."
Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."
A History of The Christian Church:
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen. (254-257)"
TestedandTried
New member
jsanford108
New member
Wow. Merry Christmas to you too, friend.
Notice how Jesus is so important, we celebrate His birth? No other person gets that kind of celebration. Same goes for His death.
Enjoy your alternate revised history.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
We don't even know when he was born. Do we thank Constantine for his lame guess of the birth-date being the same as Mithra? You sir, are a dork.
So enjoy your alternate view of history.
Tigger 2
Active member
Reply to jsanford108 - post 125 above.
js:
Constantine died 11 years after his dealings with the Nicene Council and his decree to have those who did not conform killed. He did not wait till on his deathbed to make his death-dealing decree. And if this is not compelling force, I don't know what is. However it is worthy of note that on his deathbed he did request baptism and was baptized by an Arian (non-trinitarian) Bishop.
I question either your ability to read carefully, your sources, or your motives.
js:
I can't find that Speilvogel wrote 'Making of the West.' I suspect this, again, is just more carelessness on your part or extremely poor source material.
I don't know where you find Augustine as emperor of Rome in 386. In fact, I don't know where you found any Roman emperor named Augustine. Most (if not all) Roman emperors were given the honorary title 'Augustus,' but not 'Augustine.'
Earle E. Cairns, professor emeritus of Wheaton College, is a graduate of Presbyterian Theological Seminary at Omaha (Th.B.) and the University of Nebraska (Ph.D.). He is a member of the American Society of Church History, the American Historical Association, and the Conference on Faith and History. He taught at Wheaton for thirty-five years and was department chairman for much of that time. He was consulting editor for the New International Dictionary of the Christian Church.
T2:
js:
And the author is a noted Reverend in the Anglican Church (a 'biased' trinitarian, of course).
"The Rev Professor John McManners, who has died aged 89, was one of the outstanding British religious historians of the 20th century, an international authority on the 18th-century French church, and a scholar possessed of exceptional literary gifts. He held the Regius chair of ecclesiastical history at Oxford University from 1972 to 1984, and then at the age of 67 became chaplain of All Souls College....
....
"The twin bedrocks in his life were his Christian faith (a classical Anglican, he loved the Book of Common Prayer) and his family life...."
I will try to refrain from replying to your copious 'inaccuracies' in the future.
js:
Constantine died 11 years after his dealings with the Nicene Council and his decree to have those who did not conform killed. He did not wait till on his deathbed to make his death-dealing decree. And if this is not compelling force, I don't know what is. However it is worthy of note that on his deathbed he did request baptism and was baptized by an Arian (non-trinitarian) Bishop.
I question either your ability to read carefully, your sources, or your motives.
js:
I can't find that Speilvogel wrote 'Making of the West.' I suspect this, again, is just more carelessness on your part or extremely poor source material.
I don't know where you find Augustine as emperor of Rome in 386. In fact, I don't know where you found any Roman emperor named Augustine. Most (if not all) Roman emperors were given the honorary title 'Augustus,' but not 'Augustine.'
Earle E. Cairns, professor emeritus of Wheaton College, is a graduate of Presbyterian Theological Seminary at Omaha (Th.B.) and the University of Nebraska (Ph.D.). He is a member of the American Society of Church History, the American Historical Association, and the Conference on Faith and History. He taught at Wheaton for thirty-five years and was department chairman for much of that time. He was consulting editor for the New International Dictionary of the Christian Church.
T2:
js:
And the author is a noted Reverend in the Anglican Church (a 'biased' trinitarian, of course).
"The Rev Professor John McManners, who has died aged 89, was one of the outstanding British religious historians of the 20th century, an international authority on the 18th-century French church, and a scholar possessed of exceptional literary gifts. He held the Regius chair of ecclesiastical history at Oxford University from 1972 to 1984, and then at the age of 67 became chaplain of All Souls College....
....
"The twin bedrocks in his life were his Christian faith (a classical Anglican, he loved the Book of Common Prayer) and his family life...."
I will try to refrain from replying to your copious 'inaccuracies' in the future.
Last edited:
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
Yes and no, that was minor to the fact the Jesus was a totally separate entity to God the Father at this moment, and as Jesus had received the Holy Spirit it could mean that God the Father was separate from Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Either way it shows that the trinity is not always totally one.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Good work!
jsanford108
New member
Constantine died in 337 AD. No dispute there. However, have you ever heard of a convert who waited 11 years to be baptized? Of course not. New converts have a zeal for the faith. Nothing you have provided here changes my point; in fact, your addition of the baptism fact simply solidifies my point.
My fault. The title is "Western Civilization: Making of the West." (This is called integrity; it is when one admits faults). Now, are you searching for who ruled both east and west Rome, or just east or west? That makes a difference, as it can lead to varying lineages. For example, Theodosius I was the last emperor to rule over both East and West. Also, he is called "Augustine," after his decree of Orthodox Nicene Christianity the official religion/church of the Roman Empire. He is labelled by secular historians as the first Christian emperor of Rome. (Many religious historians view Constantine as the first, but that is due to his ending of the persecution of Christians)
Listing all these does not render Dr. Cairns any more intelligent or unbiased.
His degrees are in Political Science. He taught Political Science and History. His only theology degree is from a Presbyterian school. http://a2z.my.wheaton.edu/faculty/earle-cairns
Does education make a person more knowledgeable?
I never claimed that McManners was not a trinitarian. In fact, that does not alter my original point of being bias.
You seem to equate my use of "bias" as being "biased" against trinity doctrine. That is not it. Granted, there are a few sources of yours that may be. When I use a word, I always attempt to use the correct denotation, absent of connotation, especially in discussions of history and statistics. I should have been more clear in what I intended by using the term "bias," as I did utilize connotations, without being clear on them. This fault is mine.
"Bias," while using correct denotation, also implies (connotation on my part) a preferred view of history, that is in contrast to actual events and facts. Meaning, that a biased source accepts revised history due to its support of personal beliefs and wishes.
I don't mind being corrected or receiving criticism. It makes me more capable and attentive when discussing various subjects in the present, as well as the future.
And this seems to be a vast difference between myself and several non-trinitarians in this thread. If history, which is unchanging, denotes that a certain event occurred, sustained by supportive facts and sources, then I accept that as "history" and as "historically accurate"; I call this "reality." When I come across sources, or am provided with sources which claim a different set of events, failing to be sustained or supported by facts and sources, I call it "alternate" or "revised" history/reality; as these tend to be mere speculation or conjecture in order to promote personal beliefs and doctrines.
(Revisionism is running amok in modern society. And has been since the 30's and 40's; historical revisions reaching peaks in the 90's and 2000's. It has just grown to a point of relativism; where facts are only relative to individual beliefs. Truth is no longer viewed as objective, but subjective to personal bias.)
jsanford108
New member
I also notice, Trigger, that you simply addressed my labeling of various authors or sources, as "biased," seeming to try and use that as a fault. You did not address instances where I highlighted the fact that the material you quoted from failed to have source material that supported their claims.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Tigger 2
Active member
#28, Hawkins:
#56 Hawkins:
I scanned the previous posts, but didn't see a detailed response to this favorite trinitarian 'proof.' If I missed it, I apologize.
20:28 is interesting ,but it is trumped three verses later [John 20:31] where John tells us exactly why this book was written.
"30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." John 20:30, 31, NASB.
If John were revealing that Jesus is God (John 1:1, John 20:28), he didn't have any reason to bother with proving Jesus is the Christ or that he was the Son of God! He certainly would not have omitted the 'fact' that Jesus had been revealed as God!! And yet he writes his reason for writing his Gospel was to prove 'Christ' and 'Son of God'!!
So what might John have meant at John 20:28?
Thomas had said (verse :25) that unless something happened he would “not believe.” What was it that Thomas refused to believe? Was it that he refused to believe that Jesus was equally God with the Father? There is certainly no hint of this before or after Thomas’ statement at John 20:28.
Jesus’ command to Thomas to literally touch his wounds and actually see his hands proves that he meant, “See, I am the same man you saw die, but now I am alive ... be believing that I have been resurrected to life” (not, “see, these wounds prove I am God ... be believing that I am God”).
(Remember this is the same Gospel account that also records Jesus’ last prayer to the Father at John 17:1, 3: “Father,.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” - NEB. It is obvious from this scripture alone that Jesus and the writer of the Gospel of John do not believe Jesus is equally God with the Father!)
To understand what may have really been intended by Thomas, let’s first examine it as if the words were not directly applied to Jesus. Notice the parallel between 1 Samuel 20:12 (where Jonathan’s words appear to be directed to David: “... Jonathan saith unto David, ‘Jehovah, God of Israel - when I search my father, about this time tomorrow ....’” - Young’s Literal Translation, cf. KJV) and John 20:28 (where Thomas’ words appear to be directed to Jesus: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”).
The significant point here is that, although the scripture shows Jonathan speaking to David, it apparently literally calls him (David) “O Jehovah God of Israel”!! (For a straightforward literal translation see 1 Samuel 20:12 in the King James Version.) You can bet that, if modern Bible translators wanted to find “evidence” that made King David also appear to be equally God (Quadrinarians?), they would continue to translate this scripture addressed to David just as literally as they do John 20:28 to “prove” that Jesus is equally God!
Instead, we see many modern translations adding words to bring out what they believe may have been originally intended (often a doxology of praise for God). There is absolutely no reason for this addition except the translators believe from the testimony of the rest of the Bible that David is not Jehovah God. So something else must have been intended here.
The very fact that the words of Thomas are not a complete statement show that it is probably the abbreviated form of a common expression or doxology and not a statement of identification such as “you are my lord and my god.” Whereas doxologies and other common expressions are frequently abbreviated to the point of not being complete statements (cf. Dana & Mantey, p. 149), statements of identification appear to be complete statements (certainly in the writings of John, at least), e.g., Jn 1:49, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” - NASB. Cf. Jn. 6:14, 69; 7:40, 41; 9:17; 11:27; 21:7.
Furthermore, in the writings of John (and the rest of the NT), when using the term “Lord” in address to another person, a different form of the NT Greek word is always used instead of the form found at John 20:28 (ho kurios mou). Yes, in all cases in the writings of John (and others) the vocative form (kurie) was used in address.
We also find Thomas himself, at Jn 14:5, addressing Jesus as “Lord” by using kurie.
And, when addressing the angel at Rev. 7:14, John himself says kurie mou (“My Lord”)!
So, when addressing a person as “Lord” or “my Lord,” kurie was always used in the NT - see my KURIE study. But some trinitarian scholars who refuse to give up this scripture as one of their best “proofs” say that we have to accept the nominative form of “Lord” (kurios) as an alternate form used as a noun of address (vocative) in John.
Since Thomas' statement is not an address to Jesus (or anyone else), it is most likely a doxology praising God: "My Lord and my God (be praised)!"; "My Lord and my God (is Most High)!'; etc.
#56 Hawkins:
I scanned the previous posts, but didn't see a detailed response to this favorite trinitarian 'proof.' If I missed it, I apologize.
20:28 is interesting ,but it is trumped three verses later [John 20:31] where John tells us exactly why this book was written.
"30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." John 20:30, 31, NASB.
If John were revealing that Jesus is God (John 1:1, John 20:28), he didn't have any reason to bother with proving Jesus is the Christ or that he was the Son of God! He certainly would not have omitted the 'fact' that Jesus had been revealed as God!! And yet he writes his reason for writing his Gospel was to prove 'Christ' and 'Son of God'!!
So what might John have meant at John 20:28?
Thomas had said (verse :25) that unless something happened he would “not believe.” What was it that Thomas refused to believe? Was it that he refused to believe that Jesus was equally God with the Father? There is certainly no hint of this before or after Thomas’ statement at John 20:28.
Jesus’ command to Thomas to literally touch his wounds and actually see his hands proves that he meant, “See, I am the same man you saw die, but now I am alive ... be believing that I have been resurrected to life” (not, “see, these wounds prove I am God ... be believing that I am God”).
(Remember this is the same Gospel account that also records Jesus’ last prayer to the Father at John 17:1, 3: “Father,.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” - NEB. It is obvious from this scripture alone that Jesus and the writer of the Gospel of John do not believe Jesus is equally God with the Father!)
To understand what may have really been intended by Thomas, let’s first examine it as if the words were not directly applied to Jesus. Notice the parallel between 1 Samuel 20:12 (where Jonathan’s words appear to be directed to David: “... Jonathan saith unto David, ‘Jehovah, God of Israel - when I search my father, about this time tomorrow ....’” - Young’s Literal Translation, cf. KJV) and John 20:28 (where Thomas’ words appear to be directed to Jesus: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”).
The significant point here is that, although the scripture shows Jonathan speaking to David, it apparently literally calls him (David) “O Jehovah God of Israel”!! (For a straightforward literal translation see 1 Samuel 20:12 in the King James Version.) You can bet that, if modern Bible translators wanted to find “evidence” that made King David also appear to be equally God (Quadrinarians?), they would continue to translate this scripture addressed to David just as literally as they do John 20:28 to “prove” that Jesus is equally God!
Instead, we see many modern translations adding words to bring out what they believe may have been originally intended (often a doxology of praise for God). There is absolutely no reason for this addition except the translators believe from the testimony of the rest of the Bible that David is not Jehovah God. So something else must have been intended here.
The very fact that the words of Thomas are not a complete statement show that it is probably the abbreviated form of a common expression or doxology and not a statement of identification such as “you are my lord and my god.” Whereas doxologies and other common expressions are frequently abbreviated to the point of not being complete statements (cf. Dana & Mantey, p. 149), statements of identification appear to be complete statements (certainly in the writings of John, at least), e.g., Jn 1:49, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” - NASB. Cf. Jn. 6:14, 69; 7:40, 41; 9:17; 11:27; 21:7.
Furthermore, in the writings of John (and the rest of the NT), when using the term “Lord” in address to another person, a different form of the NT Greek word is always used instead of the form found at John 20:28 (ho kurios mou). Yes, in all cases in the writings of John (and others) the vocative form (kurie) was used in address.
We also find Thomas himself, at Jn 14:5, addressing Jesus as “Lord” by using kurie.
And, when addressing the angel at Rev. 7:14, John himself says kurie mou (“My Lord”)!
So, when addressing a person as “Lord” or “my Lord,” kurie was always used in the NT - see my KURIE study. But some trinitarian scholars who refuse to give up this scripture as one of their best “proofs” say that we have to accept the nominative form of “Lord” (kurios) as an alternate form used as a noun of address (vocative) in John.
Since Thomas' statement is not an address to Jesus (or anyone else), it is most likely a doxology praising God: "My Lord and my God (be praised)!"; "My Lord and my God (is Most High)!'; etc.
Last edited:
Good for you. Integrity of this sort is all too rare on this site.
I agree here. Today people speak of "my narrative" and "your narrative"- but there is only one real history, though it may be difficult to sort it out or understand it.
History is exactly revision...as new evidence and understanding is introduced is why we study and search...or should but sometimes it's not possible...or allowed...
TestedandTried
New member
I told you...sources will vary due to the authors, they are fallible men often with built in biases.
History is of course updated over time- but the fact remains that only one set of events actually occurred.
Updated over time is not always a matter of course...which is the point
and even you would be hard pressed to recall much less recount the set of events which actually occurred just twenty minutes ago...
This power of naming and declaring and establishing has been at issue since Adam...free will does that
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Return to ONE.......
Return to ONE.......
~*~*~
Adding to my former post here,
Let us remember, 'God' is always 'one'. All comes from The One...and returns to The One. This One is the Only One, the One Infinite. Original,universal, eternal reality, is totally, All That It IS.
Slice and dice 'God' as you like (add your own dressing to the salad),....the original primordial being and essence of life is singular, indivisible in essence, one identity, no matter what form or personality this 'God' manifests or expresses THRU. There is One Infinite Spirit, one original Light of Consciousness (Pure Awareness) at the heart of all....one infinite intelligence, all-encompassing.
A trinitarian concept of Deity or some variation thereof is a conceptual relational model one may entertain or assume, but this does not necessarily affect one's salvation or sanctification, neither is it a better or more perfect representation of Deity.
My view of 'God' is universal, eclectic, all-inclusive, monotheistic, monist, spiritualist, theosophic, gnostic, multi-potential, infinite, omni-dimensional, OPEN
'God' includes all that is unknown/unknowable (agnosis), and all that is known, or coming to be known (gnosis).
I honor 'God' by both 'non-assumption' and 'assumption', but 'God' is prior to....and ultimately transcends all catagories, all dualities, all concepts.
~*~*~
Return to ONE.......
~*~*~
Adding to my former post here,
Let us remember, 'God' is always 'one'. All comes from The One...and returns to The One. This One is the Only One, the One Infinite. Original,universal, eternal reality, is totally, All That It IS.
Slice and dice 'God' as you like (add your own dressing to the salad),....the original primordial being and essence of life is singular, indivisible in essence, one identity, no matter what form or personality this 'God' manifests or expresses THRU. There is One Infinite Spirit, one original Light of Consciousness (Pure Awareness) at the heart of all....one infinite intelligence, all-encompassing.
A trinitarian concept of Deity or some variation thereof is a conceptual relational model one may entertain or assume, but this does not necessarily affect one's salvation or sanctification, neither is it a better or more perfect representation of Deity.
My view of 'God' is universal, eclectic, all-inclusive, monotheistic, monist, spiritualist, theosophic, gnostic, multi-potential, infinite, omni-dimensional, OPEN
'God' includes all that is unknown/unknowable (agnosis), and all that is known, or coming to be known (gnosis).
I honor 'God' by both 'non-assumption' and 'assumption', but 'God' is prior to....and ultimately transcends all catagories, all dualities, all concepts.
~*~*~
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Blue Cheese and croutons......................
Blue Cheese and croutons......................
Its pretty simple, if you wanna use the 'Bible', since the traditional orthodox UNITARIAN theology is the first, original and foundational one. What trinitarians have done, is come later and superimposed a trinitarian template upon that foundation, then justifying it thru greek metaphysics, since you can assume, differentiate or diversify Deity by any number of personalities, but 3 suffices and does accord with a natural trinity or tri-unity of conceptual models within nature, so...on one level, a trinitarian concept of God is not wholly erroneous, its just a conceptual model of relational unity in the One God, whether there are different qualities, aspects, attributes or personalities within that One God,...that One God is still the Universal Father-Mother of all, slice and dice as you wish.
Again,...its all the same salad, just differently 'tossed' with different dressings appplied
One can throw a bigger monkey wrench into the equation as well, but this goes way beyond the subject here,...the question whether this 'God' exists anyways, outside of one's own imagination.
- the idea that we are making 'God' or 'gods' in our own 'image', and all that is going on is different perspectives within a hall of mirrors. This could be the case, or its more complicated.
Blue Cheese and croutons......................
Its pretty simple, if you wanna use the 'Bible', since the traditional orthodox UNITARIAN theology is the first, original and foundational one. What trinitarians have done, is come later and superimposed a trinitarian template upon that foundation, then justifying it thru greek metaphysics, since you can assume, differentiate or diversify Deity by any number of personalities, but 3 suffices and does accord with a natural trinity or tri-unity of conceptual models within nature, so...on one level, a trinitarian concept of God is not wholly erroneous, its just a conceptual model of relational unity in the One God, whether there are different qualities, aspects, attributes or personalities within that One God,...that One God is still the Universal Father-Mother of all, slice and dice as you wish.
Again,...its all the same salad, just differently 'tossed' with different dressings appplied
One can throw a bigger monkey wrench into the equation as well, but this goes way beyond the subject here,...the question whether this 'God' exists anyways, outside of one's own imagination.
- the idea that we are making 'God' or 'gods' in our own 'image', and all that is going on is different perspectives within a hall of mirrors. This could be the case, or its more complicated.
Still waiting for a proper name for the Holy Spirit...