The OT and NT do not mention the term 'Trinity', but it was adopted in
probably the 3nd Century AD, after the Canonical Gospels were written. The
concept of the trinity, i.e. the separate persons of the trinity but also their
equivalence to God, is stated/implied in pieces in various places in the Bible.
There are various passages in the both the OT and NT that can be used as
references for the above (e.g. OT passages referencing The Holy Spirit or Holy
Ghost). For examples, see the link below.
www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/trinity.php
As the link above shows, there are references to the Father being God, to the
Son being God and to the Holy Spirit being God. However, some passages are
slightly unclear. Are there any actual passages that mention all three together
conceptually?
Let us look at The Gospel of John.
John 1:1-18 (KJV):
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. 'The Word' is not really defined in the first verse, but
being somehow equivalent to God. Did anyone really speak to 'The Word' prior to
Jesus' ministry? Who did Moses and Abraham speak to? Was The Word
differentiated here? If the Word has always existed, then why is it not
mentioned in the OT?
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that
was made.
[4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
[5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Above, John defines the 'light' as being life in/through God.
[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
[7] The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men
through him might believe.
[8] He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
[9] That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the
world.
The 'light' has a slightly different meaning here, which we can assume to mean
Jesus, although it is could still just mean 'life in/through God', John being a
witness of God.
[10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew
him not.
[11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
[12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons
of God, even to them that believe on his name.
Here we have a reference to men becoming 'sons of God' as discussed elsewhere
on this page, as 'son of God' is not an exclusive term used for Jesus Christ.
But who is the 'him' and the 'he' here? And 'his name'? We would assume that
the 'he' and 'him' meant God, but the reference to 'his name' would
suggest/imply the 'son' or Jesus, from what we know elsewhere in the gospels.
[13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God.
This is a reference to being born again in the spirit, that Jesus describes
later on.
[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and
truth.
We can assume that 'the Word...made flesh' is referring to Jesus, as Jesus, the
son of man, is said to be God made flesh. This is further elaborated on by 'the
only begotten of the Father', implying it was the Father's only Son. However,
this is implied rather than stated.
[15] John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I
spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
'Him' we can assume refers to Jesus, from the narrative elsewhere int he
gospels and the above verses, but it could perhaps also refer to just 'God' or
'the light'.
[16] And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
[17] For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Verses 14 refers to grace meaning 'The Word made flesh' and verse 16 also
refers to grace. Verse 17 states that grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
[18] No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
What exactly does this verse mean? Is it suggesting that man can now only see
God through Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son (presumed to be the same
thing)? What of the experience of those who communicated with God in the OT?
1John.5:7 (KJV): For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:7 above states that the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost are as
one. Who is 'The Word'. 1 John does not define this, but it is implied from
John above that it is the 'Word...made Flesh' or Jesus. This is probably the
closest that one can get to a statement regarding the 'Trinity' in the NT.
Matthew 28:18-20:
[18] And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me
in heaven and in earth.
[19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and,
lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Here is another statement close to the concept of the Trinity, spoken to Jesus
after his resurrection.
John 14:11: Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or
else believe me for the very works' sake.
The above verse may be read that Jesus and the Father are both God, as one is
in the other.
1John.4:15: (KJV): Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God
dwelleth in him, and he in God.'
However, the verse above from 1 John 4 suggests that he who believes in Jesus
as the Son of God is defined in the same way. It would be helpful if this had
been elaborated more fully as according to Christians, there is a HUGE
difference! A man cannot become God! Having God dwelling in one and oneself
dwelling in God does not make one God. So what does this say about Jesus
statement about this?
John 14:16-17:
[16] And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter,
that he may abide with you for ever;
[17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth
him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and
shall be in you.
In John 14:16-17, Jesus first introduces the concept of the Holy Spirit, a gift
from the Father to mankind to be with us when Jesus had risen from the dead and
returned to Heaven. Jesus states that the Comforter/Spirit of Truth/Holy Spirit
shall dwell in believers. According to the New Testament, there was no Holy
Spirit experienced on the earth. However, what was the spirit of God felt by
believers? What is the relationship between the 'spirit' sent by God in various
passages in the OT, which are not references to angels, but in some form the
embodiment of God (as discussed below)?
John 14:20: At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me,
and I in you.
However, in verse 20, Jesus states that again he is in the Father, and that we
are in Jesus, and also that Jesus is in us. He already stated that the Holy
Spirit will be in believers, so is this a contradiction, a blurring of
distinction between Jesus and the Holy Spirit, or do they both reside in one?
Most modern Christians attend churches where Jesus is said to be among us.
However, are they really referring to the Holy Spirit? Few churches are
churches to the Holy Spirit, but are dedicated to Jesus. If one believes in the
name of Jesus, Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, then what is the
relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Father? God is only the father in
the sense that Jesus is the Son. Presumably the Holy Spirit is not another
'son', and was never made flesh. What exactly is the Holy Spirit? Is it the
feeling of Jesus inside one? If the Holy Spirit was part of the 'one' from the
beginning, along with the Word, then is it really just a Trinity? Are there not
other aspects or manifestations of God that are not arbitrarily considered part
of the Trinity that have been described in the OT? And if the Word had been one
with God from the very beginning, and the Word can be seen as the 'spirit of
God' or the 'teaching of God', then why did the spirit of God change from the
Old to the New Testament? Surely God's wisdom in Jesus was present all along?
Sometimes people use the phrase 'the Word' to describe the Bible as a whole, as
if it is literally the spoken word of God in its entirety.
Jesus himself told his disciples that the Kingdom of God shall not simply be
defined clearly to the world, but that it shall be communicated in a slightly
metaphoric manner or with parables. This is a theme that is common to both the
Canonical Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels. Jesus disciples spent much of his
ministry misunderstanding him, and only seemed to have grasped his true message
at the very end of his life and even only after his resurrection when he
departed back to heaven. Is it not likely that in subsequent years, that
believers in subsequent centuries would also not be in complete agreement or
misunderstand his message, perhaps so much more so as they did not actually
know him? One could arguably say this about Paul. What of the Gospel writers
themselves? And the translations we have now, and modern versions based on
older English versions which were themselves erroneously translated in places?
Slightly variations in wording can have a profoundly different effect on the
meaning.
Whilst the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, they are considered by most
Christians as three distinct persons. That is, they are the same 'what', but
not the same 'who'. Not all Christians accept all 5 premises, and some accept
only the first four, e.g. Modalism. This is in a sense a blurring of the three
Persons of God. For example, the doctrine of the trinity led to many to pray to
the trinity. Instead of addressing the Father as the one we pray to and Christ
being our Mediator to bring our petitions on our behalf, the doctrine led to
people blending the three together so strongly that there was little
distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Modalism accepts the first four premises, but denies that The Father, Son and
Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons. Modalism is the view that there are no
distinctions within God, threefold or otherwise, but that in God's external
relationships with his creation, he assumes different modes in which to make
himself known and to accomplish his purposes amongst humankind. The implication
or argument is that the modes are successive not simultaneous and thus not
representative of 'different Persons'. Modalism is the view most frequently
held by Oneness Pentacostals and United Pentacostal Church. There are however
references in the Bible to two or three Persons acting. Some examples of these
are discussed at the link below.
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/articles/diff_quest/biblical_trinity.html
The other extreme is to view all three Persons of the Trinity as being too
separate, to the point of Polytheism; that they are three separate Gods, one
central God and two lesser Gods (i.e. Mormonism - examined on the Christianity
page). The other view is that there is one central God and the other two are of
equal status to 'angels', widely held by Jehovah's Witnesses. Both views have
little Biblical basis however and certain passages imply that the concept is
incorrect. Mormons are often classified as polytheistic, although they claim
only to worship one of the Gods they recognise. These beliefs are derived from
Arianism.
Arianism is an early 4th Century view that God is so transcendent and separate
from all of existence that he needs a 'mediator' for every relationship or
interface with the world. Jesus, the Logos, is then the semi-divine, and lived
so perfect a life that he was given the title Son of Man or Son of God. Jesus
is thus viewed as being created and not as strictly eternal (always having existed
and always will exist), but rather immortal, i.e. Jesus is not God but is not
just man either. The New Testament does state that the child named Jesus was
conceived by the Holy Spirit entering into Mary, so in what sense is this a
creation event. If the human form of Jesus was created from the Holy Spirit
entering into Mary, to what extent was the entirety of Jesus eternal prior to
this and to what extent is he a 'product' of the Holy Spirit and a woman? i.e.
his divinity coming from the Holy Spirit? What was Jesus role in the trinity
prior to his birth? Was he on the right hand of the Father through all of time
prior to this? There is no mention of the Son, Jesus Christ, explicitly in the
OT, although there are references to one that will come and to the future
Messiah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
Indeed, to what extent is the human soul eternal (given by God)? Did the human
soul exist prior to conception? Is the soul just allocated a physical body at
the point of conception? If so, what was it doing for all eternity before this?
Was it in Heaven? Or somewhere else? Did it have any self-awareness?
The formation of the modern concept of the Trinity that the vast majority of
Christian denominations accept is actually based on a compromise reached by
Constantine to appease both opposing factions in the 4th Century AD, namedly
the Nicene Creed (325), The Council of Sardica (342), The
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381). Thus the concept of the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit arrived at and used ever after was a concession and compromise of
differing opinions rather than rooted in Biblical scripture. That is not to say
that it is not correct. The Trinity are all divine, but that in Jesus, his
divine nature was integrated with his human nature. Opposing parties had
previously believed on the one hand that Jesus' two natures were distinctly
separate (giving the problem of how God could also be a distinctly separate
human), and on the other hand that they were one and the same. Arianism held
that Jesus was created by God, and the opponents that he had existed all the
time. Arianism has been said to have influenced Islam in its view of Jesus, and
also the modern Christian movements Unitarianism and Jehovah's Witnesses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
Similar to the Arianist view is that of Adoptionism (aka Dynamic
Monarchianism). This the view regarded Jesus as merely human, but that he
became divine later on in his life. This however denies that Jesus as a Person
of the Trinity was co-eternal. It holds that God is one being, above all else
and wholly indivisible and of one nature, it reconciles the "problem"
of the Trinity (or at least Jesus) by holding that the Son was not co-eternal
with the Father, and that Jesus the Christ essentially was granted Godhood
(adopted) for the plans of God and his own perfect life and works. Adoptionism,
in addition to contradicting the Canonical Gospels, does not also explain the
Biblical references to Jesus preaching with profound wisdom in the synagogues
as a child. Was he then just a 'wise' at an early age? However, arguably this
could be explained by the Transfiguration, the moment when Jesus went from
being merely a man and a wise teacher to becoming divine and God-like. The
concept of the transfiguration is problematic when trying to determine just how
human Jesus was before this and how human he was after this. Few Christians are
completely comfortable with the balance of his humanity vs his divinity. How
Jesus had such a in depth knowledge of the scriptures as a child? It is
possible that he studied them from an early age, as there are childhood
prodigies. Perhaps this knowledge was of a divine source. If so, then to what
extent was Jesus divine all along and the Transfiguration not really what it is
made out to be? Different types of Adoptionism hold that Jesus was
"adopted" either at the time of his baptism or ascension. An early
exponent of Adoptionism was Theodotus of Byzantium. The Sects that adopted
Adoptionism (no pun intended) were the Ebionites and the Monarchians (Dynamic
Monarchianism). The Monarchians also adopted a Modalist view of God (Modalist
Monarchianism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchianism
The Christian practice is usually to pray not to the Father but to the Lord
Jesus Christ (e.g. beginning with 'Dear Lord' or 'Dear Lord Jesus'; and ending
with 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen'); but it is not uncommon for
prayers to be directed at the Father. The general convention seems to be to
pray to the 'Lord' (which could be either the father or the son) or 'Father'
and to sign off with a statement that the prayer is 'in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ', before ending with 'Amen'. It seems that the Holy Spirit is the
one Person not often prayed to. What is the logic here? To what extent should
Christians (be allowed to) pray to just God? When one feels God, which Person
is one feeling? The Holy Spirit? As described by Jesus after his resurrection?
Jesus taught the disciples the Lord's prayer, where one prays to the Father.
This is the matter in which one should pray he taught. He did not teach them to
pray to him. Jesus himself prayed to the Father (or God). Not to himself.
Should we not also pray to the Father and not to Jesus, as Jesus did and told
us to do? Does it matter? Why is the father (or just plain 'God' -God is God
after all) not prayed to more often Christians? Do they feel bad if they
neglect Jesus? Sometimes, Lord is used in prayer to imply either God or Jesus,
is it important which one in the mind of the worshipper? What part of the
Trinity is Lord referring to? Jesus? Or the Father?
Christians believe that our covenant is with Jesus Christ, regardless of Jesus
own covenant with the Father. Because the Father sacrificed Jesus for the sins
of the world, we are able to ask Jesus for forgiveness and to pray to God in
the name of Jesus in order to communicate with the Father, rather than make
sacrifices as a way of asking for forgiveness as described in the pre-Jesus OT.
Christ in a sense is the ultimate sacrificial offering to God. By using Jesus'
name and praying to the Father in Jesus name, we are representing Jesus as a
sacrificial offering to God, and hence we are no longer bound to the letter by
the laws of the OT. To mention 'in Jesus' name' we are communicating directly
with the Father but mentioning that 'Jesus sent us'. Jesus is said to represent
the ultimate level of holiness that we as humans strive to achieve, and that we
pray to God AS Jesus, as hopefully representatives of Jesus Christ. Whilst
there is a certain logic here, it is still a rather strange concept to many
believers and non-believers, and hard to many Church ministers to grasp or
teach correct. Indeed, this probably why there is so much variation in the
understanding of the concept.
There appears to be some confusion in terms of the concept of Blessings in
Christianity. Who gives them and where do they come from? Christians often say
'God Bless YouÕ? Why is this? Are they asking God to Bless them? Or do they
believe that they are in command of blessings or in directing them on some
level? Is it an encouragement to the receiver to feel blessed? The saying often
results in an elevated state in the receiver, or a sense of feeling closer to
God, if they believe in God. Why do Christians not say 'Jesus Bless YouÕ rather
than 'God Bless YouÕ? If they pray to Jesus? Why is the phrase GBY used on
receipts in the retail section in the USA? What has retail consumer capitalism
to do with religion and Jesus? If retailers can utilise religious feeling to
create a good feeling and of Godliness associated with their store, customers
are more likely to come back and spend again. As if one associates good
feelings with buying from a certain vendor, or rapport with a salesperson, then
repeat business is more likely. Is this exploitation of Christianity viewed as
acceptable by Christians? Why about references to God on the Dollar Bill? What
has God got to do with Central Banking and capitalism?
It should be noted that according to the version of events in the Gospels of
the New Testament, the disciples addressed Jesus as 'Lord' or as 'Teacher', and
not as 'Jesus'. So why would we refer to Jesus as 'Jesus' today? Jesus was at
the time a common name, and was not synonymous with 'Lord' or 'God'. So it is
rather interesting that it is today. The name Jesus is still used today, albeit
not as commonly, and not always as an inspiration from Jesus of Nazareth (as
Muhammed is used by Muslims today). If we were to refer to Jesus as 'Liam' or
'Geoff', would it not be strange? If one of the Trinity was called Liam, this
might seem rather wierd. Yet perhaps the use of a common name strengths the
human side of Jesus of Nazareth more to people, making their relationship to
him seem closer. The word 'God' is not a unique term, and could apply to any
number of pagan deities, yet the term is used to imply there are no other Gods.
The actual name of God is not used by name Christians at all. This seems odd as
they use Jesus' first name - unknowing of his last name - which is also rather
odd, seeing as he was such a huge historical figure.
It could be argued that if we pray to Jesus and notice an immediate result or a
miracle, then is this because we prayed directly to God, the whole of the
Trinity, or just one of the Persons of the Trinity? If we assumed for a moment
that Jesus was just a prophet, and not the Son of God, and that the Trinity did
not exist, but that there was one God alone, Jehovah aka Jahweh - would a
prayer to Jesus Christ/Lord Jesus actually work and would God listen. Clearly
we can see examples of prayer to Jesus working, sometimes even with miraculous
results - is this because we were directly openning our hearts to Jesus, or was
God listening (the Father - assuming no Trinity), but regardless of the words
and titles used, the spirit of God being prayed to was the same, and that God
recognised it and answered it? If we pray to Jesus Christ in this way, we are
conceiving of God in a certain way, not in intellectual tems, but a certain
aspect of God, a certain Person of God. This may be very powerful way of
connecting to God, regardless of whether Jesus is God, or whether it is just
the Father who is God. Presumably the theology is irrelevant when entering a
deeply spiritual state, letting go of the ego and feeling God with one's heart.
Does God really hear the words or is one really just communicating in spirit,
in emotion of joy and love for God, which God can feel? Prayer is/should be an
opportunity for humility, honesty with self and with God, and to open one's
heart. It should not really be an opportunity for gratuitous self-serving
thoughts of 'I want that Ferrari' or 'I want that parking space' etc., even
though positive visualisation according to the principles of the law of
attraction may indeed set up one's mindset and mental resources in order to
make it happen. Prayer in a sense is a direct way to 'see' God. Perhaps the
emotional association with each term for God thus triggers our emotional state
when we use it and try to connect to that Person of God. Perhaps one could use
it as a metaphor for connecting to one's higher self and that with positive
visualisation and the mind and body working at the optimum level of positive 'vibration',
that miraculous results can be possible. Clearly one can view the Trinity and
prayer in any number of critical ways! However, we are here just concerned with
why it works and the mechanism, considering all possible different scenarios
for the reader's benefit.
On the subject of prayer, miracles and the Trinity, there are a large number of
documented miracles that have occurred through the power of prayer. The
revivalist web site below contains a list of verified testimonies. The main
page is www.ibethel.org
www.ibethel.org/features/testimonies/index.php?f=testimonies.php&page=24
Below is another web site containing a number of testimonies which is worth a
read.
www.freshfire.ca/?Id=959&pid=8
One can see the Biblical references that imply that there is a trinity. We can
see the what and who. One could indeed ask why there is a trinity however.
Could it purpose not be served by just one Person? Can anyone truly understand
the exact nature of the trinity? To what extent can they all be God but
simultaneously be separate People? And how separate are they if they are all
God?
The First Vatican Council called the Trinity a Mystery, a truth that we are
usually incapable of discovering or understanding apart from through Divine
Revelation; and even then which when revealed may still remain hidden by a veil
of faith and enveloped by a kind of darkness, most impenetrable to reason.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#IV
www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
In some respects, one could argue that excessive intellectualisation misses the
point and one should just feel and communicate with God. However, is this a
form of Modalism? Christians expect non-Christians to comprehend this and often
have difficulty themselves! The Trinity is one of the most misunderstood
aspects of Christianity. Clearly the concept of the Trinity deserves more study
and thought.
The Muslim view of the Trinity is slightly skewed by Mohammed's
misinterpretation of Catholicism, with its focus on the veneration of the
Virgin Mother Mary. Thus, Islam came to view the Trinity as being the Father,
Jesus and Mary, instead of the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Muslim ideas
about Jesus and the Trinity can also be read in the section below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
One may acknowlege the Biblical evidence for a Trinity, but to really
understand why there is a Trinity and really the relationship between the
'what' and the 'who' is another matter, and something many Christians still
struggle with. Both the Trinity concept and Arianism regard Jesus and the Holy
Spirit as 'mediators' in some sense, but that the Trinitarian view is that
Jesus as a mediator is God, whereas the Arian view is that Jesus as mediator is
semi-God and not actually God.
Judaism regards the Trinity as a false doctrine and is some sense could be
considered the basis for Arianism. Jews argue that the OT is quite clear that
God, The Eternal, is indivisible and one, and that the Jews were taught by
Moses to only pray in the one God's name. Isaiah writes of God's words that he
was the first and the last, and besides him there is no God. Jews do also not
accept that Jesus was God, but instead a heretic. Judaism argues that there is
no direct reference to the word Trinity, or complete single verse explanation
of it, in the Old Testament (which is true). Judaism also argues that certain
passages from the NT state that not all parts of the trinity have equal power,
nor is the punishment for blasphemy against any one person of the Trinity the
same.
http://whatjewsbelieve.org
Judaism also points to the passages from the New Testament as evidence
questioning the validity of the concept of the Trinity:
1) Jesus does not have the same power as the other Persons of the Trinity -
presumably Jesus should be forgiving them in any case as he is God?
Luke 23:34 (KJV): Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not
what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
2) Jesus will is not quite the same as the Father.
Matthew 26:42: He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my
Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be
done.
Jesus was man as well as God, but his will should be that of the father - even
in times of weakness? As when he was tempted by the devil in the desert. Indeed
one could argue that Jesus should not need to pray to the father if he is
already God - unless his human side is somehow separated from his God-side,
compartmentalised somehow. If Jesus prayed to the Father, and showed us the
Lord's prayer beginning 'Our Father..', why do most Christians pray to the
'Lord Jesus' and not just to the Father?
3) Jesus did not have the knowledge of the Father - one can presume that his
includes both Jesus and the Holy Spirit?
Matthew 24:36: But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
of heaven, but my Father only.
Mark 13:32: But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Judaism also argues that God has sent many spirits to mankind, apart from
Angels, for example:
1) The Spirit of God - Genesis 1:2 (KJV): And the earth was without form,
and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters.
2) Evil Spirit of God - I Samuel 16:23 (KJV): And it came to pass, when the
evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with
his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed
from him.
3) The Lying Spirit of God - I Kings 22:23 (KJV): Now therefore, behold, the
LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the
LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.
4) The Destroyer - Exodus 12:23 (KJV): For the LORD will pass through to
smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the
two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the
destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.
5) The Burning Bush - Exodus 3:2-4 (KJV):
2: And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the
midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the
bush was not consumed.
3: And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the
bush is not burnt.
4: And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out
of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
These are described or implied in the Bible as being aspects of God in some
sense. However, Judaism argues that if one is to adopt a concept of the
Trinity, or multiple Persons of God, or 'mediators, then surely these forms
should have been included too? Or none included at all. It is thus thought that
Christians and the NT in general have arbitrarily chosen the Holy Spirit and
the Son and ignored the others. Jews often accuse Christianity of wanting a
concept of 3 Persons, in similar keeping to other religions like Hinduism (Brahma, Vishnu and
Shiva), Babylonian mythology (Anu, Bel and Ena) and Roman mythology (the
trinity of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva - ignoring the other Gods). However, if
one is to take the New Testament as fact, then it is clear that this is not
what Jesus taught.
http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation06.html
Judaism argues that many of the concepts of the New Testament are out of
keeping with the teachings of the Old Testament, for example, returning to the
pagan concept of human sacrifice, not sticking to just the one Person of God,
different concepts of Hell and of Satan, introducing the concept of 'original
sin', using the concept of another dying for one's sins (not permitted in OT);
and Jesus not fulfilling many of the Messianic prophecies, and thus in some
sense it is not valid as it breaks with God's teachings.
http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation03.html
Christians argue that the purpose of Jesus ministry was to act as a more
effective 'mediator' to mankind than to necessarily fulfill every prophecy of
the Tanakh. Indeed, Jesus was not recognised as the Messiah by many Jews for
this reason, as he was not seen as a literal, powerful, political King for the
Nation of Israel.
Judaism believes that man cannot become God and God cannot become man. This is
the pagan tradition of the Pharaohs and Roman Emperors who claimed to be Gods
and were worshipped.
Hosea 11:9 (KJV): I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will
not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the
midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.
Numbers 23:19 (KJV): God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son
of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he
spoken, and shall he not make it good?
http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation08.html
What is your concept of the trinity?
Dualism in Monotheism
If one views spiritual fulfillment as being in tune with God, and if
there is only one God, then evil could be viewed as the absence of spiritual
awareness and a moving away from God and connectedness; towards the ego, and
self-power through negative and hateful actions. Clearly one requires an ego in
certain respects to interact with the world and to survive. The ego is in a
sense a defense mechanism ingrained from our animal 'fight or flight' days. Is
it important to literally believe in the concept of the Devil, and in Satan as
a self-conscious being? Does belief in God necessarily mean that one has to
believe in the Devil? The Devil is often cited as being the 'opposite' of God,
and as such, is given the status of a 'God', albeit an evil one! As a fallen
angel, surely Satan is just an evil spirit, as other demons are. The 'enemies'
of being with God in our day to day experience are demons, or evil spirits, who
normally reside in the astral plane. Does one really need to know the exact
hierarchy and which exact evil spirit is trying to mess us around? Do demons
have to necessarily have a 'big boss'? Probably not. To what extent can
Christian beliefs be considered dualistic in terms of two 'Gods', one good and
one evil, (i.e. ditheistic - two opposing Gods, as opposed to bitheistic
meaning two complimentary Gods!), and to what extent can it be considered
monistic, monotheistic and/or panentheistic? Can an angel, whether fallen or
not, exert such a big influence on the minds and hearts of humanity? Or is he
working with considerable help from 'friends', i.e. other evil spirits? Or is
'evil' just the sensation of egotism and turning away from God, in its lowest
form?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
Dualism when applied to theism is the belief in two Gods, either complimentary
(bitheism) or in opposition to one another (i.e. ditheism). Many Christians
have a perception of Satan as a 'God' and being the polar opposite to God. This
is a somewhat dualistic (ditheistic) interpretation of Christianity. Those of
this perspective may view evil as being that which highlights the good that
there is, and in a sense good and evil having some kind of symbiotic
relationship, one 'needing' the other.
Some Christians point out the difference between believing 'in' something and
believing 'against' something. Clearly if you focus on what you believe is what
you don't want, you are more likely to subconsciously embrace it rather than
reject it. Not all Christians believe 'in' the Devil or a concept of Satan.
Karl Barth once remarked that it is impossible for a Christian to believe 'in'
the devil, since the devil deserves only an attitude of utter disbelief. Thus
Christians do not believe in him, but against him. If you want to 'believe in'
something, it’s much better to believe in God! It could be argued that a belief
in God is itself also a denial and rejection of the powers of nothingness and
of all the dark glory of their parasitic pseudo-existence.
One could argue that Christians, believing in God, cannot believe in the devil
and demons as they may believe in angels. Christians are supposed to have a
positive relationship to that in which we believe. There is no positive
relationship to the 'devil' and/or demons. Christians perhaps can only know
that they oppose them with the most radical unbelief (i.e. a strong belief in
the power of God). So in a sense the 'devil' or demons are just a myth, the lie
which is the basis of all other lies - i.e. to believe in the devil is to
believe in a lie!
However, perhaps this is just a matter of focus and that one is still in effect
believing in the existance of 'Satan', but that one is choosing not to focus on
him or give him any power. Is this a more enlightened view or just burying
one's head in the sand? Does one have to fool oneself to just avoid focussing
on the Devil? Is one's faith that weak? It could be argued that this is still a
dualistic (ditheistic) view. Interpreting anything that moves away from God as
'Satanic' can sometimes help to reinforce the dualistic interpretation and
understanding of Christianity, which often misses the point. It could be argued
that practices such as Exorcism are in some way dualistic or give significance
to 'devils' or 'the devil'.
Unless one acknowledges that the 'devil' is just a belief (convenient term) in
'non-God' or absence of God, in a literal sense, or an embrace of the more
destructive parts of one's ego, then only this is arguable truly monotheistic.
Whether one believes in fallen angels and evil spirits any more than one
believes that some peoplein the past and present have committed cruel, 'evil'
deeds and atrocities against humanity actually has anything to do with God or
has any bearing in one's concept of God is another matter. The concept of God
does not need a 'formal opponent' as such. Does one need to understand exactly
the nature of 'non-God' in order to understand one's faith in God? Does it
matter if 'non-God' is just the destructive side of the ego, or where one is vulnerable
to literal 'spiritual attack' by an evil spirit or spirits, or whether it is
the influence of 'Satan' is perhaps largely irrelevant.
If one believes in a formal entity or opponent, how powerful is one to assume
that it is - as powerful as God? That would truly be dualistic.
Whether 'Satan' then is a fallen angel generally associated with a person's
rejection of God, of 'devils' or just symoblic is a matter for personal
interpretation. Christianity should presumably be focussed on God (what one
wants) rather than on the 'devil' (what one doesn't want). The confusion over
terminology in the New Testament and how literal or symbolic it is clearly does
little to help Christians understand what they really believe in.
To make matters more confusing, one should consider what Jesus actually
believed as a man, and what he believed, being 'God'. Jesus was brought up in
the faith Judaism. He regarded the Scriptures as divine. Judaism as discussed
above does not believe in a literal concept of the Devil. Presumably Jesus then
as he regarded the Scriptures with great reverence did not believe in the
concept of the Devil either? The New Testament has numerous references to 'the
Devil' and Satan in the Christian rather than Jewish context. Was this creative
writing or interpretation by the gospel writers/editors, or did Jesus actually
radically differ from the books of the Old Testament in his beliefs? What is
the exact nature of the relationship between the Old Testament and the New
Testament? In many respects, Jesus was providing some new interpretations of
how one should reach God and how to interpret the spirit of the Scriptures. He
was declaring himself to be the Son of God (according to the Bible). But
otherwise, as a man, he followed Jewish customs and Jewish laws (with certain
exceptions!) To what extent did Jesus share the scientific views and beliefs of
the Jews? To what extent did he possess divine knowledge of these and to what
extent did he possess the same knowledge as everyone else (e.g. the earth being
the centre of the universe, the earth being flat and having windows in the sky
to let the water in etc.)? Are the references to 'devils' or the 'devil' in the
New Testament just a reflection of Jesus power over the dead and evil spirits?
And have nothing actually to do with 'the devil'?
Hesychasm and Theoria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasm
Hesychasm (Greek 'hesychasmos', from 'hesychia', "stillness, rest, quiet,
silence") is an eremitic tradition of prayer in the Eastern Orthodox
Church, and some other Eastern Churches of the Byzantine Rite, practised by the
Hesychast; based on Christ's injunction in the Gospel of Matthew to "go
into your closet to pray", Hesychasm in tradition has been the process of
retiring inward by ceasing to register the senses, in order to achieve an
experiential knowledge of God (Theoria).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoria
Eastern and Western Orthodox Traditions vary in general, as Western Orthodox
Christianity holds that the essence of God is unknowable and cannot be directly
experienced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Fathers
http://home.newadvent.org/cathen/01623c.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayings_of_the_Desert_Fathers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philokalia
Below are the Philokalia in mp3 format.
www.philokalia.org
The After Life
The ancient Christian Churches hold that a final universal judgement
will be pronounced on all human beings when soul and body are reunited in the
resurrection of the dead.
Some other denominations, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, hold that, until the
resurrection, the dead simply cease to exist or, if they exist at all, do so in
a state of unconsciousness.' (a.k.a. soul sleep).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_sleep
In Christian theology, soul sleep is a belief that the soul sleeps
unconsciously between the death of the body and its resurrection on Judgment
Day. Soul sleep is also known as psychopannychism (from Greek psyche (soul,
mind) + pannuchizein (to last the night)).
A similar belief is thnetopsychism (from Greek thnetos (mortal) + psyche (soul,
mind)), the view that the soul dies with the body to be recalled to life at the
resurrection of the dead, or that the soul is not separate from the body and so
there is no "spiritual" self to survive bodily death.
In both cases, the deceased does not begin to enjoy a reward or suffer a
punishment until Judgment Day.
The more common Christian belief about the intermediate state between death and
Judgment Day is particular judgment, that the soul is judged at death. In Roman
Catholicism, the soul is judged to go to heaven or hell immediately after
death, a belief also held by most Protestants. In Catholicism some temporarily
stay in purgatory to be purified for heaven. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the soul
waits in the abode of the dead until the resurrection of the dead, the saved
resting in light and the damned suffering in darkness. This Eastern Orthodox
picture of particular judgment is similar to the 1st-century Jewish and early
Christian concept that the dead either "rest in peace" in the Bosom
of Abraham or suffer in Gehenna. This view was also promoted by John Calvin in
his treatise attacking soul sleep.
Soul sleep was promoted by some Reformation as well as some minor Protestant
denominations.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Christianity
In the above instance, the soul that dies could be interpreted literally, in
the precise terms that Ezekiel was used to using, to support the above idea, or
metaphorically to mean 'eternal damnation' or 'not heaven', i.e. life meaning
the kingdom of heaven and death meaning hell.
Universalism is the belief that all life comes from God, and that the dead are
reconciled with God, in one way or another. Universalism is increasingly
marginal as a Christian belief in the present day, although much more prominent
up until the 6th Century AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism
One could argue that our moment to moment experience is our consciousness being
dragged around by our conscious minds and subject to the thought patterns and
'software' programming of our unconscious minds. But that these things do not
constitute our 'soul' or consciousness. Our consciousness is simply a
'passenger' to this 'computer' or 'vessel' of the brain. If one subscribes to
this understanding, one could perhaps consider that your programming dictates
your actions and that your concept of freewill is indeed somewhat limited; and
that when you die, your soul is released from your body, and is still separate
from the body/mind/brain, and basically it makes no difference what you did in
your life, your soul rejoins God and the Universe, knows peace once again. The
'hell' or 'heaven' you experience perhaps depends on your programming and state
of mind that you drag yourself through whilst you are alive. Of course, this
view may not necessarily be true. Perhaps this is an interpretation of
Universalism, where the exact mechanism of reconciliation is varied according
to the exact belief.
The question of the starving child who doesn't know Jesus is as old as the
Bible itself. If a starving child has not accepted Jesus into his heart, will
he go to Hell? What about toddlers who cannot yet speak? Must they believe in
Jesus to be go to Heaven if they were to be killed in an accident? Does it
depend on whether the child was baptised or christened? Or the spirit and
atmosphere around the child, specifically the parents, and the vibe that the
child picks up? And to what extent is this within the todder's control? Are we
expecting children, toddlers, infants and the child in the womb to make adult
decisions? To what extent does a child's faith really mean anything as the
child has yet to experience life, appy his faith in life situations and to know
himself? Of course, not all children lack self-knowledge.
Last Judgement
Last Judgement is the belief that after the return of Jesus, that all
souls, both living and dead, will be judged again. Those that have already gone
to Heaven will be judged again and if deemed worthy, will remain in Heaven, or
otherwise be cast out. This is a view held by both Protestants and Catholics.
However, some Protestants believe that the dead souls rest in another place
whilst waiting for the Final Judgement. Esoteric and Gnostic traditions however
do not believe in the Final Judgement as it is at odds with God's nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgment
Kingdom of God
What is truly meant by the 'Kingdom of God'? It is mentioned in both the
OT and NT. Jesus often spoke of the Kingdom of God as the theme of his ministry
as well as the destination for the righteous in the end of days. Those who
believed in him would join him in the Kingdom of God, i.e. Heaven, when they
died, and receive eternal life, but only truly experience the full kingdom of
God after the Last Judgement at the end of days. Some Christians interpret the
Kingdom of God to be all around us in the physical world, a state of mind that
one attains through faith, rather than just being a final destination. On some
level in the latter philosophy it is very similar in concept to the Holy
Spirit, or perhaps a panentheistic view of the Kingdom of God. It is the journey
and not the destination. Some minority Christian groups believe in different
types of Heaven, for the faithful, and for the good that do not believe in
Jesus or God, etc. Some scholars have interpreted the Kingdom of God as
referring to a literal geographic power group, meaning the Jewish people in
Israel (being Godly - with a 'King', i.e. Jesus) versus the Roman rulers (not
the Kingdom of God, but Kingdom of sin etc.) Muslims interpret the Kingdom of
God as being in everything good, including people who do good deeds and who
trust in God, but not in those things that do not. Jesus uses some elaborate
language when describing the Kingdom of God, and indeed there are several
possible interpretations. Gnostics interpret the Kingdom of God as being Gnosis
or indeed the Pleroma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_god
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven
A friend of mine sent him this anecdote:
Look back and 'Thank' God.
Look forward and 'Trust' God.
Look around and 'Serve' God!
Look within and 'Find' God!
Comments
Displaying 0 of 0 comments ( View all | Add Comment )