The Trinity

Here is a post about the Trinity--a concept that has never made much sense to me, even when I was in the Southern Baptist school and/or Methodist church.

Some of my earliest memories were of being told that Jesus created the Heavens and the Earth. And, in fact, I hear the same thing these days in the Religious discussion groups. I mean, despite the fact that the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,"(Gen. 1: 1) there still seems to be some kind of confusion about this. Some Christians will say that the Trinity is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all of which are referred to as God. But, this would make Genesis 1: 1 say, "The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the heaven and the earth," right? It wouldn't have been just Jesus? Or, did I miss something?

(I'm not knowledgeable enough about Hebrew to give a good Structuralist Interpretation for "בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.")

This is why the Trinity is confusing.

And, it gets more confusing....although, the Christians claim that the Bible is very clear about it....even though they've never really been able to give many details.

I've heard from many Christians that the Trinity is three persons with the same purposes (which would make the idea the same as the Mormon idea). And I've been told that the Trinity is one being in three different forms, like water, ice, and steam are all the same, just in different forms.  And, one God in three Divine Persons, or three persons who share one essence and/or being. There have been many slight variations on the idea. Even the term "consubstantial" is used in reference to the relationship among those in Trinity.

Some of those answers seem very similar to the Mormon idea of the Godhead.

There are the parts Bible that point to God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit as being completely separate from each other. I want to talk about these; but, before I do that, I just want to point out that I'm not very proficient in Hebrew and Koine Greek, so any detailed analysis of the words themselves is something that I cannot do.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Gen 1: 26) I've heard many Christians claim the first person plural usage in this verse is referring to the Trinity, but I would always ask why the first person plural was not used throughout the rest of the Bible when God was referring to Himself? Not to mention, "God" has written in the first part of Genesis was written in the plural form in the original Hebrew (as I've read in a few accounts), and the question remains as to why the plural form of God's name wasn't used in the rest of the Bible and why God didn't use the first person plural to refer to Himself in any place other than the first part of Genesis?

There is the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8), which is the only verse in the Bible that directly links the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:  "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." However, this is generally considered  by many scholars to be a later, Latin addition. The part in bold do not appear in the early, Greek manuscripts, but they don't start appearing much later....after the doctrine of the Trinity was officially established in the 4th and 5th centuries.  Seems interesting that this would be added to the Bible when the Trinitarian groups and Non-Trinitarian groups were discussing the idea. Some reports claim Constantine's power and influence as doing away with the Non-Trinitarian groups. I mean, he was the one who was the force behind standardizing the sixty-six book Bible most of us accept Scripture nowadays.

Throughout the New Testament, there are conflicting verses that point at the Father and Son as one, but there are many that point at the Son and the Father being very separate. Among some of them:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost[.]" (Matthew 28:19) If someone knows more about Koine Greek syntax than I do, let me know, but this verse seems to be Jesus pointing out three different beings. He didn't say 'us' and he didn't make any reference to them being the same; no, he point them out individually.

"But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:6) Seems pretty clear, at leas to me. There is one God:  Heavenly Father.

These are two verses that I hear brought up in reference to the Trinity, but they have always said the opposite to me when I read them.

Through the Gospels, Jesus refers to God, the Father, as very separate from Him, even in Matthew 27: 46, when Jesus cried, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani." Jesus talks of returning to Heavenly Father and how the Father is greater than him.

And, "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark 10: 18) See? Jesus keeps referring to God as separate, at least when I read it, it does.

Even, John 1: 1-3. I've heard the Trinitarian response to this verse and I've heard the Mormon interpretation to this verse, and I've heard a multitude of others. Most of which, are valid interpretations. This is from just reading the Bible.

Not to mention, if the Doctrine of the Trinity is correct, the idea that God would sacrifice Himself to Himself to help save humanity... Or, that part of the Trinity (Jesus) came down in the flesh to Earth (either rendering the Trinity 2/3 strength or having 1/3 of the Trinity in the flesh on Earth).... Or, the idea that Jesus makes references to him and God being one, but I don't recall Jesus making references to the Holy Spirit being part of the 'one-ship' with God and Jesus....

There are a lot of things that don't add up when it comes to the Trinity, but I can see the validity in the interpretation of the Bible that brings up the idea of the Trinity. During my tenure as a Southern Baptist and Methodist, the idea of the Trinity never really added up to me, especially when I read the Bible for the first as a whole in high school. The denial of the Trinity is not something that I believe just because it is Mormon doctrine, but the non-Trinitarian view of the LDS church was a big reason I joined.

I know, I know, Christians don't interpret the Bible, they only take the words as they mean....which is textbook Structuralist Interpretation. And, I know, I know, it is not what the Christian thinks, it is what God said. (I hear these all the time)

Noah and the Flood

 

     I see a lot of talk about Noah's Ark and the Great Flood from Ex-Mos, Never-Mos, and Atheists. There are numerous memes and comments made about a very literal view of the Great Flood, like the one directly above. I mean, sure; I agree with Mark Twain. The Ark had no rudder and no sails. But, why would it have needed any? Where was it going? The Ark was designed to keep itself afloat. And again, this would render the need for any charts useless also.

 

     But, that is not really the point that gets me. Atheists love to jump on the idea of getting two of every single species on the face of the Earth. Look at the following meme:

 

 

 

     Nowhere in the Scriptures is the word "species" mentioned. Genesis 6: 19-21 states: "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them." And, Genesis 7: 2-3 states: "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth." And, Genesis 7: 14 states: "They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort." There is "kind" and "sort" mentioned, but nothing about species. Also, the Bible specifically mentions to bring kind/sort of fowls, creeping things, clean beasts, and unclean beasts. I see nothing to suggest that Noah brought every "species" (a concept and filing system completely unknown in the ancient world). I've never really figured out how or why Atheists get so hung up on that idea when it is nowhere in the Scriptures.

 

     And, then there are those believers who look at the story as completely literal:

 

     I agree with the idea that Noah's Flood was based on a real, great event that happened, but (and like many ancient histories) was written to focus on symbolism and overall meaning instead of historical accuracy.  It is like an allegory, designed to teach us something about God. The date of the Flood differs depending on the Biblical scholar. The Masoretic Text of the Torah puts the Flood as 1,656 years after Creation, which have led scholars to put an exact date to the event. Scaliger said 3,950 B.C., Petu said 3,982 B.C., and James Ussher said 2,348 B.C. The 2,348 B.C. dating matches with many of the Biblical timelines that can be downloaded off the Internet and are commonplace in the Christian world. Scaliger and Petu date the flood to be much earlier. James Ussher's chronology matches closely with the creation tale of Korea and the birth of their first King in 2,333 B.C. King Dangun (단군왕검) came around during the 40th to 50th year reign of the Chinese Emperor Yao, who reigned from 2,356 B.C. to 2,255 B.C. When I lived in Korea and heard about the Creation tale of Korea and their first King, I remember it matching up with Ussher's Flood narrative chronology. China already had a long, established history that had no indication of having all their people die. With civilizations existing before and through the time of the flood, there doesn't seem to be much to point to everyone in the world dying except for Noah's family. This is why I believe that the "worldwide flood" was Noah's world--his idea and perception of what the whole world was, which was his area in the Middle East.  National Geographic has a good explanation about the actual geological events that could have been the main source of the Flood Narrative, but I'd like to think there was more to the event than just a tidal issue.

 

     And, no, this doesn't mean that Moses (or whoever wrote Genesis) lied. Saying that portraying a real even in allegory or as metaphor or symbolism is lying shows a deep misunderstanding of such concepts. I've never seen any evidence to show that Genesis was supposed to be taken as a historical document as many believers want to point out (with the 20th century idea of historicism, too).

 

     And, not to mention Genesis 7: 18-20, which states, "And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." Fifteen cubits is 22.5 feet. That's not enough to cover much of anything. Mountains and highlands would have been completely dry. It seems like there are a lot of people who don't really look at the implication of that verse. This verse really did it in for me when it came to a global flood and something I've always wondered how Apologists like Ken Ham would respond.

 

     There is a lot to be said here. I don't want to make this blog post too long. I believe the Bible is God's Word, but I've never held onto a literal interpretation of the Bible, especially the longer I've studied Literature, the more I can see the Bible in comparison to other works around it. I don't think this degrades the Bible in anyway, because Holy Men wrote the Bible and brought up forth knowledge of God. Noah was, I believe, a real person. He was mentioned in Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20, and 2 Peter 2:5. But, I've always wondered how those of the New Testament timed viewed Noah and Flood Narrative, especially with their different mindset about history and their lack of archeological knowledge that we have nowadays.

 

     My idea about looking at the Flood Narrative as allegory may not be popular. I've heard many tell me that I'm going against God's Word and degrading the Bible by saying my views about it. But, I don't see it this way. The central message is still there:  God chose a Holy Man (a Prophet) to continue on as He did away with sin. He has watched over us and continues to take a personal interest in our lives.

 

 

Too Many Roads

We all have a story. And this is one reason I went looking for God outside of Christianity. Here are a list of things I have been taught or learned second handed from ministers, deacons, and pastors of various Christian denominations (and the non-denominationals).

 

1  The superiority of the white race was justified through the verse Genesis 9: 27.

 

2  This followed the commonly held belief that Ham was the father of the African race, Shem: The Asians, and Japheth: The Europeans. Through their lineage, it is mentioned that their ancestors were of their own tongues and lands. (Genesis 10: 15-20)

 

3  The Book of Job mentions dinosaurs (Job 40: 15-24)

 

4  There are unforgivable sins that will send you to Hell, regardless of the any repentance. (Matthew 12: 31-32)

 

5  Mother Teresa is in Hell because she was Catholic.

 

6  Jesus was white, because Jesus was a descendent of David who had a light complexion (1 Samuel 17:42)

 

7  Cain and Abel were two of the first Homo Sapiens and their wives were below Homo Sapiens (probably Homo Erectus). This would account for the ability to breed, but since Homo Erectus was not 'human,' they didn't have a Soul.

 

8  The Book of Revelation is literal, and sometime in the future, everything will happen exactly as it is written in Revelation in all its surrealistic oddness.

9  Jesus could feed the 5,000 so easily because there were probably many in the crowd who brought fish and bread with them.

 

10 Buddha was Satan.

11 Joseph Smith (young, illiterate, drug addicted) found a cave in his backyard. In this cave, an angel gave him some magic sunglasses to help him read some tablets.

12 The 9.11 Terror was predicted in the Bible.

 

13 Mormons worship Joseph Smith.

 

14 The Rapture is Biblical (1 First Thessalonians 4:17, et al.)

 

15 The Jews don't accept Jesus as their Savior, so they are going to Hell. But, the Jews are God's chosen people so they are going to Heaven.

 

16 The Asians came from aliens.

 

17 "Thou shalt not kill" really meant "thou shalt not kill unjustly."

 18 Believing in God because you are scared of going to Hell is perfectly fine.

 19 Salvation starts by praying the Sinner's Prayer when you want to accept Jesus into your life.

20 The Once Saved Always Saved doctrine was held by the Southern Baptists, and it someone did something wrong or evil after being saved then, "They weren't really saved in the first place."

21 Methodists: People can fall from Grace (The Once Saved Always Saved doctrine is wrong).

22 The Southern Baptists said that all churches and beliefs were wrong except for the Southern Baptists.

 

 

23 The Theory of Evolution was created by Darwin because he hated God.

 

 

24 The Bible is completely literal.

 

 

25 Babies are born in sin.

 

 

26 Babies are not born in sin.

These were all taught to me directly, or I heard them directly from pastors, ministers, and deacons from other churches around the area. Plus, the discussions from teachers and among students revolved around some of these points. You all can say that I am lying when telling these things, but they have always stuck with me. And, it wasn't that I misunderstood what they were saying, because I have asked bluntly about these points and had discussions about all of them over the years of my youth.

From a Presbyterian church to a Methodist church to a Southern Baptist church, my family moved. It wasn't because of disagreement with doctrine or because of Spiritual shopping but more to do with having to move for my father's job and ending up in small towns. I went to Catholic schools and Southern Baptist schools while attending these churches. At the time, I was a kid and a young teenager, so I was still impressionable and not at that stage where I formed my identity and came to terms with my worldview.

These points all had Biblical backup and explanations from the pastors and ministers who are got their calling to be a Minister from God.

You go to one Christian church and there was some unique doctrine taught. You go to a different Christian church and there was other unique doctrine taught. All the ministers and pastors and deacons had Scriptural, textual, spiritual, devotional, 'historical' (and I use that term lightly in this context), and authoritative backup for what they taught as doctrine and as 'from Christ.' Despite all of the different denominations claiming they never interpret the Scriptures because the Scriptures were clear, there was a wide variance of meaning drawn from the text.

 

Basically, it seemed, to me, that there was a variance of interpretations as to God's personality, which affected much of how the Bible was interpreted.

 

The Southern Baptists seem to view God like William Wallace (warlike and angry).

 

 

The Methodists viewed God like Mr. Rogers (very calm and loving).

 

 

The Catholics viewed God like the Apple Customer Consumer Agreement (nobody ever reads it, but they agree with it wholeheartedly with no problem).

 

 

And, Mormons view God as Dr. Dave Bowman (came to be God...somehow)

Of course, most every Christian denies they do this. It's just my perception from attending such churches and schools for some years. How we view God really affects how we view certain actions and text in the Scriptures.

Anyway...

The reason I searched out Mormonism was not because of weird doctrine taught by individual churches. It was the holes that remained when I started to question all these different perspectives, read the Bible for myself, and read up on Christian theology, philosophy, and history. It was the gaps that I needed to fill and it was the Spirit that I needed to understand. It was the change in views among all the churches and denominations, and the wildly varying views of the individuals who refused the label of 'denomination.' This church is right. That denomination is wrong. You don't need a church. Just come to our study group. I am not religious, I am spiritual....

I needed some stability and I needed some answers

Orlando

I don't condone anything done by the Orlando shooter. It was all senseless and atrocious. But, I still hope that Omar Mateen realizes the severity of what he did while in Spirit Prison and accepts the Fullness of the Gospel. Despite what he did, I refuse to be happy that he might be burning in Hell and I refuse to praise the attacks because I disagree with the victims' lifestyle.

Murder?

When I was younger, there was a similar slogan to CTR amongst the Christians. It was WWJD, or "What would Jesus do?"

When I think about what Jesus would do, I don't think: Murder. And, I especially never think: Overkill.

I don't even have words to describe these comments. Nothing says "I love Jesus," and "I'm Christian" more than prompting the over kill and murder of another person. I mean, this was actually in a Christian discussion group.

I want to send The Onion article to those who commented on this particular post, but I also don't want to comment on this crazy and further give advertisement to this guy and a bigger soapbox to stand on.

If the image is too small, the comment I'm referring is as follows:

"I would have emptied the whole clip into Joseph Smith and then some just to make sure he doesn't come back from the grave."