Presbyterians plan to reidentify triniity.

*************
M*W: The Presbyterian convention stated that they were planning to "reidentify" the trinity. One suggestion was "Creator, Mother, Friend." Several other names were suggested as well. The actual definitions of the newly named trinity would be pretty much the same aligning itself to "Creator, Created, Life-Force."

This article has been discussed in Christianity Today magazine. Many christian scholars agree that it's time to give the trinity a new look. What do you think about this?

My question is: What connection does the Trinity have with the Triumvirate?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

`
Concerning what to call the Trinity from now on, I've always been partial to the sarcastic monikkers Big Daddy, Junior, and The Spook

On a more serious note, why not "Father, Mother, Spirit". I could have sworn I heard that somewhere...

As for the second point, I presume that by Triumvirate you mean the one time 3-man "team" that were de facto rulers of the Roman Empire - Gaius Julius Caesar, Marcus Licinius Crassus, and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.

If you're refering to the notion being inspired by the men themsleves, it's a bit hard to tell who served as the model for which aspect of the Trinity.

If it's a reference to the concept of the Triumvirate, it seems there are others which pre-date both the Roman "threesome" and "X-ianity" -

From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
(Not the finest source, I admit, but at least some reference material is provided)

Nontrinitarian Christians have long contended that the doctrine of the Trinity is a prime example of Christian borrowing from pagan sources. According to this view, a simpler idea of God was lost very early in the history of the Church, through accommodation to pagan ideas, and the "incomprehensible" doctrine of the Trinity took its place. As evidence of this process, a comparison is often drawn between the Trinity and notions of a divine triad, found in pagan religions and Hinduism. Hinduism has a triad, i.e., Trimurti.

As far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. After the death of the apostles, many nontrinitarians contend that these pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity. (First and second century Christian writings reflect a certain belief that Jesus was one with God the Father, but anti-Trinitarians contend it was at this point that the nature of the oneness evolved from pervasive coexistence to identity.)

Some find a direct link between the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Egyptian theologians of Alexandria, for example. They suggest that Alexandrian theology, with its strong emphasis on the deity of Christ, was an intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.

The Church is charged with adopting these pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and adapted to Christian thinking by means of Greek philosophy. As evidence of this, critics of the doctrine point to the widely acknowledged synthesis of Christianity with platonic philosophy, which is evident in Trinitarian formulas that appeared by the end of the third century. Catholic doctrine became firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism; and thus an essentially pagan idea was forcibly imposed on the churches beginning with the Constantinian period. At the same time, neo-Platonic trinities, such as that of the One, the Nous and the Soul, are not a trinity of consubstantial equals as in orthodox Christianity.

Nontrinitarians assert that Catholics must have recognized the pagan roots of the trinity, because the allegation of borrowing was raised by some disputants during the time that the Nicene doctrine was being formalized and adopted by the bishops. For example, in the 4th century Catholic Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra's writings, On the Holy Church,9 :

"Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato." (Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).

Such a late date for a key term of Nicene Christianity, and attributed to a Gnostic, they believe, lends credibility to the charge of pagan borrowing. Marcellus was rejected by the Catholic Church for teaching a form of Sabellianism.

The early apologists, including Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus, frequently discussed the parallels and contrasts between Christianity and the pagan and syncretic religions, and answered charges of borrowing from paganism in their apologetical writings.

edits: cleaning up some crappy grammar

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Check out the newly elected high priest of the presbyterian -- a woman of course, and another feminist out to neuter christianity so it can not reproduce! Declining membership attests to that fact. She's just jealous because she doesn't have a penis!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jesus called God Abba(father or daddy)
God spoke audibly from heaven (as scripture says) at Jesus' baptismal regarding his son (matthew 17.5) ...This is my son in whom I am well pleased, hear him...

So far we have Father and son.

Prior to Jesus being called son, he was referred to as the "Word". (John 1)

The holy spirit is what Jesus spoke about in John 14:26 when he said he would send a comforter, which is the holy ghost. The word in Greek is hagios pneuma or hagios means most holy thing and pneuma(has multiple meanings, but one means spirit of truth. Most definitions refer to a similiar position as this)

So we have Father, Son/Word, and Holy Ghost/Spirit of Truth/Most holy thing

I think when they say the Father Son and the Holy Spirit, they have accurately described the trinity to the point that we know what they are referring to. Don't think it really needs changed in my opinion.

 

*************
M*W: And you are still a male chauvinist prick. You don't like women. You hate them and would like to see them destroyed. You're one sick motherf*cker.

 

I sort of agree with Med woman. You are showing yourself off to be a pretty big sexist bigot. I won't go any further than that.

 

The problem with people having ideas like this to make things more fashionable is that they often end up making the original into something completely different. As Quigley points out the original language is quite clear, the persons are Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You can choose to believe in the trinity or not. That's personal choice. The trinity as translated from scripture is however an essential part of Christian doctrine (whatever some cults may believe). I cannot see how you can change the essence of that and still say you are following the same doctrine. This is an abuse of language.

It simply seems to me to be political correctness gone mad.

I think it most unlikely that it will generate any real converts.

The difference between the christian trinity and the other sets of three is that the latter are easily able to be understood, as they are separate entitities. They not 'three in one'.

The trinity is very difficult for anyone to understand and is therefore an extremely unlikely concept to deliberately make up for a new religion even if you borrowed the 'three' concept from elsewhere. Also borrowing a pagan 'three' would not endear it to its original audience who were monotheistic Jews. It would be much easier not to have it and have Jesus just as 'Son of God' and not 'God the Son', which is why there was the Aryan controversy quite early on, which continues into cultic versions of 'christianity' such as JW's, Mormons, Christadelphians, Christian Scientists etc. today You could Just I suppose understand it being useful for the early church to deify Jesus to give their religion an advantage over others for gentiles but why attribute a personhood to the Holy Spirit? This is the most difficult area of the whole concept and would seem to have no intrinsic advantage in 'selling' the religion to anyone, Jews or gentiles.

If other christians are reading this, I am not denying the experience of living with the Holy Spirit but sticking to cold logic for non-believers.

regards,


Gordon.

 

Could I suggest we go back to the origional three, using their modern names.

Sun, Venus, Mercury

 

Curly, Larry & Moe works for me.

Hey Quig....How about Yabba, Dabba , Doo?

 

Call them whatever you would like to. There is already a clear acceptance and understanding of their "names", but you fly whatever kite you want to fly.

 

The episcopalians will loose any hope of reconciling with Rome.

 

*************
M*W: Did they actually have any hope of reconciling with Rome, or is this just another one of your delusions?

 

No, there has always been hope, especially on the part of the Roman pontiff.

 

wow. do you expect anyone to take you seriously after that little display? please. you know, i'm now surprised that you were opposed to the gay church since apparently you love penises.

 

on a sidenote, who cares how they redefine the trinity, it was made up in the first place and was never a part of original christian thought.

 

Baseless.

 

I agree with woody. christianity has become too feminized. Feminism is a pernicious and false doctrine. This needs to stop. Women must not represent Christ in the liturgy. such a movement is from the Devil.

 

Lawdog, The "church" is referred to as the bride of christ. Bride is usually considered a female yes? I guess that is hard to reconcile isn't it.

 

Mother Church has already spoken: there cannot be female priests.
Besides, as you correctly admit, The Church is the bride of Christ.
Now a priest is married to the Church, not to a mortal woman,
so if we let women be priests, we would have LESBIANISM, wouldnt we now....? gee, that sounds like God's plan.

 

We are all called to be priests. (rev. 1: 5 and 6)
(1 peter 2:9)

Using your logic here, male priests being married to Jesus would be gay.

Jesus calls the union of man and wife as one flesh. Jesus the head. The "church the body". He also is called the chief priest and the church is called the royal priesthood.

He uses the illustration of the bride and the groom for us to understand and get how connected he wants his people and Jesus to be connected.