Can someone tell me the Trinity concept in Christianity?
482022
God, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings with different roles, one in purpose. They make the Godhead or the Trinity. You can read this understand it clearly:\n\n... I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.\n \n2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—\n\n3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—\n\n4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.\n\n5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.\n\n6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.\n\n7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.\n\n8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—\n\n9 Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice.\n\nThe Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.\n\n23 A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him.
162593
NO....the Bible does NOT support the man-taught doctrine of the trinity. \n\nThe teaching of the trinity is completely UNSUPPORTED by the Bible. It's a doctrine taught by man, not the Holy Bible. Jesus Christ is a being that was created by God, as both Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 make perfectly clear. Since he was created by God, in no way, then, can he BE God. It simply doesn't work. \n\nThe testimony of others in the Bible, including the demons of Satan that he came across on certain occasions, makes it very clear that Jesus was and is the SON of God, and not God himself. A misinterpretation of scriptures such as John 1:1 has led people astray, into thinking that God is broken down into 3 parts. That is not the case.\n\nNotice a few of the "proof texts" people try and use to establish the trinity and how they just don't work:\n\n“I and the Father Are One”\n\nTHAT text, at John 10:30, is often cited to support the Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being “one” with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, . . . that they may be one just as we are one.” Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.—See also 1 Corinthians 1:10.\n\nAt 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: “I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one.” Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for “one” (hen) is neuter, literally “one (thing),” indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word “one” (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.\n\nRegarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.”\n\nRight in the context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: “Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, ‘I am God’s son’?” (John 10:31-36, NE) No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God.\n\n“Making Himself Equal to God”?\n\nANOTHER scripture offered as support for the Trinity is John 5:18. It says that the Jews (as at John 10:31-36) wanted to kill Jesus because “he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.”\n\nBut who said that Jesus was making himself equal to God? Not Jesus. He defended himself against this false charge in the very next verse (19): “To this accusation Jesus replied: . . . ‘the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing.’”—JB.\n\nBy this, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not act on his own initiative. Can we imagine someone equal to Almighty God saying that he could “do nothing by himself”? (Compare Daniel 4:34, 35.) Interestingly, the context of both John 5:18 and 10:30 shows that Jesus defended himself against false charges from Jews who, like the Trinitarians, were drawing wrong conclusions!\n\n“Equal With God”?\n\nAT PHILIPPIANS 2:6 the Catholic Douay Version (Dy) of 1609 says of Jesus: “Who be
33357
Convoluted confusing answer: Trinitarian monotheism.\nExplanation: Some forms of Christianity reject the Godhead (trinity), and follow monotheism. However, those who have a Holy Trinity (Father/son/ghost) are tritheists. Technically they don't have three gods, however, and I think that form of Christianity is closest to polytheism. The existence of a negative god, or Satan, lends itself to any polytheist religion.
1013202
Who teaches that there are three gods? Do you mean the doctrine of the Trinity? The doctrine of the Trinity is formally defined as: One God in Three Persons. That therefore means that it teaches only one God, not three gods. Saying that the Trinity is three gods is just as wrong as saying the God of Islam is a pagan moon god. Both statements wrongly represent the beliefs of those who believe them.
1030710
You have absolutely no understanding of the concept of the TRINETY. God is ALL THREE, FATHER/SON/HOLY SPIRIT\n\nSlavery is part of YOUR religion, not Christianity.\n\nYou should look BEYOND your teachings and your fellow Muslims if you want a TRUE understanding of Christianity. Otherwise you are only spreading ignorance to strengthen your own orthodoxy.
1161834
You are right. Trinity is a pagan belief and imagined by so called Christians. Here are some thoughts:\n\nJohn 1:1. The verse speaks of two Gods, but it does not imply equality. Too, the holy spirit is not mentioned in that verse. By the way the word "god" or "God" is a title and can be applied to Jesus. ( Psalm 82:1-6; etc)\n\nThe holy spirit is not a person. It is God's active force. See Acts 2:1-4. As such "it" can be given to persons. ( Example see John 20:22) It has no name, no face--unlike the father, and the son.\n\nMat 28:19. Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit. Does not imply the personality of the spirit, nor the equality of the 3. Since the holy spirit has no name. The word "name" in that verse refers to reputation. ( Psalm 22:1). Things--like electricity, roads, holy spirit--have reputations.\n\nJesus himself admitted that his father is greater than he is. (John 14:28) He admitted that he has limited powers. ( See Matthew 20:20-23; 24:36; John 5:30, etc) So, how can he be equal in power to God?\n\nOh well, you can not convince people who have made up their minds. Those who try to support the trinity are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. They simply can not.\n\nAs the saying goes: 'DO NOT GIVE ME THE FACTS, I HAVE ALREADY MADE UP MY MIND'.
1103105
No.  Nowhere in the entire Bible is there any mention of the "Trinity."  It is NOT a Bible teaching.  \n\nWhat is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?\n\nThe New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.\n\nThe New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma.  Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.\n\nIn The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.\n\nAccording to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel,  “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient pagan religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.\n\nJohn L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
465872
In Christianity the trinity is belived to be a mathimatical annomaliy. Instead of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 (Father, Son, and Holy spirit) it is actually 100% for all three. The debate over free will versus destiny has existed since time began. I believe in a divine creator and His rule over my life, but I also believe in free will. To me it is another annomaliy in our reality. I believe we have 100% free will, but that we are also 100% bound to our destiny. I don't think it's one or the other, but rather both in a very complete way. \n\nWith that in mind we are divided in our aims and goals based on our relation with that source. Since we all carry the same creator and that creator gave us free will, we all take different paths. One leads to that creator, others don't. I would love it if pluralism applied to reality, but since all faiths say they are THE one, then they all can't be right. Especially with Christianity. Christ said "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the Father except through the Son." In that scripture He is saying that you can only take one path to reach God and no other.\n\nImagine a city street with millions of pedestrains. Half of them are going in one direction and the other half are going in the oppposite direction. They are bumping and shoving and stumbling on to each other. This is the human experience. One group is traveling towards the creator and what is good, the other half is traveling away from the creator to satisfy their pride. Either way you travel you will have conflict and you will bump into others with different aims, goals, and destinies. What really matters is that you travel with kindness, love, and in the right direction.\n\nlightbringer1979@yahoo.com\n\nGodspeed\n\nP.S. Just one note on a comment above. The Muslims and Christians actually DO worship the same God. And both believe in Christ as well. It's just that Christians believe He is the son of God.
956844
ok the trinity is a hard thing to understand   talk to a pastor  here is not the place to go for such a serious question,you will get alot of false answers, the father the son and the holy ghost are the three in one...a pastor will help you to understand
485179
the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity, and is equal with God the Father and God the Son(Jesus Christ)
87587
Neo-Trinitarians is a term used by several different groups to mean several totally different concepts.  Although applied to those Christians that see the Trinity as three aspects (not three persons) of Divinity (see site 1), the term has also been used to describe individuals who have seemingly replaced the classical Trinity with modern Western values of money, knowledge/power and pleasure/comfort (see site 2).\nOthers have used the term to imply that the Christian Trinity was a concept modified by the Greek Pagans (see site 3).
730179
The trinity is not easy to understand for humans.  God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy spirit are three persons in one.  For us limited three dimensional creatures this would not be possible.  For an unlimited, infinite, pan dimensional being such as God, this is very possible.  We cannot fully conceive it but we can imagine it.  You must simply suspend your dimensional logic and imagine beyond what is possible.
40300
"Trinity" is a term that is not found in the Bible but a word used to describe what is apparent about God in the Scriptures. The Bible clearly speaks of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit...and also clearly presents that there is only one God. Thus the term: "Tri" meaning three, and "Unity" meaning one, Tri+Unity = Trinity. It is a way of acknowledging what the Bible reveals to us about God, that God is yet three "Persons" who have the same essence of deity.\nSome have tried to give human illustrations for the Trinity, such as H2O being water, ice and steam (all different forms, but all are H2O). Another illustration is an egg having a shell, egg yolk and egg white, but this egg illustration shows that there would be "parts" to God, which isn't the case.\n\nGod the Son (Jesus) is fully, completely God. God the Father is fully, completely God. And God the Holy Spirit is fully, completely God. Yet there is only one God. In our world, with our limited human experience, it's tough to understand the Trinity. But from the beginning we see God this way in Scripture. Notice the plural pronouns "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26 -- Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."\n\nThough not a complete list, here is some other Scripture that shows God is one, in Trinity: \n\n"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut. 6:4)\n\n"I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." (Isa. 45:5)\n\nThere is no God but one. (1Cor. 8:4)\n\nAnd after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." (Matt. 3:16-17)\n\n"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 28:19)\n\nJesus said: "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)\n\n"He who has seen Me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)\n\n"He who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me." (John 12:45)\n\nIf anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (Rom. 8:9)\n\n"Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 1:20)\n\nAnd the angel answered and said to her [Mary], "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)\n\n[Jesus speaking to His disciples] "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you." ... "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him." (John 14:16-17, 23)
411471
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE "TRINITY"\n\n1st of all Jesus said: He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, “I live because of the Father.” According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Joh 6:56, 57.\n\nJesus’ being called the “only-begotten Son” (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18) does not mean that the other spirit creatures produced were not God’s sons, for they are called sons as well. (Ge 6:2, 4; Job 1:6) However, by virtue of his being the sole direct creation of his Father, the firstborn Son was unique, different from all others of God’s sons, all of whom were created or begotten by Jehovah through that firstborn Son. So “the Word” was Jehovah’s “only-begotten Son” in a particular sense,\n\nJesus is also “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father.” This does not mean that he usurps the authority and position of Jehovah, who is “God our Father.” (2 Corinthians 1:2) “He [Jesus] . . . gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (Philippians 2:6) He is called Mighty God, not Almighty God. Jesus never thought of himself as God Almighty, for he spoke of his Father as “the only true God,” that is, the only God who should be worshiped. (John 17:3;\n\nDoes the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?\n\nRev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him .  Why did God have to give Jesus the revelation, if Jesus is God?\n\nDoes the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty? Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)\n\nJohn 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”\n\n1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. \n\nA person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity.\n\nI COULD GO ON & ON WITH SCRIPTURES & EXPLANATIONS, BUT I THINK THIS ALREADY TO LONG FOR SOME PEOPLE.
581165
Trinity-Heaven and Hell-Holiday-Worship of Saints-Conduct-Confession-Cross or Torture stake-Death-Devil and demons-Earth and its destiny-Healing-Baptism-Tongues-Sabbath-Preaching-Purgatory-Prayer-Return or Christ-Resurrection-Neutrality-And God laws-do we know better.
246265
NO, NO\n\nWhat is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?\nThe New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.\nThe New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”\nIn The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching\nDoes the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?\nMatt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)\nJohn 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)\nDoes the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?\nCol. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? \n, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals.\nDoes the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?\nMark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)\n1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)\nDoes the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinit
912838
Yes I can explain it easliy. The trinity is a false teaching. It's obvious from this scripture and others that God and Jesus are seperate and Jesus is God's son. See the following about the origin of the trinity - it's not taught in the Bible:\n\nThe New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.\n\nThe New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.\n\nIn The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.\n\nAccording to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.\n\nJohn L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.