Did Christians believes in 3 Gods ??

what about adam?
the father of all humans

 

The idea that Jesus was created by God and that all things were created through him is the controversial teaching of Arius, who was condemned as a heretic after the Council of Nicea in 325 c.e., Emperor Comstantine presiding, in which a majority of the Church fathers voted against those ideas. Arianism was the first official heresy in church history. Conventional Christianity holds that Jesus has always been coeternal and coequal with the Father as God, and was never created by the Father. Seems like a picky point, but it was a majorly big deal back then, and lots of folks became crispy critters over it. Arianism survives among the Jehovah's Witnesses and some Unitarians. Are you either of those?

 

So God takes the seed and places It in the Blessed Virgin Mary. But the seed is Nothing by itself. It need the Somatic nourishment; which makes the God ex ninilo Create the Universe, the world surrounding Jesus is created by God, the mere capacity fir human Incarantion and re-incarnation.


The planting idea is like a vestibule for the wealth of God's evident ability to affect Things in the world.


So there; God affects or periodically affects the world over and over. Is this necessary? I don't know; that would explain the trinity for One God by some physical means to an end momentarily at This point in time. Maybe it isn't necessary like the feelings that a woman, or the spirit of createdness, in a Man (like Jesus Christ certainly was).

Creation created createdness, not the Creator. But here I am being inadequate to Mohmmedism's tenant and morality for Mercy. It is somehow some double talk on the seed, the ex nihilo meaning of mere Creation.

The Holy Spirit made it all unnecessary though just because that by itself is the means that the human body itself possesses a Soul.

The soul is eternal and that is the gift from Christ such that in turn Jesus created God the father, the affective agent of the universe.

 

If I could follow you, I might reply. I'm trying to find meaning behind the words.

 

It's all about whether the Ice Man in the Alps was assasinated like some Saddam Hussein, or like a benevolent ambitious leader desiring an equal value for the Copper mining of the different clans.

Don't reply: I'm bullshit.

 

That's what I suspected.

 

I know that the education I had often many years ago made me believe that I was directed with a purpose for realizing the Physics of the establishment.

Love is the reason for the Blessed Trinity. But time won't have it for the various religions of the world.

Is there anyone out there who would not accept that, or accept it in another way of morals, OR Faith?:cheers2:

 

I accept it in the name of Pat Paulsen and Durwood Fincher, and I baptize thee the Holy Mackrel. Complete with incense and sandalwood!

 

Is baptism incarnation or reincarnation (like the duplication of Creation; for which physical births are not such)? Meta-physically it's all oneness, no? My point.

 

I have come to overstand the trinity this way:

God the Father : the laws of physical nature. {you cannot compromise here, if you do not let the land be fallow, then starvation, pestilience, and war ensues}

God the Son : typified by the teachings of the Man Jesus who is with the spirit of God, . (no quote allowed) {you can discuss and reason with man, but he guides you into not falling foul of the Father}

God the Holy Ghost : the mystical unknown, the spirit, the 'helper'.

:-Jah Guide

 

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, that's not good, is it?

 

How come so many people can't understand the idea of the Trinity well enough to at least put up with it? I mean, did none of you hear of the Wonder Twins? Seriously though, if someone was talking about Hinduist notions like aspect, I bet half of you would sit patiently and try to understand it, or at the very least accept that you didn't get it and move on. But because it's Christianity, it's not enough to just put up, it has to be picked apart, doesn't it.

 

DOnt forget the burning of the library in Alexandria at the same time. The ultimate "coupe de gracie".

 

Actually no. If you want to be specific, I for one was born and raised brought up catholic. And the reason why I am now a heretic is because as someone mentioned earlier in this thread doctrines require you to believe god is beyond human comprehension. They force a man to accept mysteries, as explanations for things that take place in the universe.

This is madness. Everything that takes place in the universe happens for a reason. There are things that go beyond our five senses and capability of perception and there is a link between science and spirituality. But you're definitly NOT going to figure that one out in a church. And your definitly NOT going to find it toting all these radical NEW AGE notions of us being the lil god's either.

Everything that "the establishment" provides the masses is as it has been since the beggining: a 1/2 truth.

Read as much ancient history as possible. The truth lies in trying to figure out the true dawn of humanity.

 

Both my parents had a Catholic upbringing. My father rejected his faith (rather unfortunately, since it appears to have had more to do with two rather abusive individuals who happened to be in positions of authority over him), but quite by accident I went to a Catholic primary school.

I mention this because, despite all this, there has been no point at which anyone has said that I should believe in a god beyond human comprehension. Of course, it could just be that they've not said that, and thus I have not known it to challenge it. But I question whether there's really

See, to me, that's far more of a "heresy" than any disagreement over the nature of a god.

Sorry, explain: how is this certainty that there is something scientific or spiritual that's beyond our senses any less irrational than believing in an unknowable god?

Probably true, although as a Barthes fan, I'd say at least half (1/4?) of that untruth comes from the listener as it does the speaker. The establishment gives us half-truths, and most of us only hear what we want to, and will dismiss anything that conflicts with that (see the recent study in which the average UK citizen asked believed the under-16 pregnancy rate was roughly 40 times what it actually is, or the consistent perception that immigrants are responsible whenever there's a crime wave). The question of who is to blame when we don't get the truth seems to me rather moot.

Maybe. I've always believed the truth is less important than what you can make real. So what if we're not "lil gods" (I like that phrase ); since when has Man ever thought "shit, this is wrong, maybe we should quit and do something else"?

Maybe we're not "lil gods" - yet!

EDIT: Just to clarify: I'm not a Catholic, nor do I believe in God. I just feel, as what I hope is a "smart atheist", that there's a particularly nasty streak of "dumb atheism" that has more to do with pissing off daddy than actually thinking about the nature of existence. If that's not you, then sorry. But it seems to be a hell of a lot of people.

 

The last time I was in church. I saw a pamphlet in the pew which was trying to instrust me to embrace the mysteries of my faith. Excuse me, but we are talking about death. I for one would like to know what lies beyond death. It is my choice and my faith based on over 5 years of chasing the rabbit down the hole that there is indeed a source of our existence, and that be there is something after death, and my whole point is that I feel as though I have learned way more about this topic since I have been reading up on it myself without dogma and doctrine influencing my path.

And for the record, the bible does suddenly become a lil more comprehensible when you know a thing or two about wiritngs of the ancient world, and for whatever reason there is also a very alarming similarity in jesus' teachings and hinduism ideology. Good luck discovering that in a world forsaking you to burn for eternity if you walk off of the beaten path.

My thesis was meant to be, PRO Jesus, PRO God, Anti Establishment. As always. Sorry if my chosen words created confusion.

~~~Yikes!

 

The Trinity is a pre Christian concept that was incorporated into the early Church.

The Typical explination of The Trinity shows Saint Patrick displaying a shamrock to his followers as a way to explain God in three persons.

In reality, the celtic Irish were very familiar with the trinity.

The photo below shows a passage grave in Ireland the grave is 3,000 years old. The frontpiece is inscribed with a trinity of spirals which exact meaning is lost.

 

Well it's your funeral. Personally I don't think there's any way to know anything about life after death without dying. If there was, I figure we'd know something concrete about it by now, given how many have devoted their lives to investigating it.

What the church says about embracing mystery is supposed to bring people peace of mind. If you're of an inquiring mind, it probably won't deter you, but if you're the type who would be worried about life after death, but lacked the means or the will to investigate, it could provide a comfort.

It seems kind of ironic to me that, as the non-Christian here, I can see more value in the ineffable than you can.

What world is that? If it's America then nope, sorry, I don't believe you. I mean, I'm sure that someone will think you're batshit for even wanting to investigate, but cmon, if you're trying to tell me that you live in a world that forsakes you thus, how come you're able to get on-line and discuss it now?

One of the best tricks of government is not in totalitarian control, but in persuading people to self-control, self-censor, self-regulate. Religion is good at this, but really, all it takes is a little willpower to overcome. Unless I'm wrong, and you'd actually be punished for talking out of turn about this sort of thing.

Meh, I can't claim that I'd run the world any better.

 

As a practicing Catholic, Religious Studies scholar, and generally inquisitive person I think the mysteries of the faith should be embraced, but that does not mean that they should be accepted blindly. Take for example the mystery of the Eucharist. I do not believe in the Aristotlian "transubstantiation" to explain what happens. i do believe that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but more so than the Lutherans and the notion of Real Presence. I share the view with the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics that it is a mystery. I acept the notion of transubstantiation as an attempt to explain it, but an attempt that will eventually leave things missing.

Along with the Trinity, we can attempt to explain it (shamrocks, eggs, mountains etc analogies) but they eventually fail. For example, the shamrock continues to be a shamrock even without one of it's leaves, but god fails to be god without one of the persons in the Trinity. This doesn't mean that we should not try to explain it, but that we should never settle on one explanation or another.

and Hoatzin, I understand your connection with the idea of the Trimurti. there are slight differences in explanation but the two are very very similar, but i think ultimately different.

 

you realise that christianity is little more than a bunch of pagan myths recycled? don't you? if you find that impossible to believe, watch zietgeist