Oneness vs. Trinity

I don't want to offend anybody and I am sorry if my post will cause any distress.
But I find this whole Trinity idea totally absurd.
Whether Trinity is one Entity in three manifestations or three separate Gods...I don't understand why the Father God had to Sacrifice the Son God in order to save the World? And the Song God went back to Father and it is Three Gods yet one more time? If He never died what was the whole poinf ot death on the first place? And why I cannot get to Heaven without accepting God-Son-Jesus as my savior?
This is very confusing.

there is only one way to settle this

FIGHT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7718587.stm

It's not absurd, it's just very complicated for the human mind to understand. Also, it's not the "Father God" who sacrifices the "Son God". It was the human Jesus who was the sacrifice. The nature of Jesus was two-fold; he was both divine and human at the same time. This is called the hypostatic union.

Why his sacrifice was necessary? Because only a sinless human can make this sacrifice. He suffers on account of others, and not because of his own sins. Justice always has to be completely satisfied; such is the law of divine perfection.

Why we have to accept Jesus as our saviour to get to heaven? Because we don't merit it on our own (sin can't exist in heaven), and can therefore only get there if our sins are expiated through the sacrifice of the One Unblemished who died for us on the cross out of love for mankind and for his heavenly father. We simply have no power to do this on our own as we are all sinners.

Even considering the whole idea of the father 'sacrificing the son' is put to rest when we understand that Jesus was God incarnate. It was God willing to become one of us humans with the same temptations, emotions, and hazards that we all face who was sacrificed. Divine because he was God, but fully human nevertheless, capable of feeling pain, bleeding, suffering, and dying.

The 'sacrifice' was not chosen because a sacrifice was necessary, but it was what the people understood. The sacrifice for remission of sins had always been an unblemished or perfect lamb. The one offering the sacrifice had to be a perfect human specimen, a priest unblemished by scars or disfigurement. So God, knowing that such symbolism would be understood, suffered and died for us Himself as a sinless human being--a perfect specimen, and thereby made blood sacrifice forever unnecessary thereafter.

--God the Father, Creator, author of all things
--God the Son, God in human form who came to us to show us the depth of God's love and concern for us
--God the Holy Spirit who is with us to guide and teach us everywhere and always

One
But Three
The Trinity

I still prefer Alice in wonderland.

Are you guys still at this? Sorry to have been away. Very busy with eBay this time of the year.

Well thats very nice of God. Seriously I do think Christianity is unusual in having their God sacrificed for Mankind. As we are now resolved of sin, can we carry on?

Actually Foxfyre, the sacrifice was necessary.

Proverbs 17:15 - He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.

Have you ever heard the term "the divine dilemna"? This verse is at the center of it. According to this verse calling the wicked just is an abomination to God. So, how is God able to justify man, who is wicked (according to scripture)? A sacrifice had to be made. If there was no sacrifice then satan could continually accuse God of "but you justify them! You let them off the hook!" But God paid the price with the sacrifice of his son. Only God can satisfy the justice of God.

So, in this sense, the sacrifice was a necessity.

The The Bible says that God has raised Jesus but if you Look in John 2:19-21 Jesus clearly states that if you destroy this temple in three i will raise it up and he was speaking of his own body. Since Jesus was fully Man and Fully God this means fully Son and fully Father since God is our only Father. it's obvious God didn't pray to God. Isaiah Calls Jesus the everlasting Father. He told His disciples anyone who see man has seen the Father. The Disciple didn't ask Him to see mere attributes of the Father but the Said show us the Father. Phillipians 2:9 says Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal to God.

And this makes sense to you?

Could Jesus have sinned?

When I used to go to church, I could never understand what the fuss about the trinity was all about. To me it seemed obvious that they could all be God, and could all have differing ranks. If you contained within you all of creation, then every aspect of creation is within you...so how could you ever disagree? (you will notice that nature is normally in perfect harmony, and when it's not, it works to correct itself. Humans may be an abberation on that observation).

C HURCHianity has fooled the masses since a couple centuries after Christ.
They change the meaning of EVERY word in the Bible!
God is NOT the Supreme Being, but the Supreme Beings!
Holy Spirit is NOT the "Power of the Most High", but a Ghost-God.
And all 3 are the Ultimate Sadists- torturing billions in 'Hellfire' both now-
and all Eternity!

It is AMAZING how gullible people are!

Then you are not a trinitarian

Well yes, he could be.

There has been no single issue that has been a larger bone of contention or that has caused more inner strife than the doctrine of the Trinity, what it is, what form it takes. It was the single largest factor resulting in schisms in the early Church. I've always thought it was not pleasing to God to have us fight over it though.

To this day there are some who maintain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings while others accept the one God with three powers and One God with three attributes theory and three of one mind and substance and everything in between. Jesus, the man in human form was of course subordinate to God the Father, but, according to the Gospel of John, before he was incarnate, he and the Father were one. And some, as Vikorr speculates, go with the one God but different ranks--God the son is subordinate to God the Father; God the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son, but all are of one substance and are one.

Myself, I don't care though it is of sufficient curiosity that it is on my list that I hope to take with me to the next life where unanwerable questions can be answered. Meanwhile I take comfort in the Apostle Paul's explanation that now we see through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face and we will know.

So I figure I'll find out soon enough.

When I was an avid church-goer of about 12, I used to go to little bible sessions with the pastor's wife, and was explained the concept of trinity as thus:
God is in three parts, but is still the same god. For example, take the pastor- to his friends, he's james, to me, he's my husband, to our sons- he's dad, to you he's the pastor. He's still one person, but he plays many different roles.

It only struck me as i recalled this to post on the thread how bloody moronic that explanation was.

Nothing to figure out, FF, if you LISTEN to Christ's words!
Such as to Mary-

John 20: 17-Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

Jesus, too, served the One he called (John 17:3) "the Only True God".
Faith begins with learning about and getting to KNOW God- which cannot
be done with the so-called "Sacred Mystery"!

The real mystery is how ANYONE can believe it, after studying the Bible!

Yes it is a mystery. And one cannot believe it other than by the power of the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit who is also an alien and unbelievable entity to those who have not experienced it, yet is so threatening to so many who have not--another mystery. (I do believe all can have the experience who are open to it.) Sometimes I think spiritual powers should be evident to all purely by the amount of resistance, hostility, anger, contempt, and denial generated by mention of religious faith, especially Christianity. Such passionately negative reactions are not nearly so evident re ghosts or alien abductions or BigFoot sightings.

Regarding the passage you cited, one must understand the New Testament for what it is however. The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were not written as chronological or complete history nor were they written by a single author. They consist of a collection of sayings, oral tradition, eye witness accounts, and recollections that were widely known throughout the mid to late First Century Christian communities with the final editing reflecting a theological perspective of the editor or editors.

Mark is believed to be the earliest of the Gospels with the content almost wholly also contained in Matthew and Luke. Because eye witness accounts will remember different details differently, or place different emphasis on what is recalled, occasionally Matthew and Mark will disagree with Luke, Luke and Mark will disagree with Matthew, but in no place can you find Matthew and Luke agreeing with each other against Mark. You will find material in Matthew unqiue to Matthew and material in Luke unique to Luke. This is no different than reading three different histories of the same period of modern history and noting that the authors will occasionally disagree with each other on some detail or significances in events but there are some core facts and names that will be found in all, especially if one is used for research materials by the others.

Also what is contained in the New Testament was written by a people who did not expect it to take the Christ more than 2000 years to return. They weren't writing for us. They were writing for each other and left out a lot of detail that was common knowledge and was assumed to be familiar to all. That is why so much of scripure contains nuances and deeper meanings that may not be immediately obvious to the 21st Century reader. You have to read it through their eyes, not ours, to understand it.

Wow! One who claims to be Christian, who doubts the honesty of Christ's followers, and the "Gospels"!
Do you discard Revelation, as well?

Rev 3:11-I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.
12-Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.
13-He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

He referred to his God FOUR times, here.
Want MORE references; they are many!
You appear to be listening to a DIFFERENT spirit, FF...

What in the world could I have said that made you think I question the honesty of Christ's followers? I don't question their honesty at all, and studying the degree of care that was taken in what writings to select for the New Testament, I am convinced that what we have represents the true understanding and perspective of Christians at that time as much as was possible to obtain.

All I intended to illustrate was the fact no two humans are exactly the same, and they will remember different details of various events differently and will differ in what they place the greatest importance or to what they assign the the great significance. If you have six different people spend 30 minutes to write in some detail their recollections of the Kennedy assassination, or 9/11, you will get six very different versions of those events and every one will be the truth from the writer's perspective.

Revelation was written late in the First Century or possibly even into the Second Century during a time of persecution when in certain pockets of the Roman empire it wasn't safe to be a Christian. The text is written in apolcalyptic code, represents the vision of the John as he recalled it, and, because of the highly symbolic imagery used, cannot be taken literally in every detail which is not to say that it isn't all honestly reported.

Since I'm not a Christian, I cannot express a view on the matter. But I'm curious: how is this an interesting question? What relevant difference would it make to you if the question was resolved one way rather than the other?