Trinity Concept

[ClubMed]

If anyone here has the time could you please explain the concept of 'Trinity' to me?

I was having a discussion with some friends and I realised that I don't quite understand this concept.

Some of the questions I'd like answerd (among any other info you might like to share) are:

Is Jesus God?
Who or What is the Holy Ghost?
How do God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost become 'one'?

Thanks very much.

[Terminal23]

Hey Club found this on Billy Graham.
http://www.billygraham.org/qna/qna.asp?i=508

[Theophylact]

Oh, wow.

That's going to take a whole lot of time.

It is, in fact, one of the hardest parts of Christian doctrine to explain (and to believe), and it's officially a Mystery.

Here's a Roman Catholic Version of an explanation.

[ClubMed]

Thanks for the links, I'm looking through them.

[implexant]

Reading the proper Scripture passages for yourself would, of course, be the most logical way to come to a conclusion. Here are some recommended verses: II Corinthians 13:14, I John 5:7, I Peter 1:2, Hebrews 11:6. Basically they say that God exists in three co-equal and co-eternal persons.

I would strongly encourage you to look at the Bible for insight into this. Man's view tends to be somewhat maligned occasionally.

And who ever said the whole subject was a mystery?

-Chris

[Theophylact]

"Mystery" is a technical term, implexant, not a sneer. Check the reference above.

And it's an arrogant delusion to think that simply reading an English-language translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic original is going to give you a better idea of the concept than what serious, dedicated thinkers have worked out over nearly two millennia of thought on the subject.

[implexant]

Originally posted by Theophylact
"Mystery" is a technical term, implexant, not a sneer. Check the reference above.

And it's an arrogant delusion to think that simply reading an English-language translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic original is going to give you a better idea of the concept than what serious, dedicated thinkers have worked out over nearly two millennia of thought on the subject.

To be more precise, the New Testament was written in Greek, the Old in Hebrew. Aramaic had nothing to do with it.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible copuled with Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words can help to clear up much of that "original" wording.

Then again, at least the English interpretation of the Bible is much more precise than alot of Catholic or Protestant "opinions."

The point was to research it for yourself, don't depend on a man to tell you what you should believe.

To sum it up, I think Billy Graham did an excellent job when he said, "Our finite minds cannot understand or explain this mystery of God, which is nevertheless a fact."

-Chris

[osprey4]

Originally posted by implexant
And who ever said the whole subject was a mystery?

A "mystery" is a New Testament term meaning something hidden in the Old Testament that has been revealed in the New Testament. Two examples:

1 Cor. 15:51
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed.

Eph. 1:9
He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention.

In both cases, it's clear that the author is explaining what the mystery is.

Despite the fact that Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic, there is no evidence the New Testament was written in any language other than Greek.

[Theophylact]

And what languages did Mark, Matthew and Luke and John speak?

My understanding is that there's considerable doubt that any of these accounts were written by the supposed authors, but were rather Greek versions of oral accounts, set down much after the events. In which case, the "original" would have been in Aramaic.

Paul, on the other hand, wrote in Greek.

[osprey4]

Yes, as I said, Jesus' followers all spoke Aramaic. But manuscript evidence indicates all NT authors (or their emanuenses) wrote the originals in Greek. Obviously, there are no original manuscripts extant.

On the topic of dating, F.F. Bruce, regarded as an authority on this topic, says:

About the middle of the last century it was confidently asserted by a very influential school of thought that some of the most important books of the New Testament, including the Gospels and the Acts, did not exist before the thirties of the second century AD. This conclusion was the result not so much of historical evidence as of philosophical presuppositions. Even then there was sufficient historical evidence to show how unfounded these theories were, as Lightfoot, Tischendorf, Tregelles and others demonstrated in their writings; but the amount of such evidence available in our own day is so much greater and more conclusive that a firstcentury date for most of the New Testament writings cannot reasonably be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be.