There was a man named John who was a disciple of Jesus. He wrote a letter/gospel and started it by explaining or at least trying to explain the trinity. It starts like so: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made".
I've never met anyone that disagrees that john is referring to Jesus when he uses the word "word"(the Greek word is logos. The definition is: a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ). If you have a different interpritation or disagree totally please step forward. I would love to hear your thoughts. Most people skip past vs 4-13 and go right to this part for their proof that Jesus is the Son of God. "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth".
To wrap this whole trinity thing up, here's a synopsis of what we are expected to understand. We have God who created all things. We have Jesus, His Son who was/is God in human form and walked this earth but was crucified and died but rose from the grave and there's this Third illusive part of the trinity called the Holy Spirit that could only show up permanently after Jesus died (see Acts Chapter 2).
As hard as it is to understand or wrap my head around, I believe this to be true. Do I have physical proof to back up my beliefs? No more than an atheist has to disprove it. I have experiences in my life that I would love to share with anyone who wants to hear them that I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt prove my beliefs. (This next part is where the religous hackles go up) I was taught that the "holy bible" is our physical proof. But a book isn't physical proof to me. Now don't get me wrong, I love reading the bible. I gain a lot from it but one of my biggest problems with modern day christian teaching is that you are told not to base beliefs on experience but to base it on "the word"(the bible, not the logos). The emphasis has been shifted because its too "dangerous" otherwise. You might get mislead or think for yourself if you dare stray away from the only book you should ever read. Too much emphasis is put on the bible and not enough on the actual relationship you should have with (the real trinity).
I was taught an illustration for as why to think this way. The story goes like this. When the federal government trains treasury workers to find fraudulent/fake currency. They lock them in a room with the real thing. They study it. They feel it. They eat,breathe, sleep it. That way they will recognize a fake when they see it because its nothing like they've ever seen before.
So it's taught that you only read the bible so when you hear anything else you will know it's "a fake".
Christians are isolating themselves from the world by doing this. Below is a clip with an example of what I'm trying to say.
Agnostics vs. Believers game show clip
As you can see, the christians are out of touch with reality and are completely isolated. When I saw this I was utterly embarrassed to be lumped into the "christian" group.
OK, I'm tryin to wrap this up...
In a nutshell, by only reading one book we have replaced a member of the trinity. This is what I like to call "The New Trinity". Which consists of: God, Jesus and the holy bible.
I'm on a personal quest to open the "blind eyes" to see that the new trinity isn't a good change. In this instance, Change isn't good. Bring back the original trinity :)
(steps off of soap box)
I think this article says what I was trying to say, but a little more eloquently.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/skye-jethani/has-the-bible-become-an-i_b_922324.html