Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]3. It was assimilated through Helenistic philosophy, itself a manifestation of earlier religions, expressed in Greek Philosophical terms not found in scripture and misapplied to God.

Could you substantiate this third claim? I do not believe that Hellenistic philosophy was necessarily a manifestation at all of earlier religions. That said, I am not sure what you mean by Hellenistic philosophy. The ancient world was philosophically diverse.[/b]

i think beetle a while back posted text describing how Indian trinitarians concepts were assimilated and manifested through Platonic writing, i dont have time to source them or look them up, i need to go to work. As to Greek philosophical terms, we find statements like 'nature', 'substance', 'Godhead', being applied in an unprecedented manner to God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what you think and what truth is are two distinct propositions, i resent your defamatory claims of dishonesty and i have provided ample evidence that my definition of the trinity is as set out by the Athanasian Creed, your vain and quite frankly scurrilous attempts to deny this, in the face of incontrovertible evidence are naught but a sham. But th ...[text shortened]... religions, expressed in Greek Philosophical terms not found in scripture and misapplied to God.

If you will look back at your first post on this thread you will see your
definition for the Trinity mentions "modes", I quote, "these three “Persons”
are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the
divine essence exists." This I have been trying to tell you is not the
orthodox definition of the trinity, but one used by certain cults. I referred
you to a wikipedia article that backed up my claim. You, however, refuse
to acknowledge that you even mentioned "modes" but insist it is exactly
from the Athanasian Creed. So I went to the trouble for you to show you
that the information you had received from the JW organization was a lie
by quoting the Athanasian Creed.

1. True, I do not know of any doctrines that Christ or Paul mentioned.
I am not aware that there was doctrines at that time. Even when it was
first formulated by Tertullian in the second century it was not a doctrine.

2. It is my understanding that it was the Roman Catholic Church at the
request of the Emperor Constintine that dogmas in the church began to
be declared along with the doctrines.

3. This is a false an unprovable statement, there was no pagan religions
among the Greeks that had a Triune God. They only had Triads of gods,
not a Trinity. And I gave references for this which I suspect you refused
to read, because you would rather keep your head up your ASS.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you will look back at your first post on this thread you will see your
definition for the Trinity mentions "modes", I quote, "these three “Persons”
are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the
divine essence exists." This I have been trying to tell you is not the
orthodox definition of the trinity, but one used by certai which I suspect you refused
to read, because you would rather keep your head up your ASS.

no my definition states quite the opposite, here it is again,

'there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost)' i mention no such thing as not separate and not distinct, where you are getting that from, God only knows, and what is more , it is enshrined in the Athanasian Creed, which you yourself produced, here it is again,

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

1. thankyou, Paul nor Christ mentioned it, it is therefore an extra biblical doctrine
2. yes it was, that is why it remains a part of church dogma to this very day, thanks to one pagan emperor.
3. its a true and provable statement, the use of terms like 'essence', which you yourself have produced are self evident that it is born of Greek philosophical thought, we find no such terms in the words of Christ, nor of Paul, in fact, we are counselled against adopting elementary philosophical ideals described by Paul as 'an empty deception.'
4.please leave my ASS alone i dont want a deviant like you contemplating its aesthetic qualities.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no my definition states quite the opposite, here it is again,

'there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost)' i mention no such thing as not separate and not distinct, where you are getting that from, God only knows, and what is more , it is enshrined in the Athanasian Creed, which you yourself produced, here it is again, e leave my ASS alone i dont want a deviant like you contemplating its aesthetic qualities.

Trinity
Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. Not a Bible teaching.

The above, I copied and pasted directly from your first post on this thread.
You either did not read your own post or as twhitehead says, "You are
being dishonest". I don't want to have to say any more about you head or
your ass again so "wake up" and READ your own post. Stop denying the
truth and we can be friends, as we should be.

ADDITION: note the second sentence says "three modes" - Modalism, not
the orthodox Trinity. The date of your post was 27 Jun '11 06:12 .

Originally posted by RJHinds
Trinity
Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize es" - Modalism, not
the orthodox Trinity. The date of your post was 27 Jun '11 06:12 .

please note this statement, in context,

Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes

that is something distinct, different from, other than, separate to, the Athanasian Creed creed. Do you understand?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
please note this statement, in context,

[b]Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes

that is something distinct, different from, other than, separate to, the Athanasian Creed creed. Do you understand?[/b]

Yes, I understand that. But what you don't seem to understand is that
statement should not be included as part of the definition of the Trinity.
The orthodox definition allows for the persons to be separate and
individual. It does not restrict them to being modes of operation. It is
only the cults that restrict God in that way.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]3. It was assimilated through Helenistic philosophy, itself a manifestation of earlier religions, expressed in Greek Philosophical terms not found in scripture and misapplied to God.

Could you substantiate this third claim? I do not believe that Hellenistic philosophy was necessarily a manifestation at all of earlier religions. That said, I am not sure what you mean by Hellenistic philosophy. The ancient world was philosophically diverse.[/b]

Well, I could -and I actually did, but perhaps you missed it back then, so here we are again!

At

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=123145&page=3#post_2323979

you asked:
-- “Also, we have gotten sidetracked. What I am asking for is details about where, when and to what extent this doctrine originated. Dogmas only emerge through history and even if the Trikaya was mentioned, even declared, at the First Buddhist Council (whatever that is), it would still have to be taught, studied and spread to other Buddhist places. I am wondering how this doctrine could have infiltrated the whole Christian world from the Greece and Rome all the way to Egypt and to Africa. And given that many early church fathers were at pains to distance themselves from pagans and even when borrowing from Plato, keen to criticise him, why didn't they mention Buddhism explicitly? I know of no references to the Trikaya in early Christianity. Surely it would have been good ammunition for non-Trinitarians?”


I replied you as following:

Details I offered you so many! Why is it so hard for you to google and conduct your own research regarding the topics “First Buddhist Council”, “Graeco-Buddhism”, “King Ashoka”, “Edicts of Ashoka”, “Dhammarakkhita", “Mahavamsa XII” and regarding every other core of the pieces of information I offered at my first post of the second page of this thread? You did not even try to get information about the First Buddhist Council -so I understand why you are still failing to see which way these ideas were communicated from the East to the West. Well, they were communicated thanks to the Ionian philosophers, and thanks to the Buddhist monks sent by Ashoka all around the (known back then) world, and thanks to the free, uncensored circulation of the philosophical and religious doctrines between East and Greece. Of course during Alexander the Great and later on the Hellenistic Kingdom remained for a long period a sparkling, huge and open area between Greece and India, and the communication became even easier.

Many scholars have asserted that themes found in Buddhist texts and doctrines can be found in the New Testament in more or less recognizable forms. I understand that if you start looking for facts and evidence about Trikaya/ Trinity you will be obliged to enter into a field unfamiliar and unsympathetic to you, however this is the case and the archetypal idea stands -we are not talking about a “triad” but about “Trinity/ Trikaya”. You may start from studying Greaco-Buddhism too: according to Diog. Laertius, Pyrrho (360-270BC) was together with Alexander, and after an interaction with the Indian ascetics for 18 months he returned back in Greece and he offered immediately his philosophy, which is based directly and openly on Stoicism and on the Indian philosophy. What makes you think that Pyrrho knew something that the Pythagoreans, and thus Plato, were ignoring?

Furthermore, it is crystal clear that the Athenians were definitely aware of similar (not identical to Paul’s) Eastern religious doctrines. Plato’s theory is full of similar approaches and the communication link between the West and the East was by that time so well established that the historians Strabo and Nicolaus of Damascus noted that the Indian sarmana “…Zarmanochegas, a native of Bargosa, had immortalized himself according to the custom of his country”, as it was written on his tomb. This action (the Indian set happily himself on fire in order to let his spirit break free) took place in Athens, and his tomb was visible at the time of Plutarch; therefore it is obvious that the Athenians had the chance to see and talk to various religious personages and ascetics from India (gymnosophists/ saddhus) and from other Eastern countries before, during and after Jesus’ death. BTW, from another perspective this is the reason why the Athenians were not particularly amazed with Paul's gospel -they probably just wanted to pin him down in Agora by means of their dialectic dexterity as they used to do with every "weirdo", and to engage him in a conversation aiming to prove in front of everybody that he was talking nonsense.

Regarding your next question I clarify that the masters and the disciples of the basic 6 Buddhist schools conceive sunyata, Trikaya ect the same way at the level of the non-conceptual awareness -but the evaluation of the mind within each school is conducted by means of different ways, and this is the reason why the doctrine of Trikaya took its final form (a form accepted from all the schools) by the 4th century CE. So the Trikayan concept was not known to the ones who were not versed in Buddhism, whilst the ones who were well versed they wanted either to built on it and to bring up their own, all new approach (BTW this is exactly how the Presocratic philosophers were acting), or they were not eager to spread the ...“good news” the same way as the Christians.

Finally methinks that the non-Trinitarian Christians are satisfied to claim simply that “…the Trinity has pagan origins, period.”, and actually as far as I am concerned they all mean that the Christian Trinity has its origin in Platonist Trinity. Since this opinion is obviously a fact they were never bothered to check deeper and to find out which way and why Plato brought up his Trinity, and this sounds logical because they want merely to prove that "Trinity is a product of paganism" and not to offer an evaluation of Trikaya and Plato's Trinity. And methinks the …“ammunition” is indeed so strong that the Christian religion is even today divided in Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian denominations.
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Well, I could -and I actually did, but perhaps you missed it back then, so here we are again!

At

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=123145&page=3#post_2323979

you asked:
-- “Also, we have gotten sidetracked. What I am asking for is details about where, when and to what extent this doctrine originated. Dogmas only emerge th ian religion is even today divided in Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian denominations.
😵

The following is from britannica.com online encyclopedis:

trikaya, (Sanskrit: “three bodies&rdquo😉, in Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of the three bodies, or modes of being, of the Buddha: the dharmakaya (body of essence), the unmanifested mode, and the supreme state of absolute knowledge; the sambhogakaya (body of enjoyment), the heavenly mode; and the nirmanakaya (body of transformation), the earthly mode, the Buddha as he appeared on earth or manifested himself in an earthly bodhisattva, an earthly king, a painting, or a natural object, such as a lotus.

The concept of trikaya applies not only to the historical Buddha, Gautama, but to all other buddhas as well.

According to wikipedia it was not until the 4th century CE that the Trikaya
Doctrine assumed the form that we now know. So it appears that the
Christian idea came before this Buddhist doctrine by at least 100 years.
Although, it is true that it is closer to the Trinity Doctrine than the pagan
Triads; but it is more like the modalism of Sabellius than the Trinity of
Tertullian. So the Buddhist idea of the trikaya may have been borrowed
from the ideas of Sabellius. In any case, it is not the same as the orthodox
Christian Trinity doctrine.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The following is from britannica.com online encyclopedis:

trikaya, (Sanskrit: “three bodies&rdquo😉, in Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of the three bodies, or modes of being, of the Buddha: the dharmakaya (body of essence), the unmanifested mode, and the supreme state of absolute knowledge; the sambhogakaya (body of enjoyment), the heavenly mode; and the nirma ...[text shortened]... deas of Sabellius. In any case, it is not the same as the orthodox
Christian Trinity doctrine.

ox·y·mo·ron (ks-môrn, -mr-)
n. pl. ox·y·mo·ra (-môr, -mr) or ox·y·mo·rons
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

True Christianity / trinity.......

Anyway....... So you are 100% absolutly positive that your trinity
is completely supported by the Bible and has absolutely no pagan influances at all in any way?
And are you sure you understand completely what paganism is in God's eyes?
Not yours but God's.

Originally posted by galveston75
ox·y·mo·ron (ks-môrn, -mr-)
n. pl. ox·y·mo·ra (-môr, -mr) or ox·y·mo·rons
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

True Christianity / trinity.......

Anyway....... So you are 100% absolutly positive that your trinity
is completely supported by the Bible an ...[text shortened]... are you sure you understand completely what paganism is in God's eyes?
Not yours but God's.

Let's play safe and make it only 99.9%

Originally posted by RJHinds
Let's play safe and make it only 99.9%

would you drink a glass of water that was 0.01 percent poison?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
would you drink a glass of water that was 0.01 percent poison?

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The following is from britannica.com online encyclopedis:

trikaya, (Sanskrit: “three bodies&rdquo😉, in Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of the three bodies, or modes of being, of the Buddha: the dharmakaya (body of essence), the unmanifested mode, and the supreme state of absolute knowledge; the sambhogakaya (body of enjoyment), the heavenly mode; and the nirma ...[text shortened]... deas of Sabellius. In any case, it is not the same as the orthodox
Christian Trinity doctrine.

Wiki stinks, and its info regarding this matter is bonkers. On page 39 of the RHP Forum archive you can spot and check out my thread titled "Christian Trinity and Trikaya", 22 Dec. 2009.
In case you have further questions, kindly please don't hesitate to ask me for clarifications and bibliography
😵

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you will look back at your first post on this thread you will see your
definition for the Trinity mentions "modes", I quote, "these three “Persons”
are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the
divine essence exists." This I have been trying to tell you is not the
orthodox definition of the trinity, but one used by certai ...[text shortened]... which I suspect you refused
to read, because you would rather keep your head up your ASS.

So Constintine started the whole trinity thingy then that we now see today in so called Christine churches. Finally we're getting somewhare here.
You do realize what your saying here don't you? I hope so but I truely doubt it....

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
would you drink a glass of water that was 0.01 percent poison?

Or just 1 itty bitty brick out of a million in a Damn?