Christians have the Trinity. Father, So and The Holy Ghost. Hindus have the Trinity. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. There are some very recognizable parallels between the Christian trinity and the Hundu Trinity. In fact, many people believe that the Christian Trinity was based on the Hindu Trinity. Christains have God, The Creator who created all. Hindus have Brahama, The Generator who created all. Christuians have Jesus, the Son. The one who has come down to earth to show the people the light and the way to heaven. God's son. Our physical representation of Heaven on Earth. Hindus have Vishnu, the Organizer. The one who comes down to Earth (10 times by most accounts) to show the people the light and the way to Nirvana. Christians have The Holy Ghost. The one who will come down to Earth at the time of Revelation and destroy the inhabitants of the world (I am still a little unclear on his whole role in this)/ The Holy Ghost is the force called upon to rid people of Demonic possessions. Hindus have Shiva, The Destroyer. Shiva is the champion of Demonic activity. Shiva is the one who will eventually destroy mankind and the world. My descriptions may be a little vague and slightly off-target, but it is late and I am tired. Anyway, my question is... What other religions (if any) share similar beliefs? Are there other places that I can find a trinitarian belief system? Are there other indirect parallels that can be drawn from other religions to these three aspects of these two religions? Any thoughts?
Supposively the Egyptians had a trinity like system. None of these are really like the Holy Trinity. The Trinity is One God of three persons. I doubt the Holy Trinity was based on the Hindu trinity becuase the Holy Trinity can be derived from the bible. No. Jesus will come. The holy ghost came at pentecost 2000 years before.
I would like to know more about that. Do you have any information? Well, actually, it would more similar than you think. Many people consider Hinduism polytheistic, but that is not exactly right. These three Gods are all different aspects of Brahaman. It is pretty difficult to categorize Hinduism because it is so splintered. Even moreso than Christainty, but there are X amount of different flavors. The religion is very open to personal interpretation, which is why you will get so many different answers to the same question asked of different Hindus.
One, The christian trinity and hindu trinity significantly differ. Christian trinity is somewhat 3 aspects of the same God. Though appear to be 3 different entities there is no basic difference between them is the christian idea. Hindu trinity is based on functionality. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are deities for Creation, Protection and Destruction (some say destruction of ignorance) of the universe and creatures, respectively. And Shiva is not demonic. Like Vishnu he too destroys the demons and liberate souls from bondage of birth-death cycle. Hierachial level Vishnu and Shiva share higher place than Brahma becasue the hindus view creation is not the fundamental wish of God but subsequent protection and destruction are, in some form of relief. Brahman is different from deity brahma. Brahman is the supreme soul and Unique God and trinity is its 3 manifestations. Basically at higher level all religions have the same underlying principle. God can manifest himself in different entities only for the sake of souls.
No, they are not identical, but there are some pretty obvious (at least to me) parallels between them. What I am looking for is similar parallels regarding Trinitarian beliefs and the roles of those dieties linking these religions with other religions.
i can't think of a religion in which 3 is not a magic number. i imagine it stems from the original pagan religions that the others borrowed from.
Were all "Original pagan religions" the same, or even similar? Did was 3 an important number in them and is it an important number in many religions today? What about Buddhism, or Judaism, or Islam, or Shinto or the Greek pantheon the like? I'm not an expert on any of these but I don't know of any significance dealing with three. Also, could you be more specific about what you mean by "the original pagan religions"? Grouping them all together like that seems a bit silly and dismissive.
being that pagan is a catchall used by christians for non christians i would say that pagan religions were not "origonal" because they were contemporarys of christianity, anything older than christianity (and them classifying folks religions as pagan) would be closer to the origin of religion and hence origonal.
the holy trinity, a catholic invention.. the holy trinity, as we know it today, was invented by the Roman Catholic church in 325AD as the council of Nicea. There, is was decided that the Christian religion had to adapt to the belief systems of Europe in order to gain more followers. The predominant belief system, at the time, among the non christians of europe was of the "Three-fold goddess" or "The Maid, the Mother and the Crone" each had a specific duty in the triad. The maid was the purest of the three. She was the power of innocense and protected children. All children were dear to her. The Mother was the goddess of fertility. She was in charge of making sure that all was bountiful. The Crone was over wisdom. She was the teacher, the font of all wisdom. These three were one in the same in that proto pagan religion and were quite popular among the people of europe before Christianity came around. In fact, most of the religions of Europe have some version of this belief. It is believed that the "Holy Trinity" was designed to be a counter to the is religion or a way to show that "the christian faith is actually the same faith you are following now, just in a different guise.
Not really. There is a proof text based on the 4 gospels and the old testament, so the concept existed around 80AD but was not given the name of the Holy Trinity. Jesus says "I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" so putting the three into one is nothing special.
seeing there is a bit of pagan talk in here i thought i might add that christ's birthday, or christmas, is actually a pagan holiday. the church could not wipe out this holiday as it held significance to almost everyone as it was based on harvest and seasonal changes and the like and was linked to things like "spirits" and pagan figures. so the church just converted it so people would give up this notion. it was some dicey dealng by the church to get people to believe because people would not accept the church's abolishment of this holiday and therefore people weren't accepting the church. pretty fancy manipulation aye? i think if anyone wants perspective on their respective christian beliefs, they should look back at about 1500AD. most people don't realise that henry the 8th created the protestant belief because the catholic church wouldn't let him divorce his third wife (one of his wife's anyway) and to allow the english throne better social control over england by making god synonmous with the king. that is a great reason to form a new church- social control. don't forget the corrput catholic church that was WEALTHY beyond that of the kings and queens of the times- mainly because if you wanted to get into gods good books you had to BUY things from the catholic curch. all christianity has stemmed from these two (protestantism from catholiscim at the beginning) doctrines. people should look at the actual history of the religions they follow if they want to find fallacies within their church. i forgot to add and this is in reply to an earlier different thread where i stated that catholic sermons were given in latin and i got a reply that most people probably knew this language. this is not true at all. hardly anyone went to school in the 15-16 hundreds and very few knew how to speak latin. i'm saying this to show just how another aspect of the church has had to change as people were getting bored and not turning up to sermons so the catholic church changed the sermons to english. to me this shows fallacy within church doctrines, but hey, that's just me.
Henry the VIII could be described nothing short of a serial killer. The Catholic church would not allow him to divorse his first wife. Also Henry VIII did not create protestant beliefs. He just broke away by making himself head of church; he did not accept Luther's beliefs. I think only the mass could be done in latin because everyone had it memorized. The sermon could have been done in the native language though.
ah, but they did. it was around the third wife that the catholic church said they would not let henry divorce this wife. but he did anyway. he did not create protestant belief's, luthor and others did that. what he did do was create the protestant church, with luthors beliefs. you'll also find that he did subscribed to this church as predestination became a part of the english church, as did many other luthorian beliefs. sorry dude. before the 1600's the only people that were allowed to interpret scripture was preists and everything was done in latin, most people had no idea what was going on during the sermons and were losing interest, that's why they were converted into english- to keep a hold of people's money. dispute it you might but i know this for a fact. the first english translation of the bible came along in the 1600's through england- it was then that you got the explosion of different christian churches as for the first time the averaging joe could read the bible, instead of the select few who knew how to read latin (mainly the catholic preists as they were thought in what todays would correlate to bible scholl). it's a plumped a form of social control, or was, and perhaps still is.
Today's sermon is brought to you by the number 3 Fortunately, the sermon is short. 3 is a significant number because it is one more than two. I'm not joking about that. Zero is the mystery, one is the self, two is the union, and three the offspring. Life is unique because it is one of the only observable times in the Universe that 1 + 1 = 3. Three is also the number of joints Big Bird has smoked today. (Don't ask about that last ....) :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
He created the Anglian church however it did not house Luther's beliefs. Actually before the Anglian split, Henry VIII wrote against Luther. You don't understand what they mean by interpret... I cannot use my own intepretations for official church doctrin. I cannot go up against the authority of the Church and remain Catholic. I cannot interpret the 7 sacraments anyway I want to. Anyways English translations were done before 1600, actually try 300AD http://www.godsambassadors.com/english_bible_versions.htm 3 shows up in many places... http://www.churchofsatan.org/sermon12.html
well, he still incorprated luthorian beliefs into the anglican church. you may not interpret church doctrine, but in the 1600's the reason for the explosion in different christian sub-entities was because of the english translation of the bible- allowing all people to interpret the bible their own way. translations in english may have been done before, but who had access to them and how widely were they published? i'm guessing not very many copies were made and those that were weren't open to the general public. no, it was definately the 1600's translation that was the most important as it allowed the bible to become mainstream as everyone could read them (almost everyone) and printing presses existed to allow the bible to be printed over and over again, becoming widely available. either way, i look back and see a much simpler form of church than todays one, which has to employ complex ideas and forms of thought to keep a hold of people. an example is the way heaven is now perceived. back in the 1500- 1600's heaven was literally behind the clouds, was a place where everyone was warm and was well fed and no-body got hurt. today it is..... actually i don't now what heaven is thought to be these days, but it is not that same simple idea that kept the masses coming back. heaven back then was a better life than the normal life experienced on earth. today (and no-one still bothers to answer my questions about heaven) i don't know what incentive heaven holds to anyone.
