[banshee72]

I don't know where but I remember reading the bible in catholic grade school and I have heard from a bunch of friends that it says " "Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness" That makes no since...so is it saying there is more than one god or something in the bible? Anyone notice that? If you don't believe me look up in Genesis 1:26 .  What do you think?
 
For more information go here:

 http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-genesis1-26.htm

This is the use of the - perfectly acceptable, grammatically - plural pronoun known as the "pluralis excellentiae" - similar to the "pluralis majestatis" or "royal we."

Maybe. Maybe not.

[FlamE]

This may be due the fact that God is represented by three figures : The Father , Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Hence the use of the plural.

If a Bible was written when they say it was, then this means it doesnt mean what you just stated:

Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early 3rd century, is credited with using the words "Trinity", "person" and "substance" to explain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one in essence—not one in Person"

It was added as a theory of ONE person, which i really doubt was a God himself. Later on...

About a century later, in 325, the First Council of Nicaea established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and adopted the Nicene Creed, which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father".

Since the beginning of the 3rd century the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as "the one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Some scholars dispute the authenticity of the Trinity and argue that the doctrine is the result of "later theological interpretations of Christ's nature and function."[26][27] The concept was expressed in early writings from the beginning of the 2nd century forward, and other scholars hold that the way the New Testament repeatedly speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is such as to "compel a trinitarian understanding of God".

Trinity is an Invention of Christianity, and The Bible, specifically the part about "gods", is Old Testament, not New one....


So much of a Holy Trinity theory

I refer you to my previous answer. It is merely an archaic grammatical construct.


Your most recent reply is self-defeating, of course. Either the Bible is a truthful record or it is not.

By finding errors in one part of it you demonstrate that the rest of it cannot be considered reliable. So using the Old Testament to disprove the New simply discredits the entire Bible.

It really depends on what you want to believe on.

[jordyn]

there were a lot of different gods in the bible and if you trace Abrahams excursion out of the desert of ur it's understandable.  Way back then there were gods on every corner with each culture having their own set patheon.  This can also be traced by the changing of the name, from an "i am' in the desert to el elohim, adonai and a variety of other titles depending on which god he was merged with and which culture was more apt to see the wisdom in worshiping one rather than running around trying to appease many and often times engaging in human sacrifice and other such taboo rituals.

on your particular question the zondervans tniv study bible has this to say.  "God speaks as the creator-king, announcing his crowning work to members of his heavenly court." they have further detail which is why i love this bible. it educates you about how and why things are said, how it's influenced from the origination time and how it's changed to current times.  So it's like an art instructor saying..."here's what we're creating in class today." Showing one of his own creations that's magnificent compared to what the students can put out.

the bible is rife with errors, mistranslations and personal opinions, depending on who gained access to the texts and how it would best suit their worldly goals.  it's an issue if people accept it as "the word of God" rather than the experiences of those who first encountered him and understand how and why it has it's fallacies.  humans are fallible, gods are not, unless we choose them to be.  King james was the worse in my opinion...Constantine polluted the original message and king james trashed it with misogyny and hate.

that's why i chose my signature, if you let your heart guide you, using ideals like love, hope and faith,  it  may lead to a lot of bpersonal self sacrifice, misery and heartbreak  but you'll always be right with the universe, whoever or whatever you manifest it to be and a better person for it, people need to stop thinking like men and more like creatures in union with the universe.


the catholic church is woefully private with their understandings and failure to look into the possibility that silly constantine got things messed up using a roman mentality rather than a nomadic mentality, which is the people who the biblical god appeared to first, who followed him most ardently on  simple faith and those who were the first to worship him were considered.  Looking at the history of what the first Abrahamic people went through to become the Jews of today and the history of the texts from discovery to the nicene counsel, it clears up a lot of confusion about how the biblical god can change so frequently.

Rome mucked it all up and the original church leaders sealed it's fate.

[jordyn]

as for the trinity...it's my understanding that the father, is well...God, the son is him in the flesh and the holy spirit is what descends on the flesh and fills it with holy goodness.  Those moments when you're stuck with the most amazing spiritual high entranced by something as simple as a sunset or a breathtaking full moon and all you feel is the universe filling and swelling with all life as one glorious song  converging on that spot of nature and exploding all it's beauty and song inside your head. 

it's amazing what happens if you love first and reason later.

[Loki]

The trinity means 'god in three persons'. Its nothing new to religion --- see the triple goddess or avatars of Hindu gods.  Christianity as its predecessors borrows from other beliefs. I am not even sure that the cult of the Great Goddess was the oldest cult ... 

I refer you to my previous answer. It is merely an archaic grammatical construct.

exactly. which means its deepest meanings could be totally missed just by mere chance of poor translation?

Your most recent reply is self-defeating, of course. Either the Bible is a truthful record or it is not.

Hmm... you are now trying to make things black and white. Even if it is all bull, they had to get the inspiration from somewhere.

By finding errors in one part of it you demonstrate that the rest of it cannot be considered reliable. So using the Old Testament to disprove the New simply discredits the entire Bible.

Using Old Testament in this case works fine, cause it is the starting point of the New one. I wasnt discrediting entire Bible, just one of its many dogmas.