Trinity

[Ross]

Where did this concept come from?

I would suggest it began with John 1:1

[tam]

Peace to you,

Where did this concept come from?

I would suggest it began with John 1:1

I would suggest the concept of the trinity came long before John 1:1. Such as with triple deities; deities with triple forms or purposes, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity


The concept of a trinity (in various forms) has been around for a long time.


The thing is, God (the Most Holy One of Israel, the God and Father of Christ) made a point of emphasizing the fact that He is ONE. ONE God. Not one in three. Not three in one. ONE.

This is why Jews (and Muslims) cannot accept the trinity (and rightly so).

God is ONE.


God = the Father (the God and Father of Christ), the Most Holy One, whose name is JAH.

Christ on the other hand = the SON of God, the HOLY One of God, and whose name is Jaheshua (meaning JAH saves; savior of JAH).





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Ross]

I would suggest the concept of the trinity came long before John 1:1. Such as with triple deities; deities with triple forms or purposes, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity
The concept of a trinity (in various forms) has been around for a long time.

While I would agree with you; my thread in this forum, as a Bible debate forum, is in reference to the Trinity teaching within Christianity.
And my aim is to prove that the concept came from the Bible itself and not from Paganism.

The thing is, God (the Most Holy One of Israel, the God and Father of Christ) made a point of emphasizing the fact that He is ONE. ONE God. Not one in three. Not three in one. ONE.
This is why Jews (and Muslims) cannot accept the trinity (and rightly so).
God is ONE.

The Prologue of John added new understanding, especially John 1: 1, 2, 14. Have you read this thread?

[MissKate13]

[MissKate13]

[tam]

Peace to you,

The Greek Septuagint version of the Masoretic Text renders "In the beginning" of Gen 1:1 as 'EN ARCHE', the same description as John uses, so his words are an obvious reference and further explanation of Gen1:1.

Thus an explanation after all of that time of "Let US make man in OUR image."
God is more than one.

Is that what Christ said? That God is more than one?

Mark 12:29.

As for, "Let US make man in OUR image", this is simply God speaking to His Son, through whom God made the universe.

"On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. 2But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe."

I would suggest the concept of the trinity came long before John 1:1. Such as with triple deities; deities with triple forms or purposes, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity
The concept of a trinity (in various forms) has been around for a long time.

While I would agree with you; my thread in this forum, as a Bible debate forum, is in reference to the Trinity teaching within Christianity.
And my aim is to prove that the concept came from the Bible itself and not from Paganism.

If you want to set aside the evidence of various trinity-type deities that existed before the 'trinity' and attempt to show that it came from the bible instead, even then... the trinity is not something that Christ taught. The OT is exceedingly clear that God is one. Not more than one. Not three in one or one in three. It is even worked into the commandments (that Christ repeated when asked what was the most important commandment):

Hear, O Israel: [YHWH] our God, [YHWH] is One. And you shall love [YHWH] your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. Deuteronomy 6:4

So it is not taught by Christ. It is not taught in the OT. There are various verses that work against it in the NT.

It is something that men came up with after the fact, retrofitting verses to make them appear to fit a doctrine. Same as the doctrine that Christ is Michael. Christ did not teach that He is Michael (the arkangel) any more than He taught that He is God (the MOST Holy One of Israel, "YHWH") or part of a trinity.

Christ taught that He is the Son of God. The Chosen One of JAH. The Holy One of God.

Why are His words not enough?

On a quick point: one might think there would have been a bit more of a stir if Christ had suddenly reversed that teaching that God is one to instead teach that God is more than one (three to be precise). But no one asked how could God be more than one (or three, or three in one, or one in three).

The thing is, God (the Most Holy One of Israel, the God and Father of Christ) made a point of emphasizing the fact that He is ONE. ONE God. Not one in three. Not three in one. ONE.
This is why Jews (and Muslims) cannot accept the trinity (and rightly so).
God is ONE.

The Prologue of John added new understanding, especially John 1: 1, 2, 14. Have you read this thread?

[/quote]

Dear Ross, what you are suggesting is not just new understanding. It is a different teaching altogether. Like how sometimes jw 'new light' is not added understanding, but a completely different teaching contradicting the first. You are saying (based perhaps on what other men or religion have said) that God is more than one. Christ said, repeating, that God is one. Mark 12:29



"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him." Luke 9:35




Peace again to you.

[Ross]

Is that what Christ said? That God is more than one?

tam, one question at a time please. It is difficult to answer and cover very long posts, and when one does, bits can get missed or overlooked.
John 1:1 certainly explains, I believe, that God is more than one, as does Genesis chapter one and two. I have already explained this earlier in the thread. If you do not agree with any of my comments then no problem, I am only attempting to explain how I perceive these scriptures.

Is that what Christ said? That God is more than one? Not directly perhaps. But the Bible explains a lot of what Christ didn't actually say. If you believe the Bible to be the inspired by God authority, then does it matter that the utterance was not directly through The Christ?

[Ross]

As for, "Let US make man in OUR image", this is simply God speaking to His Son, through whom God made the universe.

"On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. 2But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe."

Perhaps. But one ignores Genesis chapter one and verse two at one's peril:

"And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."

Given the prominence of the Spirit of God in creation, dominating verse two of Genesis chapter one, and the prominence of the Holy Spirit in the NT, how is it possible to ignore and treat as insignificant the presence of this other facet of God?

[Miles]

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #65]

If you want to set aside the evidence of various trinity-type deities that existed before the 'trinity' and attempt to show that it came from the bible instead,

Just to note here that it is known that Christianitie's many beliefs could be shown to have derived from more older religious beliefs.

1. NON-CHRISTIAN CLAIMS OF APOTHEOSIS AND RESURRECTION
As part of a dialogue between atheists and theists,l Robert Price has recently
charged that not enough attention has been paid to non-Christian religious
phenomena. In particular, Price points to reports of post-death phenomena
found in other belief systems, citing cases where ancient heroes were said to
have experienced apotheosis (which consists of being taken to heaven and
divinized) or where they supposedly appeared to their followers after death,
usually to comfort them. 2
Such claims are by no means rare, especially since the emergence of the
History of Religions school in the late nineteenth century, which often
focused attention on ancient mythology and on the mystery religions, in particular. {SOURCE}

It could even be said that the biblical story of "Jesus" was modelled upon former beliefs of other religions which existed before Christianity...so your pointing that out re the trinity, also allows for the pointing out re other biblical events describing things borrowed from other religions/pagan sources et al...

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #65]

If you want to set aside the evidence of various trinity-type deities that existed before the 'trinity' and attempt to show that it came from the bible instead,

Just to note here that it is known that Christianitie's many beliefs could be shown to have derived from more older religious beliefs.

1. NON-CHRISTIAN CLAIMS OF APOTHEOSIS AND RESURRECTION
As part of a dialogue between atheists and theists,l Robert Price has recently
charged that not enough attention has been paid to non-Christian religious
phenomena. In particular, Price points to reports of post-death phenomena
found in other belief systems, citing cases where ancient heroes were said to
have experienced apotheosis (which consists of being taken to heaven and
divinized) or where they supposedly appeared to their followers after death,
usually to comfort them. 2
Such claims are by no means rare, especially since the emergence of the
History of Religions school in the late nineteenth century, which often
focused attention on ancient mythology and on the mystery religions, in particular. {SOURCE}

It could even be said that the biblical story of "Jesus" was modelled upon former beliefs of other religions which existed before Christianity...so your pointing that out re the trinity, also allows for the pointing out re other biblical events describing things borrowed from other religions/pagan sources et al...

Yes, that could be, but please note that I did not say the trinity is false because it is shown in other religions or cultures. There is some truth in all religions (how else to mislead the elect?) as well as falsehood in them all.

But the concept of the trinity existed before John 1:1. (not that John 1:1 proves a trinity)

The trinity is an erroneous doctrine - not because it is shown in other religions - but because it is not what Christ taught about His God and Father. It is not present in the OT. Just the opposite. God is one <- that is present in the OT and Christ repeated that. This is clearly stated in the Ot and to Israel and for good reason (in addition to the fact that it is true): other cultures had multiple gods/godheads/triple gods/etc. None of these were the God of Israel. The God of Israel was ONE. Not three. Not three in one. Not one in three. Not triplicate. Not more than one. One.



Peace again to you.