Was Paul a trinitarin?

[2timothy316]

Paul wrote much of the Greek scriptures. Was his goal to teach the trinity?

[placebofactor]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #16]

Onewithhim you wrote, "Isaiah 9:6,7 shows the Messiah to be the Prince of Peace and Wonderful Counselor. He is also called "mighty god." That is "El Gibbohr"--mighty god. It does not equate with Almighty God. The Hebrew for that is different. It is "El Shaddai." Jesus is never referred to as "El Shaddai," though both he and the Father can be called "El Gibbohr." Jesus is the Father of the lives of many people. A father is a life-giver, and Jesus is surely that. So we can call him "Father" in that sense.

N.W.T., Psalms 50:1, "The Divine One, God, Jehovah, has himself spoken."

K.J.B. Psalms 50:1, "The mighty God, even the LORD."

The word Divine is never used in the Old Testament with the name of God, only with men and things. It appears the Watchtower changed mighty, to divine in order to support their doctrine. And, the King James, NIV, Matthew Henry Commentary, Adam Clark, Thomson Chain-Reference Bible, R.S.V., and Cottage Bible, and another ten I own all read, "The mighty God, even the LORD (Jehovah),"

N.W.T., "The Divine One, God, Jehovah has himself spoken." It should read "mighty one."

N.W.T. Nehemiah 9:32, "And now O our God, the God great, might and fear-inspiring,"

N.W.T. Psalms 24:8, "Who, then, is the glorious King? Jehovah strong and mighty, Jehovah might in battle."

It appears the Watchtower writers in several verses changed, 'Might" to either 'Strong, Powerful or Devine" to support their teaching. Yet no other Bible supports the N.W.T. version in these verses.

N.W.T. Isaiah 1:24, "Therefore the utterance of the (true) Lord, Jehovah of armies, the Powerful One of Israel," Again the N.W.T. changed mighty, this time to Powerful.
K.J.B. "Therefore saith the LORD, the LORD of hosts, the might One of Israel,"

The Hebrew word for Divine is never, used concerning Jehovah, only men.

[bjs1]

Paul wrote much of the Greek scriptures. Was his goal to teach the trinity?

I don't know if his goal was to teach the Trinity. Rather, the trinity was the accepted background that he understood his readers already knew to be true.

Where is this proven in the scriptures? Or is this a personal belief?

I gave examples of when Paul described the doctrines within the Trinity.

The idea that Paul was more focused on living out what we believe is my overall take on his writings. I am not sure that it is worth our time to go into the details of that issue on this website.

[2timothy316]

Paul wrote much of the Greek scriptures. Was his goal to teach the trinity?

I don't know if his goal was to teach the Trinity. Rather, the trinity was the accepted background that he understood his readers already knew to be true.

Where is this proven in the scriptures? Or is this a personal belief?

I gave examples of when Paul described the doctrines within the Trinity.

What you didn't give examples of though is where "the trinity was the accepted background that he understood his readers already knew to be true."

The idea that Paul was more focused on living out what we believe is my overall take on his writings. I am not sure that it is worth our time to go into the details of that issue on this website.

Your take...yes indeed, it is your take. However, your take doesn't fit with the history of the trinity. Paul was dead when the trinity doctrine was made into doctrine and before it was even a debate. Your take tries to rewrites known history. What you'd need to do is show a reference work and not a personal 'take' that the trinity predates the date known dates the trinity became accepted in the 3rd century. Your take, your beliefs, your scripture framing etc are not proof. Though I already know you will not find any such reference that shows that the readers wrote his letters to believed in a trinity. If something like that did exist, it would rewrite the history that the trinity appeared in the mid 2nd century and then forced as doctrine in the 3rd century. As it stands, there is no historical record that the trinity teaching predates the 2nd century.

[Difflugia]

N.W.T., Psalms 50:1, "The Divine One, God, Jehovah, has himself spoken."

K.J.B. Psalms 50:1, "The mighty God, even the LORD."

The word Divine is never used in the Old Testament with the name of God, only with men and things.

What specific Hebrew word for "divine" are you talking about? Most translations only use the English word divine in the sense of divination, so what word are you claiming is only used for men and things, but not God?

It appears the Watchtower changed mighty, to divine in order to support their doctrine.

The phrase in question is "El Elohim Yahweh." It's literally "God, God Yahweh." In Hebrew, synonyms (or the same word) together are often considered to be intensifiers. "Divine God Yahweh" seems just as reasonable to me as "Mighty God Yahweh." What do you think the doctrinal difference between them is?

And, the King James, NIV, Matthew Henry Commentary, Adam Clark, Thomson Chain-Reference Bible, R.S.V., and Cottage Bible, and another ten I own all read, "The mighty God, even the LORD (Jehovah),"

So, KJV, NIV, and RSV? If the KJV reads that way, it wouldn't be a surprise if the RV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, NKJV, and ESV all do, too, since they're all revisions of the KJV. Let's check a few outside of that peculiarly narrow tradition:

• GOD's WORD: "The LORD, the only true God, has spoken."
• Common English Bible: "God, the LORD God, speaks"
• George Lamsa (Peshitta): "THE GOD of gods, the LORD"
• Robert Alter: "El, the God LORD, He spoke"
• The Geneva Bible: "The God of gods, even the Lord hath spoken"
• Septuagint: "θεὸς θεῶν κύριος ἐλάλησεν"
• NETS (Septuagint): "God of gods, the Lord, spoke"
• The Orthodox Study Bible (Septuagint): "The God of gods, the Lord, spoke"
• JPS: "God, the Lord God spoke"
• NAB: "The God of gods, the LORD, has spoken"
• The Message: "The God of gods—it’s GOD!—speaks out"
• Douay-Rheims: "The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken"

In the KJV, "Mighty God" in Psalm 50 is essentially an editorial choice that was inherited by its descendents. I'm hardly a fan of the NWT for a number of reasons, but in this case, you're chasing shadows.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #24]

Difflugia, Thanks for your reply, I respect your position. By the way, have a Happy Thanksgiving!

[Difflugia]

Difflugia, Thanks for your reply, I respect your position. By the way, have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Thanks! You, too!

[bjs1]

Paul wrote much of the Greek scriptures. Was his goal to teach the trinity?

I don't know if his goal was to teach the Trinity. Rather, the trinity was the accepted background that he understood his readers already knew to be true.

Where is this proven in the scriptures? Or is this a personal belief?

I gave examples of when Paul described the doctrines within the Trinity.

What you didn't give examples of though is where "the trinity was the accepted background that he understood his readers already knew to be true."

The idea that Paul was more focused on living out what we believe is my overall take on his writings. I am not sure that it is worth our time to go into the details of that issue on this website.

Your take...yes indeed, it is your take. However, your take doesn't fit with the history of the trinity. Paul was dead when the trinity doctrine was made into doctrine and before it was even a debate. Your take tries to rewrites known history. What you'd need to do is show a reference work and not a personal 'take' that the trinity predates the date known dates the trinity became accepted in the 3rd century. Your take, your beliefs, your scripture framing etc are not proof. Though I already know you will not find any such reference that shows that the readers wrote his letters to believed in a trinity. If something like that did exist, it would rewrite the history that the trinity appeared in the mid 2nd century and then forced as doctrine in the 3rd century. As it stands, there is no historical record that the trinity teaching predates the 2nd century.

If you mean the word "trinity," then I agree that we don't see that until the beginning of the third century.

If you mean the doctrines that make up the trinity, then those are found in Paul's writings as I have demonstrated.

[SiNcE_1985]

Paul wrote much of the Greek scriptures. Was his goal to teach the trinity?

His goal was to teach salvation through Jesus Christ and whatever other gold nuggets of truth that comes with the program.

[2timothy316]

Paul wrote much of the Greek scriptures. Was his goal to teach the trinity?

I don't know if his goal was to teach the Trinity. Rather, the trinity was the accepted background that he understood his readers already knew to be true.

Where is this proven in the scriptures? Or is this a personal belief?

I gave examples of when Paul described the doctrines within the Trinity.

What you didn't give examples of though is where "the trinity was the accepted background that he understood his readers already knew to be true."

The idea that Paul was more focused on living out what we believe is my overall take on his writings. I am not sure that it is worth our time to go into the details of that issue on this website.

Your take...yes indeed, it is your take. However, your take doesn't fit with the history of the trinity. Paul was dead when the trinity doctrine was made into doctrine and before it was even a debate. Your take tries to rewrites known history. What you'd need to do is show a reference work and not a personal 'take' that the trinity predates the date known dates the trinity became accepted in the 3rd century. Your take, your beliefs, your scripture framing etc are not proof. Though I already know you will not find any such reference that shows that the readers wrote his letters to believed in a trinity. If something like that did exist, it would rewrite the history that the trinity appeared in the mid 2nd century and then forced as doctrine in the 3rd century. As it stands, there is no historical record that the trinity teaching predates the 2nd century.

If you mean the word "trinity," then I agree that we don't see that until the beginning of the third century.

If you mean the doctrines that make up the trinity, then those are found in Paul's writings as I have demonstrated.

The trinity indeed was made up. But not in Paul's time which you still have not proven it was. It's your word vs history and history says that the concept of the trinity wasn't made up until the 3rd century by a council of men who never met Paul.

[onewithhim]

Paul wrote much of the Greek scriptures. Was his goal to teach the trinity?

He taught that Jesus is God, such as in Philippians 2: 5-6a, "In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God..."

No he did not teach that Jesus is God. He always distinguished that Jesus and God were two separate individuals. Read any of his letters to the congregations and you can see in the first few sentences of his greetings that there is God and then there is His Son, Jesus. Read Romans 1:1-4; ICorinth. 1:3; IICorinth. 1:1-3; Galatians 1:3; and so on. There is no hint of Jesus being God. Not even in Philippians 2:6. Jesus was of the same nature as God, but that merely meant that Jesus was spirit in nature, just like God. God is a Spirit (John 4:24). So was Jesus and now is. (IPeter 3:18)

Jesus was humble, and we are admonished to be humble as he was. If he was humble he wouldn't have given any thought to be equal to God, as many versions of the Bible bring out. And check out ICorinth. 15:24-28. Jesus will hand over the Kingdom to his God and Father...so that his Father, God, will be all things to everyone. Paul definitely did not teach a Trinity.