When did belief in a Trinity begin and why?

[polonius]

This thread is a follow-on to a previous post, but one which clearly should be treated as a separate subject.

The traditional Jewish Shema taught “Hear of Israel. The Lord is One.� And this belief was held by the early Christian-Jews (in a sect called “The Way�) which remained united with conventual Judaism.

About 85 AD, the Christians began to assert that their Messiah was divine himself. This was the parting of the ways with Judaism. The Christians wre labeled as “minim� (or apostates) and a condemnation included in the 18 Benedictions a prayer said daily by the Jews.Christians, of course, were banned from Jewish synagogues.

What the Christians developed is the belief that there were really two persons in the Messiah, or Binitarianism. Claims of a third person were added later.

“Binitarianism is the belief that the one true God exists as two Persons (the Father and the Son). Binitarianism is distinguished from Trinitarianism (God exists as three Persons) and Unitarianism (God exists as only one Person). It is also distinguished from bitheism (the belief in two gods). Binitarianism has never been a popular view of God and is held by a small number of groups today.�

[bjs]

Bjs posted

This is why I did not say that calling Jesus "Lord" established that he is divine. Rather, I pointed out that in Acts 2:39 Peter called Jesus “the Lord our God.�

It is not the fact that he called Jesus our “Lord� that means Jesus is divine. What matters for this issues is that Peter said that the Lord Jesus is “our God.�

Acts 2:39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.�

From the dictionary for the term “lord�:
: one having power and authority over others:
a : a ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due
b : one of whom a fee or estate is held in feudal tenure
c : an owner of land or other real (see 1REAL 1) property
d obsolete : the male head of a household

In the passage “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him� the “him� is referring to whom God, not Jesus, is calling. It refers to God the Father.

Also note that elsewhere in thei chapter Jesus is referred to a Lord and Messiah. If you check out your Old Testament, you will find that the Messiah is clearly not divine, but a lesser agent of God. Even in the New Testament we find Jesus tells us that � For the Father is greater than I.�

Thus, Jesus is not coequal with the Father.

in Acts 2:39 Peter called Jesus “the Lord our God.

No. Perhaps you will want to reread this passage in its entirety.

As I pointed out earlier, if we ready the passage in its entirety then we find that only a few sentences early in the same speech (Acts 2:36) Peter described Jesus as Lord.

Now you are suggesting that, without giving any indication of a change, Peter described God as Lord. This would, as far as I can tell, be the only time Peter ever referred to God as Lord in the book of Acts. This is entirely unreasonable.

Earlier Peter said that Jesus is the “Lord and Messiah.� In Acts 2:36 he used the same formula to tell us that Jesus is the “Lord our God.�

To say that Peter was calling God the “Lord our God� would be pointlessly redundant. It would mean that Peter was saying “our God our God.� Contextually there is little question that Peter was referring to Jesus when he said “Lord our God.�

But, as I wrote earlier, if someone is committed to the doctrine that Jesus is not divine then nothing will convince them. For this thread I need to be satisfied in saying that the doctrines of the trinity and the divinity of Christ were established in the first century, while the full development and language for these doctrines would be worked out over the next few centuries.

[brianbbs67]

Here is some more evidence of a difference between God and Jesus

IMG_0865 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

[polonius]

Bjs posted

As I pointed out earlier, if we ready the passage in its entirety then we find that only a few sentences early in the same speech (Acts 2:36) Peter described Jesus as Lord.

RESPONSE: Once again the use of the term “Lord� does not establish divinity, only respect. Do you consider when Joseph Conrad was writing “Lord Jim� he was referring to God?

And do you consider members of the British House of Lords to be divine persons?


If you want to continue claiming that Jesus was divine because he was sometimes called "Lord,"how do you explain his errors, eg. "some of those standing here...etc). Does God make such errors?

[bjs]

Bjs posted

As I pointed out earlier, if we ready the passage in its entirety then we find that only a few sentences early in the same speech (Acts 2:36) Peter described Jesus as Lord.

RESPONSE: Once again the use of the term “Lord� does not establish divinity, only respect. Do you consider when Joseph Conrad was writing “Lord Jim� he was referring to God?

And do you consider members of the British House of Lords to be divine persons?


If you want to continue claiming that Jesus was divine because he was sometimes called "Lord,"how do you explain his errors, eg. "some of those standing here...etc). Does God make such errors?

I have never, at any point in this thread, claimed that Jesus is divine because he is called Lord. You have simply not read what I have written.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 32 by brianbbs67]

Okay, but this is a thread about the trinity. The doctrine of the trinity is that there is a difference between God the Father and Jesus the Son, while still recognizing that Jesus “being (subsists) in the form of God.� I appreciate you providing evidence for my case.

[polonius]

Bjs posted:

To say that Peter was calling God the “Lord our God� would be pointlessly redundant. It would mean that Peter was saying “our God our God.� Contextually there is little question that Peter was referring to Jesus when he said “Lord our God.�

Now you tells us:

I have never, at any point in this thread, claimed that Jesus is divine because he is called Lord. You have simply not read what I have written.

And

It is not the fact that he called Jesus our “Lord� that means Jesus is divine. What matters for this issues is that Peter said that the Lord Jesus is “our God.�

Obviously, Peter was in error. Did I misunderstand? “…Peter was wasn't referring to Jesus when he said “Lord our God.�???

[bjs]

Bjs posted:

To say that Peter was calling God the “Lord our God� would be pointlessly redundant. It would mean that Peter was saying “our God our God.� Contextually there is little question that Peter was referring to Jesus when he said “Lord our God.�

Now you tells us:

I have never, at any point in this thread, claimed that Jesus is divine because he is called Lord. You have simply not read what I have written.

And

It is not the fact that he called Jesus our “Lord� that means Jesus is divine. What matters for this issues is that Peter said that the Lord Jesus is “our God.�

Correct. I did not say that Peter used the title “lord� is a divine title. Instead I pointed out that Peter flat out called the Lord Jesus “our God.�

Obviously, Peter was in error.

You can of course say that Peter was in error. You have the right to say that the Bible is wrong when it disagrees with you. However, the fact that Peter claimed that Jesus is God at Pentecost does show that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ existed essentially from the beginning of Christianity.

[polonius]

RESPONSE:

In Acts of the Apostles we find that Peter certainly did not claim divinity for Jesus. In his speech following Pentecost we find:

Acts 2:22-24
'Men of Israel, listen to what I am going to say: Jesus the Nazarene was a man commended to you by God by the miracles and portents and signs that God worked through him when he was among you, as you know.

23 This man, who was put into your power by the deliberate intention and foreknowledge of God, you took and had crucified and killed by men outside the Law.

24 But God raised him to life, freeing him from the pangs of Hades; for it was impossible for him to be held in its power

Note: That God raised Jesus from the dead. If Jesus had been divine, he could have risen from the dead by his own power.

[shnarkle]

This thread is a follow-on to a previous post, but one which clearly should be treated as a separate subject.

The traditional Jewish Shema taught “Hear of Israel. The Lord is One.� And this belief was held by the early Christian-Jews (in a sect called “The Way�) which remained united with conventual Judaism.

About 85 AD, the Christians began to assert that their Messiah was divine himself. This was the parting of the ways with Judaism. The Christians wre labeled as “minim� (or apostates) and a condemnation included in the 18 Benedictions a prayer said daily by the Jews.Christians, of course, were banned from Jewish synagogues.

What the Christians developed is the belief that there were really two persons in the Messiah, or Binitarianism. Claims of a third person were added later.

“Binitarianism is the belief that the one true God exists as two Persons (the Father and the Son). Binitarianism is distinguished from Trinitarianism (God exists as three Persons) and Unitarianism (God exists as only one Person). It is also distinguished from bitheism (the belief in two gods). Binitarianism has never been a popular view of God and is held by a small number of groups today.�

From my perspective, it seems that the trinity developed quite early within the Jewish community, especially as this sect of Jews "the Way" grew. I say this because it can be seen within the texts themselves, most expecially within John's gospel and Paul's letters.

However, I will clarify that regardless of how the doctrine is articulated, the biblical texts themselves are, in my opinion; the best source. They articulate it as well as anything I've seen so far. The introduction to John's gospel is probably the "go to" source for comprehending the godhead.

It begins with, "In the beginning was the word". From this I deduce that John does not believe "in the beginning was God", and he is also pointing out that the word exists already in the beginning. It must be the ground of existence. Then he says, "and the word was with God" which indicates that whatever God is, God is with the the ground of existence. He follows that with, "and the word was God, the same was in the beginning with God" So the word is clearly distinct from God yet at the same time identification or identity is exclusively in, with, and through the word.

The next sentence is intriguing: " All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." This points out that the word and God are not made nor are they things. It makes sense to say that everything that exists comes from the ground of being or existence. They all partake of existence because they are things that all exist; e.g. the Platonic forms.

John then states: "He was in the world, and the world was made by him,...etc.", which I think is meant to be referring to his incarnation articulated in vs.14, " And the Word was made flesh, "

Jesus points out that he came from the father and he returns to the father. He also points out that when you have seen the son, you have seen the father. He says that he came to reveal the father "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

Paul also points out that "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" which reinforces what John has already stated , i.e. it is only in and with and through the son that the father may be seen, approached, known etc. For all practical intents and purposes the son is the father. This is not with regards to his incarnation as that can't be the case when the word has been made part of the created world. His relationship as the son is in tact, and he is still the word, but to a far lesser degree in that he set aside his divinity to become "nothing" (Phil. 2:7)

Yet he is still in this contingent position between an omniscient, and therefore unknowable, God; and the created world. This is where Christ mediates between God and the world. This is where Christ mediates between the transcendent and the world.

Where I differ with the mainstream understanding of the doctrine of the trinity is in the idea that there are three persons. I only see one person; Christ. This is because Christ is the word, the ground of being or existence, but since he comes from the Father, the Father is the origin of existence. Therefore the Father cannot exist as that would only force an infinite regression of origins. The Father is (according to John) not a thing. The Father is no thing. The Father doesn't exist, and cannot exist because the Father is transcendent, or more accurately stated transcendence doesn't exist because existence is not transcendent.

Here again, John is most helpful in that the invisible thought is manifested in the spoken word through the breath (Gr. Pneuma) just as the transcendent Father is manifested in the living word through the power of the Spirit (Gr. Pneuma)

I have no problem with personifying the Father and the Spirit especially when one considers that this figure is explicitly defined as attributing human characteristics to something else. This is not to say that these attributes are actually made a part of the godhead.

The Father only exists in the immanence of the Son; obviously not as transcendence, but through immanence. Jesus must become transparent in order for us to see the Father. He must deny himself. When this is accomplished there is only Christ. Likewise anyone ("whosoever") who would enter into that reality must deny themselves as well, not by "works", but by revelation.

So, apart from the Son, the Father is essentially nothing. Given that the Son only does what he sees the father doing, it should come as no surprise when we read that he made himself "nothing".

When the Son returns to the Father, he can't do this without transcending existence. So where does this leave the Trinity? The Trinity is left with us, and this is what the gospel writer points out when he presents us with Christ's prayer: " And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; ..."

So by this distributive property, when you have seen a child of God, you have seen Christ, and by extension; God

From this it seems quite clear that the second coming is what happens "in the twinkling of an eye" (Paul) or when one "steps into eternity" (Augustine) they suddenly "see" Christ in everyone around them.

[shnarkle]

You are fooling yourself to believe a trinity doctrine existed before Nicea. There are 3. Father, son of Man, and Holy Ghost. They appear to be quite different characters by the bible accounts. And by the Son of man.

I think you make a good point in that it isn't a doctrine that the new creature in Christ belives in, but the reality. Of course these three characters appear to be different which only spotlights the triadic aspect of God. Actually I think it would be more accurate to say reality rather than God.