The “Messiah� according to the OT is a man and never divine. This was only changed when the Christian community decided that Jesus was divine himself which was followed by the Jewish 12th Benediction (c. 85 AD) declaring Christians to be “minim� or apostates and expelling them from the Jewish synagogues (see John’s gospel, c. 95 AD).
Even the “Introduction to Matthew� in the New American Bible recognizes that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was not the apostle Matthew.
So what we are left with is, at best, the writing of an unknown writer who was not a witness to the event and whose writings about 50 years after the fact are unsupported to the writing of the other gospel writers.
Is the Trinity really in the Bible?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Is the Trinity really in the Bible?
Post #2polonius wrote:
So what we are left with is, at best, the writing of an unknown writer who was not a witness to the event and whose writings about 50 years after the fact are unsupported to the writing of the other gospel writers.
I assume we're asking if the Trinity can be justified by reference to the Bible. The personalities Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit need definition. They seem to be ethereal, and so one can assume some sort of divinity. Call them gods or demi gods.... but if there is only ONE true God, then we've got a problem, fortunately solved by decree rather than revelation.
Post #4
The statements in the opening post have no bearing on the question, “Is the Trinity biblical?�
If the Gospel of Mathew was written Matthew (also called Levi) the disciple of Jesus or if it was written by an unknown non-witness, either way the Trinity is still biblical. If the Messiah in the OT was only human or consistently divine, either way the Trinity is still biblical. If Christians were convinced that Jesus was divine around 80 AD or immediately after his resurrection, either way the Trinity is still biblical.
Being biblical has to do with what is taught in the Bible, not with how you view the authorship of the Bible.
If the Gospel of Mathew was written Matthew (also called Levi) the disciple of Jesus or if it was written by an unknown non-witness, either way the Trinity is still biblical. If the Messiah in the OT was only human or consistently divine, either way the Trinity is still biblical. If Christians were convinced that Jesus was divine around 80 AD or immediately after his resurrection, either way the Trinity is still biblical.
Being biblical has to do with what is taught in the Bible, not with how you view the authorship of the Bible.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo
Post #5
bjs wrote: The statements in the opening post have no bearing on the question, “Is the Trinity biblical?�
If the Gospel of Mathew was written Matthew (also called Levi) the disciple of Jesus or if it was written by an unknown non-witness, either way the Trinity is still biblical. If the Messiah in the OT was only human or consistently divine, either way the Trinity is still biblical. If Christians were convinced that Jesus was divine around 80 AD or immediately after his resurrection, either way the Trinity is still biblical.
Being biblical has to do with what is taught in the Bible, not with how you view the authorship of the Bible.
There are claims in the BIble that Jesus is God. Thomas is reported to have said as much. We know the Holy Spirit inhabits the place of angels but I am not aware he's also God rather than say Gabriel's brother. The Trinity, rather than the attribution of divinity to Jesus, seems to be a concept well beyond the reach of the writers of the gospels.
Post #6
[Replying to post 5 by marco]
There are claims by trinitarians that the Bible says Jesus is God. It turns out that the translations and interpretations by trinitarians ignore other translations and interpretations which call into question their subjective renderings.
The statement by Thomas is just one of them.
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... ygod.html
Professor of ecclesiastical history, L. L. Paine, A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism, p. 4, tells us:
“The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there ... is utterly without foundation."
“At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian .... It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT [New Testament] and other early Christian writings.� - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Hastings.
“In this period [1st century A.D.] churches were still regarded as synagogues, whose members prayed three times a day and fasted twice a week like Jews... They professed monotheism in the same terms as did the Jews. .... Within individual congregations they continued to think, argue, and act like their Jewish counterparts.� - pp. 121-122, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.
“As we have seen, Christianity inherited the monotheism of Israel, but gradually developed it by the elaboration of the doctrine of the Trinity.� - p. 619, v. 6, 1941, Encyclopedia Americana.
“[The Trinity Doctrine] is not ... directly and immediately the word of God.� - (p. 304) “The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.� - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.
“... the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers; that in the time of Justin [c. 100-165 A. D.], and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority [in comparison to the Father only, of course] of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible.� – p. 34, The Church of the First Three Centuries, Alvan Lamson, D.D.
"There are claims in the BIble that Jesus is God. Thomas is reported to have said as much."
There are claims by trinitarians that the Bible says Jesus is God. It turns out that the translations and interpretations by trinitarians ignore other translations and interpretations which call into question their subjective renderings.
The statement by Thomas is just one of them.
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... ygod.html
Professor of ecclesiastical history, L. L. Paine, A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism, p. 4, tells us:
“The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there ... is utterly without foundation."
“At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian .... It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT [New Testament] and other early Christian writings.� - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Hastings.
“In this period [1st century A.D.] churches were still regarded as synagogues, whose members prayed three times a day and fasted twice a week like Jews... They professed monotheism in the same terms as did the Jews. .... Within individual congregations they continued to think, argue, and act like their Jewish counterparts.� - pp. 121-122, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.
“As we have seen, Christianity inherited the monotheism of Israel, but gradually developed it by the elaboration of the doctrine of the Trinity.� - p. 619, v. 6, 1941, Encyclopedia Americana.
“[The Trinity Doctrine] is not ... directly and immediately the word of God.� - (p. 304) “The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.� - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.
“... the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers; that in the time of Justin [c. 100-165 A. D.], and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority [in comparison to the Father only, of course] of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible.� – p. 34, The Church of the First Three Centuries, Alvan Lamson, D.D.
Post #7
[Replying to marco]
Fair enough. The Trinity goes beyond what is directly stated in the Bible, but is a systematic way of describing the statements in the Bible. I think it is reasonable to still call that being biblical.
Fair enough. The Trinity goes beyond what is directly stated in the Bible, but is a systematic way of describing the statements in the Bible. I think it is reasonable to still call that being biblical.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo
Post #8
bjs wrote: [Replying to marco]
Fair enough. The Trinity goes beyond what is directly stated in the Bible, but is a systematic way of describing the statements in the Bible. I think it is reasonable to still call that being biblical.
The Trinity is a complicated piece of theology. It is not found in the Bible and in fact its formulation conflicts with the central tenet that there is one, true God. The concept of three persons, each equally God, is far, far removed from anything biblical. Were such a notion correct somehow, in some way, Christ would have referenced it instead of leaving St. Patrick imperfectly to depict the notion by using a shamroock.
Post #9
I don't disagree with what you've writen. The concept of a three-personage God cannot be found in the Bible. If anyone thought Christ was God then they would not be introducing a Trinity but polytheism.tigger2 wrote:
There are claims by trinitarians that the Bible says Jesus is God. It turns out that the translations and interpretations by trinitarians ignore other translations and interpretations which call into question their subjective renderings.
