ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
An outsider's view of the Trinity issue -
July 1st, 2012, 06:44 PM
I'm not Christian, nor will I ever be. When I look at the endless Trinity arguments, here's what I see:
1. There is little if any clear-cut support for the Trinity idea in the New Testament. This seems odd, considering how central the concept is in many Christian sects. More on that below.
2. The idea doesn't exist in the Old Testament. The arguments for the Trinity in the OT are based on a variety of hints, suggestions and reinterpretations (even as far as pretending that the word one doesn't mean 1). There are parts of the Bible that suggest an early belief that multiple gods exist, i.e. that other nations have their gods, just like we have ours. But Trinity? No.
3. Despite all of the above, the concept of the Trinity has been central to Christianity for centuries. The reason for this is that the Church in its early years adopted it as dogma in various councils. The New Testament books predate these decisions, and don't reflect that dogma.
Catholics don't have much of an issue with this situation. They accept Church authority, and don't depend on the Bible for their beliefs.
Bible-only believers have a more difficult time with this. They reject Church authority, but have been taught to accept one of the the Church's main beliefs- that of the Trinity. So they must, somehow, show that the Trinity is in the Bible, New Testament and preferable Old as well. To the outsider this can look like grasping at straws, but it is clear why this is necessary.
Ergo, Protestants should either convert to Catholicism or descend wholesale into the most depraved heresies imaginable.
I'm not sure about the premises. Or the conclusion.
But this does amuse me.
When a Man Lies He Murders
Some Part of the World
These Are the Pale Deaths Which
Men Miscall Their Lives
All this I Cannot Bear
to Witness Any Longer
Cannot the Kingdom of Salvation
Take Me Home
Jesus was made God in 325. In Mark 12 and Luke and against Satan in the desert he asserts the Shema of the Jews making this the primal command of both Torah and NT.
However, Gentile Christians did not recite it. And they lost the thread of orthodoxy by the sixth or so generation. First they made Jesus God.
Then about 60 years later they added the third entity to their pantheon.
Here trin apologists kick against the pricks. You state the obvious and they refute this endlessly. Without ever addressing the simple truth of YHWH since the beginning of time. He is One, numerically and alone.
Chair, to be clear, I think that there are very good reasons for believing in the Trinity independently of revelation. St. Bonaventure gives us good reasons for this in chapter 6 of Itinerarium Mentis in Deum, and these have to do with the superabundance of the Divine Goodness.
In light of the Church's teachings that the trinity is a revealed doctrine, I am hesitant (much more so than I once was) to assert that the trinity can be demonstrated.* Nonetheless, there are good reasons, if you already have faith in it, to hold on to what you already believed by faith.
*I'm willing to assert that this cannot be demonstrated, strictly speaking, by reason alone.
When a Man Lies He Murders
Some Part of the World
These Are the Pale Deaths Which
Men Miscall Their Lives
All this I Cannot Bear
to Witness Any Longer
Cannot the Kingdom of Salvation
Take Me Home
I'm not Christian, nor will I ever be. When I look at the endless Trinity arguments, here's what I see:
1. There is little if any clear-cut support for the Trinity idea in the New Testament. This seems odd, considering how central the concept is in many Christian sects. More on that below.
2. The idea doesn't exist in the Old Testament. The arguments for the Trinity in the OT are based on a variety of hints, suggestions and reinterpretations (even as far as pretending that the word one doesn't mean 1). There are parts of the Bible that suggest an early belief that multiple gods exist, i.e. that other nations have their gods, just like we have ours. But Trinity? No.
3. Despite all of the above, the concept of the Trinity has been central to Christianity for centuries. The reason for this is that the Church in its early years adopted it as dogma in various councils. The New Testament books predate these decisions, and don't reflect that dogma.
Catholics don't have much of an issue with this situation. They accept Church authority, and don't depend on the Bible for their beliefs.
Bible-only believers have a more difficult time with this. They reject Church authority, but have been taught to accept one of the the Church's main beliefs- that of the Trinity. So they must, somehow, show that the Trinity is in the Bible, New Testament and preferable Old as well. To the outsider this can look like grasping at straws, but it is clear why this is necessary.
Chair
A fairly accurate description of the general Protestant dilemma in this debate Despite their generic teaching of deriving their teachings from scripture, they yet cling to various traditional doctrines of the past that aren't taught by scripture and they lack a reasonable explanation for their deviation from their earlier stated stance.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Chair, to be clear, I think that there are very good reasons for believing in the Trinity independently of revelation. St. Bonaventure gives us good reasons for this in chapter 6 of Itinerarium Mentis in Deum, and these have to do with the superabundance of the Divine Goodness.
In light of the Church's teachings that the trinity is a revealed doctrine, I am hesitant (much more so than I once was) to assert that the trinity can be demonstrated.* Nonetheless, there are good reasons, if you already have faith in it, to hold on to what you already believed by faith.
*I'm willing to assert that this cannot be demonstrated, strictly speaking, by reason alone.
It cannot only be demonstrated by reason, it was the result of Platonism, Pythagoreanism and Stoicism. Among your awry fathers.
It is directly contradicted by Shema and the context EVERY SINGLE TIME of Shema. YHWH stands alone equal to no other next to no other and compared to no other. YHWH is the Father and Him alone.
This is your first principle. It was your father's too but they didn't catch on. They were more retarded than most normal men.
It's like a bb player who don't know how to dribble or rebound.
A football player who only walks never runs. A swimmer who won't get wet. A soccer player with only his third leg. An aviator with a fear of birds. A follower of Jesus who never figured out who Jesus' God is.
I'm curious as to why, then, you feel the need to comment, chair. It seems kind of pointless.
Quote:
When I look at the endless Trinity arguments, here's what I see:
Given the above bolded, I see little reason to take your assessment of Christian teachings to very seriously, but since you offered your assessment, I'll offer mine and we can both ignore one another.
Quote:
1. There is little if any clear-cut support for the Trinity idea in the New Testament. This seems odd, considering how central the concept is in many Christian sects. More on that below.
That's quite as assertion, chair. Could you please help me to understand what Paul is saying about Jesus, the Son, in Philippians 2:9-11, especially in the light of the prophetic passage he is quoting (Isaiah 45:22-23)? Now, Paul certainly believed that there was God the Father, just look at the introduction of all of his letters. But what about the Spirit? Is the Spirit considered God as well? Just look at 2 Corinthians 3:16-17: But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. Paul is very clear in this passage that the Lord is the Spirit. All-in-all, Paul certainly considered the Father, the Son, and the Spirit to all be divine. That's hardly little to nothing.
Now, I could go on (John was particularly fond of the divinity of the Father and the Son), but since there are so many Trinity threads with plenty of passages to examine, I'll let it slide for now.
Quote:
2. The idea doesn't exist in the Old Testament. The arguments for the Trinity in the OT are based on a variety of hints, suggestions and reinterpretations (even as far as pretending that the word one doesn't mean 1). There are parts of the Bible that suggest an early belief that multiple gods exist, i.e. that other nations have their gods, just like we have ours. But Trinity? No.
But, Christians, by definition, don't just stop with Malachi, or in the case of the Tanakh, Chronicles. That's not to say the idea was non-existent in the Hebrew Bible, only not clear. It's like criticizing the reader of a novel for reassessing the events throughout the novel in light of the ending.
Quote:
3. Despite all of the above, the concept of the Trinity has been central to Christianity for centuries. The reason for this is that the Church in its early years adopted it as dogma in various councils. The New Testament books predate these decisions, and don't reflect that dogma.
Correct, even before the councils, the trinitarian understanding of God was a central part of Christian thought. Before the councils, there was the NT, and using your rather bold assertions above, there shouldn't even have been a hint of trinitarian thought floating about in the church, given that the only source of doctrine they had was the NT. So, in the end, you're left with a puzzle piece that doesn't fit.
Quote:
Catholics don't have much of an issue with this situation. They accept Church authority, and don't depend on the Bible for their beliefs.
Sure.
Quote:
Bible-only believers have a more difficult time with this. They reject Church authority,
Not exactly. We subject church authority to the authority of God's Word, which is rather different than what you are suggesting. So, it's not that we reject. It's that we accept only after assessment.
Quote:
but have been taught to accept one of the the Church's main beliefs- that of the Trinity. So they must, somehow, show that the Trinity is in the Bible, New Testament and preferable Old as well. To the outsider this can look like grasping at straws, but it is clear why this is necessary.
Why must a "Bible-only" believer accept the doctrine of the Trinity? Again, those who see authority as being grounded in the Word of God will subject "doctrine" as such to scrutiny to see if it stands up under the weight of Scripture, not the other way around.
Quote:
Chair
Eucharist [thanksgiving] is the state of the perfect man. Eucharist is the life of paradise. Eucharist is the only full and real response of man to God's creation, redemption, and gift of heaven. - Alexander Schemann
Why must a "Bible-only" believer accept the doctrine of the Trinity? Again, those who see authority as being grounded in the Word of God will subject "doctrine" as such to scrutiny to see if it stands up under the weight of Scripture, not the other way around.
I can reduce your whole post to this Jack and the answer is,
The Trinity is immediately refuted by the Primal Principle which says that God is numerically One. Shema.
It is your very first and most important principle and you rebute it with your so-called other principles in scripture? What is wrong with THIS picture?
You put the wrong weights with the wrong measures, obviously.
As I see it, monotheism arose as a philosophic protest against the inconsistency of polytheism; trinitarianism grows out of the experiential protest against the impossibility of conceiving the oneness of an infinite and deanthropomorphized solitary Deity of universe significance.
“Behind the barricades of pre-established structures, the foxes of the intellect may engage in clever reasoning, but the lion of Being continues to roar outside the gate.” ~ Tarthang Tulku
Last edited by Lost Comet; July 1st, 2012 at 11:18 PM.
I'm not Christian, nor will I ever be. When I look at the endless Trinity arguments, here's what I see:
1. There is little if any clear-cut support for the Trinity idea in the New Testament. This seems odd, considering how central the concept is in many Christian sects. More on that below.
2. The idea doesn't exist in the Old Testament. The arguments for the Trinity in the OT are based on a variety of hints, suggestions and reinterpretations (even as far as pretending that the word one doesn't mean 1). There are parts of the Bible that suggest an early belief that multiple gods exist, i.e. that other nations have their gods, just like we have ours. But Trinity? No.
3. Despite all of the above, the concept of the Trinity has been central to Christianity for centuries. The reason for this is that the Church in its early years adopted it as dogma in various councils. The New Testament books predate these decisions, and don't reflect that dogma.
Catholics don't have much of an issue with this situation. They accept Church authority, and don't depend on the Bible for their beliefs.
Bible-only believers have a more difficult time with this. They reject Church authority, but have been taught to accept one of the the Church's main beliefs- that of the Trinity. So they must, somehow, show that the Trinity is in the Bible, New Testament and preferable Old as well. To the outsider this can look like grasping at straws, but it is clear why this is necessary.
Chair
You can't be against something that you cannot even define...
And you can't be for it either. No one has ever defined the trinity.
Adequately.
Opinion only. I'm satisfied.
“Behind the barricades of pre-established structures, the foxes of the intellect may engage in clever reasoning, but the lion of Being continues to roar outside the gate.” ~ Tarthang Tulku
1. There is little if any clear-cut support for the Trinity idea in the New Testament.
Passages such as John 1:1-3, 1:10, 17:5, Romans 11:36, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:3 and 1:8-10 assert the Son's involvement in the creation of the universe, thus establishing His divine status.
So far as "clear-cut support for the Trinity idea in the New Testament" is concerned, the New Testament speaks plainly of the Father and the Son (e.g., Matthew 11:27, 1 John 2:23, Colossians 1:19, 2:9) and the Holy Spirit (e.g., Acts 19:2, Matthew 12:32, Romans 5:5, etc) as distinct Persons; yet the New Testament simultaneously declares that there is but "one God" (Romans 3:30, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, etc).
Galatians 4:6 clearly demonstrates the Trinity:
And because you are sons, God (the Father) has sent forth the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) of His Son (the Son) into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”
Similar verses include Luke 1:35, 3:22, John 14:26, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Matthew 28:19, Acts 10:38, and Philippians 3:3, all of which speak of the One God as having manifested Himself as a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Last edited by Paulos; July 1st, 2012 at 11:59 PM.
The triune understanding is biblical, historical, orthodox. Those who say the Deity of Christ and Trinity is not in the NT don't know the NT. The evidence is there, but too many put reason above revelation.
The OT lays the foundation of monotheism, while the NT progressively reveals more detail on the Deity of Christ, personality/Deity of the Holy Spirit, Father heart of God, triunity.
Despite their generic teaching of deriving their teachings from scripture, they yet cling to various traditional doctrines of the past that aren't taught by scripture and they lack a reasonable explanation for their deviation from their earlier stated stance.
Linear Mode
