Is Trinity a biblical teaching?

[magicseed]

Do we ever wonder if the teaching that God has three persons truly came from the bible? Where?

[tigger2]

For_The_Kingdom wrote, post 13:

"And not only that, but even Pliny the Younger's testimony about how the early Christians were behaving (in the second century), had stated that believers in Christ were giving him that 'God' treatment.

"And Pliny's account of this was more than two centuries before both of those Councils that you referred to occurred."

....................................
What Pliny actually wrote:

"They [Christians] asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god," - Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96-97
Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan. -
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

"they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god," -

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html


Also, http://youth.biola.edu/blog/lesson-in-church-history/

Even if Pliny's investigation of Christians was accurate, it still does not mean that Christians sang to Jesus as God!

Christians then, as now, recognized that Scripture sometimes called God-appointed men (judges, kings, prophets) and faithful angels as 'gods.'

[tigger2]

'Worship' as found in scripture:

The Hebrew word most often translated “worship� in the OT is shachah, and it is usually rendered as proskuneo in the New Testament Greek and in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

Unger and White say of this word: “Shachah ... ‘to worship, prostrate oneself, bow down.’� And,

“The act of bowing down in homage done before a superior [in rank] or a ruler. Thus David ‘bowed’ himself [shachah] before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8). Sometimes it is a social or economic superior to whom one bows, as when Ruth ‘bowed’ [shachah] to the ground before Boaz (Ruth 2:10).� - Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, Thomas Nelson Publ., p. 482.

Noted Bible scholar J. H. Thayer defines proskuneo in the NT text:

“prop. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence ... hence in the N. T. by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication. It is used a. of homage shown to men of superior rank [position] ... Rev. 3:9 .... b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings [angels]� - p. 548, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House Publ., 1977.

Hasting’s A Dictionary of the Bible tells us:

“Worship, both as [noun] and verb, was formerly used of reverence or honour done to men as well as to God …� - p. 941, vol. 4.

[magicseed]

For_The_Kingdom wrote: (post 13)

This is "God" speaking in Zech 12:10

10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit[a] of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son." ....

"Now of course, our Jehovah's Witnesses friends, who understood the implications of Zech/John...took words out of the Bible, by rendering Zech 12:10 to read "They will look to the one they pierced", omitting "to me"."

..........................

Zechariah 12:10
Jehovah speaks:

"...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son" - Zech. 12:10, KJV; cf. NKJV, NIV, NASB, NEB, REB, ASV, AB, KJIIV, ETRV, Douay, Beck, Rotherham, Lamsa.

This is interpreted by many trinitarians as meaning that Jehovah is Jesus since Jesus was "pierced" by the Jews.

Unfortunately for this trinitarian interpretation even many trinitarian translations disagree:

"...when they look upon him whom they have pierced" - RSV. Also in agreement with this rendering are NRSV; GNB; MLB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); LB; Mo; AT; JB; NJB; NLV; BBE; and Byington. (ASV says in a footnote for "me" in Zech. 12:10: "According to some MSS. [manuscripts], `him'." Also see Rotherham footnote.)

(So is it the 'terrible' JW Bible alone which took out "me" in this scripture? In fact, many of the Bibles above took out "me" long before the JW's NWT.)

Even the context tells us that the latter rendering is the correct one. Notice that after saying that they will look upon me (or him) God continues with "they shall mourn for HIM"! Notice how the KJV (and those following its tradition) contradicts itself here. The "me" in the first half simply does not agree with the "him" of the second half. Since there has never been any question about the accuracy of the word "him" in the second half, the disputed word of the first half (which has manuscript evidence for both renderings) must also properly be rendered as "him" (or "the one").

The testimony of the first Christian writers to come after the NT writers (the 'Ante-Nicene Fathers') confirms the non-trinitarian translation of Zechariah 12:10 ("him"). Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Terulian (repeatedly) rendered Zech. 12:10 as "him whom they pierced"! This is specially significant because trinitarian scholars and historians claim these particular early Christians (including Origen who doesn't quote Zech. 12:10 at all in his existing writings) are the very ones who actually began the development of the trinity doctrine for Christendom! If any of the earliest Christian writers, then, would use a trinitarian interpretation here, it would certainly be these three. Since they do not do so, it must mean that the source for the `look upon me' translation originated even later than the time of Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (early 3rd century A.D.)!

But most important of all is John 19:37 (even in the KJV) where this scripture has been quoted by John! All translations show John here translating Zech. 12:10 as "They shall look upon him [or `the one'] whom they pierced." So we have this Apostle and inspired Bible writer telling us plainly (and undisputed even by trinitarian scholars) that Zechariah 12:10 should read: "They shall look upon him (not `me')." Therefore, Jehovah is speaking in Zech. 12:10 of someone else who will be pierced - not Himself!

Well said....

[Matthew S Islam]

Greetings folks

Well, by the standards I view God and expect from Divine Scripture, I would say that in light of the Old Testament, the Gospel's do not do justice in presenting Jesus and the Holy Spirit as God.

Had it been the case, I would not only expect it to be so clear that none of these debates would have never even took place; but also Jesus, or at the very least Paul, should dedicate a part of their Gospels to explain why the Old Testment was revealed with such an unwelcoming tone againsts polytheism, and how do we, as Monotheist accept Jesus as God securely? What assurance do we have that God won't punish us for all of eternity for taking a false god?

[2timothy316]

Greetings folks

Well, by the standards I view God and expect from Divine Scripture, I would say that in light of the Old Testament, the Gospel's do not do justice in presenting Jesus and the Holy Spirit as God.

Greetings Matthew,

Many agree with you. The Jews were never taught a trinity. In fact most nations around them had a type of trinity. Most religions surrounding had many gods. Egypt for example had many triad gods. Osiris (husband), Isis (wife) and Horus (their son). Then there was the Theban triad, Amun, Mut and Khonsu. The trinity that is taught today has just a slight tweek in saying all 3 together are the God Almighty. Yet, that is not what the Bible says and as you said the Gospels do not present Jesus as the Almighty God of the Hebrew (OT) scriptures.

Had it been the case, I would not only expect it to be so clear that none of these debates would have never even took place; but also Jesus, or at the very least Paul, should dedicate a part of their Gospels to explain why the Old Testment was revealed with such an unwelcoming tone againsts polytheism, and how do we, as Monotheist accept Jesus as God securely?

A good question. A question that I have never heard a good answer from trinitarians without reading the Bible with trinity colored glasses on. Also known as interpreting the Bible through eisegesis. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words. With eisegesis the person makes an assertion and then goes through the Bible looking for a sentence, out of context, to make their point. What we should be using is exegesis. Which is the only approach that does the Bible justice. We read the Bible first and then decide it's meaning. Eisegesis is the other way around.

What assurance do we have that God won't punish us for all of eternity for taking a false god?

From what I read in the Bible, The Almighty God Jehovah (Ps 83:18) takes offense when people 'abandon the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men'. (Mark 7:8) Paul goes on to say that people are captive of such traditions. (Col 2:8). While, no person can say with any certainty that a person will suffer eternal punishment for believing in the trinity. I do know that that a person cannot believe in something false forever an get away with it. The angel known as Satan started his own false teachings (Gen 3:1-5) and he is not going to get away with it. (Rev 20:10) I see no reason that a human, who are lesser than an angel, would be able to practice and teach false teachings forever.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 18 by tigger2]

Gotcha. I will have to look more into this. The little digging I DID do has it showing "look to/upon me" in the interlinear..

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/zechariah/12-10.htm.

However, it seems that scholars are still divided on the matter and I agree with you that the sentence/context does come up funky when you compare the former "to me" to the latter "him".

I didn't know this was an issue of translation as opposed to people just taking words out of the Bible for their own purposes.

Got some more digging to do. Thank you.

[For_The_Kingdom]

For_The_Kingdom wrote, post 13:

"And not only that, but even Pliny the Younger's testimony about how the early Christians were behaving (in the second century), had stated that believers in Christ were giving him that 'God' treatment.

"And Pliny's account of this was more than two centuries before both of those Councils that you referred to occurred."

....................................
What Pliny actually wrote:

"They [Christians] asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god," - Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96-97
Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan. -
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

"they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god," -

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html


Also, http://youth.biola.edu/blog/lesson-in-church-history/

Even if Pliny's investigation of Christians was accurate, it still does not mean that Christians sang to Jesus as God!

Christians then, as now, recognized that Scripture sometimes called God-appointed men (judges, kings, prophets) and faithful angels as 'gods.'

Putting aside whether or not Pliny knew about Christian theology; either way, according to him, "Christians were singing hymns to Christ as if Christ was a god or something".

And Pliny said this as an outsider..he was from the outside looking in, and even he recognized that for whatever reason, Christ appeared to be getting some kind of "God treatment" from his followers.

Well, this predates the Council of Nicea by a couple thousand years..doesn't it?

And true, judges, kings, prophets were called "gods", but lets be serious here...Pliny is talking in a religious context...the entire context of his letter to the emperor was about how to deal with those pesky Christians, some of whom refuses to denounce their faith and worship the emperors image.

That being said, it is obvious that the Christians in question weren't singing "hymns" to judges. They were singing the hymns to Christ as if to a god, just as Pliny said they were.

[tigger2]

Well, this predates the Council of Nicea by a couple thousand years..doesn't it?

More like a couple hundred years.

I think most churches sing songs to Jesus. That is, he is important enough to them that they sing to him AS IF he were a god (as Pliny understood 'gods'). Pliny did not recognize the one Almighty God of Christians. 'A god' to him included important men (emperors) and other lesser gods.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well, this predates the Council of Nicea by a couple thousand years..doesn't it?

More like a couple hundred years.

That too

I think most churches sing songs to Jesus.

No doubt.

That is, he is important enough to them that they sing to him AS IF he were a god (as Pliny understood 'gods'). Pliny did not recognize the one Almighty God of Christians. 'A god' to him included important men (emperors) and other lesser gods.

Right, Pliny wasn't being an apologist for Christianity, he was simply calling it like he saw it.

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to magicseed]

In what since do you mean by Biblical? Do you mean found in scripture directly or have Jewish roots to the concept. Also, just because it may have sriptural basis or cultural basis does not mean that it is correct. There is a reason I am methodical in how I answer these kinds of questions.