Is the Trinity really in the Bible?

[polonius]

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.

[polonius]

Not that it proves anything of course, but I think it's interesting to note that Paul never once includes the Holy Spirit in any of his letter's salutations.

Yes, he didn't know him. Paul made the acquaintance of Jesus when he was shoved off his horse on the way to Damascus. From that point there seems to have been a lot of telepathic communication between him and Jesus. I should imagine Paul regarded Jesus as a divinity, independent of Yahweh. Perhaps he thought he was one himself, or very close.

RESPONSE: Did you ever notice that the three somewhat conflicting stories about Paul falling off his horse are only found in Acts of the Apostles and in none of Paul's 14 epistles? What logical conclusion does this support?

[polonius]

Not that it proves anything of course, but I think it's interesting to note that Paul never once includes the Holy Spirit in any of his letter's salutations.

Yes, he didn't know him. Paul made the acquaintance of Jesus when he was shoved off his horse on the way to Damascus. From that point there seems to have been a lot of telepathic communication between him and Jesus. I should imagine Paul regarded Jesus as a divinity, independent of Yahweh. Perhaps he thought he was one himself, or very close.

RESPONSE: Did you ever notice that the three somewhat conflicting stories about Paul falling off his horse are only found in Acts of the Apostles and in none of Paul's 14 epistles? What logical conclusion does this support?

From Wikipedia

The Pastoral epistles are regarded by a majority of scholars as being pseudepigraphical. On the basis of the language and content of the pastoral epistles, these scholars today doubt that they were written by Paul and believe that they were written after his death. Critics claim the vocabulary and style of the Pauline letters could not have been written by Paul according to available biographical information and reflect the views of the emerging Church rather than the apostle's. These scholars date the epistle from the 80s AD up to the end of the 2nd century.
Raymond E. Brown. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible, p. 662

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

At the bare minimum Titus 2:13 strongly suggests that Jesus is God.


A wooden translation of the Greek would be that we are awaiting “the appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior of us, Christ Jesus.�

The most natural reading is that “God� and “Savior� are both descriptors of Christ Jesus.

Unfortunately it would be a wrong translation, however desired.
For this translation to be correct we would have "Saviour" in grammatical apposition to "God". They are certainly in the same genitive case but the ancient rendering which I gave has a comma followed by a conjunction, both of which are unnecessary if Jesus is taken as God. Thus this early rendering does not suggest God and Jesus are the same. So let's not claim the Jesus = God meaning is obvious.


The translation is: glory OF great God and OF our saviour.


The interpretation "Glory of our God and Saviour meaning "glory of God, our saviour"
is forced since "glory of God" is already all-encompassing; there is no need for an explanatory addendum...."saviour". However, if we are dealing with TWO entities, then we have perfect sense: the glory that belongs to God, who is great and the glory of our Saviour, Jesus. This is exactly what is said.

I suppose that is grammatically possible that “God� was meant to reference someone else, while only “Savior� was describing “Christ Jesus.� However, this would be an extremely awkward way of saying that.

No. This is what the words DO say; to take your meaning is to strain the translation.

Unless someone is deeply committed to saying that the Bible does not teach that Jesus is God, I don’t see how anyone could hold that interpretation.

By simply following the rules of translation.


If it was intended that God was additionally called Saviour, Jesus Christ, then that could less clumsily be put as "glory of God, our Saviour" without the silly conjunction, "and", confusing the issue. The AND tells us there are two entities; it is a poor translation to take AND as introducing an attribute of "great God".


Were it "the good preacher" we would have:

The glory of God and of the good preacher, Jesus OR

The glory of God, the good preacher Jesus.


Which is preferable I wonder.

[marco]

RESPONSE: Did you ever notice that the three somewhat conflicting stories about Paul falling off his horse are only found in Acts of the Apostles and in none of Paul's 14 epistles? What logical conclusion does this support?

Yes, this is well known. Paul was not the sort of withhold amazing, detailed evidence that he was divinely chosen. If he did fall from his horse it wasn't a miraculous event and he knew it.

Others may have preferred to think what he didn't and being astute he did not correct them. Why would he? His communication with the risen Lord was telepathic. The phenomenon apparently arises today on a daily basis.

[bjs]

[Replying to marco]

Yes, but to get to that translation you had to go to a later Latin translation of the Titus. If we go back to earlier Greek manuscripts then we find that “God� and “Savior� are in apposition with each other, both used to modify “Jesus Christ.�

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/titus/2-13.htm

The proposition with the definite article (“of the�) is found before “glory� and “great,� and then the preposition is again found before the first person pronoun (“of us�). The preposition is not found before “God� or “Savior.�

So we have “of the glory of the great God and Savior of us, Christ Jesus.�

When we translate straight from the Greek, instead of using a Latin translation of the Greek, we see that both “God� and “Savior� are descriptions of Jesus.

[marco]

Yes, but to get to that translation you had to go to a later Latin translation of the Titus.

Because this would clarify any ambiguity in the original. The meaning chosen there accords with taking God and Saviour as different persons so the Jesus-God translation is not as obvious as you make out.

If we go back to earlier Greek manuscripts then we find that “God� and “Savior� are in apposition with each other, both used to modify “Jesus Christ.�

They are not - that is an interpretation that stems from the English translation. The nouns are in the genitive case, separated by kai, "and". I've pointed out that IF they were in apposition the conjunction would not be needed. It is possible that "of God and of the Saviour" means "Of god, the saviour" but that isn't the meaning that one would first take, as I have already pointed out. I could make out a case for your interpretaion but it would not be the the meaning that the words obviously convey. English clouds the issue.

The proposition with the definite article (“of the�) is found before “glory� and “great,� and then the preposition is again found before the first person pronoun (“of us�). The preposition is not found before “God� or “Savior.�

So we have “of the glory of the great God and Savior of us, Christ Jesus.�

I suspect you are thinking that God and Saviour are not in an oblique case. Of course the genitive is with the adjective "great" which agrees with God, also genitive. The "of" relates to God and to Saviour.

When we translate straight from the Greek, instead of using a Latin translation of the Greek, we see that both “God� and “Savior� are descriptions of Jesus.

Well "we" don't see this though perhaps you do. Going by your explanation I think you've just misunderstood the translation of the passage. I used the Latin version because it says the SAME but clarifies the disputed point i.e. it takes the meaning that seems obvious.

[bjs]

They are not - that is an interpretation that stems from the English translation. The nouns are in the genitive case, separated by kai, "and". I've pointed out that IF they were in apposition the conjunction would not be needed. It is possible that "of God and of the Saviour" means "Of god, the saviour" but that isn't the meaning that one would first take, as I have already pointed out. I could make out a case for your interpretaion but it would not be the the meaning that the words obviously convey. English clouds the issue.

Paul certainly could have written “of God and of the Savior.� Adding the definite article (“of the�) before “Savior� would have achieved that. If that were the case then I would agree that your reading is the most natural.

That is not what is written. Paul wrote “of the great God and Savior.�
(τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆ�ος ἡμῶν)


The conjunction “and� does not add the separation you seem to be arguing for. It provides a connection, not a separation, of two words both describing “Christ Jesus.�

However, doubt we will agree on this. You think that I have misunderstood the translation, and I think that you have chosen a translation points to a meaning contrary to the original text. I doubt either one of us with convince the other that he is correct.

[marco]

The conjunction “and� does not add the separation you seem to be arguing for. It provides a connection, not a separation, of two words both describing “Christ Jesus.�

I think I covered this in an earlier post. If we assign deity to Jesus, the Saviour addition is redundant. We might as well say: The great God and good preacher, a sort of bathos.

But let us amicably think our own thoughts. Best regards.

[bjs]

The conjunction “and� does not add the separation you seem to be arguing for. It provides a connection, not a separation, of two words both describing “Christ Jesus.�

I think I covered this in an earlier post. If we assign deity to Jesus, the Saviour addition is redundant. We might as well say: The great God and good preacher, a sort of bathos.

Linking descriptors is that are at least commentary, if not outright redundant, is the norm for semitic thought. “Shield and Defender.� “Rock and Redeemer.� “Fortress and Deliverer.�

That kind of language is common enough it would be striking if Paul never used it.

But let us amicably think our own thoughts. Best regards.

Indeed.

[marco]

Linking descriptors is that are at least commentary, if not outright redundant, is the norm for semitic thought. “Shield and Defender.� “Rock and Redeemer.� “Fortress and Deliverer.�

That kind of language is common enough it would be striking if Paul never used it.

Yep, there are nice terms for the piling up of adjectives and nouns: synathroesmus and accumulatio and in Latin congeries verborum was favoured by Cicero. The case we have is different from shield and defender, rock and strength. Referring to Jesus as God is shock enough.

Another interpretation is that we are dealing with god meaning mighty human - it's used that way in the OT, psalm 82 I think - but I believe the passage here is simply talking about the greatness of Yahweh and the saving power of Jesus. We have discussed the text enough to indicate that we are far from being able to say with certainty that Jesus is being called God.