Data On The Trinity... why is it the Jews never saw a Trinity in the Old Testament?

[Peterlag]

Something that is openly admitted by theologians that is not known by many Christians is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible, but is actually “built” by piecing together statements that are said to support it. Since most Christians believe the Trinity is a mystery and not to be understood is a huge reason why doctrinal discussions about it are often avoided or brushed aside and ignored. Worse, the teaching that the Trinity is a “mystery” has been used as a club to beat down doubters and dissenters, and those people are often branded as “heretics” and their role in Christianity minimized.

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, and that is supporting evidence that the doctrine is unbiblical, which may be why Trinitarians differ, sometimes greatly in their definitions of the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church differs from the Western Church on the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Trinitarians who hold to the “classic” definition of the Trinity say Jesus was 100% God and 100% man while on the earth believe differently from Kenotic Trinitarians who believe Jesus set aside his godhood while he was a man on the earth. Oneness Pentecostals say the classic formula of the Trinity is completely wrong, and yet all these claim that Christ is God and that the Bible supports their position.

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity.

So my question is why is it the Jews never saw a Trinity in the Old Testament?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Something that is openly admitted by theologians that is not known by many Christians is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible

John 1:1-3...followed by v.14.

It looks pretty stated to me.

There are others, too.

, but is actually “built” by piecing together statements that are said to support it.

Because that is what you are supposed to do.

Instead of taking one scripture out of context, you build a case, finding supplementary verses to support the one in question.

Do you find fault with that?

Since most Christians believe the Trinity is a mystery and not to be understood is a huge reason why doctrinal discussions about it are often avoided or brushed aside and ignored.

I can easily understand it.

Worse, the teaching that the Trinity is a “mystery” has been used as a club to beat down doubters and dissenters, and those people are often branded as “heretics” and their role in Christianity minimized.

Unfortunate.

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible

Neither is the word "Bible" in the Bible.

, and that is supporting evidence that the doctrine is unbiblical

Wrong.

It isn't about words not being the Bible, it is about whether or not concepts are in the Bible.

The words "grandfather" or "grandson" aren't in the Bible.

However, Abraham was Isaac's father. And Isaac was Jacob's father.

So, what is the relationship between Abraham and Jacob?

The words that we used to describe their relationship arent in the Bible...but the concepts are clearly there, and that is where we hang our hats on.

which may be why Trinitarians differ, sometimes greatly in their definitions of the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church differs from the Western Church on the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Trinitarians who hold to the “classic” definition of the Trinity say Jesus was 100% God and 100% man while on the earth believe differently from Kenotic Trinitarians who believe Jesus set aside his godhood while he was a man on the earth. Oneness Pentecostals say the classic formula of the Trinity is completely wrong, and yet all these claim that Christ is God and that the Bible supports their position.

A lot of falsehoods crept in once Jesus left the scene.

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries.

Wrong. All of the books of the canon were completed by the end of the first century CE.

It doesn't matter when it was developed because the development is based on how soon people can get can get their understandings in order.

If your boss leaves for vacation and he will return in a month, and he leaves you and your coworkers a list of instructions on what he wants done by the time he returns...

And it takes you and your coworkers 30 days in your developmental understanding on what he wants done..that doesn't negate the fact that the instructions were written 29 days prior, does it?

For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ.

Wrong. The Apostles Creed was a few centuries after the original apostles.

The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.”

Do we have earlier copies of the NC which doesn't have that good stuff?

But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.

Well, may it took those guys long to reach the conclusion that Ignatius of Antioch had drawn 3 centuries earlier..

“[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2

Hmm.

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach.

First off, Trinitarians get our belief in the Trinity from the Bible and nothing else.

Therefore, if our beliefs are grounded in/from the Bible, then again, your mentioning of when others developed their understanding of what was written and to be understood from what the Bible had been saying all alone, is irrelevant (I say so respectfully).

Second, I do not believe (nor am I aware of) any Trinitarian who believes that the belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation.

If they do, then I have beef with them, because it is unbiblical, and it is falsehoods like that which are part of the problem.

God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God.

Baptism isn't in the scriptures of the Jewish people, either.

Catch my drift?

God reveals on his time, not ours.

Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity.

Then it wasn't meant for them to know, not at that time.

So my question is why is it the Jews never saw a Trinity in the Old Testament?

Because God never conveyed it to them.

[Peterlag]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #11]

It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as "Word" in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated "Word" (some versions even write "Christ" in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it.) When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translator's decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture. As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like "reason" (thus "logic" is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a "word," "saying," "command," etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, saying, sentence, speaker, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word, and words. I had thought you would have picked a verse that had not a wide range of meanings.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #11]
It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as "Word" in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated "Word" (some versions even write "Christ" in John 1:1).

Sorry, Pete, but you are WRONG here.

It isn't a matter of what "most Trinitarians believe".

Whether or not the word is to be capitalized is based on contemporary grammatics (lack of a better term).

I shared with you John 1:1-2...and I also mentioned v.14 along the same lines. Lets focus on v.1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So we have the "Word" here.

But why is the "Word" capitalized?

Because of verse 14 (which you ignored)...which states..

14 And the "Word" became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory.

The "Word" in verse 14 has been identified as obviously Jesus.

So since this is now a title which pertains to a person, we capitalize the word.

See how that works?

This is something you would do regardless of whether you are a Trinitarian or not.

However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it.) When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translator's decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture.

As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like "reason" (thus "logic" is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a "word," "saying," "command," etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, saying, sentence, speaker, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word, and words. I had thought you would have picked a verse that had not a wide range of meanings.

With all due respect, this^ is all red herrings.

Instead of addressing my post in its entirety, you focus on the part which should be of least contention.

[myth-one.com]

14 And the "Word" became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory.

The "Word" in verse 14 has been identified as obviously Jesus.

The Word in verse 14 is the same Word defined in verse 1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jesus is not identified as the Word in verse 14. Jesus is identified as the "Word become flesh." That is, Jesus is a man. Some translations use the word "made" instead of "become."

So the man Jesus is the result of the Word becoming or being made as flesh. Jesus is the mortal product of that temporary transformation.

This change of body type had to be accomplished because the Word, being an immortal God, could not die.

The Word become flesh (the man Jesus Christ) was a Jewish man who could die.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

The Word had to be made flesh as a separate being for the specific purpose of dying: "for the suffering of death".

The immortal spiritual bodied God called the Word could not possibly die. Jesus could and did die.

And being a Jewish man, Jesus was a party to the original covenant between God and mankind.

[Peterlag]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #13]

The "Word" in verse 14 has been identified as obviously Jesus.

How do you see Jesus with 300 different ways to translate that word?

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to Peterlag in post #15]

With all due respect...I'd like the entirety of my initial post to you addressed.

You made a lot of inaccurate statements, and instead of addressing what I said about those, you chose to focus on that of which there is least contention.

Or, we can drop the conversation and I will take the W and keep it pushing.

However you want to do it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Jesus is not identified as the Word in verse 14. Jesus is identified as the "Word become flesh." That is, Jesus is a man. Some translations use the word "made" instead of "become."

As tempting as it is to debate the Biblical validity of the Trinity doctrine with you, I will refrain..at least, for now.


Lets call attention to your blatant contradiction of yourself in two sentences.

1. Jesus is not identified as the Word in verse 14.

Yet, very next sentence..

2. Jesus is identified as "the Word became flesh" (which is literally what verse 14 states).

Smh.

[Peterlag]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #16]

I don't need to drop anything or am I ignoring anything you wrote. But I can only handle one verse at a time. If you give me 50 verses and I could write a page about each. Well, then that would be 50 pages I need to type and I'm talking to others on this forum and many on other forums. So I'm not scared to respond because I am strong in the Scriptures and can converse with you on any verse in the Bible. John 1 is not my favorite because there's to much confusion on many different ways that verse is translated. I mean a child could handle some of this stuff and for an example I give you John 10:30. Lots of places in the Bible it talks about being one with another.

There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God." The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what they meant... he and his Father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "... he who plants and he who waters are one..." (1 Corinthians 3:8). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being."

[myth-one.com]

Data on gods:

Two type of bodies are defined in the scriptures -- natural and spiritual.

Natural, also called physical, fleshy, or earthly bodies live in the earthly, physical world. Every human being in the natural world is defined as a "human".

God is a Spirit and spirits live in the spiritual, godly, or heavenly world.

Every member of the godly world can be described as a "god" in the general singular case.

There are different kinds of "men." There are male, female, and different races, but in the general case all are men or mankind.

There are also different grades and ranks within the kingdom of God. There is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and various angels. All are individual spiritual bodied beings, with a chain of command akin to that used by groups of humans.

God the Father rules over the entire Kingdom of God, and all other gods ultimately report to Him.

The earth is no longer a part of the Kingdom of God. It is like a rebellious colony which has broken away from the kingdom.

God the Word created the earth, and He is working to get the earth back into the Kingdom of God.

God the Father, and God the Holy Ghost are in agreement with the plan which the Word is implementing to accomplish this objective:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[myth-one.com]

Jesus is not identified as the Word in verse 14. Jesus is identified as the "Word become flesh." That is, Jesus is a man. Some translations use the word "made" instead of "become."

As tempting as it is to debate the Biblical validity of the Trinity doctrine with you, I will refrain..at least, for now.

Lets call attention to your blatant contradiction of yourself in two sentences.

1. Jesus is not identified as the Word in verse 14.

Yet, very next sentence..

2. Jesus is identified as "the Word became flesh" (which is literally what verse 14 states).

Smh.

There is no contradiction!

Jesus is never identified as the Word.

Jesus is identified in verse 14 as "the Word become flesh".

Your error is in equating the Word with the "Word become flesh".

The Word is still the Word. No immortal body can take on mortality!! If it can, then it was never immortal.

The "Word become flesh" is the mortal man Jesus Christ!

The Word and the "word made flesh" are two separate beings -- one is an immortal spiritual bodied being and one is a natural physical bodied mortal human.

Jesus Christ is "the Word become flesh" -- not the Word.

One (the Word) is a God, the other (the Word made flesh) is a human being. During the human lifetime of Jesus Christ (the Word made flesh), the Word still existed as the immortal God the Word.

<==========================================>

Regarding the "Trinity" -- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are individual spiritual bodied beings. Spiritual bodied beings are born of the Spirit (God) into the Kingdom of God. Thus, every being born into the Kingdom of God is a god. There are many, many more gods and every Christian will someday be a member of the Kingdom of God, and therefore be a god:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Exactly as every member of the human species is born as a human; every being born into the Kingdom of God is a god.

The only inference about any possible trinity is the following verse:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

That simply means they are one in agreement and purpose.