Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[synergy]

Eric Chang gave the above as an example from his book : The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monotheism when he was speaking of the Trinitarian use of double-talk. I posted an excerpt from his book on the thread The Trinity and it's supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning.

Here's what he said in regard to Jesus dying. "Let us take one fundamentally important point as an example. One thing which is stated with great frequency about Jesus is the fact of his atoning death. But if Jesus is God, he cannot die; if he can die, he is not God; for one fundamental truth about God in the Bible is that He is eternal, everlasting, and immortal (Dt. 33:27; Ps. 90:2, etc.); there is absolutely no question about this where the Bible is concerned. Paul speaks of God as the One "who alone has immortality" (1 Tim. 6:16). Everything else will pass away, but God abides forever, His "years have no end" (Ps. 102: 25-27).
So trinitarianism is face with the question: how can Jesus did and yet be God? To this there is no other answer than to say: Jesus died as man, but not as God. This is the inevitable double-talk. What then about the trinitarian creed as stated at Chalcedon: "One Christ in two nature (notice how God is spoken of in terms of "nature") united in one person ... without division, without separation"? Obviously, this dogma is simply impossible to sustain in the light of the Biblical revelation of God."
(The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monotheism, pg. 80)

[Author Eric Chang ---- First as a divinity student and later as a pastor, Chang had been a staunch trinitarian for several decades, having done much to promote trinitarianism in his teaching and preaching. But around 2005, through a restudy of the Bible, he began to question his own trinitarian perspective on things such as the deity of Christ, concluding that it is not supported by the biblical data.]

The standard definition of death is separation of body and soul. Do you agree or do you have your own definition?

 

[amazing grace]

The standard definition of death is separation of body and soul. Do you agree or do you have your own definition?

The standard definition of death is being DEAD - the end of life. What you presented originated from Greek philosophy.
Is that how you separate Jesus, the man and Jesus, aka God?

 

[synergy]

The standard definition of death is being DEAD - the end of life. What you presented originated from Greek philosophy.
Is that how you separate Jesus, the man and Jesus, aka God?

Scripture speaks of ongoing conscious existence after death (e.g., Luke 16:19–31), which cannot be reduced to simple nonexistence. Jesus is not into fairy tales. So the biblical definition is much more richer and more nuanced than your modern idea of death as mere annihilation, and it stands on its own textual foundation rather than borrowing from Greek thought.

 

[FreeInChrist]

I'm not cherry picking. There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

Not one verse that actually says Jesus is a god-man.
Not one verse that actually says we must believe Jesus is God.
Not one verse that actually says we must believe God is three persons.
Not one verse out of approximately 31,102 Bible verses that says God is Triune.
Not one verse that actually says Jesus is both 100 percent God and 100 percent man.
Not one verse that actually says Jesus is God because if it's that important of a doctrine it should have been plainly and clearly taught by someone somewhere.

“‘Not one verse’ is a smokescreen. The Bible often teaches truth by the whole of its witness, not by one neatly packaged sentence.

Jesus is called God → John 1:1, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13

Jesus has God’s attributes → eternal (John 8:58), creator (Colossians 1:16), sustainer (Hebrews 1:3)

Jesus receives worship → Matthew 14:33, Revelation 5:12–14

Yet there is one God → Deuteronomy 6:4

And the Father, Son, and Spirit are all identified as divine → Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14

Put it together and you get exactly what you’re denying: one God, three persons.


Demanding one verse that says ‘God is triune’ is like demanding one verse that says ‘the Bible is 66 books.’ It’s a category mistake.”

“Your argument would also ‘disprove’ the canon of Scripture, the two natures of Christ, and even the word ‘monotheism’.......because none of those appear in a single proof-text either. Truth isn’t limited to your preferred wording; it’s established by what Scripture as a whole teaches

"And the word came to humanity and dwelt in us..."

John 1:14 (The Compatible Translation)

YHWH’s word came to humanity through Jesus. His Prime Directive was

to have His word dwell in believers to transform them.

The Holy Bible Septuagint LXX​

Unaltered English Word-for-Word from Interlinear Greek

LXX...

John 1:14 And the word became flesh, and tented among us, and we saw his glory, glory as an only child of the father, full of favor and truth.

 

[amazing grace]

Scripture speaks of ongoing conscious existence after death (e.g., Luke 16:19–31), which cannot be reduced to simple nonexistence. Jesus is not into fairy tales. So the biblical definition is much more richer and more nuanced than your modern idea of death as mere annihilation, and it stands on its own textual foundation rather than borrowing from Greek thought.

Death is the absence of life.
Scripture speaks of death using the analogy of 'sleep'.
Ecclesiastes says the 'dead know nothing'.
If as you say the dead are conscious - wouldn't they be praising God? Psalm 115:17 says 'the dead praise not the LORD'.
Ps. 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who will give you praise?”
Ps. 30:9 “What profit is there in my death, if I go down to the pit? Will the dust praise you? Will it tell of your faithfulness?”
Isaiah 26:19 “Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a dew of light, and the earth will give birth to the dead.” The dead are now in the dust awaiting the resurrection.
Ezekiel 37:12 “Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel.”
There are many verses about the dead, being dead, being asleep in scripture but nothing about a conscious existence.

 

[Peterlag]

“‘Not one verse’ is a smokescreen. The Bible often teaches truth by the whole of its witness, not by one neatly packaged sentence.

Jesus is called God → John 1:1, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13

Jesus has God’s attributes → eternal (John 8:58), creator (Colossians 1:16), sustainer (Hebrews 1:3)

Jesus receives worship → Matthew 14:33, Revelation 5:12–14

Yet there is one God → Deuteronomy 6:4

And the Father, Son, and Spirit are all identified as divine → Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14

Put it together and you get exactly what you’re denying: one God, three persons.


Demanding one verse that says ‘God is triune’ is like demanding one verse that says ‘the Bible is 66 books.’ It’s a category mistake.”

“Your argument would also ‘disprove’ the canon of Scripture, the two natures of Christ, and even the word ‘monotheism’.......because none of those appear in a single proof-text either. Truth isn’t limited to your preferred wording; it’s established by what Scripture as a whole teaches

The Holy Bible Septuagint LXX​

Unaltered English Word-for-Word from Interlinear Greek

LXX...

John 1:14 And the word became flesh, and tented among us, and we saw his glory, glory as an only child of the father, full of favor and truth.

Here's me commenting on one of the verses that you quoted which is John 8:58...

John 8:58...
Jesus said "ego eimi" .... God didn't. The Greek word in Exodus 3:14 is not the same word Jesus used in John 8:58. Jesus said “ego eimi” in John 8:58. Not “ego eimi ho eimi” which means "I am the One who is" as Exodus 3:14 is written in the Septuagint. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am" which was a common phrase in the New Testament and isn't the name of anyone. The disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ at the last supper. They said literally "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "not I am." The word "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The statement Jesus made in John 8:58 concerning "I am" would have to be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14 in order for the Trinitarian argument to make Jesus God. And it is not. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham that Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.

Here's a few examples if you would enjoy reading more...

So, they said to him “Who are you?”

Matthew 14:27
But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying Be of good cheer; it is I; {ego eimi} be not afraid.
And who did they identify him as - God? NOPE.
And those in the boat worshiped him, saying "Truly, you are the Son of God."
Who is Jesus identifying as? The Son of God.

Mark 14:61,62
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, “I am, {ego eimi}
Who is Jesus identifying as? The Messiah, the Son of the Blessed.

John 4:26
Jesus said unto her, “I that speak unto thee am he, {ego eimi}.
Who is Jesus identifying as? The Messiah.

John 9:9
Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he. {ego eimi}
Who is the blind man identifying as? The one who was healed.

Acts 10:21
Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he {ego eimi}
Who did Peter identify as? The one they were looking for.

"I am" - {ego eimi} is not a NAME. Yahweh is the God of Israel's name.
{ego eimi} - I am - is just a response of self-identification.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

 

[Doug Brents]

Because there is a difference between worshipping someone as God and as a god. People bowed to just in reverence, yes it can mean worship, but not as God.

John 20:28 is what I am quoting. There is no mention of bowing there.

You're right, there's no mention of bowing. But he did call Him both "Lord" and "God", not one of the "gods".

Capitalization is a translators preference. People are called elohim in the Bible and so is God. There is a big difference depending on context.

There is indeed. So what is the context of John 10 vs the context of John 20? In John 10, Jesus claimed to be God and the Pharisees tried to stone Him. And His defense looked back to Psalms where believers in God are called gods. In John 20, Thomas calls Jesus "God" because he has just had confirmation that this really is the Jesus that he knew before Calvary. He was proclaiming Jesus to be God, not one of the gods.

 

[Doug Brents]

I already gave you another conclusion so you can't say there can be no other conclusion. Here I will post it again...

The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ.

That is not a proper conclusion. It fails to take into account the other passages of Scripture, like John 17:5, which tell us again that Jesus was in Heaven with the Father, with all the glory of the Father, before the world was created.

It also fails to take into account John 1:14 which tells us that the Logos took on flesh and became a man. Someone else's thoughts cannot have thoughts of their own.

 

[Runningman]

You're right, there's no mention of bowing. But he did call Him both "Lord" and "God", not one of the "gods".

There is indeed. So what is the context of John 10 vs the context of John 20? In John 10, Jesus claimed to be God and the Pharisees tried to stone Him. And His defense looked back to Psalms where believers in God are called gods. In John 20, Thomas calls Jesus "God" because he has just had confirmation that this really is the Jesus that he knew before Calvary. He was proclaiming Jesus to be God, not one of the gods.

Well, technically, it is debatable as to whether Thomas was referring to Jesus as "Lord and God" because that isn't the way John seems to have recalled the exchange. The way the manuscripts put it is that, yes, Thomas did say "My Lord and my God" but it isn't clear if Thomas is just making a statement or not. I point this out because in Greek when someone is making an address toward someone else, with great consistency throughout Scripture, a vocative case in the Greek grammar is used, indicating that one person is addressing another. In the case of Thomas, there is no such Greek construct. Meaning the way John recalled what Thomas said wasn't as Thomas saying that to Jesus. Also, how do you know God should be capitalized for Jesus?

 

[JesusFan]

Well, technically, it is debatable as to whether Thomas was referring to Jesus as "Lord and God" because that isn't the way John seems to have recalled the exchange. The way the manuscripts put it is that, yes, Thomas did say "My Lord and my God" but it isn't clear if Thomas is just making a statement or not. I point this out because in Greek when someone is making an address toward someone else, with great consistency throughout Scripture, a vocative case in the Greek grammar is used, indicating that one person is addressing another. In the case of Thomas, there is no such Greek construct. Meaning the way John recalled what Thomas said wasn't as Thomas saying that to Jesus. Also, how do you know God should be capitalized for Jesus?

Thomas called Jesus there per the Greek text The God and the Lord of me, and biblical Greek has no deal about capital letter means God, smaller case meant lessor god

 

[Doug Brents]

Well, technically, it is debatable as to whether Thomas was referring to Jesus as "Lord and God" because that isn't the way John seems to have recalled the exchange. The way the manuscripts put it is that, yes, Thomas did say "My Lord and my God" but it isn't clear if Thomas is just making a statement or not. I point this out because in Greek when someone is making an address toward someone else, with great consistency throughout Scripture, a vocative case in the Greek grammar is used, indicating that one person is addressing another. In the case of Thomas, there is no such Greek construct. Meaning the way John recalled what Thomas said wasn't as Thomas saying that to Jesus.

There are two choices here: either Thomas was calling Jesus God, or He was using an expletive (curse) using God's name. If He was using God's name as and expletive, then Jesus should have reprimanded him for using God's name in vain. If he was calling Jesus "God" and Jesus wasn't God, then Jesus should have reprimanded him for blasphemy. Either way, Jesus did not reprimand him, but accepted his praise, adoration, and worship as befit God.

Also, how do you know God should be capitalized for Jesus?

Because in the Beginning, the Word (which became Jesus) was God (John 1:1). And Jesus had the glory of God before Creation with God (John 17:5). And because we are told that God (Gen 1:1) and Jesus (John 1:3) created everything that exists.

 

[Peterlag]

That is not a proper conclusion. It fails to take into account the other passages of Scripture, like John 17:5, which tell us again that Jesus was in Heaven with the Father, with all the glory of the Father, before the world was created.

It also fails to take into account John 1:14 which tells us that the Logos took on flesh and became a man. Someone else's thoughts cannot have thoughts of their own.

John 17:5 does not say Jesus was in heaven with God before the world was created. You say that, but the Bible does not say that. John 17:5 says...

glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

 

[Doug Brents]

John 17:5 does not say Jesus was in heaven with God before the world was created. You say that, but the Bible does not say that. John 17:5 says...

glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

What part of "which I had with thee before the world was" do you fail to understand? Jesus HAD the glory of God with God (the Father) in Heaven BEFORE the world was created.

 

[Peterlag]

What part of "which I had with thee before the world was" do you fail to understand? Jesus HAD the glory of God with God (the Father) in Heaven BEFORE the world was created.

Timothy says that each Christian was given grace “before the ages began” (2 Timoty 1:9), no one tries to prove that we were actually alive with God back then. Everyone acknowledges that we were “in the mind of God,” i.e., in God’s foreknowledge. The same is true of Jesus Christ. His glory was “with the Father” before the world began, and in John 17:5 he prayed that it will come into manifestation.

 

[Doug Brents]

Timothy says that each Christian was given grace “before the ages began” (2 Timoty 1:9), no one tries to prove that we were actually alive with God back then. Everyone acknowledges that we were “in the mind of God,” i.e., in God’s foreknowledge.

You are comparing apples to pomegranates. We didn't exist with God before Creation. We were indeed only in His foreknowledge. But Jesus was there with the Father, an integral part of Creation, and clothed with the Glory of God.

The same is true of Jesus Christ. His glory was “with the Father” before the world began, and in John 17:5 he prayed that it will come into manifestation.

But that is not what He prayed. He prayed that He would receive the glory He had (already) with the Father before Creation.

 

[Runningman]

Thomas called Jesus there per the Greek text The God and the Lord of me, and biblical Greek has no deal about capital letter means God, smaller case meant lessor god

According to the Greek text Thomas didn't say "You" are Lord and God. So, there isn't a whole lot of proof that Thomas addressed Jesus as such. Actually, Thomas didn't believe Jesus is God. If anything, could have thought of Jesus in the elohim sense of the word, along the lines of Moses or king Solomon.

 

[JesusFan]

According to the Greek text Thomas didn't say "You" are Lord and God. So, there isn't a whole lot of proof that Thomas addressed Jesus as such. Actually, Thomas didn't believe Jesus is God. If anything, could have thought of Jesus in the elohim sense of the word, along the lines of Moses or king Solomon.

Peter knew Jesus was very Son of God, was divine, as did all of the Apostles after the resurrection

 

[Runningman]

There are two choices here: either Thomas was calling Jesus God, or He was using an expletive (curse) using God's name. If He was using God's name as and expletive, then Jesus should have reprimanded him for using God's name in vain. If he was calling Jesus "God" and Jesus wasn't God, then Jesus should have reprimanded him for blasphemy. Either way, Jesus did not reprimand him, but accepted his praise, adoration, and worship as befit God.

Because in the Beginning, the Word (which became Jesus) was God (John 1:1). And Jesus had the glory of God before Creation with God (John 17:5). And because we are told that God (Gen 1:1) and Jesus (John 1:3) created everything that exists.

Well, the issue with that is that God's name isn't "God." God is The God, but God's name is YHWH according to Scripture, not Jesus. So Thomas was of course not taking the Lord's name in vain. I don't see any clear indicator that Thomas was blurting out something about his lone-wolf belief system regarding his Scripturally-unsupported feelings about Jesus being God. That isn't something Jesus taught nor anyone else repeated. It would make Thomas unique if that is something he truly believed. I don't see any evidence why he would believe it's the way you so, contrary to everyone calling Jesus a man.

 

[JesusFan]

Well, the issue with that is that God's name isn't "God." God is The God, but God's name is YHWH according to Scripture, not Jesus. So Thomas was of course not taking the Lord's name in vain. I don't see any clear indicator that Thomas was blurt something out about his lone-wolf belief system about his feelings about Jesus being God. That isn't something Jesus taught nor anyone else repeated. It would make Thomas unique if that is something he truly believed. I don't see any evidence why he would believe it's the way you so.

Jesus received His pronouncement as worship

 

[Runningman]

Peter knew Jesus was very Son of God, was divine, as did all of the Apostles after the resurrection

Yes, they did believe Jesus is the Son of God, but no indicator that they thought it had a reference to deity.