Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[Peterlag]

That is what you want to twist the language to say, but that is not what Scripture SAYS!

It's not that much of a twist since there's no biblical verse that clearly teaches that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it.

 

[Doug Brents]

It's not that much of a twist since there's no biblical verse that clearly teaches that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it.

The whole of John 1 teaches the deity of Jesus. But you have been shown this many times and still willfully believe Satan's lie. Quit wasting my time with your blasphemy.

 

[JesusFan]

John 10:33 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Had the translators rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verse 34 and 35, then it would read, "...you, a man, claim to be a god." In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as "god" and not "God." In Acts 12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translate it "god." The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, "...they changed their minds and said he was a god." Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated "a god." It is a general principle that theos without the article should be "a god," or "divine." Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was "God." Now since Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God's work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be "a god" or "divine."

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.

Except Jesus called θεός there in that passage, which meant God period

 

[JesusFan]

It's not that much of a twist since there's no biblical verse that clearly teaches that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it.

Stephen prayed to him as God when he died, Thomas confessed Him, as Did all of the Apostles

 

[Runningman]

Stephen prayed to him as God when he died, Thomas confessed Him, as Did all of the Apostles

Not according to Scripture.

 

[Peterlag]

Stephen prayed to him as God when he died, Thomas confessed Him, as Did all of the Apostles

Saying the words my God and my Lord is not a teaching.

John 20:28 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. “My Lord and my God” can easily be understood that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus always taught that he only did what God guided him to do, and said that if you had seen him you had seen the Father. In that light, there is good evidence that “doubting Thomas” was saying that in seeing Jesus he was also seeing the Father.

We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Only eight days earlier, Thomas had vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas could no longer deny that Jesus was alive and that God had raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, he became immediately convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But did he suddenly have a revelation that Jesus was God? That would be totally outside of Thomas’ knowledge and belief. Jesus had never claimed to be God despite Trinitarian claims that he had.

In other places in the Bible where the apostles speak about the resurrection of Jesus, they do not declare “This proves Jesus is God!” Rather, they declare that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and they crucified him." The disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah, a “Prophet” and the Son of God, but not God Himself.

Are we to believe that somehow Jesus taught the Trinity, something that went against everything the disciples were taught and believed, but there is no mention of Jesus ever teaching it anywhere, and yet the disciples somehow got that teaching? That seems too incredible to believe. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Christ was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

 

[Peterlag]

Except Jesus called θεός there in that passage, which meant God period

I have no idea what you are referring to.

 

[Peterlag]

The whole of John 1 teaches the deity of Jesus. But you have been shown this many times and still willfully believe Satan's lie. Quit wasting my time with your blasphemy.

It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.

 

[Runningman]

Saying the words my God and my Lord is not a teaching.

John 20:28 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. “My Lord and my God” can easily be understood that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus always taught that he only did what God guided him to do, and said that if you had seen him you had seen the Father. In that light, there is good evidence that “doubting Thomas” was saying that in seeing Jesus he was also seeing the Father.

We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Only eight days earlier, Thomas had vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas could no longer deny that Jesus was alive and that God had raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, he became immediately convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But did he suddenly have a revelation that Jesus was God? That would be totally outside of Thomas’ knowledge and belief. Jesus had never claimed to be God despite Trinitarian claims that he had.

In other places in the Bible where the apostles speak about the resurrection of Jesus, they do not declare “This proves Jesus is God!” Rather, they declare that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and they crucified him." The disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah, a “Prophet” and the Son of God, but not God Himself.

Are we to believe that somehow Jesus taught the Trinity, something that went against everything the disciples were taught and believed, but there is no mention of Jesus ever teaching it anywhere, and yet the disciples somehow got that teaching? That seems too incredible to believe. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Christ was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

Here's my view on that.

Thomas was already a believer in the things that mattered prior to John 20:28, regardless of his skepticism about Jesus resurrection. Being one of the 12 disciples, he wasn't a skeptic about Jesus' status as messiah. If Thomas had thought Jesus was God, then he would have already demonstrated belief in that, but for Thomas to just suddenly confess his opinion that Jesus is God contradicts what we already know about Jesus' teachings, Thomas' views, and the disciples view prior to John 20:28. Thomas was one of the 12 (John 20:24) was willing to die for Jesus (John 11:16) and he already called Jesus Lord (John 14:25) so Thomas seems to have already had no doubts about Jesus' identity. Thomas was of the same mind and belief regarding Jesus as the other disciples, none of whom stated Jesus was God and there is no indicator Jesus taught them that.

Trinitarians like to take what Thomas said out of context. The context is about Thomas doubting the resurrection, not the formation of a new doctrine.

 

[Peterlag]

Here's my view on that.

Thomas was already a believer in the things that mattered prior to John 20:28, regardless of his skepticism about Jesus resurrection. Being one of the 12 disciples, he wasn't a skeptic about Jesus' status as messiah. If Thomas had thought Jesus was God, then he would have already demonstrated belief in that, but for Thomas to just suddenly confess his opinion that Jesus is God contradicts what we already know about Jesus' teachings, Thomas' views, and the disciples view prior to John 20:28. Thomas was one of the 12 (John 20:24) was willing to die for Jesus (John 11:16) and he already called Jesus Lord (John 14:25) so Thomas seems to have already had no doubts about Jesus' identity. Thomas was of the same mind and belief regarding Jesus as the other disciples, none of whom stated Jesus was God and there is no indicator Jesus taught them that.

Trinitarians like to take what Thomas said out of context. The context is about Thomas doubting the resurrection, not the formation of a new doctrine.

You just gave me a thought I never had before. Would Thomas have doubted the resurrection if he thought Jesus was God?

 

[mikesw]

You just gave me a thought I never had before. Would Thomas have doubted the resurrection if he thought Jesus was God?

this obvious is a timing issues that peterlag and runningman miss. Of course if peterlag and runningman think this was a daily teaching of Jesus, he would have a point. Maybe it is hard to miss that only after the resurrection was it the time that Thomas said this. Is this the common type of thing that unitarians miss reading scripture -- perhaps a flattening of all scripture?

 

[Runningman]

You just gave me a thought I never had before. Would Thomas have doubted the resurrection if he thought Jesus was God?

That's a GREAT question Peter. If Thomas already believed that then he would have not doubted it at all.

 

[JesusFan]

It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.

No, John purpose was to tell us that God became man and had dwelt among them

 

[Runningman]

No, John purpose was to tell us that God became man and had dwelt among them

"The Word became flesh" so God became a creation? That contradicts God's law about idolatry and would necessitate God perpetuating sin. So the trinitarian understanding of John 1 must be heresy.

John 1 is just about the beginning of Jesus ministry in which he was created by God and the Word is something he had, not something he is.

 

[Peterlag]

No, John purpose was to tell us that God became man and had dwelt among them

Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."

If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it's clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

A friend of mine put it this way... "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."

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.

 

[360watt]

Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."

If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it's clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

A friend of mine put it this way... "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."

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.

'This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." '

Right.. so ... Jesus as an outward expression of God?

And yet ×not× God?

 

[e v e]

So God and Jesus aren't the same being.

John 14
1“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe in Me as well.

Christ is of course deity....

 

[e v e]

'This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." '

Right.. so ... Jesus as an outward expression of God?

And yet ×not× God?

Christ is our deity

 

[360watt]

Christ is our deity

Yes, that's what I believe..Jesus is God..but Peterlag is calling Jesus the outward expression of God..yet some how not God.

 

[Peterlag]

Yes, that's what I believe..Jesus is God..but Peterlag is calling Jesus the outward expression of God..yet some how not God.

I'm not calling Jesus the outward expression. I'm calling the word "logos" an outward expression.