The Trinity made easy

[Peterlag]

Am I to assume you are not being serious anymore?

Well, tell me where am I wrong...

The Bible teaches there is one God, the Father, and one Messiah and Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the divinely conceived Son of God. Jesus Christ is the fully human “Son of God” and not “God the Son.” For clarity’s sake, it's helpful to understand what the Trinity is. Theorthodox doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and the three of them are co-equal,co-eternal, and share the same essence and together those three individual “Persons” are one triune God. The doctrine of the Trinity that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man and that both the divine nature and his human nature live together in his flesh body may be widely believed, but is never stated in the Bible.

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 and100% 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.

 

[Peterlag]

I'm handling Revelation 1:8 on another site. Let me know if your would be interested on how I see Revelation 1:8 on this site?

 

[Administrator]

I'm handling Revelation 1:8 on another site. Let me know if your would be interested on how I see Revelation 1:8 on this site?

Sure go for it. Just create another thread And have at it.

 

[mikesw]

Well, tell me where am I wrong...

The Bible teaches there is one God, the Father, and one Messiah and Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the divinely conceived Son of God. Jesus Christ is the fully human “Son of God” and not “God the Son.” For clarity’s sake, it's helpful to understand what the Trinity is. Theorthodox doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and the three of them are co-equal,co-eternal, and share the same essence and together those three individual “Persons” are one triune God. The doctrine of the Trinity that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man and that both the divine nature and his human nature live together in his flesh body may be widely believed, but is never stated in the Bible.

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 and100% 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.

You can see my short explanation of Gal 3:19-20 to see the probable sense that Paul has expressed at minimal a binitarian conception of the Godhead. Paul, as you will recall, avoided using the term "man" to refer to Christ. You might realize that the first priority on people's minds was to understand Christ's divinity correctly. But the significance of the Holy Spirit was less prominent and more abstract. However, the evidence of the Spirit as the third person eventually came to the table for reconciling.
It tends to be that groups that do not acknowledge the Trinity are ones who are denying certain aspects of God and his work on earth. Unless a better conception of the Godhead is sufficient, this is what we have and accept, despite us wanting to know better about God.

 

[Peterlag]

You can see my short explanation of Gal 3:19-20 to see the probable sense that Paul has expressed at minimal a binitarian conception of the Godhead. Paul, as you will recall, avoided using the term "man" to refer to Christ. You might realize that the first priority on people's minds was to understand Christ's divinity correctly. But the significance of the Holy Spirit was less prominent and more abstract. However, the evidence of the Spirit as the third person eventually came to the table for reconciling.
It tends to be that groups that do not acknowledge the Trinity are ones who are denying certain aspects of God and his work on earth. Unless a better conception of the Godhead is sufficient, this is what we have and accept, despite us wanting to know better about God.

Well, let's try these. Tell me where I'm wrong...

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, but rather just the opposite as all throughout their history they fiercely defended the fact that there was only one God. Jesus himself tied the greatest commandment in the Law together with there being only one God when an expert in Old Testament law asked him which of the commandments was the most important. Jesus said to him “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God….” (Mark 12:29-30).

The pronouns in the Bible that refer to “God” are singular and there are lots of them. “The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain well over twenty thousand pronouns and verbs describing the One God” (Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound, International Scholars Publications, New York, 1998, p. 17). Singular pronouns include “I” “my” and “he.” We would expect it to say “For God so loved the world that they gave the Father’s only begotten Son….” if “God” were composed of three co-equal beings who each had their own mind and together agreed to send Christ. The fact that the pronouns in the Bible refer to “God” as a singular being is also evidence that there is no Trinity.

The Old Testament prophecies about the coming Messiah foretold that he would be a human being who would be the offspring of Eve (Genesis 3:15); a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18); a descendant of Judah (Genesis 49:10; a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15); a son of David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 11:1); a king ruling under Yahweh (Psalm 110:1); and a ruler from among the people of Israel (Jeremiah 30:21). That explains why the people were all expecting a human Messiah. Psalm 110:1 merits special attention because it's especially clear but has been misunderstood and misrepresented by most English versions that read “The LORD says to my Lord….” The word “LORD” is Yahweh, but many Trinitarian commentators argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word "adonai" that is another name for God, and that would provide proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But the Hebrew text does not use "adonai" but rather "adoni" which is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God.

The Old Testament refers to the Messiah as “one like a son of man” and the phrase “son of man” was a Semitic idiom for a human being and it's used that way throughout the Old Testament. The phrase “son of man” also became a title of the Messiah when Daniel referred to him as “one like a son of man” (Daniel 7:13) and that explains why Jesus called himself “the son of man” many times. The use of the “son of man” in reference to the Messiah is one more piece of evidence that Jesus was fully human and one more reason that people were expecting the Messiah to be human. The New Testament teaches Jesus was a man and Jesus himself said he was “a man who has told you the truth” John 8:40. Jesus was not being disingenuous and hiding his “divine nature” but rather was making a factual statement that reinforced what the Jews were expecting of the Messiah—that he would be a fully human man.

 

[mikesw]

Well, let's try these. Tell me where I'm wrong...

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
. . . The use of the “son of man” in reference to the Messiah is one more piece of evidence that Jesus was fully human and one more reason that people were expecting the Messiah to be human. The New Testament teaches Jesus was a man and Jesus himself said he was “a man who has told you the truth” John 8:40. Jesus was not being disingenuous and hiding his “divine nature” but rather was making a factual statement that reinforced what the Jews were expecting of the Messiah—that he would be a fully human man.

You should have been on God's advisory board back then. You can read the Two Powers in Heaven by Alan Segal (link provided) to see if that gives you a different sense of what Judaism was struggling with. I've only read a tiny part of it, so I don't have the broad perspective on what he presents. I presume by now that you acknowledge the deity of Christ.
What you might also notice is that God appears often to refer to the Father (or perhaps more generally to the Godhead at times) while Christ refers to the incarnate Son within the Godhead. The distinction applies due to the fact of Christ's presence among humanity that gives him the prominence among humanity.
I could also add to the Gal 3:19-20 point is that Paul, at minimal, shared the concept of Christ in the Godhead with the Galatians in his early missions since they would have to know the divinity of Christ so they could understand Paul's remark.

 

[mikesw]

The word “LORD” is Yahweh, but many Trinitarian commentators argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word "adonai" that is another name for God, and that would provide proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But the Hebrew text does not use "adonai" but rather "adoni" which is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God.

That argument seems pretty weak. I can only look at patterns of the Hebrew but nothing technical. adonai only seems used in Genesis (e.g. Gen 18:27) and has a slightly distinguished meaning from adon (used for example in Deut 10:17). In Deut 10:17 it is used to describe God as Lord of lords.
Anyhow, Jesus presents the sense of Christ's divinity in Matt 22:41-45. David's Lord is existing and is greater than David when David composes the Psalm. Do you think the Pharisees understood scripture or perhaps there was a mystery here that they could not explain? Perhaps then God has details in the New Testament that have been left for his children to mull over across long periods of time.

 

[Peterlag]

That argument seems pretty weak. I can only look at patterns of the Hebrew but nothing technical. adonai only seems used in Genesis (e.g. Gen 18:27) and has a slightly distinguished meaning from adon (used for example in Deut 10:17). In Deut 10:17 it is used to describe God as Lord of lords.
Anyhow, Jesus presents the sense of Christ's divinity in Matt 22:41-45. David's Lord is existing and is greater than David when David composes the Psalm. Do you think the Pharisees understood scripture or perhaps there was a mystery here that they could not explain? Perhaps then God has details in the New Testament that have been left for his children to mull over across long periods of time.

You spin and twist better than most. Matthew 22:41-45 does not give a sense of the divinity. It's just God showing David what the Christ would be like after he is resurrected. It does not mean Jesus was there sitting next to God when Psalms was written.

 

[mikesw]

You spin and twist better than most. Matthew 22:41-45 does not give a sense of the divinity. It's just God showing David what the Christ would be like after he is resurrected. It does not mean Jesus was there sitting next to God when Psalms was written.

I'm just clarifying the problems of the weak arguments by Buzzard and Hunting. You can try to blame Jesus for the so-called spin he puts on the passage.
Let me get this clear. You are saying that David was anticipating the resurrection in Psalm 110 and that Jesus would transition from being the son of David into being the Lord of David sometime after everyone is resurrected? Somehow, that point fits into this interaction of Jesus with the Pharisees? Please tell me how -- just rhetorically -- I doubt it is helpful to your cause. I think the Pharisees could have given the answer you gave.

 

[Peterlag]

You should have been on God's advisory board back then. You can read the Two Powers in Heaven by Alan Segal (link provided) to see if that gives you a different sense of what Judaism was struggling with. I've only read a tiny part of it, so I don't have the broad perspective on what he presents. I presume by now that you acknowledge the deity of Christ.
What you might also notice is that God appears often to refer to the Father (or perhaps more generally to the Godhead at times) while Christ refers to the incarnate Son within the Godhead. The distinction applies due to the fact of Christ's presence among humanity that gives him the prominence among humanity.
I could also add to the Gal 3:19-20 point is that Paul, at minimal, shared the concept of Christ in the Godhead with the Galatians in his early missions since they would have to know the divinity of Christ so they could understand Paul's remark.

I see nothing in the following Scripture that says Jesus is God or the trinity is a thing or anything like that. A mediator is the third party through whom agreement is reached between two parties previously in conflict with each other. Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, the one whose action makes the covenant possible, and who is the guarantor of its execution. Christ Jesus is the one functioning as a go between, in order to initiate a relationship with us because he is literally connected to both sides, and therefore he is set between God and us. It's our big brother Christ Jesus, who is the one who is acting as a guarantee—to secure something that otherwise would not be obtained. Christ is the better covenant, the new covenant, guaranteeing its terms for the Christian people before the almighty God. Christ Jesus is producing peace for the salvation of his Church and has made a promise of assurance that the new covenant will perform satisfactorily because he is the one who is set between God and us.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

 

[mikesw]

I see nothing in the following Scripture that says Jesus is God or the trinity is a thing or anything like that. A mediator is the third party through whom agreement is reached between two parties previously in conflict with each other. Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, the one whose action makes the covenant possible, and who is the guarantor of its execution. Christ Jesus is the one functioning as a go between, in order to initiate a relationship with us because he is literally connected to both sides, and therefore he is set between God and us. It's our big brother Christ Jesus, who is the one who is acting as a guarantee—to secure something that otherwise would not be obtained. Christ is the better covenant, the new covenant, guaranteeing its terms for the Christian people before the almighty God. Christ Jesus is producing peace for the salvation of his Church and has made a promise of assurance that the new covenant will perform satisfactorily because he is the one who is set between God and us.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Indeed. The problem is that you cannot see what scripture says. That is what the whole discussion is demonstrating.

 

[Peterlag]

I'm just clarifying the problems of the weak arguments by Buzzard and Hunting. You can try to blame Jesus for the so-called spin he puts on the passage.
Let me get this clear. You are saying that David was anticipating the resurrection in Psalm 110 and that Jesus would transition from being the son of David into being the Lord of David sometime after everyone is resurrected?

No. What I am saying is God told David that the Christ would sit down next to God after he Jesus was resurrected. David was a prophet and so hearing from God was not that difficult.

 

[Peterlag]

Indeed. The problem is that you cannot see what scripture says. That is what the whole discussion is demonstrating.

Is there something wrong with what I wrote concerning a mediator that is the third party through whom agreement is reached between two parties previously in conflict with each other. Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, the one whose action makes the covenant possible, and who is the guarantor of its execution. Christ Jesus is the one functioning as a go between, in order to initiate a relationship with us because he is literally connected to both sides, and therefore he is set between God and us. It's our big brother Christ Jesus, who is the one who is acting as a guarantee—to secure something that otherwise would not be obtained. Christ is the better covenant, the new covenant, guaranteeing its terms for the Christian people before the almighty God. Christ Jesus is producing peace for the salvation of his Church and has made a promise of assurance that the new covenant will perform satisfactorily because he is the one who is set between God and us.

How do you get a trinity out of that?

 

[mikesw]

Is there something wrong with what I wrote concerning a mediator that is the third party through whom agreement is reached between two parties previously in conflict with each other. Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, the one whose action makes the covenant possible, and who is the guarantor of its execution. Christ Jesus is the one functioning as a go between, in order to initiate a relationship with us because he is literally connected to both sides, and therefore he is set between God and us. It's our big brother Christ Jesus, who is the one who is acting as a guarantee—to secure something that otherwise would not be obtained. Christ is the better covenant, the new covenant, guaranteeing its terms for the Christian people before the almighty God. Christ Jesus is producing peace for the salvation of his Church and has made a promise of assurance that the new covenant will perform satisfactorily because he is the one who is set between God and us.

How do you get a trinity out of that?

Here is my explanation of Gal 3:19-20 (link). I noted Christ in the Godhead. This is a big step in heading toward the Triune nature.

Other than sharing a failed conception of the two verses, you denial of the deity of Christ is phenomenal. Your arguments do help show the Trinity doctrine as pretty much intact in the most essential points.

 

[synergy]

Is there something wrong with what I wrote concerning a mediator that is the third party through whom agreement is reached between two parties previously in conflict with each other. Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, the one whose action makes the covenant possible, and who is the guarantor of its execution. Christ Jesus is the one functioning as a go between, in order to initiate a relationship with us because he is literally connected to both sides, and therefore he is set between God and us. It's our big brother Christ Jesus, who is the one who is acting as a guarantee—to secure something that otherwise would not be obtained. Christ is the better covenant, the new covenant, guaranteeing its terms for the Christian people before the almighty God. Christ Jesus is producing peace for the salvation of his Church and has made a promise of assurance that the new covenant will perform satisfactorily because he is the one who is set between God and us.

How do you get a trinity out of that?

A mediator is much more than an intercessor. He is someone who is from both sides, Divine and human in this case. That's a true mediator. Anyone not having those "qualifications" is a charlatan and a pure fake.

 

[synergy]

Here is my explanation of Gal 3:19-20 (link). I noted Christ in the Godhead. This is a big step in heading toward the Triune nature.

Other than sharing a failed conception of the two verses, you denial of the deity of Christ is phenomenal. Your arguments do help show the Trinity doctrine as pretty much intact in the most essential points.

What is truly phenomenon is that @Peterlag says things that prove Christ's Divinity but it does not register in his mind. For example, he said the following:

Christ Jesus is the one functioning as a go between, in order to initiate a relationship with us because he is literally connected to both sides, and therefore he is set between God and us.

which is possible only if Christ is both Divine and human. Then, instead of acknowledging that fact he lowers his vision and just says the following:

It's our big brother Christ Jesus,

 

[mikesw]

What is truly phenomenon is that @Peterlag says things that prove Christ's Divinity but it does not register in his mind. For example, he said the following:

which is possible only if Christ is both Divine and human. Then, instead of acknowledging that fact he lowers his vision and just says the following:

What is truly phenomenon is that @Peterlag says things that prove Christ's Divinity but it does not register in his mind. For example, he said the following:

which is possible only if Christ is both Divine and human. Then, instead of acknowledging that fact he lowers his vision and just says the following:

Interesting point. He is quite helpful in finding more support for the trinitarian concepts.
Here's a link to reviews about the book he mentioned: https://search.worldcat.org/title/1026806832
The first review is not very supportive of the quality of the book.

 

[Peterlag]

What is truly phenomenon is that @Peterlag says things that prove Christ's Divinity but it does not register in his mind. For example, he said the following:

which is possible only if Christ is both Divine and human. Then, instead of acknowledging that fact he lowers his vision and just says the following:

The Messiah who is the resurrected Christ Jesus is connected to both sides. God is not connected to both sides.

 

[Peterlag]

A mediator is much more than an intercessor. He is someone who is from both sides, Divine and human in this case. That's a true mediator. Anyone not having those "qualifications" is a charlatan and a pure fake.

See you make the jump to say divine in this case and in your mind divine means God. Scripture does not make that jump. To Scripture the resurrected Christ Jesus who is the Messiah is that mediator.

 

[mikesw]

See you make the jump to say divine in this case and in your mind divine means God. Scripture does not make that jump. To Scripture the resurrected Christ Jesus who is the Messiah is that mediator.

I cannot quite blame you for misunderstanding Gal 3:19-20. It has not been well-understood among scholars. It is an unusual passage where you have to recognize the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. Some scholars have come close to utilizing that but have still come short of a full explanation.
You also have to deny that the promise was made to Abraham and the promise was made to Jesus in Gal 3:16. The Son (now known also as Jesus) had to exist to be the recipient of the promise. Then in verse 19, Jesus came in accord with the promise made to him. So you pretend that every verse that reveals his divinity is instead to be interpreted with an unlikely meaning. Sure, you have to do that to be consistent to your view, but at some point, the scriptures should have greater relevance than your view.