Talk:Trinity/archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dagon claim

Deleted this sentence:

Also noteworthy is the fact that the term "Elohim" is also used in the OT to denote other, non triitarian, gods, such as Dagon.

The only thing I'm aware of with respect to this is the passage Judges 16:23, where there's a quotation from a Philistine chant. There needs to be some specific citation of a passage other than Judges 16:23 for the sentence to go back in the article. AnonMoos 02:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Exodus 12:12; 20:23 use ´elo·him' in reference to "all the" Egyptian gods. 1 Kings 18:27 uses it to refer to Baal in the singular. Exodus 4:16; 7:1 use it in reference to Moses, singular. Ps 82:1, 6 use it in reference to humans, plural. [1] That should be sufficient for mention to return to the article. Oscillate 22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, ALL these examples are problematic for one reason or another (and, of course, none of them references Dagon). What you want is Elohim referring to a single god other than the God of Israel. If the form Elohim acts as a true plural (doesn't take singular verb agreement etc.), then it's functioning as as an ordinary plural of the word Eloah with he mappiq (אלוה), in which case it's not really very relevant to the special singular use of Elohim. In Exodus 4:16 and 7:1, there's a highly metaphorical use, which in any case is only specified with respect to one single other individual -- "for" him (Aaron), or "for" Pharoah (with Hebrew preposition ל le-). Psalm 82 uses the word Elohim as a true plural (corresponding to singular Eloah אלוה), and so is not particularly relevant to singular Elohim. Finally, 1 Kings 18:27 is highly derisive and mocking speech of Elijah, taunting the priests of the false god Baal. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up. AnonMoos 03:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
So, if you feel that it's only used in the specific manner you are looking for once, you can keep it out of the article? Oscillate 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
As a matter of Hebrew grammar, when "Elohim" is used as a special term for the God of Israel, then it takes singular verb agreement (despite having a plural ending), and behaves specially in other ways. Look at the very first verse of the Bible: BRESHIT ("in the beginning") BARA (Singular verb form) ELOHIM (apparently plural subject word, since -IM is ordinarily a masculine plural suffix in Hebrew). If Elohim were behaving as an ordinary plural in this context, then it would take a plural verb bar'uu בראו instead of the singular verb bara ברא.
For these reasons, if Elohim is NOT behaving specially (i.e. takes plural verb agreement instead of singular verb agreement), and has true plural semantic reference, then this Elohim-as-ordinary-plural-of-Eloah is rather different from special singular Elohim. What is true of plural Elohim may not be true for singular Elohim, so that examples of plural Elohim cannot be validly adduced to establish the properties of singular Elohim. AnonMoos 15:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It *is* used to refer to a singlular, non-trinitarian god. How many times must it occur?? Oscillate 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
One clear occurrence of a reference to a single God OTHER THAN THE GOD OF ISRAEL ("Trinitarian" is somewhat irrelevant in this context) would be quite enough, if there were a truly valid example. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case (at least based on what you have brought forward so far). AnonMoos 15:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Is it POV to keep that reference out of the article? It *does* appear in the Bible, regardless of how many times. And yes, 1 Kings 18:27 is Elijah taunting them, but he still uses it in reference to a singular god. And look at how he's using the word - if he's mocking them, wouldn't it make sense for him to be using it in a "majestic"-meaning sense, exaggerating their claims of Baal's greatness in his taunting? Wouldn't that usage make more sense than Elijah saying that Baal was many gods in one? Oscillate 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Certainly Elijah is not making a plural reference in 1 Kings 18:27; but on the other hand, he very clearly doesn't think that Ba`al is truly entitled to be validly called "Elohim", either -- so it would hardly be accurate Biblical interpretation to take words used in mockery and pretend that they're used straightforwardly. AnonMoos 15:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm arguing, if Elohim can be used as an intensive plural to denote greatness (just like many languages have today, including English), then it makes sense Elijah would have used it in that manner to refer to Ba'al in a mocking way. Elijah is not saying "for he is God", using Elohim to refer to YHWH, he says "for he is a god", using Elohim in a way to mean "for he is a [great] god". Imagine him rolling his eyes while saying it. Especially with the many other occurances of God stating His singularity, to claim that Elohim is not an intensive plural, but rather indicates a confusing mix of plurality and singularity at the same time is an uphill argument. If Jesus was created by God as His first creation, and later called God's "Master Worker", then the instances in Genesis chp 1 of God saying "we" and "us" fall right in line with that. The usage of Elohim does as well. Oscillate 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to get into a debate about theology because this is not about theology, it's about Biblical Hebrew grammar and the Hebrew text of the Bible. Your claim was that the Hebrew word Elohim was used in the Bible to refer to gods other than the God of Israel. If we allow cases in which Elohim is a true plural (taking plural verb agreement and/or with unambiguous plural semantic reference), then your claim is trivially true, but not particularly noteworthy or relevant to anything. If we only consider cases of special singular Elohim (taking singular verb agreement etc.) -- the form of Elohim which has special reference to the God of Israel -- then your claim seems to be false, from what I can determine. 02:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

After a little extra research, these are many (maybe all) of the uses of `Elohim' in plural in reference to singular gods other than YHWH:

  • Jud 16:23, 1 Sam 5:7b (Dagon) `elo-heh-hem' / `elo-heh-nu'
  • Jud 8:33 (Ba'al) le`-lo-him'
  • 1 Kings 11:5, 33 (Ashtoreth) `elo-heh'
  • 1 Kings 11:33 (Che'mosh) `elo-heh'
  • 1 Kings 18:24 (Ba'al) `elo-heh-khem'
  • 2 Kings 1:2, 3, 16 (Ba'al-ze'bub) `elo-heh'
  • 2 Kings 19:37 (Nis'roch) `elo-hav'
  • Neh 9:18 (golden calf) `elo-hey'kha; used with sing. pronoun, sing. verb
  • Isaiah 37:38 (Nis'roch) `elo-hav'
  • Dan 1:2b (Marduk) `elo-hav'

Oscillate 21:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude, why are you ignoring what was discussed above, and trying to restart the conversation completely from scratch??? I already discussed Judges 16:23 and 1 Kings 18:24 above, but you're ignoring all that, and trying to start over. I find this rhetorical strategy of yours to be rather annoying, and it certainly doesn't motivate me to go and research in detail (yet again another time) the verse numbers that you're casually tossing around. Furthermore, your phonetic transcriptions are rather crude -- for example, there's no such form as "`elo-heh'" according to any ordinary valid linguistic transcription practice. Rather, you seem to mean the construct state form אלהי which can be transcribed as Elohey, and in several other acceptable ways, but not as "`elo-heh'"[sic]. AnonMoos 07:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello hostility? I'm not starting over, Oscillate 15:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Then why did you include Judges 16:23 and 1 Kings 18:24 back in the list without comment -- as if they hadn't previously been discussed before at all here??? It wasn't very delicate conversational etiquette for you to do so... AnonMoos 18:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I just didn't want to have a 7-level indention with a list. You asked for evidence, I gave it, if you want to throw it away with little else than calling it "rhetoric", what can I do. Others can research it if they wish. Oscillate 15:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of the game in which you remain for the most part almost completely blissfully ignorant of Biblical Hebrew, but merely cut-and-paste lists of verses that you get from websites, and then I'm the one who has to do all the work of looking up the verses in the original Hebrew to find out what were the exact linguistic forms used, and what were the discourse contexts in which they were used. Frankly, I'm not sure I feel like discussing any further verses with you unless YOU are the one who first presents their precise Hebrew linguistic context. If you find yourself to be unable to present their linguistic Hebrew context, then maybe that says something about whether you should be having this conversation. AnonMoos 18:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time at the moment, but I just wanted to drop in and say I'm enjoying the discussion, I had no intention of starting over. That was a list I made offline and copied it in. I will reply to your points soon when I have the time and after I take a look at what you're pointing out. I will post the proper context, form numbers, as well as supporting verses where the same word is used for "God of Israel", "gods" to go with what I have here of a singular, non-Israelite god. Oscillate 02:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Septuagint, when translating Jesus' quotation of Deut 6:4 at Mark 12:29, uses ho The-os', singular, not plural, to translate `Elo-him', Oscillate 21:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. What of it? Elohim is a highly idiosyncratic form in Hebrew (with plural morphology but singular semantics and verb agreement in one of its meanings), and there's no reason why one should expect that this Hebrew linguistic particularity could or should be directly and literally translated into most other languages. The same goes for Adonai. AnonMoos 07:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[...] giving more indication that `Elo-him' is not literally plural, but intensive plural. The same goes for `Elo-him' in Genesis 1:1, etc. Additionally, note that Hebrew frequently uses plural to denote excellence or majesty with other words. See `adho-neh' in reference to Joseph at Gen 39:2, 42:30, in reference to Pharoah in 40:1, Elijah in 2 Kings 2:3, and many others. Oscillate 21:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually am interested in this discussion. What is the point of contention? That Elohim is not an indicator of the plural/Trinitarian nature of god because the "plurality" is a social construct used by the writers merely to denote excellence and majesty? What confuses me is why God refers to Himself in the plural 2nd person "we" and "us" also in Genesis and Job. Deeper is the question as to why plurality is used as a form of excellence instead of something else. --Zaphnathpaaneah 11:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole "Elohim" thing is in fact somewhat peripheral to the Trinity. Christians have merely pointed out that the fact that the Hebrew divine name Elohim is pseudo-plural — plural in morphological form, but taking singular verb agreement etc. when referring to the God of Israel — is COMPATIBLE with a Trinitarian interpretation. (It doesn't DICTATE a Trinitarian interpretation, so it's not really any kind of "proof" of the Trinity, but it's compatible with a Trinitarian interpretation.) That's all it is. Some anti-Trinitarians have apparently devoted a fair amount of effort to refuting this association (despite the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity hardly stands or falls on this ground). To clearly do so, they would have to demonstrate that Elohim was sincerely used by ancient Israelites (i.e. not used by Philistines, not used by Israelites in taunting mockery, etc.) in its pseudo-plural form to refer to a god other than the God of Israel. From what I can see, those anti-Trinitarians seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel in an effort to come up with one single good example, and not really succeeding. AnonMoos 19:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a very interesting discussion on Elohim. Concerning this entire discussion, one should read the writings of Yitzak Troki. AnonMoos is correct in stating that the Trinity neither rises nor falls on this ground. Yet, as he is very aware, Trinitarians often assert that this is a proof of the Trinity. Honest Trinitarians however, will admit that the entire doctrine is foreign to the Old Testament. Many even acknowledge that it is not found (in any direct sense) in the New Testament. As AnonMoos, who seems to be of the honest sort, has attested to, Elohim in no way denotes a plurality within God (only a pseudo, or false-plurality). Concerning his opinion that it is "COMPATIBLE" with Trinitarianism, one should ask a Jewish Rabbi since they would be the experts on their own books. Any guesses as to how they would answer? The mistake Orthodox Christians make is to presumptuously ascribe the Trinity to the Old Testament. I have no problem discussing the Trinity in light of the New Testament since the language can be very complex and confusing. There is, however, no possibility of mistaking the Old Testament's teaching in this area. This, I believe, is the greatest problem with the doctrine of the Trinity unless one thinks that the New Testament can justifiably contradict the Old Testament. Εισ Θεοσ, 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Jewish Rabbis the experts on their own books? Nonsense. Today's Jewish Rabbis have no better claim to be the "experts" on these books than Christians do. Christianity diverged from the old Hebrew religion when it acclaimed Jesus as Messiah and stopped relying on Temple sacrifices. Judaism likewise diverged from that old Hebrew religion when the Temple was destroyed and they altogether stopped relying on Temple sacrifices as well. The Masoretic texts they rely on have as much or greater chance of having been altered by Jewish scribes in the course of 1,000 years, as the Septuagint text has of being altered in 400 or so years by Christian scribes. The Old Testament is certainly compatible with Trinitarianism; more than that, it foreshadows it. Let's have no nonsense presuming that one or the other religion is more authoritative to interpret these books. Wesley 05:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
So thousands of years of Judaism was completely wrong? You would have us believe that the Shema was completely misinterpreted by Jews throughout history and that Jesus introduced a radically different God than had ever been believed in? Jesus never diverged from Judaism... He fulfilled it. Yet to believe the Trinity, a complete and utter divergence from Judaism would be necessitated. You said that the Old Testament "foreshadows" the Trinity... A thing cannot be foreshadowed if it already exists. Thank you for making my point better than I ever could have. The purpose of my statement (and many Trinitarians agree with this) is to keep Trinitarians from ascribing the doctrine where it does not exist. If you read the article that we are discussing, you would have already known this due to the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. εισ Θεοσ 12:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a rather cheap rhetorical trick to take an imprecisely phrased statement and pretend it meant exactly what it said. You must be very well aware that Wesley meant that events in the OT foreshadowed the revelation of the Trinity in the NT. And yes Judaism is wrong. Did you miss all the criticism Jesus had for the teachings of the Pharisees? And yet these teachings were all based on their interpretations of the Law. Modern Rabbinic Judaism developed from them though: the Pharisees were the only sect of Judaism to survive the destruction of Jerusalem.
But in this area they weren't wrong anyway. God is One. No Trinitarian will disagree with that. If you think or say that they would, then you either don't understand the dogma or are arguing against a straw man. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
You missed the entire point of my post. I am merely stating that the "cheap trick" is attempting to use the Old Testament as proof for the Trinity. Believe what you will, I have no illusions of changing anyone's view on Wikipedia and am not attempting to try. From what I can see, if Trinitarianism stopped with the truly Biblical statement that God is One, I would agree entirely (and I do agree entirely). But it does not. It then moves on to extra-Biblical language (ie. God the Son, eternally Begotten, Trinity, Triune, three in one, distinct person, etc.) for its basis and, excluding the Johannine Comma, enjoys no direct Biblical support. Surely we can agree on this fact. Whatever you discern from that fact is your rightful opinion. My opinion is that if we limited our discussions to purely New Testament language and forgot the creeds that were written hundreds of years after Christ, the Trinitarian doctrine would have little indeed to stand upon. This is even giving that there would be little. There is nothing in the Old Testament upon which it can stand. Thank you for your reply. εισ Θεοσ 15:19, 2 January 2006.

The chief reason historically for the use of extrabiblical language in the Nicene Creed is that every time the bishops proposed some biblical wording, Arius and his followers would reinterpret the wording and claim it was compatible with their view that Jesus was a created being rather than God incarnate. It was with reluctance that the bishops chose the wording that they did to refute Arius, but in doing so they were affirming the Church's interpretation of the Godhead up to that point. If we limit ourselves to interpreting the Bible alone without any reference to how the Church has interpreted it before, there's no telling what novelty we might come up with, or how much or how little it might resemble the teachings of Christ and the apostles. Wesley 06:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the options of either using the Bible as your source or using what men say, I'll choose the Bible. I've heard many people claiming to be Christian state that the Bible has "incomplete information", or 'is not reliable' enough, and so instead they follow whatever they're taught regardless of scriptural basis. That might be fine for some or many even, but others disagree. --Oscillate 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
What about Matthew 28:19? AnonMoos 15:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Matthew 28:19… AnonMoos, great question, but having read your previous posts I am surprised to see this question coming from you. The language in Matthew’s recording of the Great Commission clearly refers to a singular name. This too, is consistent with Mark and Luke’s version of the same event (Mark 16:17; Luke 24:47). It also is consistent with the disciple’s obedience to the Great Commission recorded throughout the book of Acts (2:38, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16). When allowing the Bible to interpret itself we find that Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19 was fulfilled by baptism into a singular name. Since you are a critical thinker, I believe you will recognize the great significance of this. Thus, instead of Matthew 28:19 implying a Trinity, it instead becomes a great difficulty in that it teaches that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are signified completely by the singular name of Jesus. From all I can tell, this would be incompatible with a belief in three separate persons, as the singular name of Jesus would only refer to the Son. By the way, as a former Catholic, this view did not come to me easily. εισ Θεοσ 13:55, 3 January 2006

What of it? Where does it proclaim any equality of nature or being here? It's a list. Neither Matt 28:19, nor 2 Co 13:14, nor 2 Co 12:4-6 say anything about equivalence of authority, nature, divinity or personality of the subjects. These "What about" questions could go on and on and would be best suited for a personal talk page. For example, What about Mark 13:32 (where is the Holy Spirit?), what about John 8:17,18, what about John 7:16, Heb 5:8, etc etc. At any rate, no one here is looking to change others' opinions. The question is merely what goes in the article and how. Oscillate 17:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
What you say is true -- assuming the Old Testament had nothing to do with the New (which the Christian Church has never taught), and assuming you ignore the totality of John 1, and assuming you ignore much of what Jesus said in the Great Kerygma, and assuming you ignore how the attributes of God were attributed to the Holy Spirit throughout Scripture, and assuming you ignore the language of the Great Commission. It's in trying to make sense of all this that the dogma of the Trinity was formulated. I'm not demanding you believe it -- I have no illusions about changing your mind either -- but to say there's little to stand on is simply false. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

TCC – I could comment on each reference that you mentioned, please read my previous post to AnonMoos on the Great Commission, but this forum is not the place and we would only end up dancing in circles. Let it suffice us both that there is One God. This is the only Biblical view of God and on this we both agree. εισ Θεοσ 13:55, 3 January 2006

Re: "scraping the bottom". No, just a minor point I had some extra info on. I haven't presented it well enough, clearly, and will straighten it out. There are many other well-defined reasons why the Trinity is more than questionable, and proof-texts don't work, this is a relatively minor point, still interesting to discuss. Oscillate 02:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The "we" and "us" thing could be an interesting discussion (it also occurs in the Arabic of the Qur'an, where the Trinity is simultaneously rejected as being rank tritheism!), but it's not really the same thing as Elohim. AnonMoos 19:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Elohim is "gods", Oscillate 15:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not excessively impressed by the fact that you don't seem have paid any attention to anything I wrote above. Elohim-as-plural-of-Eloah (with plural verb agreement) means "Gods", but Elohim-as-special-singular-term referring to the God of Israel (with singular verb agreement) does NOT mean "Gods" and if you were to propose to translate breshit bara Elohim of Genesis 1:1 into English as "In the beginning, the gods created...", then almost every remotely mainstream scholar of Biblical Hebrew would disagree with you, pointing (first off) to the fact that bara ברא is a 3rd person masculine SINGULAR verb form. AnonMoos 18:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I am reading what you're writing and will post a proper reply when I have the time to formulate it. I'm really not interested in arguing, or ignoring your points. I'll reply properly when I get a few spare minutes. Oscillate 02:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[...] never "persons", so it kindd of goes against the Trinity "all one God" idea anyway. Plurality is used this way many other times, it's common usage in the Hebrew scriptures. There are arguments that the "we"/"us" also includes Jesus, the firstborn of creation & God's Master Worker. Oscillate 15:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, I'm not starting over, I just don't know where to put this in the mess above. The original subject was whether it is proper to insert scriptural citations to support the sentence in the article "Others believe that the plural morphology of Hebrew Elohim is a "plural of majesty" or simple sign of respect, analogous to other pseudo-plural usages seen in a number of languages." The first scripture presented was Judges 16:23, objected to by AnonMoos on the basis that there needs to be more than one, and those references must refer to a "single god other than the God of Israel". --Oscillate 17:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Objected to on the grounds that this is an example of Philistine usage, not Israelite usage. AnonMoos 23:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, see additional instances below. --Oscillate 00:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

AnonMoos rejects 1 Kings 18:27 (on what I see as a personal objection) by stating that it's included in mocking speech by Elijah, which it is. However, I disagree that this is a grounds for rejection, as it fits with the mocking. If Elijah is taunting the "greatness" of Ba'al, wouldn't it make sense for him to use the plural in an intensive manner in that situation. Nonetheless, AnonMoos disagreed. --Oscillate 17:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Objected to on the grounds that in this passage Elijah clearly does NOT think that Ba`al validly deserves to be called "Elohim", so that all further semantic parsing is absolutely irrelevant. AnonMoos 23:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the other posters that this particular subject is relatively minor and doesn't in itself prove or disprove anything, and I acknowledge that it's simply being used as 'possible support' for the idea of a Trinity. However, the question at hand is whether it is appropriate to insert scriptural references for other uses of elohim that refer to singular gods other than the God of Israel. Right? Ok. It should be noted that using the intensive plural is common in the Hebrew Scriptures, such as I noted above. Here is list the references to singular gods, then references to the God of Israel, then to regular plural usage. (Not including the above disputed 1 Kings 18:27 or Judges 16:23, of course). --Oscillate 17:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Neh 9:18: "Yea, when they had made them a molten calf, and said, This [is] thy God (`elohey'kha) that brought thee up out of Egypt, and had wrought great provocations"; elohim is used here with zeh, a singular pronoun, and he'elcha, singular verb. See also Ps 106:19-21 that refers to "a calf" and "an image", singular.
Jud 11:24: "that which Chemosh thy god (`elohey'kha) giveth thee to possess".

  • Is 41:10 ("be not dismayed; for I [am] thy God), 43:3 ("For I [am] the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel"), 51:15 ("But I [am] the LORD thy God"); Ps 81:10 ("I [am] the LORD thy God"); Dan 10:12 ("chasten thyself before thy God" - unnamed angel speaking): All use `elohey'kha to refer to the God of Israel.
  • Jer 2:28 ("But where [are] thy gods [`elohey'kha] that thou hast made thee?"); Gen 31:32 ("With whomsoever thou findest thy gods [`elohey'kha], let him not live"): Usage as standard plural.

1 Kings 11:5, 33: "For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians ... Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon". `elohey' used in reference to singular non-Israelite gods, and spoken by the God of Israel.
2 Kings 1:2, 3, 16: "Baalzebub the god of Ekron". `elohey', spoken by Ahaziah in verse 2, an angel in verse 3, and by "the LORD" in verse 16.

2 Kings 19:37, Isa 37:38: "as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch (`elohav') his god"
Dan 1:2: "And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god (`elohav')"

  • Is 28:26 ("For his God doth instruct him to discretion, [and] doth teach him."); Jonah 2:1 ("Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God"); Dan 11:32 ("but the people that do know their God shall be strong"); Ps 33:12 ("Blessed [is] the nation whose God [is] the LORD"): `elohav' in reference to God of Israel.
  • 2 Ki 17:29 ("Howbeit every nation made gods of their own"); Jonah 1:5 ("Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god"): Usage as standard plural.

1 Sam 5:7: "The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god (`eloheynu')"

  • Is 25:9 ("And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this [is] our God"): `eloheynu'' in reference to the God of Israel.
  • Is 42:17 ("that say to the molten images, Ye [are] our gods"): Usage as standard plural.

Jud 8:33: "the children of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made Baalberith their god (le`lohim')"

  • Jer 11:4 ("so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God"): God of Israel.
  • Jer 1:16 ("have burned incense unto other gods"): Standard plural. --Oscillate 17:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I won't comment on these in detail without looking at the Hebrew (and I've somewhat lost the sharpness of the edge of the keenness of my motivation to do this quickly), but as I've already explained in mind-numbing detail above, all of the "standard plural" usages are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the actual issue at hand. AnonMoos 23:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Calm down. You wanted context. I only included the standard plural usage as instances where it was used as regular plural in contrast to the singular usage and the usage for the God of Israel to be more complete. Clearly it's not part of the main discussion, but just additional references. I'm not the idiot you obviously think I am - I read your replies and have here tried to respond with the information you wanted. --Oscillate 00:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not particularly upset, nor do I think you're an idiot. However, your tendency to keep trying to throw things back into the discussion after they've been already shown to be not directly relevant to the issue at hand is not a particularly productive conversational strategy, and leads me to use many italicizations and boldings to reiterate and reinforce previously-made points. The smart rhetorical strategy for you would be to separate the wheat from the chaff, and narrowly focus in on one or two "killer" verses which you think offer the strongest support for your position. Your including all the verses with true plural Elohim (which offer no support for your position) in your list is the exact opposite of this -- it forces anybody who's interested in verifying your claims to wade through a bunch of semi-irrelevant junk to try and find the good stuff which is actually truly relevant.
It's nice that you provided context for the cited verses, but your Hebrew transcriptions are not necessarily as helpful as you may think they are, and such transcriptions by no means relieve me of the obligation of looking at the original Hebrew of each verse in order to be able to comment on it in detail. This is a task for which my enthusiasm is rapidly waning, partly for the reasons outlined above. AnonMoos 17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

move to "The Trinity"?

That is the name that appears on the christianity series bar. I suggest that one (or both...) of them be changed so that its uniform. I don't know which one should be changed so I'll defer to whoever knows something about this. I proposed two potential moves. Savidan 21:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you proposing "The Trinity" or "The Holy Trinity"? The first I think we can dispense with. Although the word normally takes the definite article in ordinary usage, it's not normally done to use it in article names. As for the latter, that's probably the most common way the Trinity is named but it's also called Divine and Blessed. Bare "Trinity" is less ambiguous, and "Holy Trinity" already redirects here anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Csernica -- don't see any reason to change the way it is now. AnonMoos 02:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't include the definite article in the title. It goes against standard style. 19:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this page's entry from Wikipedia:Requested moves due to a lack of consensus on the move. If this changes, feel free to add another request. --Lox (t,c) 21:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title of this page be "Christian Trinity" since there are and have been other religions throughout history that have had a trinity?(unsigned post)

NO. The Trinity is a very particular concept to Christianity. It has an historic and theological meaning in Christianity. No other major religion believes what the majority of Christians do about God. Of course you may have a section on "Comparisons with other religions" or some such section, and wax lyrical about comparisons with Hinduism etc, but The Trinity itself is sufficient. It is a Christian concept.

Cialovesyou 12:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Essence, Nature, and Being

These terms are all in fact synonyms in this context. Human "nature" (essence or being) is created in the image and likeness of the Divine Nature, as human persons are created in the image and likeness of the Divine Persons, and the fact that these words are synonymous here is seen most clearly in the formula concerning Christ, "consubstantial with the Father in His Deity, consubstantial with us in His humanity." --Midnite Critic 18:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In this context, they are not the same; and this is explained by your example. The Son is consubstantial with the Father (he is the one God), but in a different sense than consubstantiality with our humanity (he is another human being). The real focus of the problem here is on the use of the word "Person", which in English is full of the connotations of a separate being, rather than a distinct subsistence. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Midnite Critic's reply: Technically, referring to a human person as a "human being" is incorrect. There is one human being, the human race, brought into existence by creation. Our psychospiritual separateness, etc., as human persons is a result of the fall, the effects of which are overcome by the advent and career of the Second Adam, the "Son of man (Adam), who is, of course, Christ. This results in the re-creation of the human race and restoration of communion with God. "If anyone is in Christ, they are a new creation," as St. Paul writes. Of those who are in Christ, St. Paul also writes, "you are members one of another." This can only be true because those who are in Christ are "one even as the Father and [Jesus] are one," as Jesus prays in the Gospel of John. Obviously, the fulness of this unity is not yet fully revealed, but it nevertheless exists and because of it, in the words of St. Augustine, we are called "to become what we are," a communion of (human) persons who are, indeed, "members one of another" precisely and only because we are "members of Christ," even as the Divine Persons are members one of another. --Midnite Critic 19:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

But isn't it more sensible, in regards to John 10:30, to say that this is a statement of unity in will and purpose and cooperation? The same word hen is used to refer to Paul and Apollos being "one" at 1 Co 3:6,8 as well. Likewise, as you pointed out, at John 17:21, 22 the disciples were to be one just as the Father and Son are, and just as husband and wife are to be "one flesh", working in unity with each other, not part of a confusing mesh of being and nature and consubstantiality that is never made clear. Jesus states at 1 Co 1:10, for his followers to be "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." One in purpose and cooperation. Just as Paul said, those conforming to the way of Christ are to 'be renewed in the spirit of their mind', and they "put on the new man" (Eph 4:22-24), not a re-creation of a new communion of humans, but a new personality, a new manner of actions, all in accord with the will of God. Doesn't that make much more sense? Oscillate 17:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph that was just plain (pardon the non-intellectual term) gobbledeygook about the words, ousia, prosopon, and hypostasis, that simply got the history totally wrong, as well as the linguistics.

Nrgdocadams 08:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

And I'm putting it back. It could be improved, but it's correct. In Nicene usage, hypostasis was used for subsistance and prosopon (originally a Sabellian term) was adopted as a synonym. It states clearly that there is one ousia and three hypostases. There two natures in the incarnate Christ; I know of no modern Church that teaches there are two hypostases. I'm sorry, but it's you who have the history and words confused. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Personas vs. Persons

I don't think that changing "persons" to "personas" at the top of the page really adds very much... AnonMoos 17:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Antecedents

Should the possible non-Christian origin of 'hypastes' (in Plotinus) be made explicit? -Wilhelm Ritter

"Hyopstasis" -- since its pagan origin is freely acknowledged by all concerned it wouldn't be unwelcome in principle, but Hypostasis (religion) is probably a better place, and it indeed discusses the idea there. Are you sure it was Plotinus though? [2] has a number of BC citations of the relevant sense, including one from the NT (Heb 1:3). (I wonder if there really ought to be a Hypostasis (philosophy)? I couldn't write it myself, but the ante-Nicene use isn't the same as the post-Nicene.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there are places in the article where a technical scholarly discussion of debates over the meaning of the word "hypostasis" could be appropriately included, but not in the introductory paragraphs at the very top of the page. AnonMoos 03:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghost

I know that "Holy Ghost" is beloved King James and old prayerbook terminology to some, but it really doesn't aid clarity in the modern language, and it's not appropriate to do a mechanical search-and-replace of "Spirit" with "Ghost" -- cenrtainly not without discussing it on the talk page first... AnonMoos 06:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mutual Indwelling

This section, and in particular the recent additions making an analogy to married couples, reads more like a personal commentary than ecyclopedic. I'll leave it up to someone else to decide whether the analogy remains or how to clean it up, as I personally think the it's nonsensical and contradictory to the rest of the scriptures and the usage of hen, as I stated higher up (1 Co 3:6,8; John 17:21, 22). For me, it's so much clearer and makes so much more sense, in context and out of context, that this usage refers to unity of purpose and cooperation, not joined "in some metaphysical sense" that somehow is supposed to help explain the unexplainable. Therefore, like I said, I'll leave it to someone else to decide how to edit that section. <Oscillate 19:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)>

The first paragraph of that section is at least sourced, and I've adjusted the citation to be more transparent. As for the second -- I'm not as well-read as I'd like, but this is the first time I've heard of a marriage analogy in describing the Trinity. If this is indeed a standard figure, then it ought to be sourced somewhere; otherwise it must be cut per WP:NOR. As it stands it's certainly not encyclopedic anyway, just as you say. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not responsible for introducing the concept of marriage into this article, but I did try to clean it up a bit. Hope it's better now. --Midnite Critic 20:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

External articles

Some links i had that were deleted a bit ago ... J. D. Redding 18:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

General

Trinitarian

Anti-Trinitarian

Any objection to adding an internal link to Oneness Pentecostal under see also? jasoninkid

Intro

I'm sorry to be rehashing this again, but I'm not sure this is correct as stated. In the intro we now have:

Since the 4th Century AD, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "One God in Three Persons"....

The quote marks around "One God in Three Persons" suggest in context that this is an actual 4th Century formulation. I am unaware of any examples of it from the period. Could whoever decided on this phrasing provide a cite? Otherwise I'll be rephrasing it somewhat. (Don't worry. I know there are those who consider this phrase to be key and I won't eliminate it. I'll just remove the implied attribution to the Nicene-Constantipolitan fathers.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant verses

I removed the following from the 'scriptural quotes' as they don't seem to have any relevance to the Trinity.

  • Numbers 11:17 "...and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them..."
  • Numbers 11:25 "And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that when the spirir rested upon them they prophesied, and did not cease."
  • Numbers 27:18 "And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;"

While these verses obviously testify to the existence of the 'spirit' they neither speak to the spirit's divinity nor to its oneness with the Father. DJ Clayworth 19:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought they were maybe supposed to go under the "dissenting views" section myself. --Oscillate 19:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how they are relevant at all. All they do is indicate that God (the Father) gives the Spirit (or spirit) to some people, which isn't really the question. DJ Clayworth 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The whole "scriptural quotes" section is pretty much irrelevant. Any of those quotes could also be used to support an Arian position. And what does "implicit support" mean anyway? Either the text supports the doctrine, or it doesn't, but it cannot support it only "implicitly", i.e. not openly or by some kind of guessing process or by a pre-conceived deduction. This is a hardly acceptable argument. --Jdemarcos 22:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how an Arian could use the text to establish Arianism. They might be able to explain them without giving up Arianism (though I'm skeptical of that), but how can they be used to establish Arianism??
As for implicit support, they implicitly support the doctrine of the Trinity by establishing one of two related propositions necessary to the doctrine: the deity of Jesus, at least that is the orthodox interpretation. Also, they may be taken to implicitly support the deity of Jesus in the sense that the text doesn't explicitly say the words "Jesus if God," but it implies the same. For example, a parent may not explicitly say "do your homework or you are grounded," they may simply say "...or else"; but given the past punishment for not doing homework, the child rightly infers what the parent has implied. --MonkeeSage 23:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a few examples: For Mat 28:19, Arianism acknowledges the existence of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: they simply are not homousios (of a single substance). Criteria for inclusion of Mat 4:10 here are extremely thin, so I won't waste lines with that. John 1:1 and 1:14 can be interpreted as the Logos being the First Created, out of the Father, therefore participating in His glory but subordinate to Him. Jn 8:23-24 does not need much arguing that it fits in an Arian interpretation of the Son, etc. As for implicitly affirming Jesus's divinity, as you well say, it does not say it explicitly, therefore it is all a matter of interpretation because the literal affirmation is nowhere. Verses such as Jn 1:18 and others go against any implicit statement that the Son and the Father are the same and/or share the same substance. --Jdemarcos 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
So you mean that Arians can interpret these passages without a problem. That may be true, though as I said, I personally doubt it. Some of the passages do make the explicit assertion of Deity concerning Christ -- John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9 -- regardless of how one wants to interpret or qualify it (e.g., "in light of other passages"). In any case, these are the passages that have been traditionally used by Trinitarians to support their view (q.v., Augustine's On The Trinity, Athanasius' Four Discourses Against The Arians). --MonkeeSage 13:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The real question we should be asking is whether Arians or Trinitarians have historically cited these or other passages to support their view. As wikipedians we don't decide whether the verses actually make the case that Arius or Athanasius or whoever thought they did, only how major theologians have historically attempted to use them. Wesley 22:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point Wesley, sorry for going off on a tangent. --MonkeeSage 22:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Baptism as First Lesson

I have added informational statements that the Trinitarian formula was never actually used in the Bible. If this is not true, please remove it. I also added that in all cases of baptism recorded in the Bible, the first Christians were baptized in the name of Jesus, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, etc. If this is not true, remove it. These statements are completely factual and verifiable. Christian history shows that the trinitarian formula was not used until around the third century. jps 12:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC).

"While the penultimate verse of St Matthew's Gospel indicates that baptism was associated with this Trinitarian formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence ("baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit")"

Keep these articles factual. It is a historical fact that the orthodox church did not use the Trinitarian formula for baptism until around the third century A.D. To say that the Trinitarian formula was associated from the earliest decades is simply not true. jps 15:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC).

First, please add new threads to the bottom of talk pages, not the top. You can add a new thread by clicking on the "+" next to the "edit this page" link, and it's then added to the bottom automatically.
Second, the edit that was made was factual on its face. If you disagree, you need to add references to support your proposed version of the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

jps: when you assert that "It is a historical fact that the orthodox church did not use the Trinitarian formula for baptism until around the third century A.D." are you claiming that the instructions by Jesus at the end of Matthew's Gospel are later additions to the NT documents and therefore not genuine? Or are you claiming that the early church disobeyed Jesus instructions in every single case, up until the third century? Either is of course a valid point of view, but I wondered which one you thought was the true one. Also what exactly is your objection to the statement about the end of Matthew's gospel? It seems a reasonable statement to me. DJ Clayworth 22:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Gents, I just found where my posts had been moved to. I will attempt to follow the Wikipedia rules in the future... I will respond to DJ Clayworth first. I have no issues with Matthew 28. What I do not understand is that Trinitarians say that Matthew 28 is THE baptismal formula while the four accounts of actual baptisms in the book of Acts are somehow NOT formulas. For instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 2003, states:
"Although there is not actual account of the institution of Baptism by Jesus, the Gospel according to Matthew portrays the risen Christ issuing the 'Great Commission' to his followers: (quote Mt. 28:19). Elsewhere in the New Testament, however, this formula is not used."
It is a fact that nobody in scripture was ever baptized using the formula "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". It is a fact that in every account of baptism in the Bible, excluding John's baptism, the name of Jesus was used. Why is one a formula and one not a formula? I truly do not understand this.jps
It is not a fact as you assert, and the article as it currently stands explains why. If there's some specific point about the explanation that's giving you difficulty, please let us know what it is.
It's hazardous to use an encyclopedia as a source for another encyclopedia; it's a tertiary resource at best. Where other, more basic sources are available, they are to be preferred.
By the way, it would be better to post while logged in. Not only is it more convenient to sign your talk posts (you can use the ~~~~ shortcut to add your username and a timestamp), but as it is we have no assurance that you're the user you claim to be. The history shows only an IP address. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
TCC--If you can show a Biblical account where someone was baptized other than "In the Name of Jesus" or some other synonymous variation (other than John's or POV), do so. To say that "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost" signifies a formula and that "In the name of Jesus" does not signify a formula is an illogical argument at best. Please see my later post to MonkeeSage. Regardless, due to the emphasis being placed on "Baptism as the First Lesson" in this article, it deserves to be said that the Bible does not record a single baptism utilizing the trine formula. Here is another reference you may prefer: Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965), I, p. 53.
"At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit" jps 20:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if Mr. Heick has ever read the Didache, where the Trinitarian formula is clearly mandated. He seems to be ignoring it for some reason. See Chapter 7. It's a first-century text, composed contemporaneously with the Gospels, and records among other things the liturgical practices of the time. This is one reason why the Acts passages are not necessarily to be taken as quoting a formula (and it indeed appears in no direct quote) but as descriptive. (The exception is in Acts 2, but then Peter is describing the baptism, not performing it as he speaks.)
And please log in. You are now attempting to fake a timestamp, but you put the wrong time in. The above post which you represented at having been made on 21 March at 20:20 UTC was in fact made on 22 March at 03:31 UTC according to the page history. (UTC is not your local time.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The oldest existing copy of the Didache dates from 1056 A.D. (Klotsche, E.H., The History of Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Baker House Books, 1979, p. 18). It absolutely cannot be taken as reliable as it is no doubt replete with interpolation. For instance, the Didache in chapter 9 states, "But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord." But chapter 7 states, "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before." To use this book as a basis for doctrine is ludicrous. Jacob 04:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I know what it says. What I don't know is why the passages you quote pose a problem for you. The name of the Holy Trinity is the name of the Lord. But manuscripts are not dated based on the oldest copy; if that were so then until relatively recently we could not have made a credible claim for the antiquity of the Gospels either. As it is, it's dated to the early 2nd century at the latest. If it's ludicrous to use the Didache as the sole basis for doctrine, it's equally ludicrous to ignore it. No serious scholar does so. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
These passages do not pose a problem for me as I am able to interpret them equally and harmoniously. The "NAME" in every instance of baptism is Jesus. 'Father', 'Son', and 'Holy Spirit' are not "NAMES", they are titles. Why do you insist on elevating the singular reference in Matthew 28:19 above the many references of In Jesus Name? All scripture is God-breathed (II Tim. 3:16), not just Mt. 28:19. The "NAME" referred to in Matthew 28:19 must be Jesus, otherwise the apostolic church, the original church, disobeyed the Lord's command. This is the only conclusion that maintains consistent interpretation. Regarding the Didache, there is an immense difference between 1056 A.D. and the second or third century. Yes it is important for historical reference, but it carries zero authority. Jacob 04:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
However, it's almost universally recognized that the Didache's sections on baptism and the eucharist, becuase of their high degree of simplicity and their lack of conformance with any later practice, are likely among the earliest sections of the document.
All names are but labels, with the possible exception of "that name which is above every name" -- and that name is not "Jesus". Again, the Bible is not a liturgical manual. The only place I can think of where there is a detailed description of Christian worship is Revelation -- and there are no baptisms among the saints glorifying God in heaven! TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The Matthew passage is giving a command -- it tells you what to do: "go and do X" -- but the Acts passages only show the practice of the early church. IF the Acts passages actually refer to a formula, that only proves that the early church did not follow the command in the Matthew passage. You can't base practice on practice when you have a command that is contrary to practice. That would be like sacrificing children to idols against the command not to murder, just because Kings records the fact that Isrealites made sacrifices to Molech. Practice is sometimes wrong. Of course, if one takes the Acts passages the way the article suggests, rather than as a formula, there is no discrepancy between the command and the practice. In any case, the practise of Trinitarian baptism is recorded earlier than the third century, e.g., in the Didache (7:1), aprox. 70-90 CE. --MonkeeSage 23:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
MonkeeSage--Jesus commanded to baptize "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". Acts records the original Church obeying this command by baptizing "In the name of Jesus". There is no difference in the terms "In the name of" used in either variation, so there is no valid reason to interpret them differently. If you are looking for harmony, you should compare Mt. 28:19 with the name used in Luke and Mark's versions of the Great Commission. St. Matthew was present the day that St. Peter proclaimed Acts 2:38, so it is silly to say that they disobeyed Jesus' command. It is also important to notice that both baptismal formulas refer to a singular name, which is consistent with baptizing in Jesus name and the whole of the New Testament (see Acts 4:12, Col. 3:17). This is easy enough to verify. There is no scriptural basis, other than POV, to say that "In the Name of Jesus" signifies anything other than the actual oral invocation of the name of Jesus. To say otherwise is using disparate methods of interpretation for the purposes of manipulating scripture to align it with a specific doctrine. If there is no standard for interpretation, we can come to any conclusion we desire. jps 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The Matthew passage is certainly a command, but not a command of something to specifically say at baptism. If the person being baptized is not recognizing the meaning behind Jesus' command then it's meaningless. It's a recognition of the avenue of salvation. I think the debate about whether early Christians actually spoke the exact words at someone's baptism or not is not really relevant. Jesus didn't say: "Say this when you baptize someone", he said to baptize "in the name of", i.e. with the recognition of salvation from Jesus by the undeserved kindness of God - an outward symbol of one's belief, repentance and dedication or identification with God and Jesus. When we say "stop in the name of the law", the meaning is an identification that the action being taken is with the authority and is identified with the law, same with Jesus' statement. This is all, of course, outside the debate on whether Matt 28:19,20 infers equality of any sort anyway. --Oscillate 00:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with that idea. It's literally "into/unto the name..." That would fit with the idea that the descriptions of baptism in Acts use a shorthand with the same meaning. My main point was that, historically, Matthew has been interpreted as a formula since the first century. Our interpretation of the passages is a OR/POV issue (unless its attributed), so it doesn't really effect the article. --MonkeeSage 02:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
But then the point should be made that no where in the Bible itself (the main reference) is someone baptized three times, nor was the phrase as spoken by Jesus used ritually during a baptism. I think that was the main point of this discussion. See Acts 2:37,38; 10:48. A mention of this deserves a place in proximity to the statement that people earlier in the church said that was the way it should be done. (And even in the early references to this they do not infer an equality.) --Oscillate 04:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
However, it's an equally valid point that the BibleNew Testament is not a liturgical manual and it's misusing it to treat it as one, which is what is done when it's searched for the exact procedure used in baptism. It actually does not describe baptism in any detail at all, so you might as well say it never speaks of a single immersion either. As far as "equality" between the Father and the Son, there are many other passages used to support it. Focusing on baptism is a red herring. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the misusing of the Bible is in brushing it aside in place of tradition (Matt 15:6). The point remains, the fact that it isn't used in the Bible deserves a mention. Regardless of how it is to be taken, whether you think it's a red herring or not, or whether it was done in the first century by the apostles and they just didn't mention it or not. The statement in itself does not do anything to prove the Trinity is false, just as Matt 28:19,20 most certainly does not prove it true. It's just true statement that it's not reused in that form elsewhere in the Scripture, feel free to add to it that some don't consider the Bible a reference for proper worship. Were the first century Christians baptized "in the name of" God, Jesus and the holy spirit? Certainly if they believed and recognized the authority and were identifying themselves with the salvation of God through Jesus. It's not written in the scriptures to "say this" when baptizing people. --Oscillate 04:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This older archive has a good discussion on this and many references discussing the emergence of the use of this "formula". --Oscillate 04:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Oscillate, Jacob, jps: As I said when I reverted jps' modifications, if you can document your views and attribute them to a group, then they can go in the article, but they must be given due weight as a minority view -- not as a replacement for the majority view; if not then they are WP:OR and-or WP:POV (and please read these policies if you are not familiar with them). Now that is the issue about policy.
As to the issue about your interpretations, if "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are titles, not names (or rather, metonyms for their names), and the fact that the singular "name" is used shows this -- then the used in the Acts baptists cannot consistantly be claimed to be a "name" in the regular sense like "Jesus" -- it must likewise be a title. If Matthew is taken to be giving a formula, then Acts can be seen as talking about a relationship, in which case "into the name of Jesus" would mean the same as "in Christ/Jesus/Christ Jesus." Matthew could be seen as talking about the same kind of relationship, with Acts giving a shorthand version. These are valid exegetical possibilities. None of this has anything to do with the article, however, it has to do with our own POV. Oh, and I almost forgot, if one accepts that Matthew is not giving a formula, then there is nothing recorded in Scripture about what to say (or not say!) when one is baptized, which would mean that claiming that you MUST use a certain formula like "in Jesus' name" is just as flawed as saying you MUST use the Trinitarian formula. --MonkeeSage 05:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but what is OR or POV about the statement that the formula is used only the one time in the Bible? And you are very right about making such a strong statement about having to use a certain phrase or else it's invalid. It's a concept, a recognition of what one must accept/believe before the baptism is meaningful. Anyway, what I just said can't go into the article of course, though there are tomes of references back and forth on this topic. To the point at hand: there should not be any argument against a statement that the words Jesus spoke at Matt 28:19,20 aren't used anywhere else in the Scriptures. That doesn't have to be attributed to a group - it's simply not there anywhere else in the Bible. But if you want references, there are some listed here, as I pointed out above. (As for the use of singular "name", reference Gen 48:16) --Oscillate 05:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. The version before jps' edits stated as much, I thought. I object to adding the part about the practice not existing until the third century or theological arguments about the merits of seeing the Matthew text as a formula. Those are what I was saying need to be attributed / sourced. Regarding Gen. 48:16 -- I don't think that the use of "name" in Matthew precludes it talking about three persons and necessitates taking it as three titles of one person, as jps and Jacob seemed to be arguing -- I was only trying to work through that argument as it applied to other cases. The Genesis passage is a perfect example of where the same singular Greek word (LXX) is used as in Matthew, but where it does refer to multiple persons (καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῶν πατέρων μου Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ, "and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac"). --MonkeeSage 06:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Then if everyone agrees, the statement that the triune formula was never actually recorded as being used other than Mt. 28:19 should be included in the article. As Oscillate correctly stated, this is not POV. This should either be added or the emphasis on "Baptism as the First Lesson" should be lessened. At least if integrity is the goal, and not doctrinal promotion.Jacob 16:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have a separate question for the users here. Please look at the references linked by [User:Oscillate|Oscillate]]: here. Does it make a difference to any of you that there is a strong possibility that the wording of Mt. 28:19 is a later Catholic addition to the text? Also, those texts like I John 5:7 are almost unanimously accepted as later Catholic interpolations? In other documents, like the epistles of Ignatius, when you compare the middle rescensions with the interpolated longer rescensions, does it cause anyone to take pause when you see the extent of later Trinitarian additions? I am consistently baffled how that modern orthodoxy (and users like the ones in this discussion) overlooks and even rubber stamps the outright egregious liberty that early Catholicism took in manipulating and changing texts to promote its evolving doctrines.Jacob 16:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's relevant to the discussion. If we have clear extra-biblical evidence that the trinitarian formula was used in AD 70 then it doesn't change anything. DJ Clayworth 16:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Like DJ said, the discussion of whether or not that text was inserted or not isn't relevant to the fact that some writings from the early 2nd century, and possibly as early as 70 in one instance, make mention of the words or usage of the phrase in a ritual. There are clear references to it being used definitely in the 2nd century. Though even the Didache in chapter 9 makes mention to just baptizing in the "name of the Lord" also. I would say that even if the wording was inserted at some point, the meaning behind the statement, as a recognition of the authority of God and salvation through Christ, is necessary for baptism anyway, whether it's ritualistically spoken or not. --Oscillate 17:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Jacob/MServetus/jsp: First off, the interpolations you speak of have no evidence of being added by later Roman Catholics (and I'm a Reformed Protestant -- I have no POV to support Roman Catholicism). The Johannine Comma has several variants associated with it. This lets us know that something happened there. A scribe tried to make the text flow better, or a person with an agenda altered the text, &c. But regardless of which reading one believes is genuine at 1 John 5:7, the simple fact is that there are no relevant variants at Matt. 28:19 (the only variant in the whole verse is regarding the inclusion of the conjunctive ουν ["so, then, now, &c"]). Thus, there is absolutely no reason to think it is a later interpolation. As Aland notes:
"Every reading ever occurring in the New Testament textual tradition is stubbornly preserved, even if the result is nonsense...any reading ever occurring in the New Testament textual tradition, from the original reading onward, has been preserved in the tradition and needs only to be identified." (Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2d ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989], p. 296).
Since there is no variant at all here regarding the formula, there is no reason to think that the manuscript tradition ever lacked/included anything different. What is more, as DJ said, it is not relevant to the discussion even if there were variants in the passage regarding the formula. Also, I'm inclined, even as a committed Trinitarian, to agree with Oscillate's explanation of the the Matthew passage as referring to relationship not formula (though not on the issue of equality). --MonkeeSage 17:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The statements by jps sounded like OR and POV to me, that's why I reverted the edits. If he can document his views from a valid source, then they can go somewhere in the article, but they still cannot be given undue wieght by displacing the majority view -- and the view that Trinitarian baptism is prescribed by the Bible is held and practiced by at least 1.5 billion Christians (see here) -- and they cannot be presented as direct assertions (they have to be presented as assertions about what some group believes). I know most of the editors here know this, but this is said for jps' benefit. --MonkeeSage 04:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


MonkeeSage rightly says here that at least 1.5 billion Christians baptize with the Trinitarian formula. Why then did he remove (20:50, 20 March 2006) in the article the simple sourced statement of fact: "Baptism itself is generally conferred with the Trinitarian formula", giving preference instead to a statement that only some perhaps minority group of Christians ("Trinitarian" ones) use the Trinitarian formula? And why did he remove the equally simple statement of clear fact that "the penultimate verse of St Matthew's Gospel indicates that baptism was associated with this Trinitarian formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence"? Lima 05:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the excisions have not been justified, I feel free to restore the statements. Lima 15:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Lima: Trinitarian baptisim is documented in 1st and 2nd century lectionaries, catechisms, and church fathers -- it is wrong to say that it started in the 3rd century. Cf. Citations here. --MonkeeSage 17:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
We agree. Lima 19:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood. --MonkeeSage 19:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)



Please read the following from Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, I, p. 539, 540.

"The distinctive feature of Christian baptism is that it is administered εισ Χριστον or εισ το ονομα Χριστου."

The word used is "administered". This excludes mere relational significance as some have posited and denotes the actual ritual of performing the baptism. But wait, it gets better...

"The formula εισ το οναμα seems rather to have been a tech. term in Hellenistic commerce ("to the account"). In both cases the use of the phrase is understandable, since the account bears the name of the one who owns it, and in baptism the name of Christ is pronounced, invoked and confessed by the one who baptises or the one baptised (Ac. 22:16) or both." (emphasis added)

Kittel uses Mt. 28:18-20 to show that this commandment was understood as a command to baptize, but that regarding the scripture itself there are "ceaseless critical objections to Mt. 28:18-20 and Mk. 16:16..." (I, p. 539). I am eagerly looking forward to your refutations to the preeminent resource for New Testament scholarship. These quotes are absolutely relevant to this article and represent the writings of one of the paramount scholars of the New Testament that are referenced by the majority of Christian theologians regardless of denominational or doctrinal lines. Will it change the article in any way? That depends on whether or not doctrinal bias is allowed to supercede critical objectivity.Jacob 04:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (aka Sockpuppet)

This discussion has shown that it is fact and not POV that there are no actual recorded accounts of the Trinitarian formula being used in the Bible outside of Mt. 28:19. It has been added to the article and should NOT be removed unless you can prove it is inaccurate... which you cannot. The references from Kittel have also been added since they represent a highly respectable view from one of the most regarded experts on New Testament scholarship. Of course, I expect it to be removed because it does not agree with your doctrine.Jacob 05:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)(Sockpuppet)

I don't think anyone has a problem saying "there are no actual recorded accounts of the Trinitarian formula being used in the Bible outside of Mt. 28:19", I know I don't. One can interpret the Acts passages as giving a shorthand for the formula, but that is speculative. I object to claiming that the practice didn't start until the third century (unless a source is provided that can establish the scholarly consensus). I also object to including a cite like "ceaseless critical objections to Mt. 28:18-20 and Mk. 16:16..." without giving the context. There are "ceaseless critical objections" to the Virgin birth, to Jesus doing miracles, to just about everything in the Bible. Now if Kittel means that there are textual critics who object to the passage, then show me where he says that, since the UBS4 and NA27 have the same reading and (excepting the ουν in clause a) have no variants listed in the apparatus. Metzger (1994) doesn't mention any variants in the formula. What's more, I'll accept any statement by a textual critical scholar (Wallace, Greenlee, Mounce, passim) that indicates the existence of textual variation of the formula across different manuscripts. --MonkeeSage 13:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Here A. Ploughman's attempt to show that the "traditional wording" of Matt. 28:19 is wrong (here). Here is J. P. Holding's review of it (here). Note that even Ploughman has to admit that "If Greek Manuscripts of Matthew's gospel were our only source for establishing a reading of the text, then there would be no need for further study, as all extant manuscripts contain the name-phrase 'baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'" He tehn speculates that this doesn't represent the original text. No textual critical scholar that I'm aware of would agree. His is an ultra-minority position and without corroberation, should not be included in the article, unless in passing (something like "A. Ploughman does not believe that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is authentic, even though all extant manuscripts include it. Almost every textual critical scholar disagrees with Ploughman") -- but even that is not really warrented, because Ploughman is not a recognized scholar in any field, much less textual criticism. --MonkeeSage 14:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Now, Conybeare was a textual critical scholar: if he actually held that the current wording of Matthew is wrong, then his view warrents being mentioned in passing, with a note that it is not the accepted view in the field. --MonkeeSage 14:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I gave the context to Kittel’s commentary. It was in the context of showing that Jesus commanded baptism, but then he merely states that there are ceaseless critical objections to the scripture itself. If not referring to textual criticism, what then is he referring to? The entire ten volume set is nothing more than Greek word study and textual criticism. Am I incorrect? To compare The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which is a standard for New Testament theological studies the world over, with ‘jesus-messiah.com’ seems a little far fetched… even for this discussion.
Also, who added that there are no extra-Biblical accounts of baptism “in the name of the (Lord) Jesus (Christ)”? This is an impossible statement to defend, much less even begin to verify or prove. I’m not going to remove it because it illustrates the ridiculous bias of the author. With all the demands for citations concerning every single one of my posts, I’m sure one of the moderators of this article will see fit to remove it for integrity’s sake.Jacob 14:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You gave the idealogical context, but I want the textual context, as in the words that come before and after the statement. I have no idea what kind of critical scholars he means, because, as I'm sure you're aware, he discusses the views of all different kinds of critical scholars. For all I know, he means higher critical scholars like van Harnack and Bultmann. Kittel doesn't question the passage himself that I'm aware of. You can look at the edit history to see who added what. I think you misread the statement, however. The statement was that in the Bible there is no other mention of baptizing "in the name" of Jesus, except in Acts.
I've cleaned up and slightly modified the article (added another Kittel quote, &c), to hopefully make it more acceptable to all parties to this discussion, and look less like POV-pushing. --MonkeeSage 16:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that these latest revisions seem to be a more balanced presentation of the topic.Jacob 16:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I am not so sure about the claim that baptism in Jesus name does not exist outside of Acts. Of course, Acts is the only book that gives actual accounts of baptism, but there are baptismal references throughout the epistles. I will look into this further and post any results that I find. I also re-added the first quote from Kittel that you had deleted without comment. I assume it was deleted because it was the most damning to your argument?Jacob 18:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the second reference because it didn't seem to add any information (the same point was already belabored just above) and it didn't flow as well, but if you think it's so important, that's fine. I'll even add the footnote for you. I'm not presenting any argument here, BTW. It doesn't effect my doctrinal beliefs in the least if the baptisms in Acts were administered in the name of Jesus, or with the entire Matthew formula. --MonkeeSage 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. Kittel obviously thought it was important enough to add, but I suppose it does take up a couple of lines... Jacob 00:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

While I hate to be prescriptive about this, it makes everyone's life easier if your signature contains your actual username. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Then don't be prescriptive.  :) Jacob 16:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The section we are discussing here has gone from being a simple intro to where someone might first encounter the Trinity to being a complex argument about the Baptismal formula. Can I suggest we move it down the article so that people wanting to read about the Trinity aren't put off before they get to other pertinent discussions? DJ Clayworth 18:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest we simply make the simple intro of traditional baptism (Trinitarian), which is used in most of Christendom, and put the "Jesus only" stuff in another section ("other views" or something). KHM03 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --MonkeeSage 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
KHM03... This has been a terrific and stimulating discussion... until now. I guess if you can't add anything of value to the discussion, you can always resort to vitriol and slanderous misrepresentation of other's views. I think it is somewhat funny that you call my posts "Jesus Only" stuff (a phrase coined by Jimmy Swaggert) when all my extra-Biblical citations have been purposely from Trinitarian sources. I should not respond to your ignorance, but for the purposes of defending my beliefs (not myself), I believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Spirit. There is a quote from Emmanuel Swedenbourg on my user page that states what I believe as well, although he believed that the manifestations of God existed in a sequence only.
Thanks to everyone else for your insight. After all of this discussion and apparent agreement, do what you want to with the article and God bless. Jacob 00:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
So you decide to "simplify" the discussion on baptism by moving only the portions that you disagree with to the Notes section? But then you keep all of the additions caused by this discussion that you agree with? You maintain Kittel's statment on Mt. 28:19 but drop his statements on "in the name"? If you decide to move one section, should not you move the entire section to maintain consistency and flow? That would at least be a more honest presentation of the discussion, which by the way, is what an encyclopedia should present. So much for honesty and presentation of the full issues.Jacob 14:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
What are you wanting? The section states pretty much everything now, even giving weight to an alternate view, with references. There is the mention that the phrase in Matt 28:19 appears only once, there is mention of other baptisms "in the name of", indicating that it doesn't necessarily imply a formula at all. What was discussed here made its way into the article (pretty nicely, I might add). Personally, I believe the verse is now as it was written and that the instances of "in the name of the Lord", etc in Acts and the Didache are evidence that it's not a formula nor an attestation to any equality. I have no problems, I believe, with what we have now. What are you looking for in that section at this point? What else needs to be added, do you think? --Oscillate 15:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to hide anything, or push a particular POV (frankly, this is the third time I've been accused, and it's getting annoying) -- I'm trying to take the suggestions and keep the section on topic. The point of the section is simply that most Trinitarians see baptism as an introduction to the Trinity through the formula most commonly used (both historically, and contemporaneously). I personally think that all demurs should go in the anti-trinitarian article, with only a brief mention and link in this article under the appropriate section. But I didn't want to look biased, so I footnoted them instead (a lot of good that did!). It wont hurt my feelings if someone can do a better job of editing/placement than I did. By all means, please do. But please keep in mind the rules of the NPOV policy -- don't give undue weight and don't break up a section with objections that are only tangential to the point of the section. --MonkeeSage 17:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Gents, I really do understand your points. The comments by KHM03 rankled me a bit, and justifiably I think. Oscillate is correct that much of the discussion was added to the article. For this reason, I feel confident that we spent meaningful time on this and were able to come to a consensus. My last comments were only to mean that it seems odd that Kittel's comments seemingly in support of Trinitarian baptism are placed at the top of the article and Kittel's comments that seemingly do not support it are moved to the bottom. Kittel's comments were neither to prove or disprove Trinitarian baptism (he was a Trinitarian), only to point out facts about Biblical baptism. Therefore the references should be considered as neither "demurs", anti-trinitarian, or POV, but treated in the same way. It is my opinion that the posters allowed their perceptions of Kittel's comments to determine where the comments were placed in the article. I am not meaning to accuse MonkeeSage of POV because you have seemed very helpful and open to discussion. I look forward to future discussions! Jacob 19:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I've been misunderstood. I meant no offense to the "Jesus only" position...or call it whatever you will...I have no preference (if there is an "official" name, I'm happy to use it). The ppoint I was making is that the vast majority of Christendom practices Trinitarian baptism, and that is the "norm" when we explain things. If there's a minority which has another view (and there is), then we should present it honestly and concisely in its own section. I'm not sure how or why this suggestion is offensive, but I certainly meant no offense. KHM03 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing that I have posted can be correctly categorized as "Jesus only". That term was coined as a purposefully derrogatory misrepresentation. If you mean no offense, please stop using the term. Though Jesus was fully God, He in no way represents God throughout time. The Bible says He was the "only" begotten Son. Trinitarianism later added "eternally" begotten, which is not a Biblical term. Jesus was God manifested in the flesh to die for our sins. Ephesians 4:4 speaks of "One body and one Spirit". I believe in One Spirit, the eternal Spirit of God... Jehovah in the Old Testament, and one body, the man Christ Jesus who was fully man and fully God. Sonship refers to His humanity, not a second person in the godhead. The Holy Spirit refers to the regenerative Spirit of God in our lives. Thus the Bible uses the terms Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Holy Spirit, and Holy Ghost all interchangeably to refer to the same thing. I can correctly claim to have the same understanding of God as the prophet Isaiah, who also clearly foresaw Jesus but did not foresee the Trinity. You cannot. Jacob 22:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Tertullian also created a purposeful misrepresentation when he coined "Patripassionism", so this is nothing new. And also by the way, Tertullian did not believe in the Trinitarian doctrine as it has evolved into today. Correct terms include Oneness (not merely Pentecostalism), Sabellianism (for the most part), Modalistic Monarchianism, and true Biblical doctrine. I had to throw that last one in there... :) I generally refer to myself as a modalist or a Oneness Pentecostal. The economic Trinity, from what I understand, is the closest Trinitarian concept to what we believe. Jacob 22:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably just stirring the stink here, since this doesn't relate to the article, but I am naturally curious, so here goes...Jacob, how do people from your perspective explain passages like John 17:5, where it appears that Jesus (as an individual identity, "I") claims to have a certain relationship with the Father (as a different entity, "you"), before the world existed (i.e., eternally)? --MonkeeSage 02:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll attempt a short answer, but no promises. Also, recognizing that I am a minority in my views, I know from history that a dozen or more people would like to respond to this post. Please remember that I am only one person and cannot respond to everyone. C.S. Lewis speaks of God's relationship with time this way: if you have a paper with a line on it representing time, God is the paper, meaning he is at all points of the line at once. The eternal Spirit of Jesus has always existed (Jehovah), but Jesus Himself did not exist in any tangible form until His nativity. Yet Jesus has always existed in the mind, plan, and will of God and in this way was always with God. Trinitarians like to quote John 1:1, 14 (so do non-Trinitarians) but then they take this incredible leap of faith that the Logos refers to a completely separate and distinct Person merely because the word "with". A simple translation of Logos means the Word of God and refers to the mind, will, and foreknowledge of God. (I'm not meaning to start a deep discussion on the Logos, the Wikipedia servers do not have enough space.) A plan or will of a person can be said to represent a person and even to be with that person, but it would never be considered as a completely separate person. Jesus' incarnation and death on the cross was God's plan from the beginning and therefore the Lord Jesus Christ was glorified since the beginning with God. Revelation 13:8 speaks of the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Jesus was not literally slain from the foundation of the world, so this scripture obviously refers to the plan of God. Tertullian, generally considered to be the Father of the Trinity, did not even believe in an eternal Son. He concluded that the Son must have had a beginning at some point. I already mentioned how the Trinitarians created the term "eternally begotten". Another Trinitarian creation that could be brought up here is "God the Son". This term also never appears in the Bible though Jesus is often referred to as the "Son of God". At first it may seem like semantics, but there is a huge difference. Any distinction between the Father and the Son can easily be explained through St. Paul's statement of "one body and one Spirit". Trinitarians, in my opinion, must rely too heavily on non-Biblical language.
Now, let me ask you a question. A common Trinitarian diagram (shown in the article) illustrates the belief that the Father is God, the Son is God, etc., and that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, etc. How then, if the Son is not the Father, can you explain scriptures like Isaiah 9:6 that clearly say Jesus is the Everlasting Father? Not "at one with" or "unified with", but is the Father while at the same time being the son who was given? This is consistent with "one body and one Spirit", but from the orthodox definition of the Trinity as I understand it, it is not possible for the Son to ever actually be the Father. Jacob 03:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
As I stated, I'm not married to the phrase "Jesus only" and am happy to use whatever term is most appropriate for that POV, which, of course, differs slightly from traditional Trinitarianism (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I personally affirm). Let me know what term is most appropriate, and I'll use it. My point wasn't to ascribe a term to a particular POV, but rather to suggest that we describe traditional Trinitarianism as it's understood by most of Christendom (or misunderstood, you may argue!), and put other views in another section, so we don't end up with a confusing mess of an article which tries to cover all bases without dealing with any effectively. KHM03 (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned in the second paragraph of my last post several terms that have historically described our position. And just so you understand my beef, calling me "Jesus Only" would be akin to me calling you a "tritheistic pagan"! And no, I don't for a second think that you are a pagan! Jacob 15:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Two brief comments for Jacob. First, it's true that Trinitarians were eventually forced to adopt some language not found in scriptures, because when they limited themselves to biblical language, Arius managed to twist and reinterpret each such passage to fit his view. Using only biblical language would be preferable, but only if it were also able to continue to communicate the same biblical truth. The fourth century bishops adopted additional terms in order to more clearly and precisely say the same thing. Had Paul and the Gospel writers been confronted by Arius, they likely would have employed such language themselves. Wesley
Many would say instead of "twist", rather, "demonstrate". You can fully and clearly express the idea of God and Jesus being separate beings through Biblical language and texts with no mystery or inserted scriptures. --Oscillate 17:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is a difference in the terms "Son of God" and "God the Son", at least on the surface. However, Mark 2 shows Jesus forgiving sins, and the Jews objecting that only God can forgive sins. Jesus, sensing their thoughts, says "So that you may know that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins..." and proceeds to heal the forgiven individual. Trinitarians see this and similar passages as affirming the divinity of the Son of Man, who is the Son of God, who is God the Son. (If Jesus is identical to the Father, to whom did he pray on the many occasions that he did pray? To whom did he give thanks when he broke bread and fed the 5,000, or when he broke bread at the Last Supper? Whose voice was heard from Heaven at His baptism?) As council after council has said, this is the faith of our fathers. Wesley 14:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Jesus only did what his Father told him to, nothing of his own initiative. If God gave Jesus the authority to forgive sins, that doesn't affirm that he was God. All the scriptures you cite here are very easily read to show separation of beings. --Oscillate 17:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, if Jesus is identical to the Father, then his priestly prayer in John 17, "that they may be one as [the Father] and I are one", would only be answered when you and I become identical to Jesus, and identical to each other. Sounds almost pantheistic, involving a loss of our own personhood. Wesley 14:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Wesley, if not for non-Biblical language, the doctrine of the Trinity would have little indeed upon which to stand. And you can quote the Catholic councils all day long, I for one do not hold them with the same esteem as I hold the holy scriptures. Had it not been for the murder of Arius, you would quite possibly be arguing as a Jehovah's Witness today, such was the tenuousness and contentiousness of the issues. Had Marcellus fully understood Athanasius' arguments and refused to join ranks against Arius, you might be arguing with me today. A great read on this is the Christian section in Karen Armstrong's book, "A History of God". Though I don't necessarily agree with all of her points, she nails the historical issues regarding these councils. Fortunately, it caused her to stop being a Catholic nun. Unfortunately, it caused her to leave Christianity altogether. (I was raised Catholic by the way.) You could also read Isaac Newton's theological writings, although he had Universalist leanings.
Regarding the prayers of Jesus, the whole purpose for Calvary was for a sinless man to become a propitiation for our sins. God cannot die, so He was forced to create a human person (Jesus, the Son of God) and then manifest Himself into that person. This created a truly unique person in that Jesus was at the same time fully God and fully man. So when interpreting the life of Jesus, you must determine if He was acting as man or as God. As a man, He naturally needed to pray. What Trinitarians always fail to recognize is the other problem with this line of questioning. If Jesus was "God the Son", a completely separate person in the Godhead co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father in every way... why would God the Son ever have need to pray to God the Father? This question is perfectly explained by Paul's statement of "one body and one Spirit", but is not effectively explained by the Trinity... in my opinion. By the way, you did not answer the question on Isaiah 9:6. Jacob 15:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Jacob: Thanks for answering. I started a page where we can discuss this further if you'd like, so we don't go off topic here. User:MonkeeSage/Oneness --MonkeeSage 14:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
All of my future posts on this will be at User:MonkeeSage/Oneness's new page. Jacob 15:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Literal latin meaning

The Latin word "Trinitas" does not most literally mean "a group of three persons or things". There were a number of existing words meaning "a group of three" which Tertullian or whoever could have used, but instead he chose to coin a special word which is an abstract noun derived from the "distributive" number adjective trini, trinae, trina (masculine, feminine, and neuter nominative forms) meaning "three at a time, three each, three together, three at once", etc. AnonMoos 09:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi, i have a question about trinity: Did it arise by the birth of jesus or is it an eternal principle in Christianity? —This unsigned comment was added by 84.58.199.74 (talk • contribs) .

Hi. This is a good question. According to standard (Trinitarian) Christian doctrine, God has always been a Trinity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were all present as persons of God from the beginning of time. It's also part of the doctrine that the three are equal in all ways, neither one creating nor coming before any of the others.
If you are asking about belief in the Trinity, then it was not known in pre-Jesus times. No Jew, for example, before Jesus' time would have described God as a Trinity. If you accept the Christian viewpoint, God revealed more about his nature to people at that point in history. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Not sure exactly what you're asking, but it's part of the doctrine of traditional mainstream Christianity that the Trinity has existed for all time (with the Second Person of the Trinity existing before Jesus was born). AnonMoos 17:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The answer is: it depends who you ask. Those who believe in the Trinity (the majority) will say it's an eternal principle, that God has always been a Trinity and that it only became known during Jesus' time. Those who don't ascribe to trinitarianism would refute that and say that it's a concept that has little evidence in the Scriptures, is found in many non-Christian religions and was unknown up until the time after the apostles died, which was also the beginning of the time when many other non-Christian ideas were adopted into what was becoming the mainstream ideology. The doctrine itself was not firmly established until the 4th century, first decided upon was just "Jesus is God", and then later the claim that the Holy Spirit was God also. Both sides of the debate have scriptures they use to support their point, much of which comes down to discussions about language. --Oscillate 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The rest of us are trying to answer questions like this in a neutral fashion, Oscillate. DJ Clayworth 20:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I slipped, sorry. --Oscillate 21:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess to simply answer your question, the doctrine of the Trinity did not exist in any substantial way until hundreds of years after the birth of Jesus Christ. There is no explicit evidence of the Trinity anywhere in the Bible and it is generally agreed upon by everyone that the doctrine did not exist at all in the Old Testament. Jacob 22:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, there is evidence of the Trinity in Genesis, when God said "Let us make man in our image," compare with Colossians 1 which calls Jesus the "image of the invisible God." The Rublev icon of the Trinity is based on the "hospitality of Abraham" icon which shows Abraham entertaining the three 'angels' that visited him. And several passages in the Psalms are suggestive of the Trinity, at least one of which Jesus quoted. Some interpret the fourth figure in the fiery furnace in Daniel 3 as an angel, while others think it may have been a vision of the preincarnate Christ, since Nebuchadnezzar said the figure looked like "a son of God." That's just a few examples off the top of my head of the Trinity showing up in the Old Testament. All depends on the interpretive lens you use. :-) Wesley 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If Jesus was God's first creation, and can reflect the qualities of God better than any other being, then saying "Let us make man in our image" makes perfect sense. God didn't say "Let me make man in my image". People say someone is "the splitting image" of someone else when they look/act just like the other person - that doesn't mean they share the same essence. If Jesus had spent countless years with his Father, he would very well be able to imitate God better than anyone else. Other angels are often called "sons of God" (Job 38:7), so is Adam (Luke 3:38). Additionally, Christians are all called "children of God" (Romans 8:19,20,23), so just because Nebuchadnezzar said one of the angels looked like "a son of God" doesn't mean much, especially when he's not really the best person to judge who God or Jesus is. Also, no one is *ever* called a "son" of Jesus/the Son, only "brothers" or "fellow workers", and no one is *ever* called a brother of God/the Father, only "children" or "sons". --Oscillate 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Wesley, please don't go there. No true theologian will use Genesis 1:26 as evidence of a Trinity. This is accepted as Plurality of Majesty. Feel free to pick up a Jewish commentary on the Torah to learn more if you would like. Trinitarianism does not exist in the Old Testament, and most Trinitarians will state as much, including the Catholic Encyclopedia. Concerning the fourth man in the fire, Matthew Henry states that even great men are called "sons of God" throughout the Bible (see Psalms 82 where the Israelite judges were called gods). Regarding the "hospitality of Abraham", yes there were three celestial beings there, but nothing to imply that this was the Trinity. If you read it closely, in Genesis 18:6 the plural "they" is used as all three of the men answered Abraham. But in Genesis 18:9, when the Lord Himself spoke to Abraham, the singular "I" is used. If this were the Trinity, it would either be consistently "they" or "I", but not both. Jacob 03:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't expect to convince you that the Trinity is expressed in the Old Testament; only that many commentators do see it suggested. The "hospitality of Abraham" icon by Rublev and ones similar to it is taken to be a representation of the Trinity, without of course suggesting that the Father or the Holy Spirit actually have physical bodies. Of course I wouldn't expect a Jewish commentary to view it this way, any way than I would expect a Jewish commentary to say that Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Let's agree that different readers of the Old Testament disagree about whether it contains the Trinity. Wesley 13:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I could not care less how readers interpret the Old Testament. The writers of the Old Testament did not believe in the Trinity. Therefore it is dishonest to claim that it was there. Your argument regarding Abraham is completely without reason and here's why. Had the Trinity actually appeared to Abraham as you would have us believe Genesis 18 suggests, then the Jews would believe in the Trinity. Because they do not believe in the Trinity, it is completely reasonable and logical to say with complete confidence that the Trinity did not appear to Abraham, the Father of Israel. Jacob 21:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The direct intention of Biblical authors is overshadowed by God's intention in using them to record His message. The OT authors didn't believe in Jesus of Nazareth, either, but that doesn't preclude them from making prophecies about Him, if that was God's intention for their words. The authors of the Gospels probably did not (specifically) intend for them to convert me to Christianity, but that is how God used them. There is no reason to exclude a fact of revelation (if it be fact) simply because it was not known or understood at the time that the revelation was given. That the OT does teach the Trinity is a matter of dispute; that it can should not be. --MonkeeSage 07:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Except that it most certainly does not. (See the 7,000 occurances of YHWH, 0 mention of any other "person" of God or sharer in divine "essence", etc.) --Oscillate 07:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Oscillate is correct. And to your statement that the OT authors didn't believe in Jesus of Nazareth... they believed in the coming Messiah. Same thing. The Jews of Jesus' day did not accept Him as the Messiah, but that has nothing to do with the writers of the O.T. Also, yes, much of scripture, especially prophecy, has secondary and even possible tertiary meanings... but never antithetic or opposing meanings. The Trinity is definitely antithetic to what the O.T. writers believed and wrote. Therefore, you are right in saying that it should not be disputed whether or not the O.T. can teach the Trinity. Undisputedly, it cannot. Jacob 13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

God can express meaning through His chosen instraments, which they themselves didn't understand at the time, just not when it comes to the Trinity, because then that would contradict your interpretations. Interesting. In any case, in terms of theoretical possibility, the OT certainly can express the doctrine of the Trinity (quite apart from the consideration of whether it actually does). --MonkeeSage 14:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Then in theory, Moby Dick can express the doctrine of the Trinity according to your logic. There can undoubtedly be meaning that the author did not fully understand, but that meaning is not going to completely contradict the author's partial understanding. You're positing that these authors, who would have VEHEMENTLY DENIED THE TRINITY (and you know it), might have been used by God to write about it? Sounds like you are the one manipulating scripture based upon your interpretation... not me my friend. On this, at least, the article that we are discussing is honest. It states,
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, says, "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament."
Of course, I reference this knowing that this quote will probably "disappear" or be removed to the "notes section" of the article now.Jacob 16:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The essay at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/1998-01-02/trinity.html is one example of a theologian who does find the Trinity revealed in the Old Testament, and furthermore, references 2nd century Christian authors who also interpreted specific Old Testament passages as foreshadowing the Trinity. You're welcome to disagree with these interpretations of course, but it is disingenuous and exceedingly biased to pretend that your favorite interpretation of the Old Testament is the only one possible, or to put yourself forward as the only one able to correctly interpret what the Old Testament writers thought. Our job as WP editors is to document what theologians and historians have said about the Trinity and its relationship to scripture, not to do original research as to what the Bible does or doesn't say about it. Wesley 17:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia also says, "The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made known even to the Patriarchs." It goes on to say that different early church fathers found the Trinity revealed in the Old Testament, but differed mainly on how clearly it was revealed, or whether two or three persons of the Trinity were revealed. Taken by itself, your quote from the same text would be misleading. I'm quoting from the article on "The Blessed Trinity" [4] Wesley 17:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
"persuaded that indications must exist..." Well, there's a lot of text there, if you set out trying to find something in it - lots of people have thought they found all kinds of things in the scriptures. However, to say that the Patriarchs knew is really stretching. If it was such a widely-known concept for so long, you would think it would be easier for someone to say it more clearly and straightforwardly over the 66 books of the Bible, or that it wouldn't be a concept only formulated in the 4th century. And yet, it's anything but clear. --Oscillate 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It may be unclear if you read scripture divorced from the Tradition of the Church, as sola scriptura insists. It's much more clear if you take a patristic approach to theology, reading the Bible as it has been read by the Church through the centuries, beginning with the first and second centuries not the fourth. My point with that quote though, was only to show that the New Catholic Encyclopedia does say the doctrine was indicated or hinted at in the OT. I have been unable to find Jacob's quote of that source. Wesley 04:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, now someone has reached a new low. I posted comments that have been completely deleted by someone. Oh well, such is the overall spirit of Trinitarian proponents. I can understand someone not having liked my analogy (true as it was), but my quoting of Isaiah 45:5? I guess that hit a little too close to home and showed a little too clearly the glaring holes in your arguments. Jacob 22:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't catch what went missing, but it very well could have been an accident. --Oscillate 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Nobody deleted anything, not since 25 March anyway, as is readily verifiable from the history. When did you make the post you now believe is missing? Are you certain you made it in the first place? It's a very simple error to click "Show preview" and then forget to click "Save page". I've done it myself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Jacob, are you ever going to retract the slander above, where you attributed to "the overall spirit of Trinitarian proponents" something that was clearly an error on your part? Christian charity, if not WP:CIVIL, demands it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to admit when I'm wrong. But first let me clarify and defend myself. By "the overall spirit of Trinitarian proponents", I am saying you tend to allow what you agree with and remove or de-emphasize what you disagree with, regardless of factuality. To give an example, in our discussion regarding Baptism as the First Lesson, the Kittel quotes on baptism that I put forward were moved to the bottom notes section of the article. The Kittel quotes on baptism that Trinitarians put forth were kept in the section on baptism where they would most likely be read. The quotes were by the same person out of the same book on the same subject, yet the quotes that Trinitarians did not like were relegated to a section nowhere near the discussion on baptism. Why? If this is not bias, what is? Your reasoning was that my Kittel quotes represented a minority view, even though they were out of a purely factual Greek word study!
Having said that, yes I judged too quickly and was in the wrong for it. I accept that, but my mistake was based upon past experience. As you can see, this is nothing akin to slander. I've toned down my rhetoric, so now TCC can tone his down a little as well. Jacob 04:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you haven't toned down your rhetoric. Not if you're blaming everyone in the room (apparently including me, when I haven't made a substantial edit to this article in some time) for the problem. Why don't you confine your ire to the person who actually did it? TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Jacob, it seems clear that your comments were in violation if the no personal attacks policy. In particular, two examples of personal attacks given there closely match your own: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult. [NOTE: this is the first half of my comment, before Jacob inserted his comments in the middle of the quotation I started. Wesley 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)]
Please tell me specifically which epithet I used: racial, sexual, homophobic, religious, or ethnic? From what I recall, you were involved in that discussion where I was being slandered and maligned as "Jesus Only", which is a religious epithet. Where was your righteous indignation then? Or are the rules only applied selectively based upon who agrees with (or disagrees with) TCC? Your partiality diminishes any credibility you may have had regarding this issue.
But regardless of your double standards, I retracted my statements that were in error. What more would you like? Did I not admit my mistake? I also read in the Wikipedian policy that you referenced where experienced users should have patience with new users. Do these rules not apply to you? Jacob 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." Thus associating poor editing behaviour with an entire religious belief system easily fits the defintion of a personal attack, and should be carefully avoided. Thanks. Wesley 16:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I said to TCC, if you are going to apply these rules, please do so consistently. You also were involved in the conversation where I was maligned as "Jesus Only" by KHM03. Can one of you please inform KHM03 of these rules? He is an experienced Wikipedian, and as such, you should have denounced him all the more. Unfortunately, that was not the case and so I have a difficult time respecting the hypocritical condemnation of my posts. Jacob 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
After checking again, it appears that KHM03 originally used the phrase "Jesus Only" to describe some of the text in the article that he thought should be moved. He repeatedly stated later that he intended no offense by it, and agreed not to use the term since it was perceived as offensive; this is the main reason I didn't say anything about it. (C) Regardless of the above, a personal attack by one editor would not justify a personal attack in return. Also, please don't insert your comments in the middle of my comments or anyone else's. It makes the flow of discussion much more difficult to follow, and amounts to editing another user's comments, which is also bad form. Wesley 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
He referred to my posts as "Jesus Only stuff". Of course, you wouldn't find that offensive for obvious reasons, as I have mentioned above. I did and it was a religious epithet. No, I am not justifying anything, merely pointing out your apparent bias. I appreciate your desire to keep me in line. I also appreciate (in a different sense) that you don't hold others to nearly as high of a standard. Jacob 19:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no double standard here. The difference is that KHM03 was characterizing words while you were characterizing people. Had KHM03 said something like "that Jesus-only editor" -- yes, that would have been a personal attack and equally deplorable. But he didn't. It doesn't even look to me as if he was particularly cognizant that you were the one who wrote the words he was talking about. The discussion had by that time been going on for three days, and it's easy to lose track of who wrote what in the article. That you took it personally, when it almost certainly was not intended personally, is not his fault. In any event, you youself have not been shy about using very strong language, and it seems inconsistent that you should object to anyone else doing so. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I certainly meant no offense...my phrasing was not meant to be derogatory in any way, and I simply used the phrase "Jesus only" to differentiate the view from traditional Trinitarianism, and because I did not know a better or more accurate term. I again apologize if anything I said was upsetting or offensive, even if it was unintententional. You may have noticed that I have stayed away from the article since then, to show my sincere regret at hurting anyone's feelings. I simply wanted to make a suggestion as to how we might reorganize the article. If I can be of any help or clarify my apology, please let me know. KHM03 (γραφ) 20:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
KHM03, thank you for your apology. I understand that the offense was unintentional and there are no hard feelings. I have brought it up in this post to show TCC and Wesley's inconsistent application of the rules. If it is brought up in any future comments, please understand that it is directed to them and not to you. From what I recall, our discussion ended up on a positive note, as I hope this one will as well. Jacob 19:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

TCC, so because the "Jesus Only" comment was directed to my words and not to me, that makes it justifiable? I ask you to replace "Jesus Only" with a well know racial slur, as in those "*N* Comments" and see if you feel the same way. Or a homophobic slur such as those "*F* Comments"? Though KHM03 did not appreciate the meaning, "Jesus Only" was a derogatory statement created to malign and ridicule an entire belief system and its adherents. If you and Wesley did not know this, I can forgive your ignorance in the hopes that I have helped your understanding. Jacob 19:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Jacob: You claimed that I'm "positing that these authors, who would have VEHEMENTLY DENIED THE TRINITY (and you know it), might have been used by God to write about it?" I really can't say what people at past stages of revelation might have denied (or affirmed) about a doctrine that was not explicitly revealed until later stages of revelation. Nor can I say what they would have done, had they realized that God was using them to reveal things that they (might have) denied. All I can say is that whatever the author of Psalm 45:6 may have believed about the Son, since the author of Hebrews 1:8 applies it to Jesus, God intended Psalm 45:6 to be a revelation about the nature of Jesus (even if the author of the Psalm might have "vehemently denied" such a thing). God could easily have revealed the Trinity in the OT, without making it explicit at that stage of revelation, only to be seen and identified in light of later revelation. --MonkeeSage 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

MonkeeSage, the doctrine has never been explicitly revealed at all, unless one considers the ecumenical councils to be divine revelation. And yes, it is possible to say that the authors would have denied the Trinity, unless you think what they believed in the O.T. was utterly divergent (to the very heart of their belief in God) from what traditional Judaism believes today.
Your reference to Hebrews 1:8, however, makes a good point. The reason I am somewhat confused by these arguments is the ability of Trinitarians to elevate a scripture and take it out of context. Hebrews 1:5 tells us that God said to the Son, "this day have I begotten thee". I can see no other way to read this than that the Son was begotten on a specific day...this day. You quote the scripture three verses away, yet overlook the plain meaning of the context. If the Son had a beginning (was begotten on a specific day), which seems clear enough, where does that leave the Trinity? Jacob 06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's a matter of dispute, whether the Trinity is a fact of revelation or not. It's also a question, whether the Trinity is incompatibile with OT monotheism. My point was that it does no good to assume that the Trinity was never revealed, and is incompattible, and then argue from those assumptions to the conclusion that the Trinity could not be revealed in any way in the OT (it likewise does no good to assume the converse and argue that the Trinity must be there at that stage of revelation). That is just begging the question. And I'm not sure how, exactly, to understand the "begetting" mentioned in Heb. 1:5 (there are several explainations, and I'm not sure which is correct); but Acts 13:32–33 seemingly places the event, whatever it entails, at the resurrection and not the incarnation. --MonkeeSage 06:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, since the word used for begotten here, γεννάω, is the same word used throughout Matthew 1, what is the need to interpret it differently? In each case we should understand it to mean to conceive or procreate. And as such, we should interpret this to mean that there was a specific day the Son was conceived. You would likely disagree because of the tremendous implications to the Trinitarian doctrine. Placing it at the resurrection, however, brings up some other interesting implications that I had never thought about. I would be interested in Oscillate's comments on this. Jacob 20:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
My comments? Concerning Hebrews 1:8 (translation differences aside), keep reading in verse 9: "therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee..." Again Jesus is referred to as having a God (see also Mark 15:34; John 20:17; 1 Co 1:3). In regards to the translation differences, it is quite grammatically legal to translate the phrase in both Ps 45:6 and Heb 1:8 as "God is your throne", "divine throne" or "Thy throne given of God" (see footnotes in ASV, RS, NEB). This works with the concept of the ruling throne being God's (1 Chron. 29:23; especially Luke 1:32).
Regarding Heb 1:5, Paul uses the same words at Acts 13:33, where he makes it clear this is in reference to Jesus' resurrection. Here, he is quoting in part Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14, which is a covenant of God with David concerning God's throne on which David sits. David is being given authority to rule, the same with Jesus. Heb 5:5 corroborates this, saying Jesus did not glorify himself but was glorified by God as a kingly high priest on the day of his being "begotten". Romans 1:4 says Jesus was declared God's Son by his resurrection. Jesus becomes God's Son in a special sense, as David became God's son, both at his baptism and his resurrection. --Oscillate 04:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Your explanation does not begin with "there are several possible explanations", which is how the Trinitarians have had to explain Hebrews 11:5 and Isaiah 9:6. In my experience, this is how arguments begin when someone cannot accept the obvious. It is the head in the sand approach to Bible interpretation.
Regarding this scripture, Revelation 1:5 calls Jesus the first "begotten of the dead", which of course refers to His humanity. It also (to me) very simply explains Hebrews 1:5 and Acts 13:32-33. It is also wonderfully consistent with Modalism, which believes all distinction between the Son and the Father are found in the dual nature of Christ, meaning Jesus is both God and man at the same time. It was at Jesus' resurrection that He received His glorified body, and not before (John 7:39). I'm not sure how Trinitarians harmonize John 7:39 with John 17:5. But getting back on point, as a man, Jesus can say "my God and your God"; but as God, He says of Himself, "Before Abraham was, I Am". Oscillate, I think I understand your view, and it seems to fill many of the gaps left by Trinitarianism. However, Jesus seems clear in His claim to be God. And according to the following scriptures, Deut. 6:4, Isaiah 43:11, 44:6,8, 45:5,21 (to name a few), there can only be One: that is One God, One Person, One Essence, One Being, One Substance... the Holy One. God has chosen to reveal Himself to the church and save the church through the man Jesus Christ. Jacob 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
From my experience, its the ones who absolutely know what passages say, and discount any other possible meanings out of hand, that you have to look out for. BTW, I don't see why Trinitarians would have to harmonize John 7:39 with John 17:5 — you don't harmonize that which agrees. Taking the Carmen Christi (Phili. 2:5-11), the Prologue (John 1:1-18), John 7:39 and John 17:5, Acts 1:9 into account, we have a simple, harmonious timeline: First, Jesus, who is God, gave up His glorious state with the Father to become incarnate and dwell among us; Next, once He completed His mission, He returned to His former state of glory with the Father. Also, I would point out that none of the passages you cite claim that God is "One Person;" they do say that there is only one God (i.e., only one God exists), and other passages do say that Jesus is God, but Unitarianism is not the only possible explanation for these facts. --MonkeeSage 16:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Phil 2:5-11 is an interesting one, glad you brought that up. First of all, the translation and interpretation is quite arguable (grasping vs clinging to), and we could fill many more paragraphs discussing just that part. But, keeping that there are valid other translations in mind, if you are asserting that it is referring to Jesus being God, read Phil 2:5 again: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus". What mind, to think it's proper to be equal to God, but to not pursue it? Is that the mind Paul is telling us we're supposed to have? That doesn't fit. Many scholars and commentators notice the parallels between Adam and Jesus (the last Adam) here in Paul's words. In Genesis, Adam, who was also in God's image or likeness, sought to be "like God", and Jesus is being contrasted here, as Paul called him in 1 Co 15:45 the "last Adam". The word translated "Form" is used elsewhere in the scriptures for outward appearance, not "essence" (Dan 7:28 LXX;Mark 9:2). Also, just read the rest of Philippians: Jesus is distinct from God (not the Father) (1:2; 1:11; 2:11; 3:9; 4:7), was obedient (2:8), was exalted by God (not the Father) (2:9), etc. --Oscillate 17:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand that there are other interpretations, I was just meaning within the context of Trinitarianism (specifically, non-kenotic Trinitarianism). On that understanding, the thought can be paraphrased: "Be like Christ, who, even though He was God, didn't try to hang on to his position in Heaven, but gave it up to live as a man, like us, for our well-being", i.e., just like Paul says elsewhere: "I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich." (2 Cor 8:8-9, ESV). --MonkeeSage 08:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd certainly agree that being spirit and becoming fleshly and being killed is a big leap from "rich" to "poor", but I don't see how that means he was God, especially since Paul is saying that the Christians he's speaking to will become "rich" as well. --Oscillate 14:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Just an analogy (=not an exact representation) to help explain the Trinitarian position. Another one is: "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matt. 10:39). I understand that non-trinitarians don't accept the analogy, I was just trying to make the Trinitarian position more clear. Forgive me if I've made it more confusing instead. --MonkeeSage 15:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Nothing to apologize about! Good discussion. --Oscillate 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Trinitarian Logic Regarding the Divine Substance

The article on the Trinity states that:

The answer to the question "What is God?" indicates the one-ness of the divine nature, while the answer to the question "Who is God?" indicates the three-ness of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

An example that I have heard to illustrate this logic is to stand three men side by side. These men are separate and distinct, but made up of "one humanity", thus creating an essence of three-in-one. The problem with this logic is that any polytheistic religion, say Hinduism, can take up the same logic and terminology. As long as all of their gods are made up of the same "substance", they have just as much right to say that they believe in one god as Trinitarians. The number of actual individual persons would be immaterial. Though they believe in millions of "divine persons", as long as they are of the same substance (God-ness), then they can justifiably say they believe in one God (according to Trinitarian logic). This completely destroys the true meaning of the term "monotheism" in any real or relevant sense. It is for this reason that true monotheistic religions and views such as Judaism, Islam, Modalism, Unitarianism, etc. take such offense to Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism manipulates, twists and destroys true monotheism. Due to this manipulation of terminology, the only group in the world that does not view Trinitarianism as tritheistic are the Trinitarians themselves. Jacob 14:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The important thing to remember about all illustrations of the Trinity is that they are just that - illustrations. If carried too far they will always get to the point where they break down. The thing here is that we are trying to describe the nature of God, who pretty much by definition is bigger than human understanding. As for your last point Jacob it can be said about any belief that "the only ones who don't think this view is wrong is those who believe it". DJ Clayworth 15:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct on illustrations. The point of my post was not to say anything regarding the illustrations itself, but rather the Trinitarian logic concerning the divine substance. Regarding your last statement, I am not speaking of a subjective belief, but rather the accepted theological definition of monotheism. The point was, I'll say again, that even an overtly polytheistic religion can adopt the same terminology as Trinitarians and justiably claim to believe in one god. Greek mythology could be monotheistic if they merely stated that Zeus, Poseidon, and Aphrodite were made of the "same substance". Jacob 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The doctrine of the Trinity says more than that. It also says that they are "of one being" and a number of other things that clearly indicate that it is more than being "made of the same stuff". DJ Clayworth 17:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that at one level, Hinduism can be said to believe in one God. The difference is when it tends towards also including you, me, the tree outside, and the keyboard I'm typing on in what is encompassed by the word "God", whereas Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) draws a much sharper distinction between God and everything that God created. I think that Greek mythology expressly talks of different gods being made of different stuff, or having different origins. At the very least there's a significant distinction between the Titans and Olympians. Not the same thing, though I see how it could look that way at first. Wesley 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I know that Hinduism and Greek mythology are different from the Trinity, although, thanks to your post, I am looking at my keyboard a little differently  :). The point that I am making is that the terminology adopted by Trinitarianism could also be adopted by other polytheistic religions. The danger of this, as I see it, is that we lose any true relevance to the term monotheism. Similarly, C.S. Lewis speaks of the term "gentleman" in his book Mere Christianity. Gentleman once meant a man of wealth and had nothing to do with his moral fiber or courteousness. Today we have changed the meaning of the term to generally mean a good man even though we already had words for that. For this reason, the English language has basically lost the word "gentleman". I realize this is POV, but if Trinitarianism can change the strict meaning of monotheism into being three (or four, or five, or five hundred) distinct persons, however interpersonal they may be, monotheism loses whatever relevance it may have had. Jacob 02:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget the mathematical analogy of the Trinity: 13 = 1. 1 being, 3 positional relationships, still just 1 being. Not 1 + 1 + 1 (ontological) -- 1 x 1 x 1 (inter-personal), a different relationship. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that this relationship can describe "Zeus, Poseidon, and Aphrodite," which would be 1 + 1 + 1. The word "substance" refers to "being" -- and on the Greek view they are three different "beings." The diagram in the article clearly shows the relationships in the one being of God as Trinitarians understand them. I highly doubt whether that rubric can be applied to other religions. --MonkeeSage 00:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's where the mathematical formula breaks down and helps to illustrate what I am saying. You say 13 = 1 (inter-personal). Let's say a polytheistic religion with 10 distinct divine inter-personal beings takes this same analogy... 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 still = 1. You could string as many 1's as you want to and you still end up with one. The only numerical formula that should be associated with monotheism is 1 = 1. And other than the Johannine Comma, the only number ever associated with God is just that... One.
Now when you say that there is only one "being" of God, let's apply this in a relevant way. When we get to Heaven, how many thrones will God have? And I don't mean symbolic inter-personal thrones, I mean actual seats where the "one being" will sit down to be worshipped. Jacob 02:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Polytheism, by deinition, would use the addition operator in my analogy, not the muplication operator. The Trinity affirms monotheism, because the differentiation it maintains is not ontological (+), but inter-personal within the same being (x). There is only one being of God -- not an abstract property that can be communicated across different instances, as in the pagan concept of "godness" which you intimate -- an individual essence which is entirely unique, self-contained and non-communicable. 1 = 1. --MonkeeSage 06:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question regarding the application of this doctrine. It has been my experience that Trinitarians love to talk monotheism and theory, but hesitate when it comes time to applying it in any relevant way. Whether the addition operator is used or the multiplication operator is all empty rhetoric until applied in a real sense. How many thrones (actual seats) in Heaven? Jacob 14:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
And how does this idea of "divine substance" of one being correlate with these post-ascension scriptures? 1 Tim 5:21 - "before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels..." God and Jesus separate; Rev 1:1 - "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him..."; God and Jesus separate. Heb 9:24 - Christ "entered heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf..."; Christ and God separate. Acts 7:55 - Stephen had a vision of heaven and saw God and Jesus at his right hand, separately...; 1 Co 15:24-28 - Christ subjects himself in heaven to God...; Rev 4:8-5:7 is an account of God on his throne, and the "root of David", shown as a lamb, has to approach the throne to take a scroll. Rev 5:13 closes by saying (KJV) "Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, [be] unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." The lamb (Jesus Christ) and God being clearly separate in heaven. --Oscillate 15:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No-one is denying the scriptures that indicate the separateness of God and Jesus. That's partly how the Trinity came to be a doctrine.
If you'll forgive me summarising three hundred years of difficult theological debate, the Trinity came about from the following very clear statements from Scripture: 1) Jesus is God. 2) Jesus and God the Father are not the same 3) there is only one God. Now given these statements the Trinity is what we come up with, and so far it is the only doctrine that can accept all these statements. What tends to happen is that people who don'l like the doctrine of the Trinity end up having to ignore, or explain away, one of the three kinds of statements above. If you ignore the category 1 statements then you end up with a non-divine Jesus, like the Mormons. If you ignore the category 2 statements then you end up with oneness theology. If you ignore the category 3 statements you end up with polytheism. (Similar arguments apply to the Holy Spirit).
My point being that the Trinitarian doctrine accepts all three kinds of statements. It is precisely these three kinds of statements that gave rise to the doctrine. DJ Clayworth 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Point (1) there is anything but clear. --Oscillate 16:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In fairness we may be past the point where this discussion, fascinating though it is, is helping with the writing of the article. DJ Clayworth 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

True, this isn't directed toward the article at this point. --Oscillate 16:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your point (2), oneness theology does not deny a separation between the Father and Jesus. Oneness proponents hold that any separation between the Father and Son found in the Bible is explained with the dual nature of Jesus Christ, meaning his full humanity and full deity. The humanity of Jesus was not God. The Trinitarians also agree with this, though they say Jesus was God the Son manifested in the flesh. Oneness believers hold that Jesus was God, in totality, manifested in the flesh (Col 2:9). This is how Jesus is correctly seen as both the Son (created human person) and Father (eternal Spirit of God). This is consistent with Isaiah 9:6 which clearly states that Jesus will be called the "Everlasting Father". So then, oneness theology agrees with all points, but varies with Trinitarianism in the non-Biblical terms "separate and distinct persons". Hopefully, with all of our rabbit chasing, you will have a better understanding of the modalistic view.Jacob 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The question about the logic of the Trinity has been answered. If you want to discuss the truthfulness of the doctrine please do so on your user talk pages, as that has nothing to do with the article (the article is intended simply to describe Trinitarian beliefs). --MonkeeSage 22:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find, if you read my posts on this topic, that I have been speaking only of the logic. I did after all, start this section. Seems as though you had no issues with DJ Clayworth's "summarising three hundred years of difficult theological debate". But when I merely try to correct DJ's obvious misunderstanding of Modalism, I am now discussing the truthfulness of the Trinity?
In my last post in response to you, I simply asked for a relevant application of the Trinitarian logic as you explained it. From what I can tell, this has not been answered and still fits within the confines of the overall section and the article. I cannot help it if others use this as a forum to debate three hundred years of doctrinal conflict, nor will I accept credit for their getting off topic. But maybe you were directing this post to them and just happened to place your response under my last post...? Jacob 01:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Probably directed at me, though I listed some scriptures that answered your question. --Oscillate 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
My last edit was directed at anyone who is arguing about whether the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity/whether it is true. What I will see in Heaven, how I explain verses, whether other religions can use the concept, and so on, have nothing to do with the logic of the doctrine of the Trinity. The logic is simple: God is one being, cohabited by three eternally distinct persons. It can be expressed by various analogies. There is nothing hard to understand about it. You may not agree with the logic of the doctrine, but that is a matter to be discussed elsewhere. --MonkeeSage 01:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
"simple" or "unexplainable mystery"? How is it that now there's "nothing hard to understand" about it? I'm confused... And MServetus does have a point, how are three distinct persons going to share one throne? It's a good question, very related to the logic. --Oscillate 02:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The mystery is that there is nothing in creation that perfectly reflects the Trinity (just like there is nothing in creation that perfectly reflects God's love, mercy, &c). But the concept is easy to understand. The virgin birth has no exact analog in creation either (i.e., is a mystery like the Trinity), but the concept is easy enough to grasp. How we will percieve God in Heaven has nothing to do with the logic of the Trinity. From the Biblical descriptions of Heaven, the most we can say is that the Son is seated on the right hand of the Father and the Spirit "hovers" (for lack of a better word) above the throne. Again, that has nothing to do with the logic of the Trinity. --MonkeeSage 02:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Revelation 4:2, "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne."
To continue the discussion on logic, the concept is not only difficult to grasp, it is a human impossibility. The concept takes two mutually exclusive ideas, tritheism in monotheism or three in one or triunity or however it is stated today, and attempts to combine them. This is why St. Augustine needed thirty volumes to attempt to explain it (I am still reading them) and even after all that, Karl Barth thought Augustine was a modalist even though Augustine refused to be called one. In Ed Young's six DVD series called "Tri-God" (or "3-God" in English), he begins by saying the doctrine of the Trinity is incomprehensible. In C.S. Lewis' "A Problem With Pain", he states that not even God can be two mutually exclusive things. Unfortunately, he wasn't consistent in the application of this reasoning when it came to God's person.
Let me ask this. What is the correct Trinitarian term on the logic, God is one "essence", "substance", or "being"? From my understanding, these do not necessarily mean the same thing. Maybe they do. Thanks. Jacob 14:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Your presentation of the "Trinitarian logic" is indeed logically impossibile to grasp, as it is self-referrentially incoherent, claiming that God is one being and also three beings. That representation makes a category error, by reducing the category of "person" to the category of "being." But, of course, not everything that has "being" is a "person" (e.g., a rock), showing that such a reduction is flawed. Unitarians believe that God is one being and one person; Trinitarians believe that God is one being and three persons. Regarding "essence", "substance", or "being"; they are all used synonymously. "Essence" is used in the Aristotelian sense of "the true thing" (viz., Das Zing an Sich), what something really is as a distinct entity. "Substance" is used the same way, referring to the "stuff" of which something is composed. "Being" talks about existence, but as used here also speaks of the "essence" or "substance" of the thing that exists. "Person" or "identity" refers to the nature or qualitities of a "being," which are referred to as a center of consciousness (self-awareness). So, when Trinitarians affirm that God is one being and three persons, they mean there is a unique existence, distinct from all other existents, in which are contained three distinct centers of consciousness, expressed simultaneously. This can all sound very philosophical, but if you understand the concept of one being and one person, then nothing prevents you from understanding the concept of one being and three persons (in fact, there are some people with Multiple-Personality Disorder who actually instantiate this concept, though not perfectly as their personalities are not exibited simultaneously and are not in perfect harmony). --MonkeeSage 07:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I've seen 'homoousious' translated as both 'substance' and 'essence' in different translations of the Nicene Creed, so they seem to be interchangable to some degree; I'm not so sure about "being." One thing to keep in mind is that Eastern thought often holds two seemingly exclusive ideas together at once, creating an apparent paradox that is abhorrent to Western logic. So Eastern Orthodox Christianity holds the tension between one essence and three persons because that much has been revealed by God about himself; we don't press too hard not because it would fall apart, but because we don't have God on a laboratory bench where we can examine Him more closely and get a precise readout on His composition. Apophatic theology is used to avoid straying too far from what has been revealed in pursuit of speculation. This also comes into play when speaking of the Eucharist. Western scholastics wanted to define precisely what was going on with the bread and wine, and came up with Transubstantiation. Eastern Christians just affirm what Jesus Himself said, that this is in fact His body and blood, without getting tangled up with accidents and trying to define what happens more precisely or specifically than what we can know. Wesley 04:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we can draw too sharp a distinction between different "kinds" of logic (as the East doesn't posit contradicitons which are in theory unsolvable, rather paradoxes or antinomies which are theoretically solvable given enough information and intelligence [which perhaps only God possesses]). I think it would be better to speak of differing "approaches" to questions. While I can appreciate the motive for not wanting to go beyond what is revealed into speculation, East and West both agree that at least this much is revealed: God is (exists); God is eternal; God is unique; The Father, Son and Spirit are all God. So, to say that: "God is one being and three persons", would seem to be in harmony with both "approaches" -- though to try to explain the exact relationships between these facts, as many in the West have done (especially the Scholastics), would be seen as an unfruitful, humanly impossible endeavor in the East. Is that a fair assessment? --MonkeeSage 04:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, East and West generally agree on those points. Efforts to be too specific though are seen not only as unfruitful and humanly impossible, but to run a serious risk of straying into heresy by overemphasizing one side of the truth being held in tension. The clearest examples of this are in Christology, where some have overemphasized either Christ's deity or his humanity, at the expense of the other. The introduction of the filioque clause runs such a risk; certainly the Roman Catholic statement that the Holy Spirit is the product of the love between the Father and the Son, that I've heard repeated more than once, seems to be a consequence of the filioque clause and sounds very strange to my ears. Wesley 04:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I completely understand! I'm a Western Christian (though not Roman Catholic), so I often have to remind myself when reading works of my doctrinal persuasion (Reformed, which already have a tendency to try to systematize eveything), what is explicit from the Biblical texts and what is being infered. I often accept the inferences, but it is good to have brothers/sisters from the Eastern tradition to remind me that the inference is not always a "good and necessary" one. I actually hold a position similar to monophysitism and monothelitism regarding Christology (similar to Appollinarianism). BTW, perhaps this will more clearly illustrate how I mean "being": καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· (Exo. 3:14, LXX). "And God said to Moses: 'I am the Is [or, Being]'". --MonkeeSage 05:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for this interesting discussion and taking the time to answer my question. Jacob 05:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Trinity in the Old testament

I think a seperate sub-heading needs to be formed for "Trinity in the Old Testament". This could be prefaced by "Some scholars argue that..." This would be a solution? Personally, I think that Christ is the revealer of the trinity, but this is not the point. My view means little as I am not a bible scholar, and the point is to get across the views of experts, who have credibility after peer review. It is certainly not unreasonable to have the view that the trinity is revealed in the OT, but it is not the majority view of scholars.

Cialovesyou 09:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

New section at the bottom, please. I've moved this one there.
I think you'd have a hard time showing that "most scholars" agree on this as you said. For one thing this is an issue of exegesis, which is carried out from a position of faith and is not a scholarly pursuit as such. Certainly (as we have seen) many do not see a revelation of the Trinity in the OT -- but as we have also seen, many do. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Many commentators have seen the Trinity revealed (more or less explicitly/implicitly) in the OT, not least among them Calvin (Institutes 1.13.1ff). Indeed Calvin expressly asserted that: "Christians, therefore, properly contend, from this testimony, that there exists a plurality of Persons in the Godhead." (Commentary on Gen. 1:26). Now whether this was because of a desire to see it there (or any other motive), remains ever and anon an open question (no man having access to the inner thoughts of another). But it is verifiable fact that a great many Christian scholars and commentators have found the doctrine of the Trinity in the OT — if not as an explicit matter, at least as a faint shadow of what was to be made explicit later. --MonkeeSage 06:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
When speaking of scholars, are we referring only to Trinitarian scholars, or all scholars of the Old Testament? Of course, some Trinitarian scholars (by no means all) contend that the Trinitarian doctrine existed in some faint shadow in the Old Testament. But there is debate even among them as to the truthfulness and/or extent of this revelation. Of course, no non-Trinitarian scholar would contend this. Seeing then that there is debate on the Trinitarian side, and no debate on the non-trinitarian side, it would seem a fair statement to say that the Trinity in the O.T. is held by a minority of scholars. I agree with Cialovesyou that the article could say as much. Jacob 14:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, since the majority of Christians are Trinitarian, it stands to reason that the majority of Christian scholars would be Trinitarian. As far as I know, the general consensus of scholars and commentators and theologians — not counting naturalistic higher critics who try to demythologize the Bible — is that the Trinity is revealed in the OT, or at least the OT makes statements that are harmonious and supportive of the Trinity. The explicitness of that revelation is disputed, and whether it could be known without further revelation (i.e., the NT), but not the (alleged) fact. For scholars, see Nathan Kassulke, The Trinity in the Old Testament (and notes), in Theologia, vol. 52, no. 2; G. H. Joyce, in Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v., The Blessed Trinity, II.B, vol. 15, pp. 47-49; Christos S. Voulgaris, The Biblical and Patristic Doctrine of the Trinity in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 37, nos. 3-4; J. Hampton Keathley, III, The Trinity (Triunity) of God. For theologians, see Arthur C. Custance, The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation, Part V; Loraine Boettner's writings on The Trinity, esp. The Trinity in the Old Testament; B. B. Warfield The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity, and in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia s.v., Trinity, 1, I.5. For commentators see H. C. Leupold On Gen. 1:1, 1:26 &c; Calvin; Jamieson-Fausset-Brown; Adam Clarke; &c; on the same passages. --MonkeeSage ☺ 05:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

'Elohim' arguments

I deleted a discussion of what Jews might think of the Hebrew morphology of "Elohim" or what have you, chiefly because it was out of place. There's some mention of it in the "Dissent from Doctrine" section; if the details I deleted are terribly crucial, that might not be a bad place to reinsert them. Wesley \

I also removed the recently added paragraph comparing the Trinity to the human's body/soul/spirit; looked too much like original research, but it might be ok if it were properly cited or somehow attributed. Wesley 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trinity/archive_4&oldid=1188497968"