Does the bible teach the trinity? Many seem to deny the trinity since the word is not found
The Bible implies, underline "implies," a Trinity, but does not clearly work it out. The Trinitarian formulations are generally all extra-biblical in nature.Does the bible teach the trinity? Many seem to deny the trinity since the word is not found
I bet you mean, "since the word is not found in the Bible". This one's actually easy.. . . since the word is not found
No, not exactly. The question is, To what extent do these extra-biblical concepts accurately represent the Bible?I bet you mean, "since the word is not found in the Bible". This one's actually easy.
The words Theism, Bible, incarnation- these words are not found in the Bible either, but Christians believe them. A word doesn't have to be found in the Bible, in order for that thing to exist. Pretty easy answer for this specific question.
Does the bible teach the trinity? Many seem to deny the trinity since the word is not found
True. The Bible implies a kind of Trinity, but does not work it out in any real detail. The Bible is not a book of metaphysics. Tells us very little about how God is built. Presents but snap shots which often conflict. The reader has to piece all these together into an organized whole. Hnece, the early church looked to Hellenic metaphysics and m Trinitarian formulations are largely extra-biblical in nature. "Ousia" or "substance" is not a biblical concept, but comes from Hellenic substance metaphysics.Not really. The modern Trinity doctrine actually comes from around the 5th century A.D. One of the first appearances of it is in the Athanasian Creed.
True. The Bible implies a kind of Trinity, but does not work it out in any real detail. The Bible is not a book of metaphysics. Tells us very little about how God is built. Presents but snap shots which often conflict. The reader has to piece all these together into an organized whole. Hnece, the early church looked to Hellenic metaphysics and m Trinitarian formulations are largely extra-biblical in nature. "Ousia" or "substance" is not a biblical concept, but comes from Hellenic substance metaphysics.
Yes, saying there are three separate, distinct personalities here dos strongly imply polytheism. The problem seems to be that the fathers, going on Hellenic substance metaphysics, first define God as an wholly immaterial, simple, immutable, nonrelational being, a monad. Then they try and force the highly complex, relational machinery of the Trinity into this monad. The result is contradiction.I think everything is fine until one tries to impose the Athanasian formula of one God in three persons on the Scriptures. This simply does not work. Many confuse the personal pronouns too. Man say there is one God and "He" consists of three persons. That is simply illogical.
Yes, saying there are three separate, distinct personalities here dos strongly imply polytheism. The problem seems to be that the fathers, going on Hellenic substance metaphysics, first define God as an wholly immaterial, simple, immutable, nonrelational being, a monad. Then they try and force the highly complex, relational machinery of the Trinity into this monad. The result is contradiction.
As I said before, the Bible implies a Trinity, but does not fully work it out in detail. That is why the creeds were necessary. Yes, they used metaphysics, but you need to remember Trinity is a complex metaphysical issue. Yes, you are being simplistic, a bit too simplistic. Christians are supposed to believe in one God. Now, if there are three, separate, unique personalities talked of, then that is polytheism. Essentially it would be an argument that they constitute one God in that they all work together in a perfect harmony or all share the same nature. Either way, it is still polytheism. Now maybe you think this is all a really simple matter. But believe me, it isn't.What if we believe in *quote-unquote* "The Trinity" NOT because we read it in some church creed or have had tradition shoved down our throats, but because it seems to us what the Bible teaches? That there are three personal whatevers called God, but the three personal whatevers are not each other? I know I stated this in a highly simplistic way, but you guys where talking about metaphysics and formulas and such, and that that's where it all went wrong, so I'm just trying to keep it as simple as possible.
You simply said that a word doesn't have to be in teh Bible for it to be true, right? That isn't the issue here. The issue is whether the Bible presents a Trinity. The early anti-Trinitarians argued that it did not. Now, I think the Bible implies a Trinity, but does not clearly work it out. Most of teh Trinitarian terms are extra-biblical, such as substance. But "substance" is a concept foreign to the Bible and has been rejected anyway by modern metaphysics.Could you explain a bit more? I'm not sure to what you're referring to in my post.
Hoghead1 said:Now maybe you think this is all a really simple matter. But believe me, it isn't.
I do not think it's a simple matter. As I said, I stated it simply, trying to get out of the whole metaphysics and formulas and such. It can be simple to state as I just did- but being simple inevitably gets bad theology. Thus we must explain and understand- but the explaining of it, and then the understanding of it (which we'll never fully understand it, obviously) is definitely not simple. So I agree here.Yes, they used metaphysics, but you need to remember Trinity is a complex metaphysical issue. Yes, you are being simplistic, a bit too simplistic.
I agree. The Bible gives us all we need. I don't think we necessarily needed all those councils, but they weren't necessarily bad things. Working out theology is a good thing.As I said before, the Bible implies a Trinity, but does not fully work it out in detail.
I don't see your assertion as a correct one. Being/Essence and personhood are, I think, distinct things. Why couldn't it be the essence of God to have multiple personalities? I don't see why this is impossible and leads to polytheism.Christians are supposed to believe in one God. Now, if there are three, separate, unique personalities talked of, then that is polytheism. Essentially it would be an argument that they constitute one God in that they all work together in a perfect harmony or all share the same nature. Either way, it is still polytheism.
[quote="Hoghead1]Now maybe you think this is all a really simple matter. But believe me, it isn't.
I think everything is fine until one tries to impose the Athanasian formula of one God in three persons on the Scriptures. This simply does not work. Many confuse the personal pronouns too. Man say there is one God and "He" consists of three persons. That is simply illogical.
butch5,
1. One God in three persons is a triune of unity for three stands for unity. It is scriptural for they are all in unity.
This unity is why they are one God in three persons. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Godhead.
However, in the old testament I don't remember reading a scripture that shows God as being a father or him having a son in reality then. The scriptures that talk or imply about God being a father and having a son is in reference to when the Holy Spirit would impregnate Mary with Christ. Christ is called a begotten son to the father. So the father son relationship was never in the old testament only the new testament.
2. Oneness believes in one God with three offices. Jesus was on earth and God was in heaven so how does one get one God out of that unless you believe God cloned himself or whatever. I am not saying it is not a possibility with God but logic would say it would make more sense to be two separate persons. When Christ said he and the father were one was about unity.
Christadelphian says Jesus was human and not God at all which doesn't agree with the kenosis of Christ as the God-man.
One God in the old testament was because there was so many different false Gods in the secular community.
Hebrews 1:8-10 show that Jesus and the father both were God and that Jesus is referred to as the Lord in verse 10 and was in the beginning and laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens were the work of his hands.
Understanding the trinity being compound unity makes complete sense as Jesus was compound unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. There is only one body of Christ but many members which is compound unity. There is nothing illogical about the trinity.
3. Personal pronouns express the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. So it boils down to one's hermeneutics of the scriptures of how and why you believe that it is illogical. One has to take all of the scriptures on this context to reconcile the seemingly paradox of scriptures of one God in number and one God in three persons and one meaning unity.
God can be unified in himself and he can be unified with the Son and the Holy Spirit in compound unity.
4. The only way that the trinity can be truly unified is if one is one-sided. Jerry kelso
Christians are supposed to believe in one God. Now, if there are three, separate, unique personalities talked of, then that is polytheism. Essentially it would be an argument that they constitute one God in that they all work together in a perfect harmony or all share the same nature. Either way, it is still polytheism.
beforHim said:I don't see your assertion as a correct one. Being/Essence and personhood are, I think, distinct things. Why couldn't it be the essence of God to have multiple personalities? I don't see why this is impossible and leads to polytheism.
If you were to allow for a group personality, then the idea of multiple personalities might work. it is something I have thought of myself. The three personalities, the Father, Son, and Spirit, constitute a larger, all-inclusive personality. However, that idea has generally been overlooked. Instead, there are said to be three separate, unique personalities who constituter one God, either because they work in perfect harmony or that that all share the same nature. But either way here, we still have polytheism.
Not that I'm not contending with you, but I've never see or heard this language, "God was Jesus in substance"? Is this what you meant to type? If so, where have you heard this? I'm just curious, as I've never read or heard this.They said that Jesus was God in substance.