His Student whilst the concept of the Trinity took much time to come to full fruition and that being largely due to the final completion of Holy scripture with the New Testament that we are now able to confirm more precisely with both the old and the new.
I agree.
...there is strong evidence in the Old Testament for the trinity as well.
I agree.
That's one of the reasons I identify with the Trinity view instead of the Oneness view.
As to the people of book. I’m not sure if Muslims were referred to as such. I always thought that it was Jews and Christians who were referred to as the people of the book
The term actually originally comes from the Quran and referred at first in it to Jews and Christians. Later Muslims extended the term to almost all unbelievers in Islam even those, such as Hindus, who had no connection with the O.T. or the N.T.
As for current use - it is the title of a current popular novel about ancient Egypt and a book related to their religion.
As for my use of it to include Muslims - I suppose I get that from my well used history book related to religion, "Eerdmans' Handbook To The World's Religions". The entire section on current religions in the Middle East is entitled "The People Of The Book and includes Islam along with Christianity and Judaism.
I have another history book that does much the same thing.
My use of the term in no way was meant to endorse that cult as being on a par with Judaism in so far as their understanding of the scriptures. After all - this is the ignorant variation of Christianity and Judaism that conflates Mary Magdalene with Miriam the sister of Moses - and in many teachings think of the Christian Trinity as the Father, Son, and Mary.
I think that most Christians who use the term would include the cults and Roman Catholicism as "people of the book" even though their teachings about O.T. and N.T. doctrine is clouded by either extra additional books and or non biblically supported traditions.
My comment about the difficulty of both Jews and Muslims with understanding the Trinity as anything other than tri-theism is simply a fact of life. In fact the same difficulty is encountered when trying to reason with Jehovah Witnesses". Of course they all have their own reason for rejecting the correct doctrine concerning the full divinity of Jesus.
My point in addressing you in particular was simply to say that rejecting the Trinity (which by the way is by any account a virtual redefining of the meaning of monotheism) - was to tell you and anyone else making the same mistake that questioning the doctrine of the Trinity is not the same as questioning the divinity of Jesus.
It is a questioning of the entire concept of an "eternal" God the Son person existing and communing with two other persons within the Godhead that we call God the Father and God the Holy Spirit throughout eternity past.
The Logos of God as found at the beginning of the Book of John is seen for exactly what the word "WORD" means. I.e. - the expression of the inner thoughts and plans of the one true God as opposed to a "Son" person co-existing and communicating with His Father.
To non Trinitarians (at least those who haven't strayed into various heresies) the concept aligns more with God's statements that
"...My word that proceeds from My mouth will not return to Me empty, but it will accomplish what I please, and it will prosper where I send it." (O.T.) and "all things were created by Him, and for Him, and in Him all things exist" and "in Him we live and move and have our being" and "and there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (N.T.) (talk about an understatement for the ages) - then it does with an alleged "God the Son person" existing within a single God Who also contains a "God the Father person" and a God the Holy Spirit person".
I have taught the Trinitarian concept for decades and I always stress the correct formulation as opposed to one of those that usually pop up when supposed Trinitarians try to explain what the Trinity means.
My point here being that if someone is going to claim that all those who don't subscribe to the Trinity really ought to be sure that they themselves don't believe and teach something that presents either modalism or tri-theism.
To be fair - many non Trinitarians condemn believers in the Trinity when they themselves can't explain their beliefs in a way that avoids the same mistakes.
My main point to you was and is that all those who question the Trinity are not necessarily questioning the divinity of Jesus Christ. They are, instead, questioning the Nicene Creed where it say that the Son was "eternally begotten of the Father" when the scriptures clearly say that when the incarnation took place God said of the God/man Jesus that "You will be a Son to Me and I will be a Father to You" and "You are My Son -
Today I a have begotten You
."
For many - it is simply a way of confirming the divinity of the Son without having to redefine the meaning of monotheism and, as they see it, disregard God's clear statements about His Oneness.
After all - Whomever you determine is talking in the O.T. (i.e. - Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) - He does say quite clearly that there is no God besides Him and that He will never give His glory to another.
P.S.
There is no need to school me that the Trinity doesn't teach 3 God's but 1. I have believed and taught the Trinitarian formulation since around 1957 or so and understand it better than most who claim to believe in the Trinity.
May God bless you in your continued studies and your walk with the Lord.
