church fathers and trinity

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
Hmmmmm.

This sounds not quite right, depending on how you understand the statement being made. The DETAILS were certainly being hammered out. But surely this doesn't mean to imply that the early Church had no idea at all of Trinitarianism. It's difficult to read the Scriptures written in the first century and think that.

It may be sloppy thinking on my part. But what this SEEMS to imply just doesn't seem right, so I'm thinking they are actually being much more precise with their intention of just what wasn't formulated. Or maybe it was the solid establishment they mean to place at late date?

I have questions about just exactly what this is meant to say, and so I am also not sure what your are meaning to say with your post?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Paul Yohannan

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2016
3,886
1,587
43
Old Route 66
✟34,744.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

And this I would argue offers us a compellimg reason to reject the New Catholic Encyclopedia, for we see unambiguously Nicene theology in sacred scripture and in the writings of St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and others. Like the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, the New Catholic Encyclopedia amounts to opinion, and I would note by and large the opinions it offers are at variance with the formal dogmatic definitions of the Roman church including the Council of Nicea itself!

In fact, that St. Athanasius basically contradicts the New Catholic Encyclopedia should be, from a Roman Catholic perspective, correct me if I am wrong Admiral @thecolorsblend , enough to reject the supposed Catholicity of the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Now, I feel obliged to employ an irony that seems almost embarassing, in tnat as I quote an Eastern Doctor of the Church to question the legitimacy of the New Catholic Encyclopedia as a valid resource for Roman Catholicism, I shall in the same post quote a Latin Father, St. Vincent of Lerins, to discount the Catholicity of the quotation you provided from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, from an Orthodox perspective, by pointing out that what it dares to say in Volume XIV, p 299, is not what was always and everywhere believed by everyone; quite the contrary; indeed I believe if we were to have a true Pan Orthodox Council and assemble all the Orthodox bishops of the world in one room and read them that quote, a majority would cry out "anathema!" and very possibly risk being degraded or deposed by vigorously whacking us with their crosiers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ~Anastasia~
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Ok, that is interesting, not sure how it relates.

I am curious, did all three members of the Trinity be in Mary since Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead.

I am not sure if this concept would be orthodox or not.

So, I am looking for information.

The term "Godhead" is an archaic word in English. In more contemporary English we'd say "God-hood" because the suffix -head has largely been replaced by -hood, and they mean the same thing. In Colossians 2:9 the word St. Paul uses is theotes which translates to "Deity", or more specifically, "the quality of being Theos, God" and thus the archaic translation of "Godhead" here since, in English, it means the state, quality, or condition of being God, God-hood.

It means Jesus is God, fully God.

Some mistakenly have taken the word "Godhead" to simply be another way of saying "Trinity" or speaking of the Three Hypostases together, but it's not.

If you replace the word "Godhead" with the word "Deity" you'll have a better understanding.

Jesus is the fullness of Deity in bodily form, meaning that Jesus is, indeed, God made flesh. But He's God the Son, the Logos, not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us.

So no, we would not say the Father and the Holy Spirit were in Mary's womb, Mary conceived Jesus Christ, who is the Son.

Insofar as we speak of the Perichoresis of the Three Hypostases then it is true that at no point is the Son ever truly "alone" since the Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Father, the Spirit is in the Son and the Father (etc), by their Perichoresis and mutual co-inherence, indeed, the Father and the Spirit are in Christ, the Son. But we wouldn't say Mary conceived and gave birth to the Father and the Spirit, since she gave birth to the Son only, as only the Son united Himself with our humanity, becoming flesh, dwelling among us in a body, etc.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You really did not miss much with that choice, just a lot of plastic surgery.
Ah now you've gone and ruined my day, I thought it was all real.;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
P64 is normally dated to around 200, not 50.

The earliest documents (including the NT) certainly support Christ's deity in some sense, and his pre-existence, as the post says. This should not be confused with the Trinity, as the title of the thread suggests. The Trinity developed from those ideas, but it's best to reserve the term for the more specific theology.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The term "Godhead" is an archaic word in English. In more contemporary English we'd say "God-hood" because the suffix -head has largely been replaced by -hood, and they mean the same thing. In Colossians 2:9 the word St. Paul uses is theotes which translates to "Deity", or more specifically, "the quality of being Theos, God" and thus the archaic translation of "Godhead" here since, in English, it means the state, quality, or condition of being God, God-hood.

It means Jesus is God, fully God.

Some mistakenly have taken the word "Godhead" to simply be another way of saying "Trinity" or speaking of the Three Hypostases together, but it's not.

If you replace the word "Godhead" with the word "Deity" you'll have a better understanding.

Jesus is the fullness of Deity in bodily form, meaning that Jesus is, indeed, God made flesh. But He's God the Son, the Logos, not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us.

So no, we would not say the Father and the Holy Spirit were in Mary's womb, Mary conceived Jesus Christ, who is the Son.

Insofar as we speak of the Perichoresis of the Three Hypostases then it is true that at no point is the Son ever truly "alone" since the Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Father, the Spirit is in the Son and the Father (etc), by their Perichoresis and mutual co-inherence, indeed, the Father and the Spirit are in Christ, the Son. But we wouldn't say Mary conceived and gave birth to the Father and the Spirit, since she gave birth to the Son only, as only the Son united Himself with our humanity, becoming flesh, dwelling among us in a body, etc.

-CryptoLutheran
So, "godhead" = Divine essence common to all three Persons of the Trinity ?

would someone please comment on the Orthodox doctrine of the monarchy of the Father?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
So, "godhead" = Divine essence common to all three Persons of the Trinity ?

Correct.

The Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit refers to the Divine Essence, Being, Substance, and Nature. So the Godhead of the Father is the Godhead of the Son is the Godhead of the Holy Spirit; for the Three are One in Godhead--i.e. the Three Persons are each God, the one and only and undivided God.

would someone please comment on the Orthodox doctrine of the monarchy of the Father?

From the 11th Council of Toledo (675 AD):

"We confess and believe the holy and ineffable Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God naturally, to be of one substance, one nature, and also of one majesty and power. And we profess that the Father, indeed, is not begotten, not created but unbegotten. For He from whom both the Son received His birth and the Holy Spirit His procession takes His origin from no one. Therefore, He is the source and origin of all Godhead [i.e. Divinity]; also is the Father Himself of His own essence, He who ineffably begot the Son from an ineffable substance; nor did He, however, beget other than what He Himself is: God God, light light," - Source

"That he is Father we know in utmost fullness from Jesus Christ, who constantly makes loving, thankful, and reverent reference to him as his Origin. It is because he bears fruit out of himself and requires no fructifying that he is called Father, and not in the sexual sense, for he will be the Creator of man and woman, and thus contains the primal qualities of woman in himself in the same simultaneously transcending way as those of man. (The Greek gennad can imply both siring and bearing, as can the word for to come into being: ginomai.) Jesus’ words indicate that this fruitful self-surrender by the primal Origin has neither beginning nor end: It is a perpetual occurrence in which essence and activity coincide. Herein lies the most unfathomable aspect of the Mystery of God: that what is absolutely primal is no statically self-contained and comprehensible reality, but one that exists solely in dispensing itself: a flowing wellspring with no holding-trough beneath it, an act of procreation with no seminal vesicle, with no organism at all to perform the act. In the pure act of self-pouring-forth, God the Father is his self, or, if one wishes, a “person” (in a transcending way)." - Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Credo

The monarchy of the Father means that the the Father is the "Fount of Deity", for He receives His Godhead (Divinity, Deity) from none. The Son and Spirit are God because they are homoousios with the Father; thus the Son is God because the Father is God, and the Spirit is God because the Father is God. Thus the eternal generation of the Son means He is God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. The same is likewise true of the Spirit by His eternal procession from the Father.

The Son is God because the Father is God, and the Son has His eternal generation from the Father.
The Spirit is God because the Father and Son are God, and the Spirit has His eternal procession from the Father [and the Son] (if we follow the Filioque here).

However, the Father is never the Father by Himself, He is always with the Son and the Spirit. There is never a time when the Son was not, never a time when the Spirit was not. The Father is not the Father except that He is Father of the Son obviously. So none of this can be any kind of heretical Subordinatism, with the Son and Spirit lesser than the Father.

We are not speaking in such a way; but rather are speaking of the inter-personal relationality of the Three in their Eternal Perichoresis.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Correct.

The Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit refers to the Divine Essence, Being, Substance, and Nature. So the Godhead of the Father is the Godhead of the Son is the Godhead of the Holy Spirit; for the Three are One in Godhead--i.e. the Three Persons are each God, the one and only and undivided God.



From the 11th Council of Toledo (675 AD):

"We confess and believe the holy and ineffable Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God naturally, to be of one substance, one nature, and also of one majesty and power. And we profess that the Father, indeed, is not begotten, not created but unbegotten. For He from whom both the Son received His birth and the Holy Spirit His procession takes His origin from no one. Therefore, He is the source and origin of all Godhead [i.e. Divinity]; also is the Father Himself of His own essence, He who ineffably begot the Son from an ineffable substance; nor did He, however, beget other than what He Himself is: God God, light light," - Source

"That he is Father we know in utmost fullness from Jesus Christ, who constantly makes loving, thankful, and reverent reference to him as his Origin. It is because he bears fruit out of himself and requires no fructifying that he is called Father, and not in the sexual sense, for he will be the Creator of man and woman, and thus contains the primal qualities of woman in himself in the same simultaneously transcending way as those of man. (The Greek gennad can imply both siring and bearing, as can the word for to come into being: ginomai.) Jesus’ words indicate that this fruitful self-surrender by the primal Origin has neither beginning nor end: It is a perpetual occurrence in which essence and activity coincide. Herein lies the most unfathomable aspect of the Mystery of God: that what is absolutely primal is no statically self-contained and comprehensible reality, but one that exists solely in dispensing itself: a flowing wellspring with no holding-trough beneath it, an act of procreation with no seminal vesicle, with no organism at all to perform the act. In the pure act of self-pouring-forth, God the Father is his self, or, if one wishes, a “person” (in a transcending way)." - Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Credo

The monarchy of the Father means that the the Father is the "Fount of Deity", for He receives His Godhead (Divinity, Deity) from none. The Son and Spirit are God because they are homoousios with the Father; thus the Son is God because the Father is God, and the Spirit is God because the Father is God. Thus the eternal generation of the Son means He is God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. The same is likewise true of the Spirit by His eternal procession from the Father.

The Son is God because the Father is God, and the Son has His eternal generation from the Father.
The Spirit is God because the Father and Son are God, and the Spirit has His eternal procession from the Father [and the Son] (if we follow the Filioque here).

However, the Father is never the Father by Himself, He is always with the Son and the Spirit. There is never a time when the Son was not, never a time when the Spirit was not. The Father is not the Father except that He is Father of the Son obviously. So none of this can be any kind of heretical Subordinatism, with the Son and Spirit lesser than the Father.

We are not speaking in such a way; but rather are speaking of the inter-personal relationality of the Three in their Eternal Perichoresis.

-CryptoLutheran
I understand from for example Psalms 110:1-3 in Hebrew, that
  • YHWH = Father
  • Eloh'im = Trinity
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I understand from for example Psalms 110:1-3 in Hebrew, that
  • YHWH = Father
  • Eloh'im = Trinity

The Divine Name belongs to the Trinity. As such YHWH is a name which belongs to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

When St. Paul in Philippians 2 speaks of Christ saying that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord, the Apostle is referencing Isaiah 45:23.

The Shema, or Deuteronomy 6:4, says, "Hear O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is one." It is a declaration of God's undivided unity. Here is not a reference to the Father only, but would rightly apply to the Trinity, for "we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Substance" (Athanasian Creed).

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
I understand from for example Psalms 110:1-3 in Hebrew, that
  • YHWH = Father
  • Eloh'im = Trinity

In the Northern Kingdom El was used as "God" while in Judea it was Yah. Elohim as plural does not anticipate the Trinity but rather refers to the pantheon of Middle Eastern deities of which the Hebrews regarded El as the chief God and the only one that they were allowed to worship. This is known as henotheism and was a stage in the transition of the Hebrew tribes between polytheism and strict monotheism.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Divine Name belongs to the Trinity. As such YHWH is a name which belongs to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

When St. Paul in Philippians 2 speaks of Christ saying that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord, the Apostle is referencing Isaiah 45:23.

The Shema, or Deuteronomy 6:4, says, "Hear O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is one." It is a declaration of God's undivided unity. Here is not a reference to the Father only, but would rightly apply to the Trinity, for "we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Substance" (Athanasian Creed).

-CryptoLutheran
The OT unambiguously distinguishes between "YHWH" and "Elohim", correct? Two different words implies two distinct (albeit intimately related) concepts to consider?

Relatedly,
  • Deuteronomy 6:4 = "YHWH-Elohenu, YHWH is one"
  • Isaiah 45:23 = YHWH speaking and saying "the Word is gone out of My mouth"
  • Psalm 110:1 = "YHWH said to my Adonai..."
YHWH God is distinct from "the Word" & "Adonai" and from "Elohim" (plural, literally Gods, = Trinity)

Still think:
  • YHWH = Father = ONE true God = Nicene creed line 1
  • Adonai = Word = Son
  • Elohim = Trinity ~ THREE in unity
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In the Northern Kingdom El was used as "God" while in Judea it was Yah. Elohim as plural does not anticipate the Trinity but rather refers to the pantheon of Middle Eastern deities of which the Hebrews regarded El as the chief God and the only one that they were allowed to worship. This is known as henotheism and was a stage in the transition of the Hebrew tribes between polytheism and strict monotheism.
there may be a lot of historical truth to what you wrote, but both the northern Israelite "E" (Levites, c.850 BC) source and the southern Judean "P" (Aaronid Priests, c.700 BC) source use the same plural "Elohim" term

So, Elohim is attested north & south, and all of Elohim is worthy of worship

Whereas if what you wrote was true, we'd gradually observe Elohim --> El as henotheism --> monotheism and the surrounding "Divine Council" was dropped
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

I have to confess that while I love the Roman Catholic Church (don’t tell my congregation, they might freak out), it amazes me how bad a job the New Catholic Encyclopedia does when it comes to Christian history. In fact, it disagrees with the official teaching of the Roman church in every other article. I suppose it is only since it was published under Pope Paul VI that it was not put on the Index of Prohibited Books.

It also amuses me when people quote either it, or the old one, as though tneu are official representations of Roman Catholic doctrine, or when Roman Catholics quote them as though they are official representations of the doctrine of the various non-Catholic churches they describe.

I do really like the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia however. And in this case, its article on the Blessed Trinity completely refutes the quote from the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

But being traditional Christians I imagine we all accept the Trinity, the role of Holy Tradition and so on.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The OT unambiguously distinguishes between "YHWH" and "Elohim", correct? Two different words implies two distinct (albeit intimately related) concepts to consider?

Relatedly,
  • Deuteronomy 6:4 = "YHWH-Elohenu, YHWH is one"
  • Isaiah 45:23 = YHWH speaking and saying "the Word is gone out of My mouth"
  • Psalm 110:1 = "YHWH said to my Adonai..."
YHWH God is distinct from "the Word" & "Adonai" and from "Elohim" (plural, literally Gods, = Trinity)

Still think:
  • YHWH = Father = ONE true God = Nicene creed line 1
  • Adonai = Word = Son
  • Elohim = Trinity ~ THREE in unity

But these words are not used to refer to distinct Persons whatsoever. They are all terms used to refer to the one undivided God, whom we confess to be the Most Holy Trinity.

For example, we read in the first creation story in Genesis ch. 1 that God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth; whereas in the second creation story (found in Genesis ch. 2) that YHWH created the heavens and the earth. Elohim and YHWH are not different. Both refer to the one God, the Holy and Blessed Trinity.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I have to confess that while I love the Roman Catholic Church (don’t tell my congregation, they might freak out), it amazes me how bad a job the New Catholic Encyclopedia does when it comes to Christian history. In fact, it disagrees with the official teaching of the Roman church in every other article. I suppose it is only since it was published under Pope Paul VI that it was not put on the Index of Prohibited Books.

It also amuses me when people quote either it, or the old one, as though tneu are official representations of Roman Catholic doctrine, or when Roman Catholics quote them as though they are official representations of the doctrine of the various non-Catholic churches they describe.

I do really like the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia however. And in this case, its article on the Blessed Trinity completely refutes the quote from the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

But being traditional Christians I imagine we all accept the Trinity, the role of Holy Tradition and so on.

Please give the quotes that contradict with links to where you found it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But these words are not used to refer to distinct Persons whatsoever. They are all terms used to refer to the one undivided God, whom we confess to be the Most Holy Trinity.

For example, we read in the first creation story in Genesis ch. 1 that God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth; whereas in the second creation story (found in Genesis ch. 2) that YHWH created the heavens and the earth. Elohim and YHWH are not different. Both refer to the one God, the Holy and Blessed Trinity.

-CryptoLutheran
That has a certain logic to it

However, what about Psalm 110:1, "YHWH said to my Adonai..."

If Adonai = Christ = Son, then YHWH must be a distinct entity?

By your interpretation, the text reads, "Father-Son-HS said to Son..."

---


Genesis 1:26:
  • Hebrew, "And said Elohim, 'let us make...'"
  • Greek, "And commanded the God, 'let us make...'"
Clearly, it must be The Father speaking, as the root source of the Godhead, there are some things only The Father knows (Matthew 24:36)

I understand:
  • Elohim = Godhead = Godhood = divine essence (includes the Father) of triune Trinity
  • "the God" (o Theos, ton Theon) = The Father
  • "God" (Theos, Theon) = Godhead = triune Trinity
The inspired Greek LXX clarifies the inspired Hebrew, focusing the Hebrew reference to the triune Trinity to the actual 1st Person commander (The Father)

I perceive that both the inspired Hebrew (original) and the inspired Greek do in fact reserve special terms for The Father alone, as the sole singular unitary ultimate root source font of the triune Trinity Godhead

It may not be for humans, as created & made beings, to try to focus on and dwell overmuch upon and over-emphasize that distinction, but it is there in the inspired Scriptures
  • YHWH (Hebrew) = the God (definite article + God in Greek) = The Father alone
"God" in the absolute fullest sense of the word is only The Father -- as the Nicene creed of "Victory" states, "We believe in one God, the Father..." (and not "one God, the Father-Son-HS...") -- although at no place or time in created space-time has He lacked His Word & Spirit ("His two hands" to quote Irenaeus)

Still think that both the inspired Hebrew & inspired Greek reserve special terms for The Father alone, and that modern 21st century English ought to follow suit -- perhaps the most obvious option would be to just directly translate the Greek, "God" = Godhead triune Trinity divine essence, "The God" = The Father ?
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Psalm 110 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
A praise song of David.
110 The Lord said to my lord,
“Sit at my right side, while I put your enemies under your control.”

2 The Lord will cause your kingdom to grow, beginning at Zion,
until you rule the lands of your enemies!
3 Your people will gladly join you
when you gather your army together.
You will wear your special clothes
and meet together early in the morning.
Your young men will be all around you
like dew on the ground.

4 The Lord has made a promise with an oath
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever—
the kind of priest Melchizedek was.”

5 My Lord is at your right side.
He will defeat the other kings when he becomes angry.
6 He will judge the nations.
The ground will be covered with dead bodies.
He will punish the leaders of powerful nations all around the world.

7 The king will drink from a stream on the way.
Then he will lift his head and become strong!
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Psalm 110 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
A praise song of David.
110 The Lord said to my lord,
“Sit at my right side, while I put your enemies under your control.”

2 The Lord will cause your kingdom to grow, beginning at Zion,
until you rule the lands of your enemies!
3 Your people will gladly join you
when you gather your army together.
You will wear your special clothes
and meet together early in the morning.
Your young men will be all around you
like dew on the ground.

4 The Lord has made a promise with an oath
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever—
the kind of priest Melchizedek was.”

5 My Lord is at your right side.
He will defeat the other kings when he becomes angry.
6 He will judge the nations.
The ground will be covered with dead bodies.
He will punish the leaders of powerful nations all around the world.

7 The king will drink from a stream on the way.
Then he will lift his head and become strong!
yes, but the ERV is not inspired by God

what was inspired was the original Hebrew spoken by David himself 3000 years ago

Insofar as we can rely on the modern Masoretic Hebrew text to faithfully reflect that ancient original, what we find is "YHWH said to my Adonai..."

Clearly,
  • YHWH = God the Father
  • Adonai = Lord = the Son = the Messiah = Word of God incarnate (John 1:14)
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
yes, but the ERV is not inspired by God

what was inspired was the original Hebrew spoken by David himself 3000 years ago

Insofar as we can rely on the modern Masoretic Hebrew text to faithfully reflect that ancient original, what we find is "YHWH said to my Adonai..."

Clearly,
  • YHWH = God the Father
  • Adonai = Lord = the Son = the Messiah = Word of God incarnate (John 1:14)

That is a correct translation. It was from the context historically understood by all to be referring to the King as lord.

The NT uses texts that relates to a King or Prophet.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf...hUKEwiqi4bM1JLmAhVSjp4KHavgBp0Q4dUDCAs&uact=5

Psalm 2:6-12 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
6 “I’ve put my king on Zion,
my sacred hill.”

7 I will tell the promise
that the Lord made to me(David):
“You are my son, because today
I have become your father.

8 Ask me for the nations,
and every nation on earth
will belong to you.
9 You will smash them
with an iron rod
and shatter them
like dishes of clay.”

10 Be smart, all you rulers,
and pay close attention.
11 Serve and honor the Lord;
be glad and tremble.
12 Show respect to his son
because if you don’t,
the Lord might become furious
and suddenly destroy you.[a]
But he blesses and protects
everyone who runs to him.

Psalm 2:12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
Weird. I have in front of me the New Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright 2003, article on the Trinity. Not only doesn't this text occur, but they say that Tertullian uses "persons". They note that it was controversial, but that by the 3rd Cent his main insights were widely incorporated. It's true, of course, that that formulation was not present in the Apostolic Fathers, though they note that in Justin there was a triad.

Perhaps the first edition was very different.
 
Upvote 0