The Trinity

[ViaCrucis]

In Isaiah, I've seen many references to the Servant being Israel. It names Israel as the Servant. But then other times like Isa 52:13 describes the Servant as Christ and in Isa. 44:21, It is obvious that Israel is the servant.

It's not mutually exclusive, and arguably points to the larger themes of the Messianic mission. Israel is present in the Person of the Messiah, Abraham's Seed, who bears the entire weight of the Nation on His shoulders.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Kees Boer and Micael Collum,

Of course we believe in the Trinity. I do and hopefully most if not all of y'all believe in that.

Can we make a list of Passages that prove the Trinity? This can be used for us when people question us. It would also be very nice if we could list some Passages from the Old Testament. For instance, how would we be able to teach the Trinity to King David from the Scriptures?

I do not believe in the Trinity, but I am most probably not allowed to discuss the subject on this forum. I participated in a similar thread over 10 years ago on another forum (not Christian Forums but a denomination specific forum) that had a similar OP to yours, and I was tolerated for a fairly full range of discussion, but in the end was banned, and I am still banned even after 10 years. I believe that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, by birth, character and resurrection. I suggest Psalm 110:1 and the two words LORD and Lord, compare the following:

You could teach King David the trinity from the creation in Genesis. but him saying in the Psalm, the Lord said to my Lord - might mean you wouldn't have to.

I could also discuss Genesis 1:26-27 and Psalm 8:5. Psalm 8:5 and Psalm 110:1 reveal some aspects of how King David some aspects of this subject. I suppose that this post will be deleted and possibly I will be banned. I will not respond further unless I am given permission either here or another location.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Greetings Kees Boer and Micael Collum,

I do not believe in the Trinity

The trinity is a basic Christian belief, without the spiritual dynamic represented by this concept: We're just like all the other religions.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Greetings Kees Boer and Micael Collum,

I do not believe in the Trinity, but I am most probably not allowed to discuss the subject on this forum. I participated in a similar thread over 10 years ago on another forum (not Christian Forums but a denomination specific forum) that had a similar OP to yours, and I was tolerated for a fairly full range of discussion, but in the end was banned, and I am still banned even after 10 years. I believe that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, by birth, character and resurrection. I suggest Psalm 110:1 and the two words LORD and Lord, compare the following:

I could also discuss Genesis 1:26-27 and Psalm 8:5. Psalm 8:5 and Psalm 110:1 reveal some aspects of how King David some aspects of this subject. I suppose that this post will be deleted and possibly I will be banned. I will not respond further unless I am given permission either here or another location.

Kind regards
Trevor

I thought it is okay as long as it is a peaceful discussion? I'm keen to hear your viewpoint actually.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Cornelius8L,

I thought it is okay as long as it is a peaceful discussion? I'm keen to hear your viewpoint actually.

Christians Only Forums​

There are forums reserved for Christian members only. Please do not post in these forums unless you are truly a Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). Unorthodox, non-Nicene Christian theology may only be discussed in the Controversial Theology forum.

I looked at the first 5 pages of Controversial Theology and could not see any discussion on this subject and I am not sure whether my view would be tolerated even in that forum. I have mentioned Genesis 1:26-27 and that Psalm 8:5 and Psalm 110:1 reveal some aspects of how King David understood this subject. I would be interested in the Trinitarian view of these three passages, but I will not respond here and not sure if I would respond on the other sub-forum. Another important OT teaching is Exodus 3:14, and I have previously prepared an article on the Yahweh Name starting with this verse. Again I would like to see how others view Exodus 3:14, and again I will not participate here.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Eriugena]

I would be interested in the Trinitarian view of these three passages, but I will not respond here and not sure if I would respond on the other sub-forum. Another important OT teaching is Exodus 3:14, and I have previously prepared an article on the Yahweh Name starting with this verse. Again I would like to see how others view Exodus 3:14, and again I will not participate here.

Kind regards
Trevor

Hi Trevor —

When I did my BA (Div) in Catholic Theology, it was a given that you cannot argue the Trinity from the OT texts.

You can certainly read the OT in light of the NT, and see signs of the Trinity now declared by Christ, but that is itself not a proof. It's not the only reading of the text, and one could be accused of eisegesis (reading into a text something that is not implied). I have always thought of Genesis 18, the three guests who visit Abraham and Sarah, but again that's me, and it's not acceptable as an argument for the Trinity.

 

[The Liturgist]

When I did my BA (Div) in Catholic Theology, it was a given that you cannot argue the Trinity from the OT texts.

Well I take exception to that but what do I know, I went to a Protestant seminary.

You can certainly read the OT in light of the NT, and see signs of the Trinity now declared by Christ, but that is itself not a proof. It's not the only reading of the text, and one could be accused of eisegesis (reading into a text something that is not implied). I have always thought of Genesis 18, the three guests who visit Abraham and Sarah, but again that's me, and it's not acceptable as an argument for the Trinity.

The problem with that statement is that the ending of the Gospel of Luke indicates that the Old Testament is primarily if not exclusively about Christ saving us, and so one naturally reads the Old Testament this way.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Eriugena and The Liturgist,

When I did my BA (Div) in Catholic Theology, it was a given that you cannot argue the Trinity from the OT texts.

That is a very interesting assessment as many attempt to, and I could list quite a number of passages which are used by Trinitarians, especially on forums, starting for example with Genesis 1.

You can certainly read the OT in light of the NT, and see signs of the Trinity now declared by Christ, but that is itself not a proof. It's not the only reading of the text, and one could be accused of eisegesis (reading into a text something that is not implied). I have always thought of Genesis 18, the three guests who visit Abraham and Sarah, but again that's me, and it's not acceptable as an argument for the Trinity.

Again this is one of the popular portions used by Trinitarians on forums. I am not permitted to discuss the subject here, and as mentioned in a previous post, I have now started a thread "The Yahweh Name" in the Controversial forum and I am having difficulty answering all the participants and their concepts. I will add my view here that the three "men" who appeared to Abraham were Angels, but willing to discuss this in the Yahweh Name thread.

Well I take exception to that but what do I know, I went to a Protestant seminary.

Perhaps this reflects what we experience on the forums, that many Protestants claim that the Trinity was obviously taught in the OT, partially hidden in such passages as Genesis 1 and Genesis 18, and that the OT faithful should have understood this. I was taught by Youth Leaders and others, and have done no formal training, as we are a Lay Fellowship. I am the Librarian and not a Speaker in our Meeting.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Eriugena]

The problem with that statement is that the ending of the Gospel of Luke indicates that the Old Testament is primarily if not exclusively about Christ saving us, and so one naturally reads the Old Testament this way.

Yes, from the standpoint of Our Lord's words and deeds, of course it is ... my point is we can, retroactively, see traces of the Trinity in the OT, but the OT is not sufficient in itself to affirm a doctrine of the Holy Trinity as a dogma. Were it so, the Jews would have got there under their own steam.

There is that old saw, 'two rabbis, three opinions', which I take to read that the interpretation of Scripture is manifold and layered, in fact its inexhaustible, but I don't think in the history of rabbinic interpretation, that the idea of a triune Godhead was ever put forward.

The nature of the Trinity was a matter of great discussion and dissent among the Fathers in the early history of the Church, as was the nature of Jesus himself. The idea that Scripture proves the Trinity is a hard one to press, and it's clearly not an issue beyond dispute. That it presents the Trinity, that a doctrine of God is One and God is Three is entirely reasonable and rational, according to the texts, but if it were indisputable then it would be a matter beyond argument, but it isn't, and it's not. It is a matter of faith, albeit a faith that can be argued reasonably and rationally.

 

[Eriugena]

That is a very interesting assessment as many attempt to, and I could list quite a number of passages which are used by Trinitarians, especially on forums, starting for example with Genesis 1.

Hi Trevor —
Oh, I know. On my course, the contrary argument was if the doctrine was revealed in the OT, then the Jews would acknowledge it. As I said above, we post-Incarnation Christians can see traces, in the light of Christ, but we see a lot more in that light.

Again this is one of the popular portions used by Trinitarians on forums. I am not permitted to discuss the subject here, and as mentioned in a previous post, I have now started a thread "The Yahweh Name" in the Controversial forum and I am having difficulty answering all the participants and their concepts. I will add my view here that the three "men" who appeared to Abraham were Angels, but willing to discuss this in the Yahweh Name thread.

I study Comparative Religion (a 'Traditionalist' in the sense of the Sophia Perennis, writers such as Guénon and Schuon, Lings and Pallis, if you know those names), Christian Platonism and Hermeticism. I use Plotinus' arguments from 'The Enneads' to explain the One-ness and Three-ness of God – but you can't prove the Trinity from Plotinus! I have argued in certain circles that Three is a 'mystical' number because the cosmos is 'Trinity-shaped'! But that is a conviction, it's not a proof ... and yes, the most I can assert were the three men at Mamre were angels, to say they were the Trinity is a gross overstatement. (I did like the scene in the movie where all three were played by Peter O'Toole. He might have piercing blue eyes, but he was no angel, LOL)

Perhaps this reflects what we experience on the forums, that many Protestants claim that the Trinity was obviously taught in the OT, partially hidden in such passages as Genesis 1 and Genesis 18, and that the OT faithful should have understood this.

Personally I think that's over-stepping the case. It's not the Catholic position and nor is it, I believe, the Orthodox. I could be wrong there. On my degree course, which was very Traditional Catholic, the suggestion was not acceptable.

Protestants quite rightly chastise Catholics for not reading enough Scripture, but I would then say that the Jews have read and discussed Scripture way more than Protestants! If the Trinity was revealed there, they'd have found it.

Regards.

 

[Fervent]

Protestants quite rightly chastise Catholics for not reading enough Scripture, but I would then say that the Jews have read and discussed Scripture way more than Protestants! If the Trinity was revealed there, they'd have found it.

Regards.

I'm not sure that's an accurate statement, considering Jesus Himself told them they missed what Scripture was all about despite their studies. To your point about reading the passages eisegetically, I agree to an extent. Though that view is somewhat limited since it limits the intended scope of meaning to what the human authors understood rather than what the Holy Spirit intended.

 

[concretecamper]

Hi Trevor —

When I did my BA (Div) in Catholic Theology, it was a given that you cannot argue the Trinity from the OT texts.

You can certainly read the OT in light of the NT, and see signs of the Trinity now declared by Christ, but that is itself not a proof. It's not the only reading of the text, and one could be accused of eisegesis (reading into a text something that is not implied). I have always thought of Genesis 18, the three guests who visit Abraham and Sarah, but again that's me, and it's not acceptable as an argument for the Trinity.

Agreed, Scripture alone is inadequate to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity (as displayed in the Athanasius Creed). Those who subscribe to the Doctrine of the Trinity do so by accepting Oral Tradition and Sacred Tradition.

 

[Andrewn]

When I did my BA (Div) in Catholic Theology, it was a given that you cannot argue the Trinity from the OT texts.

Michael Heiser does a very good job in his videos explaining the Holy Trinity in the OT.​

the most I can assert were the three men at Mamre were angels, to say they were the Trinity is a gross overstatement.

The three men at Mamre were neither the Holy Trinity nor angels. One of them was Christ, and the other two were angels. The latter two proceeded to go to Sodom.