Trinity and Protestantism

[Duvduv]

I find it interesting that Protestants never understood that the concept of the Trinity as a doctrine had no basis in the New Testament at all and did not reject it. Even Catholicism admit it isn't sourced in the NT. Maybe on this point the Oneness groups and Jehovah's Witnesses have a point.
This would also make sense if the whole religion only emerged under the new Constantinian regime of the 4th century, and therefore Christians used it if Christianity did not exist before then.

"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 formulation 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." - The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 299, (1967)

 

[Starcomet]

The word itself is unbiblical, but one can draw inferences from certain passages in the Epistles and Gospel of John to argue for it.

 

[Duvduv]

Inferences can be ambiguous, especially when many scholars have pointed to the same issue. The question remains why none of the Protestant scholars ever questioned it. Of course, if Christianity emerged only in the 4th century then the question is moot because the concept was added in the same period or maybe a bit thereafter.

 

[Starcomet]

Inferences can be ambiguous, especially when many scholars have pointed to the same issue. The question remains why none of the Protestant scholars ever questioned it. Of course, if Christianity emerged only in the 4th century then the question is moot because the concept was added in the same period or maybe a bit thereafter.

There were protestants who did question it during the reformation period and earlier. Michael Servetus, Francis David, and Fausto Sozzini all questioned the doctrine of the trinity and eventually rejected it and Jesus' divinity as unbiblical. Of course they were branded as heretics by their fellow protestant brethren like John Calvin and Martin Luther and their followers.

 

[Albion]

Yeh, I dont know where the OP gets the idea that the Trinity is not to be found in Scripture. It is unavoidable!

That is not to say that everything which the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed state is taken straight from the Bible, nor is the word Trinity itself to be found in Scripture, but the Trinity as a concept and a teaching definitely is.

 

[Saucy]

There's a lot of precedence for it. Just like the word rapture, which doesn't appear in the texts, but there are verses that talk about it.

John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." A common sense approach to being WITH God and BEING God at the same time seems to point towards there being more than one God-figure. Then you add references to the Spirit being another form of God, who isn't the Father or Jesus, but is both of them.

The picture of Jesus' baptism is one such place, where the Father is in Heaven speaking about being pleased in His Son (His Son, who is the word, who was with God and is God), the Holy Spirit descending downward like a dove, and Jesus Himself in the water. 3 different persons, but all one God.

 

[HypnoToad]

"Not solidly established until the 4th century" does NOT mean "has no basis in the New Testament."

A simple Google search will provide tons of references of passages from the New Testament that show where the idea of the Trinity comes from.

There are four basic parts of the doctrine:

1. The Father is God
2. The Son is God
3. The Holy Spirit is God
4. Those three are distinct persons

There are passages all over the New Testament expressing those parts.

 

[Duvduv]

The first verse of the Gospel of John has other translations from Greek other than "God." Such as the word "divine." Scholars state that the trinity is not a rooted doctrine in the gospels themselves.

 

[HypnoToad]

The first verse of the Gospel of John has other translations from Greek other than "God." Such as the word "divine." Scholars state that the trinity is not a rooted doctrine in the gospels themselves.

I'm sure we can find translations and scholars saying all sorts of things. Yet they never make an actual compelling argument as to why they are correct.

Further, John 1 could be completely ignored, and we still find the four basic parts of the Trinity all throughout the New Testament. It doesn't rest on any one single passage.

 

[Albion]

The first verse of the Gospel of John has other translations from Greek other than "God." Such as the word "divine."

That wouldn't change anything, though.

Scholars state that the trinity is not a rooted doctrine in the gospels themselves.

Yes, I am sure that some "scholars" can be found who would say that, just as you can find some to say almost anything. But there are plenty of scholars on the other side of this issue, too.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Of course, if Christianity emerged only in the 4th century then the question is moot because the concept was added in the same period or maybe a bit thereafter.

"Christianity" (as in the early church) emerged a few days after some overzealous religious folks had our Lord and Savior nailed to a cross.

 

[dreadnought]

I find it interesting that Protestants never understood that the concept of the Trinity as a doctrine had no basis in the New Testament at all and did not reject it. Even Catholicism admit it isn't sourced in the NT. Maybe on this point the Oneness groups and Jehovah's Witnesses have a point.
This would also make sense if the whole religion only emerged under the new Constantinian regime of the 4th century, and therefore Christians used it if Christianity did not exist before then.

"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 formulation 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." - The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 299, (1967)

Different Protestants view the Trinity differently. Which one of us are you referring to?

 

[dreadnought]

I find it interesting that Protestants never understood that the concept of the Trinity as a doctrine had no basis in the New Testament at all and did not reject it. Even Catholicism admit it isn't sourced in the NT. Maybe on this point the Oneness groups and Jehovah's Witnesses have a point.
This would also make sense if the whole religion only emerged under the new Constantinian regime of the 4th century, and therefore Christians used it if Christianity did not exist before then.

"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 formulation 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." - The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 299, (1967)

I know of two interpretations of the Trinity. One group apparently thinks there are three souls who have unified and are God. The other is that God is simultaneously a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I subscribe to the second. You are a Jew and wouldn't understand the part about the Son. Why, though, would you disagree that God is simultaneously the Father and Holy Spirit?

 

[Duvduv]

As far as different Protestants are concerned, my understanding is that all view the trinity in the same manner.
Judaism has none of these ideas. God is one and alone. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of prophecy and divine inspiration. It is not a person.

 

[Duvduv]

"Christianity" (as in the early church) emerged a few days after some overzealous religious folks had our Lord and Savior nailed to a cross.

However, there are reasons to argue that there was no Christianity before the time of Constantine. There in fact is no mention of anything connected to the 1st century Christian story in any Jewish sources such as the Talmud and Midrash, which both discuss the Samaritans and Saduccees at length. Plus there is not corroborative evidence outside of Christianity for the existence of Paul, or that any Christian communities existed per the Epistles in the first century.

 

[W2L]

However, there are reasons to argue that there was no Christianity before the time of Constantine. There in fact is no mention of anything connected to the 1st century Christian story in any Jewish sources such as the Talmud and Midrash, which both discuss the Samaritans and Saduccees at length. Plus there is not corroborative evidence outside of Christianity for the existence of Paul, or that any Christian communities existed per the Epistles in the first century.

His sheep know His voice, and they follow Him.

 

[Duvduv]

There were protestants who did question it during the reformation period and earlier. Michael Servetus, Francis David, and Fausto Sozzini all questioned the doctrine of the trinity and eventually rejected it and Jesus' divinity as unbiblical. Of course they were branded as heretics by their fellow protestant brethren like John Calvin and Martin Luther and their followers.

So to that extent Calvin and Luther remained steadfast on non-scriptural ideas that were introduced by their nemesis the Catholic church, and Servetus, David and Sozzini must have been asking why are they being persecuted by Luther and Calvin the way Luther and Calvin were persecuted by the Church!

 

[Albion]

As far as different Protestants are concerned, my understanding is that all view the trinity in the same manner.

That's about 99% correct, but as always there are individuals who are not guided by what any church has to say about it.

Judaism has none of these ideas. God is one and alone. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of prophecy and divine inspiration. It is not a person.

He isn't a person to us either--not in the contemporary sense of the word meaning an individual being.

 

[Starcomet]

However, there are reasons to argue that there was no Christianity before the time of Constantine. There in fact is no mention of anything connected to the 1st century Christian story in any Jewish sources such as the Talmud and Midrash, which both discuss the Samaritans and Saduccees at length. Plus there is not corroborative evidence outside of Christianity for the existence of Paul, or that any Christian communities existed per the Epistles in the first century.

Though textual evidence does indeed show that the first 7 letters where written by the same individual and it is likely the person who calls himself Paul was likely real. But indeed, no evidence of the events in Acts are corroborated by external sources besides a few mentions in Josephus and they only support a few instances. I would not expect the Talmud or Midrash to mention the early followers of Jesus as they would have still been very small and frankly no different than some Pharisees in certain views. The only thing that would of made them stick out would be there reverence for a unknown backwoods sage called Jesus they revered as a great rabbi.

 

[Phil 1:21]

However, there are reasons to argue that there was no Christianity before the time of Constantine.

Of course, one would have to completely disregard the numerous early transcripts dating from prior to Constantine. But then again, some people argue the earth is flat too.

Plus there is not corroborative evidence outside of Christianity for the existence of Paul...

Prior to the 1993 discovery of the Tel Dan inscription there was no known external evidence for the existence of King David. Tell me, did Judaism believe in the existence of King David prior to 1993? Of course they did...with no known external evidence. How do you respond to critics who use the arguments with which you attempt to discredit Christianity against your faith? Or do you only believe those parts of Scripture that are supported by known external evidence?