Let's face it. The idea of a Trinity is not easy to understand. Although the Trinity is an essential part of Christian dogma today, the
re appears no mention of the doctrine in the Bible or in the early Christian church.
In fact, many Bible scholars agree that the concept first appeared in the writings of
Tertullian around 155-220, and that the doctrine of the Trinity was fully articulated by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
Interestingly, the Nicene Creed was established to enhance conformity of beliefs, and to spot heresy. Consequently, the Nicene Creed is one of the most widely accepted statements of faith among Christians today. Similarly, the Apostle's Creed, articulating the doctrine was established somewhere between 200 and 700 AD.
In my view, the history and development of the Trinity doctrine raises a number of questions in our understanding of Jesus:
- What happened to the doctrine of a monotheistic God that is a consistent theme throughout the old testament, and which the new testament writers accepted and believed?
- What is the Biblical basis for the Trinity doctrine as stated in the Creeds? Is the basis for such doctrine found in both old and new testaments?
- And why did it take so long to develop and articulate such doctrine, if it was always evident in the Bible?
- Why is it essential to have equality among God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit? And is it inconsistent to believe in the divinity of Jesus, but also believe that as God's Son, Jesus was not equal to God His Father and was subservient to God His Father?
- What do we as Christians, who want to know and understand Jesus, lose or gain by accepting the doctrine of one Godhead in three persons?
I'd love to know what you think?
re appears no mention of the doctrine in the Bible or in the early Christian church.
Posts
12 comments:
The questions posed regarding the Trinity are provacative and right on mark.
When one studies Early Christianity and becomes aware of the controversies and turfism and game-playing, and lies, and forgeries, and plagerism, and romoving or altering text, and the politics that occured as different interpretations of Christain belief vied for dominance; one wondes how Christianity survived at all.
The Council of Nicea is a product of all of the above.
The concept of the Trinity is alien and contradictory to much of the Bible and is not necessary to one's understanding and beleif in Christ.
Always Doubtful
Fides Quarens Intellectum
(Faith Seeking Understanding)
Always Doubtful, I like your second name even better! LOL
I have to disagree with the conclusion of the last posting, that the concept of the trinity is alien, contradictory, and unnecessary. However, I certainly agree that it is sometimes confusing.
My understanding of the trinity and the questions as to equality within the Godhead came around as I took a look at the incarnation of Christ again. The Bible teaches that Jesus was God and with God and through Him all things were created from eternity past in John 1 and elswhere. That was a revelation to me as I became a Christian because I thought Jesus just began to be when he was born. It's a much bigger deal for Jesus to give up some of who He was in His eternal existence. We believe Jesus was a spirit being much as the Father and the Holy Spirit were and they were in perfect union and harmony. However, we know he gave up much during His time on earth to take on flesh. He experienced hunger, fatigue, poverty, pain, and death. He gave up His spirit existence. And, He prayed in subservience to the Father. There is no doubt about it. He certainly doesn't seem equal to the Father in the flesh sometimes. Yet, just to keep us paying attention, He said things like if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. I and the Father are one. We must remember that Jesus came as the second Adam to make right what the first Adam botched. Adam, a created being, was clearly subservient - unequal - to God. I do not think Jesus, as the second Adam, could have made right what was wrong without filling that same role of subservience. In being subservient to the Father, revealing the Father to the world in his life, and succeeding where the first Adam failed, Christ healed our relationship with God and showed us how to live in victory and subserviently to the Father. Christ on earth was both equal to God as God, but also subservient to God as man.
To me, the question of equality is a question of when you are asking it. Are you asking it in eternity past? Are you asking it for the time of His incarnation? Are you asking it now when all authority on heaven and earth has been given to Him. All of a sudden, the need for equality or subservience for all time goes away and this sticking point is one no longer.
Without the concept of the Trinity, which includes the eternal pre-existing Christ, we lose much of who Christ was, and we have no idea of what to do with the Holy Spirit who Christ described as the Comforter and said it was better for Him to go so we could have the Comforter.
That's my much more than 2 cents.
To my fellow traveler, Anonymous:
I've read your comments which are clear and understandable. I do not, however, agree with you. I do recognize that your point-of-view is harmonious with mainstream Christian doctrine.
My problem stems from the divinity of Christ being pretty much a product of the Gospel of John.
Unless one is willing to creatively stretch interpretations of scripture to the limit,one gains no evidence of Christ being God from reading Matthew, Mark or Luke. Why would such a dramatic truth such as that Jesus, the cruciied Rabbi was actually GOD be ignored by the other Gospel writers? Didn't they know?
Was it because John was special...better...or at a higher level spiritually?
The Gospel of John is too loose, too chronologically out of sync and too inconsistent with the other Gospels for me to cast my lot with the arrogant author who would declare that "he was the Disciple whom Christ loved."
Even if John quotes correctly; Christ's claim as being one with God can easily be understood as the product of the sanctificaion process. I do not obey God, I agree with him...I am of one accord witih God...I am now in total harmony with God...I AM NOW, ONE WITH GOD. Additonally, "no one can gain access with the fther except through the Son" is also easily understandable as referencing Christ's new revelation and message.
Christ, in my mind, does not have TO BE GOD to be the SON OF GOD and in fact, the use of the title SON OF GOD immediately creates a separation and distinction between God and Christ.
I see Christ as NO LESS important, as the supreme representaive of God, the Messiah and as the personification of God's love here on earth.
Always Doubtful
Fides Quarens Intellectum
(Faith Seeking Understanding)
Hello Always Doubtful,
Thanks for the reply. I think I see where you are coming from. OK, I'll throw out the Book of John and his Epistles. Darn, some of the best lines are certainly there..."Before Abraham was, I AM", "Father, glorify me with the glory that I had before the world was." It is tempting to dive right away into other scripture to try and see if I can support my view, but I think that is premature. I'd like to understand how you see things a little better than I do now. Forgetting the eternal past for now, I'd like to know what you think Jesus and the Holy Spirit are now:
1. Was Jesus a sinless man who died, was resurrected as a glorified man, and did he ascend into heaven.
2. If he did ascend into heaven, what is his nature? Is he now God? Since all authority in heaven and earth is his, does he need to be God?
3. What is the Holy Spirit? "...love of God is poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." "do not grieve the Holy Spirit by whom you were sealed..." Why did Jesus refer to the Holy Spirit separately from the Father?
I guess I want to know what you think Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are today so I can more effectively engage with you in this conversation.
Many Blessings,
(I guess I'll have to come up with a name at some point.)
To my fellow traveler Anonymous:
Thank you for your "thoughtful-thoughts". They caused me to stop, ponder and to get-in-touch with my beleifs, which is always a worthwhile exercise.
To your questions:
1. Fundemantal thoughts on Jesus?: Jesus was, indeed, God's chosen vessel through which Messianic Prophesy would be fulfilled. The quality of his life, his courageous meassage, his death and his ressurection are consistent in all 4 Gospels and I accept his ascent to heaven, in some manner, as actual.
2. His nature, following his ascent to heaven? I'm not sure but I'm confident that it is consistent with God's plan. I am sure however that Christ did not demand that God step down (Lucifer tried that once...ONCE) or I do not beleive that Christ demanded that another Throne be added. ?Who said that "all authority in heaven and earth is his"? I do feel that Christ as our spiritual Messiah plays a powerful role in determining our (creatures of earth) disposition but I qustion that ALL AUTHORITY in heaven and earth are his.
3. What is the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is a manifestation of God. God is multi-demensional and multi-faceted with a full range of characteristics. God's love, God's grace, God's compassion, God's power, God's comfort are all part of His character and do not require a separate God-Being for any or each of them to be activated. This God is the Monotheistic God of the Children of Israel. Monotheism was unique to the Hebrews and differentialed them from Pagans who ascribed "Godship" to everthing that could not be explained.
?Who said that Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as separate? Would the text lose meaning if Jesus had referred to the SPIRIT OF GOD rather than the Holy Spirit???
Any in-depth study of early Christianity and the evolution of the Cannonical-New Testament will conclulde that it is imperfect. Imperfect historicaly, and imperfect theologically with issues of questionable authorship, evidence of forgery, fraudulent translation, manipulative transcription and selective use of literal or figurative interpretations. The New Testament is grusomely Human.
It's imperfections however do not disqaulify it as A SOURCE or perhaps, in the case of those of us in the Jedeo/Christian culture THE PRIMARY SOURCE through which God can speak to and inspire his children.
In my mind, when we boil it down; all we have as the indisputable means upon which our faith can be based is our openness to God's voice and the use of God's greatest gift to his created-children...our ability to think...to discern...to deduce...to beleive and to act in accordance with our conclusions.
Well, my friend, those are my thoughts, no better than anyone elses and perhaps a bit out of sync wtih many but they are mine and they represent a candid glimpse into how I think and what I believe. Good Hunting
Always Doubtful
Fides Quarens Intellectum
(Faith Seeking Understanding)
Dear Anonymous:
I like your engagement process.
"Anonymous" is just fine as a name. However, to help in your consideration for a name, I'd like to nominate the following...which all work for me.
Many Blessings
Seeking First to Understand
Thoughtful Responder
Anon
What do you think?
Hello to my traveling companion, Always Doubtful (AD),
I like the whole walking down the road talking thing....
AD, Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and honest beliefs. It's already evident I have chosen a fairly conventional set of beliefs about Christianity, while I do differ in a couple of the minor issues of doctrine. I'll share a little more of why/what I believe using your posts as talking points.
When discussing beliefs with someone who has placed more faith in the correctness and accuracy of scripture, it is easier in a sense to have a discussion because there is a stronger shared reference point - The Bible. While we don't have that fully (I keep John as a source and claim more from the Bible in general), you have embraced the Bible as A SOURCE and we can work with that and other things. I appreciate and respect your candid discussion.
If we had no shared point of reference at all, we'd have to figure out what that was before we got anywhere. (BTW, I do not claim BIble inerrancy either)
I'd like to first stay in the Biblical realm to offer some food for thought concerning some of your statements about the Bible. So, we'll do a little scripture first followed by a little extra-biblical discussion.
1. In an earlier posting you said that John was the only one to claim Jesus was God. The other gospel writers did not.
I certainly agree that John emphasized that far, far more than any other gospel writer, but to say they did not speak to it at all requires examination. I offer up Luke 5:19 (& Matt 9)where Jesus heals the paralytic only AFTER forgiving him his sins, for which the scribes called him a blasphemer. Only God can forgive sins. There is Luke 6:3 and the other 2 synoptic gospels where the scribes and pharisees castigated them for picking grain on the Sabbath. Jesus told the story of David and the showbread and could have ended it there. Instead he states that he is the Lord of the Sabbath. I think it is a pretty clear reference to creation and his role and authority over it. Later, Paul writes in 1 Cor 10 that, "all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." Paul writes of the pre-existence of Christ. These are just a few examples of Christ being exalted or exalting himself. So, while John really emphasized the point, the Godship of Christ is not ignored by the other NT authors.
2. You asked, who said Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as separate and who said all authority on heaven and earth is his.
In Matt 28 the resurrected Jesus said, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Jesus said so himself according the Matthew. That is not inconsistent. Jesus offered the 72 his authority over demons in Luke 10 and the authority of christ is seen in other places.
Back to the trinity for a second. I love your description of the Holy Spirit as a "manifestation" of a "multi-dimensional" and "multi-faceted" God. I really do not think we are worlds apart in this. The best metaphor I heard for the trinity was to visualize the ocean, seemingly infinite from horizon to horizon. Then, to see the wave emerge from the ocean, of the ocean, yet distinct enough to warrant its own name, with its purpose of leaving to ocean to rise on land for a short time before returning. Then, to smell the salt air even before seeing the ocean expanse when nearing the beach knowing that the salt and moisture is the water, salt, and substance of the ocean vaporized so it can season the air, travel farther inland, and do things the wave and water body cannot. It's a pretty good word picture. The ocean (Father), the wave (Son), and the humid salt air (Holy Spirit) are all the same substance from the same place, different enough in purpose and manifestation to warrant different names, yet all unmistakably linked together....pretty much multi-faceted and dimensional just as you said.
So, Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Maybe there is something to the Trinity, maybe not...
AD, I have gone on way too long for a blog posting. My apologies. Perhaps later, I'll talk to some of the extra-Biblical stuff and give some thought to the criticisms of Biblical accuracy by looking outside the Bible for help.
So, I'll sign off now not yet able to commit to a blog nickname even though I've been offered some good choices.
Many Blessings
To my fellow traveler Anonymous:
Good stuff...you are a worthy blogging partner. I will be traveling tomorrow and will not be able to respond but will certainly be giving your latest blog the thought it deserves.
Thanks for sharing.
Always Doubtful
Fides Quarens Intellectum
To my fellow traveler Anonymous:
No I haven’t forgotten your challenging and thought-provoking counter-blog. I’ve been dealing with “matters of consequence” (reference businessman character in the book The Little Prince) for the past few days and have not had a chance to sit and organize my thoughts.
You’re right, my sweeping claim that no other Gospel writer can be included as rationale for claims that Christ is God, belongs were most all other sweeping claims belong; as words to be eaten.
In retrospect, my haste led me to grossly overstate my case. But, in my mind, the other Gospel writers can be explained. John is off the reservation.
Please recall that my current point-of-view is that I doubt that Christ is God. I do not reject that Christ is of Divine origin. There is more than a subtle difference between the two.
If we believe in the Immaculate Conception, then we acknowledge that divinity was part of the procreation process. Therefore Christ could speak with authority and cast out demons because he was indeed divine. Did Christ have memory of being in heaven? I have no idea but Christ did have insights that were of divine origin. I often use the term that Christ, as God’s chosen messianic vessel, was the supreme representative of God on earth.
If the scriptural text in Matthew is indeed accurate, the resurrected Jesus stating that “All authority has been given to me”, is indicative that a transformation had occurred. In response, I see no immediate weakness to the understanding that Christ’s Messianic Victory exalted him in the eyes of God and by virtue of his sacrifice to save mankind he had earned a position of authorative-dominion over earth. That still does not make him God.
Paul’s discussion of Christ being that spiritual rock was only figuratively pointing to Christ rather than a claim that Christ was the rock.
The paradoxical and mystical doctrines of the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity have their origins in the 4th Century. Most Biblical historians conclude that these were very carefully crafted by proto-orthodox Christians to solidify their growing dominance and to erode the distinctions of the Marcionites and the Gnostics, the two major competing sectors of early Christian belief.
To further distance the competition, Biblical scholars and historians generally acknowledge that early proto orthodox Christian copyists and transcribers intentionally altered scripture, affecting the very meaning of texts to make them more useful for the orthodox beliefs.
The paradoxical/mind bending nature of the doctrines of Christ as God and the Trinity were then protected from those who would question the veracity of such doctrines by the use of the brilliant admonition that, this is a mystery of God that ”You must accept by faith.”
Wow talking about slamming the door on man’s inherent desire to “come and reason with his God.” No questions are to be accepted here…if you don’t accept you lack faith and are found wanting in the eyes of God. Don’t question; just nod your head and believe.
Who was Michael, the archangel? Was that not Christ?
Where did I learn that?
The Lamb of God, the Second Adam, and the Son of Man are not terms of equality. Certainly these are terms that can easily be attributed to a being within the divine realm but they don’t seem to be terms God would attribute to HIMSELF.
While a wonderfully artistic metaphor, the God is the ocean, Christ is the wave and the Holy Spirit is the Salty air doesn’t pacify my skepticism. While the wave is part of the ocean; it is not the ocean nor is the salty air, the ocean. Only the ocean is the ocean and must be accepted within the wholeness of it’s magnificence it’s limitlessness, it’s complexity, it’s power, it’s beauty and on and on and on. To worship the wave is not the same as worshiping the ocean. To worship the wave is to worship a single aspect of the ocean that can be seen, measured and predicted. But seeing the wave doesn’t explain the ocean. Waves and salty air provide evidence that the ocean is there but the ocean is far, far, far greater than selected, identifiable characteristics of its vastness such as the wave or the sweet, salty air.
I referred to the Holy Spirit as a manifestation of God. My meaning is simply that the Holy Spirit is part of God as Christ is part of God, as you and I are part of God. Let us not forget that we are direct descendants of Adam into whom God breathed life making him a living soul. (We are therefore also waves on that ocean) How many other parts of God are there? My arm is part of the human anatomy but to take an arm and claim that it is a human being, is to not understand what makes a human being. Should every other aspect of the God be made separate, given a name and made part of the Godhead? If such were to take place, we’d have a Godhead exponentially larger than a Trinity. Would that compromise our claim to monotheism?
How can the author of the wonderfully humble and beautiful Lord’s Prayer…beseeching Our (his also) Father to grant us our needs and asking Him to forgive us as we forgive others then acknowledge that God is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever suddenly claim equality with the God?
Well, my friend, that’s it for now. I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m merely trying to explain mine.
Always Doubtful
Fides Quarens Intellectum
(Faith Seeking Understanding
Hello Always Doubtful,
I'm glad you are back. I am afraid I will be a bit spotty this week, but will be checking in. Thank you for putting in the time for that toughtful discourse. I did not seek to pacify your skepticism with my word picture. On the contrary, skeptics can gain a depth of faith and belief beyond what may be considered normal because we live an examined faith.
So, if I may bottom line what I see...it is that you propose the NT was corrupted to the point where the doctrine of the trinity could be supported through unfaithful copying, translation, and cannonization, and that it pretty much was set in stone at the Council of Nicea. Specifically, whether it was John himself or someone downstream, the writing attributed to John are beyond reasonable in the manner with which they proclaim Christ as God.
I understand what you think about the doctrine of the trinity now. I do not seek to change your mind, but much like you will offer something more for your consideration to illustrate why I still hold to the doctrine of the Trinity. I will stay in the OT this time and go to Genesis and Isaiah.
Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness..."
Gen 3:21-22 ...for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil...
Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
The two passages from Genesis have puzzled Jewish scholars. The plural usage - Us, Our - is there in the oldest extant copies of the Torah. It is not a duplicity of later Christians. It is very interesting and noteworthy that this plural characteristic of God is written into the very first chapters of his word to us.
I realize the Isaiah scripture does not carry much weight by itself. But, it has been a messianic prophecy applied to Christ. The prophecy is that the child will be Immanuel - literally, God with us. When I combine it with the claims of the NT authors of Christ's birth from virgin Mary, I am not uncomfortable applying divinity to Christ.
AD, we have covered a lot of ground in this. Thank you. It appears to me that the issue has evolved from a doctrine to reliability of scripture. I would be grateful if you would tell me if there are any books, in particular, that you read to bring you to your understanding of scripture, particularly NT reliability.
With that, I think I have covered my understanding of the Trinity...limited as it is.
I became a Christian partly because of scripture. The fulfilled prophecies of the messiah, empires, and events are important to an engineering left-brainer like me. They allowed a heart that wanted there to be God to seek him. I remember the impact of studying the OT temple services and seeing it manifest in the Lamb of God, Christ. I also remember learning of the major feasts - Trumpets, Day of Judgement, Passover, First Fruits, Pentecost, etc. To see those manifest as fulfilled prophecy through the ministry of Christ was amazing. To see Christ, our passover, crucified on the passover, to see him raised as the first fruits of the resurrection, and to see thousands of souls harvested at the harvest feast of Pentecost with the gift of the Holy Spirit all spoke to my mind and my heart. All that led me to the most important things...the relationship with God and the heart issues of life and faith.
I seem to have read a book that has done the opposite for me that your research has done for you. Josh McDowell's book (based upon research originally started to reject Christianity by an unbelieving McDowell), Evidence That Demands a Verdict, spoke to historicity, accuracy, archeology, philosophical bear pits, etc. and came to a conclusion that scripture was reliable in the OT and NT. That is why I would like to read what you have read to see the counterpoints.
Many Blessings
Greetings Anonymous:
I have again been caught up in combating the slings and arrows of life’s outrageous fortune and have therefore been neglectful of S-T-R-E-T-C-H ing.
Thank you for your well thought out response to my last entry.
Well, let me take my shot at explaining this thing we call monotheism. Inartistically I have defined the monotheistic God of the Hebrews as the ONE Supreme Creator and Ruler of the Universe. Multi-faceted, multi-dimensional and virtually unexplainable.
To say that there is but One Supreme God is Not to say that there are not other Divine beings. They are indeed divine but they are not equal to the One supreme God. Supremacy belongs to only one.
To the dilemma of God’s reference to “let us” make man in our own image. The verse can be interpreted to mean:
a. That God is among other Gods collaborating in creation (contradicts monotheism)
b. Speaking to Jesus and the Holy Spirit who are equals (contradicts monotheism)
c. Speaking in the presence of the other divine creatures observing creation.
Christ being referred to as Immanuel (God with us) is not problematic at all: Christ, as God’s chosen emissary, is indeed having God’s spirit, his authority and his power with us.
Let me slip over to Daniel to get a better handle on Christ’s divinity. I again repeat, I have no argument with Christ being of divine origin and divinely commissioned to fulfill Messianic Prophesy.
Daniel 7: 13, 14: In my vision at night I looked and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass always, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
In context this vision occurs following the destruction of the Beast. The one appearing in the clouds of heaven is ostensibly Jesus Christ.
Now if Jesus is the One Supreme God…why would he be approaching the Ancient of Days (the Supreme God) and why would he be led into The Supreme God’s presence?
Or, is Christ the Archangel Michael as I had been led to believe as a child, the very same one who led the ‘Loyalist Angelic Army” in the Lucifer led rebellion in heaven?
Let me try something else. Christ, the Lamb of God. The Lamb of God is the Sacrifice that all other ceremonial sacrifices throughout OT and NT times symbolized.
What were God’s instructions on how the sacrificial lambs were to be selected? They were chosen from the flock, the prized lamb; the lamb that was perfect and without defect. Therefore when God (the One Supreme God) was to choose the Divine being to become the supreme sacrifice whom else could he chose but the highest, most trusted and most perfect of His flock, Michael.
And upon Christ’s completion of his Messianic mission and the successful salvation of those who were hopelessly condemned, he, Christ, was given dominion, authority, power and sovereign reign of earth and all its people.
Within this setting Christ can be comfortably proclaimed, The Son of God, the Son of Man, the Second Adam, the Lamb of God, and Messiah.
And, as proclaimed in Daniel, God has given Christ dominion and sovereign authority over earth, the planet once called the Planet in Rebellion.
To the issue of the turmoil and misrepresentations that accompanied the emergence of what we know as Orthodox Christianity there are many books. Perhaps the best single source comes in a series of 24 taped lectures by Professor Bart Ehrman. Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication,
The Great Courses
The Teaching Company
4151 Lafayette Center Drive, Suite 100
Chantilly, Va 20151-1232
Always Doubtful
Fides Quarens Intellectum
(Faith Seeking Understanding
Post a Comment