The trinity

[Noel]

Hello Stephen.
Did you have a chance to read that paper on the origins of the Trinity?
Did you manage to download it?

I would be interested to know what you think.

Noel

[TWTY-Admin]

Unfortunately not yet, Noel. Had a lot more stuff IRL to sort out than I had originally anticipated, and I haven't been able to read as much as I've liked over the past few weeks.


For those who are interested, Noel is referring to the following document: http://tinyurl.com/27loakz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit:

Okay, I've managed to read through the document (it's really not all that long).

It didn't really bring anything new to the table of the 'Trinity' idea; but what I really didn't like is essentially the lack of actual references. I know she (Cher) quotes books by Hislop, Hooke, Lainge, Longergan, Chumash etc., etc., but when it comes to quotes from the ECF (Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr etc.), she really gives no reference to where they actually said what they supposedly said, making it difficult for me to be able to check whether they said what she has them saying. Really, from what I end up seeing in the base texts of the ECF's writings, not everything is as cut-and-dry with what they said that the English translations of their words having them declaring.

Nevertheless, what she doesn't really take into account is just how many times the books of the NT have Yahushua being worshipped, something that a pure monotheistic belief really doesn't like.

As far as the Tanakh is concerned, Yahuweh is the only Being worthy of worship/devotion (Deuteronomy 6:13; ironically quoted by Yahushua in Matthew 4:10 and Luke 4:8), so the fact that the essentially Jewish authorship of the NT/RC allows, without reservation or comment, for Yahushua to be included in such worship/devotional practice that they only reserved for Yahuweh, is actually quite evidential that the inclusion also of a third entity into such a practise isn't too far removed from how they viewed monotheism.

What she also doesn't mention is the fact that both Yahuweh, Yahushua, and Spirit are used as Nomina Sacra/placeholders in all Greek manuscripts of the NT/RC books - something that in the early stages of the development of Nomina Sacra indicated that the authors and/or scribes viewed all three as 'Divine'.

The places where Yahushua is either worshipped/expressed homage to, people asking where to go and worship/express homage to, or at least given to one of His numerous titles are:

Matthew 2:2, 8, 11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Revelation 5:13-14; 15:3-4.

What I find most surprising here is the fact that the most "Jewish" book (Matthew), is the one that has Yahushua being worshipped/expressed homage too the most.

Plus, if people take Revelation as "inspired" scripture, then essentially Yahuweh is saying that Yahushua is worthy of devotion/worship/expression of homage.

So, if it is true that Yahuweh is the only Being worthy of devotion/worship/expression of homage, then Yahushua also has to = Yahuweh.

Whilst this doesn't necessarily give the 'Trinity' (aka the '3 in 1 shampoo' god) any sort of basis in Scripture, it will probably explain why the early followers of the Messiah attempted to try and explain how, despite being monotheistic, they were able to express devotion to what must've appeared as two different Beings to the outside, polytheistic world.

[Rob]

I think the main problem comes when you use the word "Trinity" Forcing 3 separate elements into one. Where it's more about one huge element showing itself in 3 separate ways.

There aren't 3 things trying to equally exist as one - there is one thing displaying itself in three relational examples.

These roles are for our benefit now and are most likely not a shred like anything we will experience when we can actually be with Yahweh - but He has to have a vehicle that He can use to relate and communicate to us.

[Noel]

Yes Rob. I think that your take on this is good. That is how I see it now.

Thanks Stephen for your full and considered reply.

N

[Rob]

Hope things are good for you Noel - long time no communicate

[Noel]

Hello Stephen

I think I would be right in saying that in no pre-Constantine renewed covenant accounts are placeholders not used.

Would it also be true that all pre-Constantine accounts share the fact that the Set Apart Spirit is clearly referred to in John 3 Verse 8 ' the wind bloweth where it listeth ' etc.etc. as She rather than it or He.

It would be interesting to know what view the early believers took on this matter. Any ideas?

Hope you are keeping well.


Noel

[TWTY-Admin]

Hello Stephen

Hi Noel!

I think I would be right in saying that in no pre-Constantine renewed covenant accounts are placeholders not used.

*re-reads to grasp the double negative*

..yes. All pre-Constantine manuscripts use placeholders. As do, actually, all Greek manuscripts up until the 9th Century CE. Contrary to popular opinion, they didn't magically stop being used when Constantine became sole Emperor

Would it also be true that all pre-Constantine accounts share the fact that the Set Apart Spirit is clearly referred to in John 3 Verse 8 ' the wind bloweth where it listeth ' etc.etc. as She rather than it or He.

Hmm... no. The Spirit is referred to as an "it", but that's unfortunately due to the neuter nature of the Greek πνεύμα/pneuma- which was used in order to form the placeholders for that word. As Greek requires the pronouns (he/she/it) to agree in case and gender to the noun being referred to, all nouns that are neuter have to have neuter pronouns referring to it. If the Greek reading the verse in question saw the pronoun αὐτὸς/autos in its feminine form, they'd be trying to find a noun that was also feminine in order to put the two together. So no, the Spirit is referred to as an "it", only because the noun used isn't feminine in gender.

It would be interesting to know what view the early believers took on this matter. Any ideas?

Not whilst I should be busy at work >.>