Thoughts about Trinity beliefs

We do not find the word Trinity in the Bible, for me it is a way to understand how God can be three persons... "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" concept = idea.
The word Trinity is not in the bible but the concept is there. People that have issues with the Holy Spirit being God fail to recognize that He is just the most recently revealed via the New Testament. Many other things were revealed with the New Testament why not third person of the Godhead.
 
The word Trinity is not in the bible but the concept is there. People that have issues with the Holy Spirit being God fail to recognize that He is just the most recently revealed via the New Testament. Many other things were revealed with the New Testament why not third person of the Godhead.
For many, anything that complicates pure monotheism seems to get in the way of pure monotheism.
 
For many, anything that complicates pure monotheism seems to get in the way of pure monotheism.
There you go again. Where do you see the word "monotheism" in the Bible? Not just the concept. The actual word "monotheism"? If the word is not there, then why do you think that the Bible teaches monotheism?

People use the absence of the word "Trinity" in the Bible as an argument against calling what the Bible says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit "the Trinity." Is the absence of the word "monotheism" an argument against calling what the Bible sayx about God "monotheism"?
 
Last edited:
There you go again. Where do you see the word "monotheism" in the Bible? Not just the concept. The actual word "monotheism"? If the word is not there, then why do you think that the Bible teaches monotheism?

One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?" Jesus answered, "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord is God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.'"
— Mark 12:28–31

Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is One. 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
— Deuteronomy 6:4–5
 
One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?" Jesus answered, "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord is God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.'"
— Mark 12:28–31

Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is One. 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
— Deuteronomy 6:4–5
My point was that when people use a word that is not in the Bible for what the Bible says about God, and at the same time object to other people using a word that is not in the Bible for what it says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, that’s a double standard.
 
If you have an idea that you think is scriptural but the words go beyond the words of scripture, yep, you'll be asked for clarification many times. You may have to explain over and over why the idea is right - to different people, or the same people who don't get it but still ask in an effort to understand what you mean. I think that's okay... that's kind of the point of theological discussion -Does anybody think that is not okay?
I think it's OK. My harsh comments are directed at those who don't understand the basic doctrine and then criticise it – hence my dismissal of that Christadelphian video as stupid – had I been less hot and bothered, I would simply say that it is, almost entirely, a Straw Man fallacy.
 
If I understand correctly, Theosis means becoming more like G-d in a sense.
So - non trinitarians do not become more holy regardless of anything else?
What about the other Abrahamic religions which are very strict about straightforward simple monotheism?
It's not that other religions 'fail', it's more that there has to be a 'bridge', a shared commonality, between the Divine and humanity, if humanity is to share in the 'Divine Life', and the Trinity explores that commonality ...

An understanding, or even knowledge, of the Trinity is not essential to salvation or theosis.

For me, in a Christian paradigm, there is Trinity. In other traditions there are other 'means' – I, of course, see them all as 'Trinity-shaped', but that's me. I would not press that on a Buddhist or a Hindu, that would be presumptuous and probably idolatrous, but I'd happily discuss commonalities, or different ways of approaching the same thing – just don't expect me to jump ship.
 
The word Trinity is not in the bible but the concept is there. People that have issues with the Holy Spirit being God fail to recognize that He is just the most recently revealed via the New Testament. Many other things were revealed with the New Testament why not third person of the Godhead.
If one reads texts the way the Ancients read texts, one would accept that it's not necessary for something to be stated explicitly to be authentic or valid. They just didn't read texts that way, that evolved later, which is why the idea of Biblical inerrancy is relatively recent.

In Acts 8, the Holy Spirit sends Philip south, to cross paths with an Ethiopian courtier of his Queen Candace. He had gone up to Jerusalem to worship, and was in his chariot reading a text of Isaiah (53). Philip says, "Do you really understand the things you are reading?" And he said, “Unless someone will guide me, how indeed could I?" (v30-31).

It was a given that texts were not self-evident or self-explanatory ...
 
Trouble is, 'person' means something today it never meant in Antiquity, so what we have is the fruits of the language is the same, but the meaning has changed.


At core, the idea is that the relationship between the Divine and the human is personal.

Love is personal, because it's not so much a thing as a dynamic way of being with regard to other beings – in short, 'open' to exchange.


I would prefer the term 'hypostasis' because that was used, and is more suitable and fitting ... it's just alien now, except to scholars.
You're still my best hope for someone to talk to in these forums, no matter how wide and deep the gap might be between our ways of thinking. There's no need to respond if you don't have any comments or questions about what I'm saying, just having someone to talk to is good enough for me, if it's okay with you.

I've been arguing against penal substitution beliefs, and against interpreting Bible verses that way; and I've raised concerns about using the word "person" in reducing to a four-word slogan what the Bible says about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but a while ago I realized that I was reversing cause and effect. I'm thinking that those beliefs are symptoms, not causes, of what I'm really concerned about. I don't know how to say in words what I'm concerned about other than part of it being people evading some implications of Jesus being our Lord and the ruler of God's kingdom. If the beliefs are symptoms of a problem then it's futile to argue against them without that problem being solved, and I don't think that's going to happen in my lifetime, maybe not in the lifetime of anyone here.

Even so, what I'm thinking about Trinity formulas and diagrams might sometimes help keep someone from being fooled and intimidated by them.
 
I've been arguing against penal substitution beliefs ...
I neither believe nor even accept the idea of penal substitution, nor any sort of ransom (with perhaps one exception I hope to explore shortly). The idea that either God or the Devil can be 'bought off', strikes me as unsavoury.

But I have to say something rather 'new' (having not come to mind before, and I don't recall reading it somewhere) popped into my head while thinking about a response, and I haven't fully explored it, so there might be a significant flaw in its logic. Hopefully if so such will come to the fore.

I'm thinking that those beliefs are symptoms, not causes, of what I'm really concerned about. I don't know how to say in words what I'm concerned about other than part of it being people evading some implications of Jesus being our Lord and the ruler of God's kingdom.
well I'm intrigued, as clearly you are, as to what precisely the concern is, or concerns are ... but maybe we can put our handbags on the floor and dance round them a bit, and see what unravels.

(I seem to have locked into some idiomatic mode of speech recently, now Idea why; I've edited half a dozen out of this reply ... I beg your indulgence and ask you to bear with them.)
 
A prior question: Did Jesus die for our sins?
Below is largely indebted to David Armstrong's A Perennial Digression substack

Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by the Romans on the order of the prefect Pontius Pilate, is probably the most secure fact we can establish about his life.

Yet from very early after his death, the event took on salvific significance.

Paul talks about the martyrdom of Jesus as reconciliation, through which he extends eschatological promise to Jews and gentiles alike. Mark talks about the crucifixion of Jesus as the paradoxical fulfilment of a messianic mission, his life offered as “a ransom for many” (10:45). For Matthew, Jesus’s death fulfils biblical prophecy, recapitulating in Himself the oracular traditions of the Hebrew Scriptures. In Luke, Jesus' suffering is appropriate to a true prophet, explained by reference to what "Moses and the prophets" predicted the Christ must undergo (Luke 24:27). In John, Jesus’s crucifixion is the hour of the Son of Man’s exaltation in the messianic parousia, and his final breath completes his work as He delivered up his spirit to the Father (John 19:30). It's presented in a broader Temple context, the Gospel taking its final form after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.

In Paul and in all three Synoptic Gospels, the Last Supper provides a way to understand the death of Jesus as a covenant sacrifice. John, like Paul, sees Jesus' death as a priestly sacrifice of His own self which takes away sins.

In Hebrews, whose dating is uncertain, is close to John, also a sacrifice as a sin-offering that allows Jesus, as celestial high priest, to enter the heavenly sanctuary and sit at God’s right hand, having made atonement for sins, and the Johannine Apocalypse – again of uncertain date – sees Jesus’s death in its redemptive significance, purchasing (ἀγοράζω, agorazo) "from every tribe and tongue and people and nation" a "kingdom and priests for our God" (Revelations 5:9-10). It is, in other words, the sacrificial foundation for a renewed Israel (7:4-8) and the multitude from the nations who are gathered together with the renewed Israel to God’s throne (7:9-17).

So, across the earliest literature, we get a wide variety of people talking about Jesus’s death, not as a brutal political execution, but as an act of martyrdom, one by which God has accomplished something salvific in the history of his dealings with the world.

+++

The sense in which Jesus’s death is "for sins" sits within a Jewish context of sin and suffering, redemption, restoration and resurrection. The knowledge of the salvific action of the cross is not of the kind of knowledge that one gains through forensic observation or through history, but only through a deeper cognition, the sort accessed by liturgical mystagogy.

Paul is writing to Corinth, some time around 53-54CE: "For Christ gave me a mission not to baptise, but rather to proclaim the gospel – not in sophisticated speech (sophia logos), lest the cross of Christ be made void" (1 Corinthians 1:17). In other words, I would suggest, Paul is already aware that the cross cannot be explained in some rational, philosophical sense.

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, while to those who are being saved it is God’s power for us. For it has been written: “I will bring ruin to the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart. Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the dialectician of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the cosmos? For since, in God’s wisdom, the cosmos did
not know God by wisdom, God thought it well to save the faithful by the foolishness of a proclamation. Since Judaeans ask for signs while
Greeks seek wisdom, and we proclaim Christ crucified – both a stumbling-block to Judaeans and a folly to the gentiles, but to those
who are called, Judaeans and Greeks alike, Christ, God’s power and God’s wisdom." (1 Corinthians 18-24)

However the early communities understood the meaning of Jesus' death, their 'theology' was not philosophy nor metaphysics, it was in symbol and liturgy. The 'Theodrama' of Jesus as the true high priest of the heavenly Temple, come down into the world to offer Himself as an oblation to God and provide access to the heavenly Temple for a deprived community, conformed to a mystagogic logic of the crucifixion, providing katharsis for sin in a ritual context – it is here, and only here, that the sacrifice makes real sense, part of the kerygmatic core of Christianity long before it was ever systematised into a doctrinal position that ends up at some remove from its first formulation.

Take it out of that context, it will begin to break down at some point of rational analysis. The crucifixion as atonement for sin makes a good deal of sense if one approaches it sacramentally, within the context of ancient Jewish expansions of the cultic significance of the Temple, before and after its destruction, and in the worshiping assemblies of the apocalyptic, prophetic, messianic Jesus Movement; but if one attempts a theology of the death of Jesus without that cultic interface, then one increasingly begins to deal in questions of the absurd, especially when one starts attributing intention to either the Father or the Son.

Jesus’s death ... only really makes sense insofar as one participates in the deep liturgical mystagogy that ancient Christians developed to lead one into this world of archetypical images and associations. Try to unpack it as a logical consequent of first principles, even first principles that include God or sacred history or whatever, and somewhere along the way its rational tenor dims into cacophony.

When we thank God that Jesus died for us, to redeem us, that he died for sins, we are responding to revelation, in a way that is pre-rational.

+++
 
The sheep and the goats have a different fate. That is pretty clear, or do you deny that?
The Judgement spoken of in Matthew 25 is pretty clear:

First, it is the judgement of nations, (25:32) in which case they are judged according to the nation, so the individual condition could possibly be swallowed up in that judgement, but this might be pressing a point.

So the sheep to the right, and the goats – and note the Greek means 'kid' as in 'young goats' (which were kept with the sheep) to the left.

"Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Amen, I tell you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these my brothers, neither did you do it to me’ and these will go to the chastening of that Age, but the just to the life of that Age."

Two important things here:
The first is that the text is traditionally translated as "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (KJV)

One:
In both cases, the word translated as 'everlasting' and 'eternal' is the Greek term κόλασιν, aionios, which does not necessarily mean 'eternal' or 'everlasting', but rather 'an age' or 'a long period of time', in fact in the days when Paul and the Evangelists were writing, it could mean anything from 'an epoch' – ages past or future ages, to just a single 'lifetime' – so eternal is not a given, perhaps not even grammatically.

Two:
The Greek term κόλασις, kolasis, which is translated as punishment, has a particular meaning.

The word originally meant 'pruning' or 'docking', and then came to mean 'confinement,' 'being held in check,' 'punishment,' or 'chastisement,' chiefly with the connotation of 'correction.'

Classically, the word was distinguished (by Aristotle, for instance) from an alternative, timéria, which mean a retributive punishment.

In Paul's time kolasis seems to have been used by many to describe punishment of any kind; but the only other use of the noun in the New Testament is in 1 John 4:18, where it refers not to retributive punishment, but to the suffering experienced by someone who is subject to fear because not yet perfected in charity. The verbal form, kolazo, appears in Acts 4:21, clearly referring only to disciplinary punishment, and in 2 Peter 2:9 in reference to fallen angels and unrighteous men, where it probably means 'being held in check' or 'penned in' until the day of Final Judgement.

The point being –
While we cannot be certain that with regard to aionios or kolasis, we certainly cannot say with any certainty that it means an eternal and everlasting punishment that serves no good purpose and goes on without end.

Especially when we can see and say that the error appears to be a translation from the Greek into Latin, where the Latin term is definitively 'eternal' and 'everlasting' – the Latin over-steps the mark on this point – and while the translators of the NT into English worked from the Greek, they would bear the Latin text in mind, and come from a culture in which 'corrective chastening' was by no means normative, indeed the law was retributive to the point of vindictive, to deter wrongdoers.
 
In both cases, the word translated as 'everlasting' and 'eternal' is the Greek term κόλασιν, aionios, which does not necessarily mean 'eternal' or 'everlasting', but rather 'an age' or 'a long period of time'..
Mmm, I agree with that..
None but G-d knows how long a soul will suffer in the future, and for how long that might be.

..but the fact that souls will suffer for a very long time is enough to take the warning seriously.
 
I neither believe nor even accept the idea of penal substitution, nor any sort of ransom (with perhaps one exception I hope to explore shortly). The idea that either God or the Devil can be 'bought off', strikes me as unsavoury.
In my story, "ransom" and "redeem" refer to the practice of freeing people of Israel from slavery in foreign lands by paying a ransom. The freedom is not an end in itself, it's freedom to return to the kingdom of Israel, or to enter it for the first time if they were born in slavery, as we are, in slavery to the sinful side of our nature. The ransom isn't paid to God or to satan. It might not work the same way as pidyon shevuyim paying the ransom to the captor, but it's similar in a way.

well I'm intrigued, as clearly you are, as to what precisely the concern is, or concerns are ... but maybe we can put our handbags on the floor and dance round them a bit, and see what unravels.
The only part of it that I've found words for is that people don't want do the work that's needed to improve their own character and conduct, so they choose beliefs that don't tell them to do that. They choose beliefs that say whatever they want to hear. I don't mean consciously. They gravitate towards beliefs that don't give them any responsibility or work to do, to improve their own character and conduct. That includes substituting agreement with some beliefs in the place of repentance, as how we are forgiven. It also includes reducing "Lord" to a title rather than meaning to do what He says to do.

(I seem to have locked into some idiomatic mode of speech recently, now Idea why; I've edited half a dozen out of this reply ... I beg your indulgence and ask you to bear with them.)
Don't stop, I like it. :D
 
Last edited:
Mmm, I agree with that..
None but G-d knows how long a soul will suffer in the future, and for how long that might be.
Exactly.

..but the fact that souls will suffer for a very long time is enough to take the warning seriously.
A couple of things here ...

One is that so easily becomes the threat the institutional church holds over its congregation ...

I sometimes wonder whether 'the suffering of souls' is something God requires for righteousness, or we do ...

+++

I can accept suffering if its a process with a beneficial outcome.

I cannot accept suffering for its own sake; suffering without purpose or benefit or value ...
 
Back
Top