Trinity

[Paladin]

For some reason, everyone believes in this "Trinitarian God" business. But who thought of that? Where is it in the Bible?

Jesus points to God as someone else repetedly in the Gospels: "The Father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28), and "Why do you call me good?...No one is good--except God alone" (Mk 10:18). And Paul refers to "God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit" (2 Cor 13:13) as if they were all very separate things.

Now yes, Jesus Christ is the Son of God. But lots of people are. Job 38:7 talks about the "sons of God". Even normal humans are called "gods" (Ps 82:6), and Jesus points out that scripture says "you are gods" (Jn 10:34-36). In Colossians 1:15, Paul says Jesus is "the firstborn over all creation." First[i]born[/i]? Then wasn't he created and a part of creation, separate from God? And we all call God "Our Father." So what makes Jesus God anymore than we are?

The Holy Spirit, too, is suspect in this "Trinity" idea. The Greek word in the New Testament is neuter and is referred to as "it" often. It's also portrayed as a fire (Acts 2:3), a dove (Mt 3:16), wind (Acts 2:2), water (Jn 7:37-39); all impersonal, inanimate objects.

True, the Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to in personal terms. But so is sin "crouching at your door" (Gen 4:7), the earth cries out (Gen 4:10). Wisdom is a woman (Prov 8), and the law of sin wages war in Paul's mind like a soldier (Rom 7:23). So what if the Holy Spirit is referred to as a person? So is a bunch of other stuff that isn't in the "trinity".

Maybe Arius was right and Jesus isn't God? I dunno. Discuss.

[DAF]

Are you pro or con the Trinity?

My first question is (like it usually is) "why must it be in the Bible?" When you can prove to me that it must be written explicitly in the Bible, I'll tell you about the Trinity. Things are objectively true outside of the Bible, you know.

[desertwoman]

I"m not a scholar by any means, but I also wondered about Jesus being the son of God or not. NOt just, hey, God is my father, but that he is part of the trinity.

Since you are quoting from John, look at John chapter 8 versus 31-58.

31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

33They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants[b] and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"

34Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.

35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word.

38I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.[c]"

39"Abraham is our father," they answered.

"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would[d] do the things Abraham did. 40As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.

41You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

The Children of the Devil

42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.

44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
The Claims of Jesus About Himself

48The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"

49"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

52At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

It's a lot of passage to get to a point, but it is great to read the dialouge that is going on between Jesus and the people. Jesus is showing that he is much more than just a wise prophet coming to warn the people of God's wrath and anger of sin.

The big gun in this passage is when he states that before Abraham, I AM. I AM is what God told Moses from the burning bush. I AM that I AM. Who can proclaim to be God, but God himself? He also says that he is from above.

Man is dust and nothing more, but Jesus is fully human and fully divine. There is more, but I shall return.

Edited September 16, 2006 by desertwoman

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1064220' date='Sep 16 2006, 01:12 PM']
For some reason, everyone believes in this "Trinitarian God" business. But who thought of that? Where is it in the Bible?

Jesus points to God as someone else repetedly in the Gospels: "The Father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28), and "Why do you call me good?...No one is good--except God alone" (Mk 10:18). And Paul refers to "God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit" (2 Cor 13:13) as if they were all very separate things.

Now yes, Jesus Christ is the Son of God. But lots of people are. Job 38:7 talks about the "sons of God". Even normal humans are called "gods" (Ps 82:6), and Jesus points out that scripture says "you are gods" (Jn 10:34-36). In Colossians 1:15, Paul says Jesus is "the firstborn over all creation." First[i]born[/i]? Then wasn't he created and a part of creation, separate from God? And we all call God "Our Father." So what makes Jesus God anymore than we are?

The Holy Spirit, too, is suspect in this "Trinity" idea. The Greek word in the New Testament is neuter and is referred to as "it" often. It's also portrayed as a fire (Acts 2:3), a dove (Mt 3:16), wind (Acts 2:2), water (Jn 7:37-39); all impersonal, inanimate objects.

True, the Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to in personal terms. But so is sin "crouching at your door" (Gen 4:7), the earth cries out (Gen 4:10). Wisdom is a woman (Prov 8), and the law of sin wages war in Paul's mind like a soldier (Rom 7:23). So what if the Holy Spirit is referred to as a person? So is a bunch of other stuff that isn't in the "trinity".

Maybe Arius was right and Jesus isn't God? I dunno. Discuss.
[/quote]

Jesus place as firstborn means that of the things that flow from the Father (the Son is begotten of the Father), Jesus is first, and as such, has all power over the later things, those which are created. Jesus did not come into being, rather, He is eternally begotten. Creation came at a fixed point, the beginning of time, and it is later because there was a time when it was not. However, none of this means that the Son was created. We use the term "begotten" by way of analogy, because our language can't define exactly how the Son is generated. St. Thomas Aquinas used the language of a Generator and the Generated. In any event, Jesus is God. He has no beginning and no end, but the Gospels try to explain who and what He is by analogy. As for the sons of God argument, it is true that the Scriptures call us sons of God, but this simply does not mean anything to Christ's divinity. Remember, Christ not only claims God as His Father; Christ claims Himself as God ("Before Abraham was, I AM").

As for the Holy Spirit, Spirit simply means "breath." Again, this is analogy; the Holy Spirit is not really a grouping of air molecules. The Greek word for breath is "pneuma." The word "pneuma," which predates the Gospels, is a neuter word. Therefore, if makes grammatical sense that the Holy Spirit would be referred to by neuter terms in the Scriptures. This is for grammatical reasons, not for theological reasons. The Greek language simply demands this kind of treatment. As for the Holy Spirit's apparent lack of personhood, this is simply because we do not have the language to express Him otherwise.

Now, I give you another way to think about it. God is love. Love requires an exchange, a gift of self, and a total one at that. Therefore, there must be a giver of this love and a recipient. God the Father is the giver of love, but creation cannot be the primary recipient because it is not eternal (hence, God would not eternally be love, because He would not have an eternal object for His love) and because it is not capable of holding Him completely, let alone of making a return. Therefore, there must be an eternal Person capable of holding God's whole being for the Father to love. Now, this cannot be the Father Himself, because that would not be a self-giving love, but a self-sustaining love, which falls short. Therefore, there must be at least two Persons in one Godhead. Now, since the gift of love in God is none other than a total gift of self from God, His whole being is given over in that act of love (thus, as we confess, the Son is the same essence as the Father; He is everthing that the Father is). Now, there must also be a Person in the exchange of love itself, as the love is passed from the Father to the Son, while (again, we speak in temporal terms by way of analogy) the love is "in transit," if you will. Therefore, this third is proceeding. So we have one God, who is a Generator, a Generated, and a Proceeding. St. Thomas Aquinas names these "Genitor," "Genitus," and "Precedens," the Triune Godhead, three in one.

[DAF]

This raises the interesting quesiton of what Protestants define as "Christian." It seems like the term can be thrown around willy nilly. I mean, when people start asking if THE TRINITY is CHRISTIAN... It's been a fundamental Christian belief for 2,000 years, I don't know how you could really argue that you're not a Christian if you believe the Trinity. I don't know how you could define yourself as a Christian without believing in the Trinity.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1064220' date='Sep 16 2006, 12:12 PM']
For some reason, everyone believes in this "Trinitarian God" business. But who thought of that? Where is it in the Bible?[/quote]

Interesting points. But I think when Jesus equates Himself with God is when He says "I AM" just as God said in the Old Testament.

[DAF]

He does it much more often than once too.

[Aloysius]

why paladin, are you baitinig our resident catholic-baiters? lol

[DAF]

[Budge]

I go with this verse. I do believe in the Trinity.
[size=5]
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.[/size]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Budge' post='1064585' date='Sep 16 2006, 09:50 PM']
I go with this verse. I do believe in the Trinity.
[size=5]
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.[/size]
[/quote]
what version of the Bible do you use? I didn't know that modern translations even had that verse.

[Resurrexi]

Well, it's in the Sacred Vulgate so it's part of the Infallable and Holy Word of the Holy Trinity.

[quote] 7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt. [/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1064615' date='Sep 16 2006, 10:21 PM']
Well, it's in the Sacred Vulgate so it's part of the Infallable and Holy Word of the Holy Trinity.
[/quote]
this came up a while ago, here is the thread for what its worth: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=46730"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=46730[/url]

this is the jist of what I said then:
[quote]many modern translations exclude that verse entirely. It is absent in the early Greek manuscripts and is really something particular to the latin manuscript tradition (esp. the vulgate; although I believe the King James includes the verse). I'd say most scholars consider it to be an interpolation. Probably the marginal gloss of some copyist that made its way into the text of certain manuscripts. [/quote]

[Budge]

I use KJV...

[Resurrexi]

You should use the DRV... it's got the style of the JKV but is a whole lot more amazing

[Laudate_Dominum]

Here is a protestant article on the issue if you don't believe me:
[url="http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186"]http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186[/url]

another informed protestant article on the subject:
[url="http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html"]http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html[/url]

Here is a wikipedia entry on the issue:
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum[/url]

If you find the textual critical evidence to be suspect (I think its quite clear) then I would ask you to explain the fact that this passage is nowhere to be found in the Trinitarian controversies of the early Church. This alone kind of says it all.

Another protestant article that tries to provide counter arguments as well:
[url="http://www.tektonics.org/af/comma.html"]http://www.tektonics.org/af/comma.html[/url]

Here is an attempted defense of the Johannine Comma (its weak and doesn't do justice to the evidence but at least its something I suppose):
[url="http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html"]http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

This is from Catholic Answers:
[quote]A: The Johannine Gloss or Johannine Comma, as it is more commonly known, is an interpolated passage which appears in 1 John 5:7-8, shown here in brackets: "For there are three who bear witness [in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth]: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains that "the bracketed phrases appear in the [Vulgate] version of the Bible, the official version of the Sacred Scriptures for the Latin Rite of the Church. Among scholars these phrases are commonly called the 'Johannine Comma.' On the basis of manuscript evidence scholars seriously question their authenticity. The Comma is absent in all the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the exception of four rather recent manuscripts that date from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries.

"The Comma is lacking in such ancient Oriental versions as the Peshitta, Philoxenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. While the majority of the Latin manuscripts of 1 John do contain the Comma, the earlier and better manuscripts, both the Old Latin and the Vulgate versions, lack it. The earliest manuscript in which it appears dates from the ninth century. '

"The Fathers of the East do not quote or refer to the Johannine Comma in their Christological controversies. This omission indicates that the Comma was not part of the biblical text of their time, for they surely would have used it had it been in the text. Some fourth-century Latin writers, while referring to 1 John 5:8b and giving this a Trinitarian interpretation, failed to give any indication that they knew of the existence of the Comma as a scriptural passage.

"Due to the overcritical spirit that was prevalent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Church considered it necessary in its decree of the Holy Office of January 13,1897 to caution its scholars against rashly rejecting or doubting the authenticity of this passage. However, in a decree of June 2, .1927, the Holy Office clarified its earlier statement in declaring that scholars may be inclined to doubt or reject the authenticity of the Johannine Comma subject to any forthcoming judgment of the Church. No scholar any longer accepts its authenticity. But even though the Comma is not a biblical passage, it is a firm witness to the fact that the faith of the [early] Christian was fully Trinitarian." [/quote]

Here is what our dear radtrad Robert Sungenis has to say about it:
[quote]R. Sungenis: This is a tough issue because there is merit on both sides. Just to shed some quick light on it for you, there is one edition of the Vulgate (the Wordsworth edition, 1899) that does not have the Johannine Comma. The Clementine Vulgate is the one that contains the Comma. Still, the Clementine edition is the earlier one, by at least two centuries.
Here is the problem. In the 1800s archeologists found a number of new Greek manuscripts of the NT. Two of the major finds are Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These codices disagreed in some minor places with the Received Greek text from the Middle Ages.

Since Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were judged to be from the 4-5th centuries, they were often given more authoritative weight than some of the Middle Age manuscripts (although the Middle Age manuscripts were copies of copies of copies, etc, and thus they had authority too, but not as much authority. So for a while, everyone was revising their Bibles in the late 1800s and early-mid 1900s based on the supposed authority of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. So you will see a lot of the Bibles which were translated at this time (1880-1980) be somewhat free-wheeling with their changes in the Greek text, the RSV included. This is the "science" of Textual Criticism.
But then a few chinks were found in the armour. Papyri fragments that were discovered in the 1900s, and which are dated earlier than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, showed discrepancies not only between the papyri and the two codices, but they also began to discover discrepancies between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus themselves. So the brakes were begriming to be put on the revision of Bibles, and more weight was given to the Vulgate and Received Greek Texts.

Also, they were also finding that the papyri evidence agreed more with the Received Greek text (from the Middle Ages) than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
With 1 John 5:7, however, the problem is a little more difficult, since many of the Middle Age Greek manuscripts agree with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in excising the Johannine Comma from the text. Moreover, there are over a dozen Early Fathers who, as we know from their quotes of 1 John 5:7, did not contain the Comma in their letters or manuscripts (e.g., Ireneaus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine and many more), and there are very few Fathers (John Cassian and Fulgentius) who have the Comma. Many of the Fathers who didn't have the Comma were very early in the Church's history.

Interestingly enough, three Middle Age manuscripts do not have the Comma in the biblical text but they include it in the margin, so we know that everyone was having a problem with this verse. Also, the Byzantine Lectionary, one Syriac version and one Coptic version of 1 John 5:7 do not contain the Comma.

So with all due respect, the probability that the Comma is an authentic part of the original Greek text is slim. Still, the translator should always make a footnote giving the alternative text in the margin, since no one can be absolutely sure. In our CASB of 1 John, we will have the Clementine Vulgate's rendering, but we will make a footnote that some versions and Greek manuscripts do not have the Comma.
[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

Paladin,

If you were serious you might want to peep this for starters:
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/trinity.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/trinity.htm[/url]

Oh, and part of the reason why I'm not particularly bothered by such things as the 'comma' issue is because I don't believe that Christianity is reducible to a book in the first place. I'm not a sola scriptura type of Christian.
Christ established a Church, and while the Scriptures happen to be at the heart of the deposit of faith, I don't see them in isolation from Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

It is not unheard of for a radtrad (or someone of similar stripe) to assert that near the end of the 19th century the Holy Office definitively forbid Catholics to even so much as question the validity of the 'Johannine Comma'. This opinion is false and is based on a misapplication of the actual statement. So that there is no doubt, here is the clarification from the Holy Office herself:

[quote]
2198 To the question: "Whether it can safely be denied, or at least called into doubt that the text of St. John in the first epistle, chapter 5, verse 7, is authentic, which read as follows: 'And there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one?' "---the response was given on January 13, 1897: In the negative. At this response there arose on June 2, 1927, the following declaration, at first given privately by the same Sacred Congregation and afterwards repeated many times, which was made a part of public law in EB n. 121 by authority of the Holy Office itself:

"This decree was passed to check the audacity of private teachers who attributed to themselves the right either of rejecting entirely the authenticity of the Johannine comma, or at least of calling it into question by their own final judgment. But it was not meant at all to prevent Catholic writers from investigating the subject more fully and, after weighing the arguments accurately on both sides, with that and temperance which the gravity of the subject requires, from inclining toward an opinion in opposition to its authenticity, provided they professed that they were ready to abide by the judgment of the Church, to which the duty was delegated by Jesus Christ not only of interpreting Holy Scripture but also of guarding it faithfully." - Declaration of the Holy Office, June 2, 1927
[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1064598' date='Sep 16 2006, 11:02 PM']
what version of the Bible do you use? I didn't know that modern translations even had that verse.
[/quote]


Douay-Rheims isn't exactly a new translation . "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1064770' date='Sep 17 2006, 01:06 AM']Here is what our dear radtrad Robert Sungenis has to say about it:
[/quote]

Oh poor Robert... When will they learn?...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1064902' date='Sep 17 2006, 02:10 AM']
Douay-Rheims isn't exactly a new translation . "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."
Oh poor Robert... When will they learn?...
[/quote]
So I take it you consider the verse to be valid? I'm not going to argue the matter, its more something for scholars to debate, but most translations these days omit that passage or put it in the footnotes.

It's a theologically orthodox statement, and one might consider it a part of tradition, but I doubt it was part of the original letter of St. John.