- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why isn't the Trinity mentioned in the bible?
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:09 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:09 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
For some reason, I found this sub-topic interesting.
Foo was apparently thinking of Clement of Alexandria, not Rome. The Alexandrian "Clement" lived two generations AFTER the Roman "Clement." The LATTER "Clement" wrote in the now-lost "Hypotyposes" that John was the last written Gospel.
The latter "Clement" was not born until 150 AD and probably wrote the lost book in question around 180 AD. So, his reference to the Gospel of John certainly does nothing to establish that it was written prior to 100 AD.
That makes more sense
Raymond E Brown, probably the greatest Johannine scholar of the 20th Century, dates John to around AD 110 and considers it to be a product of a Christian community founded by the Apostle John. (Cf. "The Community of the Beloved Apostle," by Raymond E Brown)
Like us, the early Christians wrestled with who Jesus was. Their views, especially the higher Christology, took time to develop
1
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:11 pm to L.A.
quote:I'm aware of him, but I've never read any of his work. Is it dense or accessible?
Raymond E Brown
quote:There is a certain logic to that idea, independent of having read his work. If the Gospel of John were written by an acolyte of John of Patmos, it would be consistent with "authorship" conventions of the time ... attributing one's work to one's teacher as a sort of tribute. "He taught me, so this is REALLY his work ...."
dates John to around AD 110 and considers it to be a product of a Christian community founded by the Apostle John
I would be interested in reading the basis for his apparently belief that John of Patmos and John the Apostle were the same individual. Most of the authors I have read reach the opposite conclusion.
This post was edited on 11/28/22 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:21 pm to AggieHank86
Matthew 16:13-20
New Life Version
Peter Says Jesus Is the Christ
13 Jesus came into the country of Caesarea Philippi. He asked His followers, “Who do people say that I, the Son of Man, am?” 14 They said, “Some say You are John the Baptist and some say Elijah and others say Jeremiah or one of the early preachers.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him, “Simon, son of Jonah, you are happy because you did not learn this from man. My Father in heaven has shown you this.
18 “And I tell you that you are Peter. On this rock I will build My church. The powers of hell will not be able to have power over My church. 19 I will give you the keys of the holy nation of heaven. Whatever you do not allow on earth will not have been allowed in heaven. Whatever you allow on earth will have been allowed in heaven.” 20 Then with strong words He told His followers to tell no one that He was the Christ.
(Can a son be his own father?)
Mark 8:27-30
New Life Version
Peter Says Jesus Is the Christ
27 Jesus and His followers went from there to the towns of Caesarea Philippi. As they went, He asked His followers, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 They answered, “Some say John the Baptist and some say Elijah and others say one of the early preachers.” 29 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter said, “You are the Christ.” 30 He told them with strong words that they should tell no one about Him.
(Same question)
Matthew 16-17
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
(Who is so proud of Jesus for doing what God had planed? At least two entities.)
uke 22:41-43
New International Version
41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.
(Why would God need an angel to strengthen him to do what he had planned? Why would God ask the father the remove the cup? Another entity)
Genesis 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(Again who is this us more than one entity)
New Life Version
Peter Says Jesus Is the Christ
13 Jesus came into the country of Caesarea Philippi. He asked His followers, “Who do people say that I, the Son of Man, am?” 14 They said, “Some say You are John the Baptist and some say Elijah and others say Jeremiah or one of the early preachers.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him, “Simon, son of Jonah, you are happy because you did not learn this from man. My Father in heaven has shown you this.
18 “And I tell you that you are Peter. On this rock I will build My church. The powers of hell will not be able to have power over My church. 19 I will give you the keys of the holy nation of heaven. Whatever you do not allow on earth will not have been allowed in heaven. Whatever you allow on earth will have been allowed in heaven.” 20 Then with strong words He told His followers to tell no one that He was the Christ.
(Can a son be his own father?)
Mark 8:27-30
New Life Version
Peter Says Jesus Is the Christ
27 Jesus and His followers went from there to the towns of Caesarea Philippi. As they went, He asked His followers, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 They answered, “Some say John the Baptist and some say Elijah and others say one of the early preachers.” 29 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter said, “You are the Christ.” 30 He told them with strong words that they should tell no one about Him.
(Same question)
Matthew 16-17
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
(Who is so proud of Jesus for doing what God had planed? At least two entities.)
uke 22:41-43
New International Version
41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.
(Why would God need an angel to strengthen him to do what he had planned? Why would God ask the father the remove the cup? Another entity)
Genesis 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(Again who is this us more than one entity)
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:24 pm to NewbombII
I am sold on the divinity of Christ I am not sold on the God head three. I am a believer in the God or God's of Christ and the Father. Maybe its just semantics.
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Because Yeshua bar Yusef was a pious Jew seeking to reform the corrupt priestly hierarchy. He would have been horrified at the notion that billions of people would come to see him as a deity. When Saul took the show on the road, it became necessary to expand the movement beyond Judaism.
You were once a simple PT faux libertarian hack.....now you're simply a godless and pitiful soul.....Merry Christmas Hanky
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Both
Is it dense or accessible?
It's not light reading, that's for damn sure. But an educated person can certainly manage them. I have all of his commentaries on Johannine literature and use them as reference books. I don't think I could force myself to read through them cover to cover
Btw, Brown was a Catholic priest with a PhD in theology and a second PhD in Semitic languages from Johns Hopkins University, where he studied under William F Albright. Fascinating guy. Taught for decades at Union Theological Seminary in New York and Protestant scholars from around the world travelled to New York to study under him
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:28 pm to ruffleforeskin
quote:
Why isn't the Trinity mentioned in the bible?
The concept is intact throughout the Bible and is the only viable option based off the process of elimination as well as direct references. I could list numerous direct and indirect passages that are sound in context, consistency, and the customs of the time that are all congruent to supporting the doctrine of the Trinity. The "Rapture" isn't specifically used in the Bible either but the concept is there...
Let's liken it to this. If I were to say it was a bright, sunny, mid-July day in Louisiana with no wind at noon...one could pretty much derive that it was HOT as balls...now did I use the exact word "hot"? No but even an idiot could derive that it was hot. Same goes for the Trinity...the evidence is rife regarding it and the word Trinity is used to encapsulate the concept...that's why it isn't specifically in the Bible. Doesn't make it any less real either by the word's absence.
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:29 pm to ruffleforeskin
OP:
Most of the Protestant borrowed the Roman Catholic theology on this particular issue. It's true that the word "Trinity" is not used in the Bible.
Not all Protestants believe in the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals do not. Jehovah's Witnesses do not. Also, I don't think that Mormons believe in the Trinity.
Here's a good link providing some info on what the Early Church believed about the Trinity.
LINK
Here is an on line version of the Roman Catholic Catechism. "Holy Trinity" is fully explained there.
LINK
Most of the Protestant borrowed the Roman Catholic theology on this particular issue. It's true that the word "Trinity" is not used in the Bible.
Not all Protestants believe in the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals do not. Jehovah's Witnesses do not. Also, I don't think that Mormons believe in the Trinity.
Here's a good link providing some info on what the Early Church believed about the Trinity.
LINK
Here is an on line version of the Roman Catholic Catechism. "Holy Trinity" is fully explained there.
LINK
This post was edited on 11/28/22 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:31 pm to Crimson1st
quote:The difference is that anyone who has been in Louisiana in July has EXPERIENCE with the matter and KNOWS that it will be "hot as balls."
Let's liken it to this. If I were to say it was a bright, sunny, mid-July day in Louisiana with no wind at noon...one could pretty much derive that it was HOT as balls...now did I use the exact word "hot"? No but even an idiot could derive that it was hot. Same goes for the Trinity...the evidence is rife regarding it and the word Trinity is used to encapsulate the concept...that's why it isn't specifically in the Bible
By contrast, Jesus was a Jew, and his audience were Jews. The very notion of a tripartite deity was antithetical the the entirety of Jewish religious dogma.
If Jesus had walked around ancient Palestine claiming to BE the Abrahamic God, he would have been stoned to death at the first village he entered.
This post was edited on 11/28/22 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:35 pm to ruffleforeskin
quote:
Why isn't the Trinity mentioned in the bible?
It's the beauty of he Bible. There is no chapter on "Trinity" or "Salvation" or any other doctrine. If there were, it could be ripped out and discarded.
The foundational tenants of the Bible are embedded throughout the scripture - Old Testament and New. They support each other.
This post was edited on 11/28/22 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:39 pm to AggieHank86
quote:If anyone wants proof of this, talk to any Orthodox Jew today and ask them what they think about the notion that Jesus is God/Man, or that Jesus is the 2nd person in the Trinitarian Godhead
By contrast, Jesus was a Jew, and his audience were Jews. The very notion of a tripartite deity was antithetical the the entirety of Jewish religious dogma.
The doctrine of the Trinity did not fully develop until Christianity became almost exclusively a religion of gentiles in the second through fourth centuries.
The idea of the Trinity is anathema (Greek pun intended) to an Orthodox Jew
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:40 pm to L.A.
quote:When I undertake to read and understand someone's position, I DO like to read cover-to-cover.
Both It's not light reading, that's for damn sure. But an educated person can certainly manage them.
I have all of his commentaries on Johannine literature and use them as reference books. I don't think I could force myself to read through them cover to cover
I just read an excerpt, and it is clearly the sort of work where you have to read a sentence and then sit and think about that sentence for a minute before moving to the next sentence. Nothing wrong with that ... just time-consuming.
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:40 pm to L.A.
quote:I laughed.
The idea of the Trinity is anathema (Greek pun intended) to an Orthodox Jew
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:42 pm to AggieHank86
quote:You're right. I got the two mixed up.
Foo was apparently thinking of Clement of Alexandria, not Rome. The Alexandrian "Clement" lived two generations AFTER the Roman "Clement." The LATTER "Clement" wrote in the now-lost "Hypotyposes" that John was the last written Gospel.
The latter "Clement" was not born until 150 AD and probably wrote the lost book in question around 180 AD. So, his reference to the Gospel of John certainly does nothing to establish that it was written prior to 100 AD.
That said, I think the two best evidences (other than the p52 scrap that shows an early writing) would be Irenaeus, who, about 100 years after John was supposedly written, confirmed that John was the author of that gospel book. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John.
The 2nd is actually from a gnostic heretic, strangely enough. Basilides quotes from John sometime at or before 138 AD, and that is captured in Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies.
John was around prior to 140 AD, and other early Fathers say it was written by the Apostle John (Justin Martyr writing around 150; Clement of Alexandria, as noted; and Tertullian writing around 207 AD). John is also included in the Muratorian Canon of scripture, which is dated around 180 AD. Early church history indicates that John was the last book written and it's attributed to John the Apostle.
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:42 pm to L.A.
quote:
Do you have a reference for the quote from Clement? I'd like to read that
“2nd Clement” (which is almost certainly not written by Clement) borrows a bit from the text of the Gospel of John. If you date 2nd Clement to 95-140, you get a drop dead late date of 140 for John.
Further, the John Rylands fragment is dated at 125 and contains John 18:31-33 and 37-38. Metzger, the textual expert in “conservative” scholarship, says:
quote:
proves the existence and use of the Fourth Gospel in a little provincial town along the Nile, far from its traditional place of composition (Ephesus in Asia Minor), during the first half of the second century. Had this little fragment been known during the middle of the past century, that school of New Testament criticism which was inspired by the brilliant Tuebingen professor, Ferdinand Christian Baur, could not have dated the composition of the Fourth Gospel in about 160.
JAT Robinson argues for a pre-70 date for John. D.A. Carson puts it at anywhere from 55-95, with 80-85 being most likely. J Ramsey Michaels puts it at 50-100, with it most likely being after 70 AD. Craig Keener dates it to the mid-90s.
Keener and Carson have as good a grasp as anyone on the contextual proto-Christian and Jewish literature of time. And Keener has a great little online bit on his dating of John.
LINK
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:48 pm to ruffleforeskin
I don't have time for a church history/patristics lesson or debate here, so just rattling some original NT text passages off the top of my head (and this thread will be anchored or whacked):
Before Abraham was, I Am.
He who has seen Me has seen the Father.
In the beginning was the Logos....
Why would anyone baptize someone in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, if the Son is a mere mortal? (see Matthew 28)
The Jewish leaders of Christ's time knew very well what claims Jesus was making, including when Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins.
The Trinity is all over the NT (and even OT with preincarnate Christ, Messianic prophesies etc.). So I assume your question is, why didn't the authors use the word Trinity? You could ask that about a lot of concepts that were written and preached about directly from the text.
Before Abraham was, I Am.
He who has seen Me has seen the Father.
In the beginning was the Logos....
Why would anyone baptize someone in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, if the Son is a mere mortal? (see Matthew 28)
The Jewish leaders of Christ's time knew very well what claims Jesus was making, including when Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins.
The Trinity is all over the NT (and even OT with preincarnate Christ, Messianic prophesies etc.). So I assume your question is, why didn't the authors use the word Trinity? You could ask that about a lot of concepts that were written and preached about directly from the text.
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:49 pm to the808bass
quote:
D.A. Carson
his seminary lecture series on Hebrews is amazing.
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:50 pm to McLemore
He’s a gem. I’m actually reading his commentary on John now. Slogging is probably the more appropriate word.
Posted on 11/28/22 at 1:51 pm to El Segundo Guy
quote:
Why in the frick is this even a topic on a POLITICAL TALK forum?
Churches were the first authoritarian government, hell they were the government for most of recorded history.
Page 9 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News