The Trinity revisited

Nosborne:

It seems to me undeniable, based on the texts that have survived, that Jesus was a Jew, his earliest principal followers were Jews, and at least the church in Jerusalem was "Jewish." Certainly, this is not in dispute among the vast majority of early church historians.

Whether Jesus was a Rabbi, was thought of as a Rabbi, or acted in ways consistent with rabbinic figures of his day, I cannot begin to guess.

Would it be acceptable to say that early Christians emerged from the Jewish community in Palestine, which seems to be historically true, without saying that Christianity emerged from Judaism (except perhaps for a few minor things like monotheism)?

marilynd

 

The differences between my position and Osborne's are that we're focusing on different aspects of His ministry.

Of course He was a standard rabbi in many respects. He was very often called "rabbi" (which just meant teacher), He taught in the synogogues, He used Jewish tradition and imagery to teach His points, He used the Socratic (actually, more aptly called Hebraic rabbinical) method of teaching through questions, He made heavy use of the Law, Scriptures and Prophets to teach His points, He used hyperbole to make points (the beam in the eye, for example), He quoted incessantly from the Hebraic Scriptures or made veiled references to them, He observed the Law.

But He was also different. Osborne's right, He spoke on His own authority, not that of the Law of Moses. That was a radical departure, and that, among other things, got Him crucified.

But it's not accurate to say He wasn't as Jewish as Jewish can be.

 

How do you know so much? And would you care to be my part-time online rabbi? And finally, ever hear of Rabbi Daniel Lancaster?

 

In any event, at the very least we can all come to a consensus that there is some dichotomy that can be recognized between mind and body. And that, if we are spiritual beings--apparently a big "if" for you--that there would also be a dichotomy between that and the other two.

Can you tell me any alternative short of just stating that we're nothing but matter?

 

I personally find the two inseperable. The NT doesn't mean much without the OT, just like my faith (as a wild olive branch) doesn't mean much without reference to the vine upon which I've been grafted.

But you're right, to their detriment, many christians have attempted to deny that their faith emerged from Judaism.

 

Which means that, ipso facto, there is no Trinity actually expressed. The Trinity may only be inferred. But it can only be inferred by someone who already has a concept of the Trinity.

If you depended on John 1 itself, you could conclude, at best, that God was a duality, not a trinity. See how easy it is to read back into Scripture?

Ergo, John 1, by itself, cannot be used as proof of a Gospel assertion of a triune God.

marilynd

 

That's why I've referred to the 'God's instrument' idea.

Imagine God secumbing to one of his periodic emotional fits and smiting somebody with a plague of locusts. Who is doing the smiting, God or a bunch of insects? I think that the Jews would have answered 'God'. But does that mean that God literally incarnated in a cloud of divine holy locusts?

My layman's impression is that the Messiah concept suffers from the same ambiguity. The Messiah is God's instrument. God acts through the actions of the Messiah. The Messiah's actions are simultaneously God's actions. The divine/non-divine distinction isn't always as quite as clear as we might like.

Again, my layman's impression is that this instrumentality stuff had already been kind of transcendentalized by the time of Jesus. God's 'Wisdom', his 'Word' and so on were already being personified by some Jews at least. So when God originally spoke reality into existence, his Word, imagined as a distinct person, went forth from his mouth (or whatever) and actually did the deed. But despite the interposition of the new intermediary, it was still somehow God that was doing the creating.

Now I don't know how orthodox this kind of thinking was within the Judaism of the time. Conceivably it was some ancient Jewish equivalent of "new age" beliefs or something, a little out-there. But I do think that we see it reflected in the early Christian ideas. The first chapter of the gospel of John draws heavily on it.

 

Actually, I think there are many Scriptural and theological ties between Judaism and Christianity, though probably not quite in the way you mean. Christianity, I think, is much closer to Judaism than it is to Islam, or even than Islam is to Judaism.

My point, however, was to respond to Nosborne's suggestion that Christianity was somehow an all-Greek construct without Jewish antecedents.

marilynd

 

No, it's not irrefutable proof of a Trinity standing alone--I never said it was. In fact, I knew full well the point you're making now as I wrote my earlier post. I knew that John 1 said zilch about the Holy Spirit. But it does get you two-thirds of the way there, pretty much irrefutably if you accept the Scriptures as authoritative.

But the Trinity is also more than just a medieval concept forced artificially upon the Scriptures. It's a very reasonable inference. And one of the significant aspects of the trinity, the fact of something being two things at once (the Word both being with G-d and being G-d) are right there in John 1. That goes beyond just stating Jesus' divinity, it states His singularity with G-d, His status as having created the Universe. That's a step beyond just being divine.

The inclusion of the Holy Spirit (as well as the concept of the Trinity as a whole or G-d's curious singular yet simultaneously multiple nature) is inferred from other Scriptures, such as (I can't remember the precise reference) "G-d is spirit, He must be worshipped in spirit", the scene of Jesus' baptism by His cousin John with all elements of the trinity present, the intriguing visit of G-d to Abraham, when Abraham looked up and saw three men, the sometimes singular, sometimes plural description of G-d in the creation accounts (and don't give me this stuff about the plurality of majesty).

I'm not saying the Trinity is as bedrock as Christ's divinity and oneness with G-d, but it seems like the best conclusion based on the evidence at hand. And I do happen to know a little something about evidence, even if it's of a different sort.

But, all things considered, I appreciate your comments, your knowledge (which is obviously superior to mine), and your chiding when I fail to support a point with pure logic.

 

It's been 20 years since I studied Plato, but I seem to recall him talking about that in Book IX of the 'Republic'.

Just as there are three parts of the soul, there are three types of men in his ideal (totalitarian) state. The businessman is a reflection of the lowest appetitive part of the soul (Plato was a Democrat!). Plants have this. The adventurer reflects the active part, animals have this. In the philosopher the rational part, the part unique to man, takes the lead.

But I don't recall any suggesion that there are three "persons", three distinct individuals, in each of our heads.

It seems to me that if early Christianity derived from Greek thinking, then somebody would have mentioned those ideas explicitly and cited a Greek writer here and there.

But all of the earliest Christian writings that we have, including the new testament, constantly cite Hebrew scripture, usually with no explanation, simply assuming that their readers will catch and understand all the subtle references.

To my knowledge the Christians never refer to a non-Jewish writer until we get to the apologists of the second century that Marilyn has been talking about.

 

Which is why it's Judeo-Christian, not Hellenic-Christian.

 

The word Rabbi is usually translated as "my teacher" or "my master" and can therefore be applied by any group of students to any leader. As Matt rightly points out, we cannot see the term used THEN and assume that it meant THEN what it means NOW (unless we are Justice Scalia, right Dr. Faustus?)

Certainly the time was one of intellectual ferment; there were many Jewish cults, some even monastic which is weird from the perspective of modern Judaism.

Still I am by NO means convinced that the doctrine of the trinity came from any Jewish source. I don't think that normative Judaism has ever accepted a hydraheaded diety.

Now then, since I have a Hebrew "ringer" posting here, permit me to be very careful...

There ARE multiple names of God in Torah and the various writings. One is even female. That particular name (rough translation is "spirit" but not really; the usual Torah term for spirit or soul is "nefesh") is even spoken of as being "sent" by God for various business purposes.

(Since I am speaking textually, allow me to say further that the name of God in the first part of Genesis takes what looks like a plural form! It isn't, though, as can be told by the verb forms accompanying it. It is third person singular masculine.)

I BELIEVE that this conceit is much younger than Torah and maybe even younger than Christianity which makes me wonder if WE borrowed it from YOU!

 

Neither does Christianity.

Tritheism would indicate three gods or three heads. Christians are not tritheists, they are trinitarians. There is a difference.

 

AHHHHH!!!

That HURTS!

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

 

Of course, you are assuming the accuracy of this account. Was there really a audible voice of God saying what he said, and was there actually a dove which everyone identified as the holy spirit. Or are we talking about an account of Jesus baptism as retold many decades later, with a theological interpretation and some poetic licence added?

 

To give your question some authority let me quote Dr. Norman Geisler:

"Tritheism is the belief that there are three gods or three separate beings in the Godhead. Few, if any, have held ths view consciously, though unwittingly many have fallen into it verbally by their incautious language about the Godhead. By correctly stressing the three persons as distinct, it is easy to slip into the language of tritheism, which wrongly posits three separate beings."


The Trinity is three persons in one God.

Continuing with Geisler, "...God is a triunity: He is a plurality within unity. God has a plurality of persons and a unity of essence; God is three persons in one nature. There is only one "What" (essence) in God, but there are three "Whos" (persons) in that one What."

 

One way to understand this would be to quote (from memory; don't have a copy in front of me, sorry) one of te earliest Christian responses to the Islamic charge of Christian "polytheism", written by John of Damascus. It was suggested by Muslims that the Christians were guilty of shirk, that is, idolatrous association of other beings with God. John's response was,

(from De haeresibus)

(no offense meant to anyone by the strong language, which was part of the polemical style of late antiquity)

Peace,

Matt

 

As to the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of any aspect of the life of Yshua, Matthew and John were both disciples and therefore would have been part of the inner circle and therefore eyewitnesses. Mark was one of Peter's converts and might have been there as an eyewitness, albeit in a more "outer circle" sort of way. Luke was one of Paul's converts and openly admits that he was not an eyewitness. Both Mark and Luke had plenty of opportunity to interview eyewitnesses before setting down to paper their lives of Yshua. Perhaps it bothers you that there are no surviving contemporaneous histories of the life of Yshua written by non-Christians. Could you think of any reason why a non-Christian living in first century Israel would even think it worthwhile to write a history of the life of Yshua. Mark was written during the AD 50s and Matthew and Luke during the AD 60s, which would be twentysome and thirtysome years after the fact. Does it surprise you that a religious individual might put a religious interpretation on the events that he/she writes about? Anyone who records an historical event places some interpretation or other upon the event.

 

I believe this is correct. While there is no systematic presentation of the Trinity in the NT, it is inferred by the personhood andd prerogatives noted for the Father, Word and Holy Spirit. All receive worship, all are named as God in the NT Scriptures (for an example of how the Word/Son is so named in the OT, perhaps Isaiah 9:6 can fit into this category). This fits with the fact that Jewish theology was often presented anecdoatally rather than "systematically".

As is the case in any society or culture, in order for one's message to be comprehended, one must use commonly understood language of discourse, which in the wider Greek-speaking world was the language and vocabulary (and even concepts) of Middle Platonism (and not too much later, Neoplatonism). In the wider Greek-speaking and thinking world, the questions being asked and the issues arising concerning God were less the "Who" questions associated with Jewish discourse than the "What" questions more akin to Greek metaphysics; hence the need to clearly define God and His internal relationships using the terminology of Nicaea (but always depending upon Scripture in terms of thought, if not always vocabulary, since such things can scarcely be understood apart from revelation).

(snip)

I dare say it did! ->

Peace,

Matt

 

The Tanakh (OT) is quoted as Scripture, as the authoritative source; however, by way of explanatory teaching, Paul quotes from Aratus (Acts 17:28), Menander (1 Corinthians 15:33) and Epimenides (Titus 1:12). Jude also quotes the Jewish apocryphal 1 Enoch (Jude 14f). In each of these cases, they were using illustrations from popular literature with which their immediate audiences presumably would have been familiar, but again that is a communication issue rather than an issue of the source of teaching or aurthority.

Just a tweak to an overall good point (;->.

Peace,

Matt