How to defend the trinity!

[Walpole]

So what? You are saying that people like Moshe Rosen of Jews for Jesus; notable Messianic leaders like Dan Juster, Asher Intrater, Dr. Mitch Glazer, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Joel and David Chernoff, etc. are all NOT actually Jews?

I will repeat what I have previously posted. For purposes of this discussion, when I am speaking about a Christian, I am referring to a person who believes in Jesus Christ. When I am speaking about a Jew, I am referring to an adherent of Judaism.

I am not arguing Jews cease being Jews when they convert to Christianity. That is a straw man. However, when Jews do convert to Christianity, they normally cease practicing Judaism and instead embrace and practice Christianity (i.e. they believe in Jesus Christ).

As a reminder, the Judaiziers were condemned at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

 

[Walpole]

Even your opinions don't hold up too well.
Maybe you should be quick to listen and slow to speak.


By the fifth century BC, Greek playwrights were using some basic symbols to show where actors should pause, and the scholar Aristophanes of Byzantium (c257– c185 BC) invented a formal system of punctuation.

Please point out the commas in Papyrus 66, one of the oldest partial copies of the Gospel of John. Here is a sample:



No commas. And notice it is also written in majuscule letters. Minuscule letters, like punctuation, was not invented until centuries after Christ.

Here is John 19:25 in the Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century...

Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | John |

Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus Project is an international collaboration to reunite the...

codexsinaiticus.org

Notice there are no commas here either.

 

[D-D-W]

James the Less (called such in Mark 15:40):

• The “brother” of the Lord mentioned in Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55, and Gal 1:19
• He is the brother of Joseph (Joses), Jude and Simon (Matthew 13:55)
• He is the son of Clopas (Cleophas) and Mary the wife of Clopas (Matthew 27:56, John 19:25)
• Because Mary of Clopas is listed as his mother (Matthew 27:56) and this same Mary of Clopas is listed as the Virgin Mary’s sister (John 19:25), we know that he could not be an actual uterine sibling of Jesus. This demonstrates "brother" had a much wider meaning in Jewish antiquity than simply a uterine or agnate sibling.
• He wrote the Catholic epistle which bears his name
• Tradition teaches he became the first bishop of Jerusalem and was martyred there
• His feast day, along with St. Philip, is May 3rd

James the Greater:

• He is the son of Zebedee (Matthew 26:37)
• He is the brother of the Apostle John (Matthew 17:1)
• He is the James often singled out with Peter and John (e.g. at the Transfiguration)
• Tradition teaches he took the Gospel to Hispana (modern day Spain)
• His feast day is July 25th

James the Just - which you call "less," was a Pharisee, and a teacher of Pharisees. According to our researchers, he was Rosh Yeshiva (head of the school) of one of the 2 schools of pharisees in Jerusalem the same time as leading the Jerusalem congregation. He was martyred in the mid 60s ad when some of the yeshiva students were insensed that he would not distance himself from or repudiate his famous Brother (Jesus, Yeshua) so they took him to the top of the Temple and threw him off.

Why do you call the epistle "Catholic?" Because Martin Luther wanted it removed from the NT canon?
It certainly predates the Catholic church. (came into existence 1054 ad)

 

[D-D-W]

Even your opinions don't hold up too well.
Maybe you should be quick to listen and slow to speak.


By the fifth century BC, Greek playwrights were using some basic symbols to show where actors should pause, and the scholar Aristophanes of Byzantium (c257– c185 BC) invented a formal system of punctuation.

Not used in any of the most ancient Greek biblical manuscripts.

 

[Walpole]

James the Just - which you call "less," was a Pharisee, and a teacher of Pharisees. According to our researchers, he was Rosh Yeshiva (head of the school) of one of the 2 schools of pharisees in Jerusalem the same time as leading the Jerusalem congregation. He was martyred in the mid 60s ad when some of the yeshiva students were insensed that he would not distance himself from or repudiate his famous Brother (Jesus, Yeshua) so they took him to the top of the Temple and threw him off.

Why do you call the epistle "Catholic?" Because Martin Luther wanted it removed from the NT canon?
It certainly predates the Catholic church. (came into existence 1054 ad)

There are seven Catholic epistles. They include James, 1 and 2 Peter, the three epistles of John, and Jude. They are called Catholic because they are meant for the entire Church, not just a particular one (like St. Paul's specific epistles to say the Romans).

The Catholic Church came into existence long before 1054! (This is History 101.)

 

[D-D-W]

There are seven Catholic epistles. They include James, 1 and 2 Peter, the three epistles of John, and Jude. They are called Catholic because they are meant for the entire Church, not just a particular one (like St. Paul's specific epistles to say the Romans).

The bible I grew up reading called them "general epistles." Since then I have found they were addressed mostly to the Jews who believed, while Paul wrote to the Gentiles who believed. In fact, bibles excavated that were in believing Jewish communities had a different NT order than what we see. After Acts was Hebrews, followed by the "general epistles, and then Romans and all of Paul's letters. Last was Revelation.

The Catholic Church came into existence long before 1054! (This is History 101.)

No. The Catholic church broke away from the Orthodox in the "Great Schism" of 1054. Before that it was just the Orthodox. That makes the Catholics the very first protestants, beating Martin Luther by almost 500 years.

 

[jaybo]

The bible I grew up reading called them "general epistles." Since then I have found they were addressed mostly to the Jews who believed, while Paul wrote to the Gentiles who believed. In fact, bibles excavated that were in believing Jewish communities had a different NT order than what we see. After Acts was Hebrews, followed by the "general epistles, and then Romans and all of Paul's letters. Last was Revelation.

No. The Catholic church broke away from the Orthodox in the "Great Schism" of 1054. Before that it was just the Orthodox. That makes the Catholics the very first protestants, beating Martin Luther by almost 500 years.

Catholics are most definitely not Protestants (even if you don't capitalize the word). Your statement is a false connotation. A protestant is "a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches."

 

[Walpole]

The bible I grew up reading called them "general epistles." Since then I have found they were addressed mostly to the Jews who believed, while Paul wrote to the Gentiles who believed. In fact, bibles excavated that were in believing Jewish communities had a different NT order than what we see. After Acts was Hebrews, followed by the "general epistles, and then Romans and all of Paul's letters. Last was Revelation.

Interesting.

No. The Catholic church broke away from the Orthodox in the "Great Schism" of 1054. Before that it was just the Orthodox. That makes the Catholics the very first protestants, beating Martin Luther by almost 500 years.

Constantinople was never an Apostolic see.

The Eastern and Western Churches are in schism. It is not the same as a break and forming something completely new, as was done with Luther and Protestantism.

 

[D-D-W]

Interesting.

Indeed.

Constantinople was never an Apostolic see.

But Jerusalem was.

 

[Walpole]

Indeed.

But Jerusalem was.

Yes, of course.

Interestingly, St. Luke is the only one who wrote a "conclusion" to a Gospel, with his account in the book of Acts. The book of Acts details the Church's growth from Pentecost in Jerusalem and concludes with the arrival of the faith in the city of Rome, from whence it would go out to all the world.

St. Paul praises the Roman Church with a statement not made to any other, "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world." (Romans 1:8)

It is not a coincidence that the faith of the Church came into contact and was born in the Hellenistic world. The Hebrew and Hellenistic worlds converged with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

 

[jaybo]

Not foreigners in the sense you mean; Ex-pats living in the diaspora. Please note they were DEVOUT JEWS. They were required to be in Jerusalem at that feast every year. And Passover and Tabernacles as well.

Even if they were devout Jews required to be in Jerusalem they were still foreigners. What do you think "living in the diaspora" means, if not that?

 

[D-D-W]

Even if they were devout Jews required to be in Jerusalem they were still foreigners. What do you think "living in the diaspora" means, if not that?

Luke 17:18
Was no one found who returned to give glory to God, except this foreigner?”

A Samaritan who lived nearby.

Acts 10:28
And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

Here it just means gentile.

Ephesians 2 talks about "strangers," which is used in mostly the same way. Foreign to the covenants and God's household.

 

[Edward]

My points are now thus:

1. The Jews do not believe God is a Trinity of Persons. This idea is anathema to them.
2. That God is a Trinity of Persons was revealed by Jesus Christ.
3. You cannot arrive at an orthodox Trinitarian theology using sola Scriptura.

Do the Jews not have Isaiah in their Bible?

Isaiah 6:3
3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory.../

Now is this not a direct reference to the Trinity? Are there not three? Holy, Holy, Holy. It seems clear to me.

 

[Walpole]

Do the Jews not have Isaiah in their Bible?

Yes, of course.

Isaiah 6:3
3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory.../

Can you direct me to ANY Jewish commentary stating this is a reference to God being Three Persons?

Now is this not a direct reference to the Trinity? Are there not three? Holy, Holy, Holy. It seems clear to me.

Clear to you, as a Christian.

How about to Jews? Again, can you direct me to ANY Jewish commentary which states this refers to God being Three Persons?

 

[jaybo]

Do the Jews not have Isaiah in their Bible?

Isaiah 6:3
3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory.../

Now is this not a direct reference to the Trinity? Are there not three? Holy, Holy, Holy. It seems clear to me.

Repeating a word three times is not a reference to the Trinity. It's a degree of magnitude. The rest of the verse is "His majestic splendor fills the entire earth!" (His is singular)

 

[Edward]

Repeating a word three times is not a reference to the Trinity. It's a degree of magnitude. The rest of the verse is "His majestic splendor fills the entire earth!" (His is singular)

That's correct, He is singular. He is also three. And they are Holy (God the Father), Holy (God the Son) and Holy God the Holy Spirit. He is also a God of multitudes if we are in Christ and indeed, His Body.

 

[Edward]

That's how God writes a book. There are easter eggs all over the place. If He is the God which tells the end from the beginning, then the trinity doctrine is in easter eggs in the OT.

 

[Walpole]

That's how God writes a book. There are easter eggs all over the place. If He is the God which tells the end from the beginning, then the trinity doctrine is in easter eggs in the OT.

The Bible was not written in one sitting from beginning to end as an author sits downs to write his latest novel. The Bible is revelation presented to us through the prism of history. God has not dictated the words of Scripture; rather the Scriptures bear the impression of a history that He has been guiding from the beginning.

You introduced the quotation from St. Augustine, whereby he wrote, "The New Testament is hidden in the Old, the Old is made clear by the New." It is only in light of revelation via Jesus Christ do we see that God is Three Persons. In is only in light of this revelation can the Old Testament be made clear.

The Scriptures, in light of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, now reveal to us who God really is: The Trinity wanting from all eternity to share His life with man. Put another way, the Bible reveals why God chose to enter into history and becoming man.

 

[Edward]

The Bible was not written in one sitting from beginning to end as an author sits downs to write his latest novel. The Bible is revelation presented to us through the prism of history. God has not dictated the words of Scripture; rather the Scriptures bear the impression of a history that He has been guiding from the beginning.

My own studies have given me the understanding that, yes, scripture was dictated to the authors who penned them even down to the punctuation and spaces between the words. So I way disagree with you here.

You introduced the quotation from St. Augustine, whereby he wrote, "The New Testament is hidden in the Old, the Old is made clear by the New." It is only in light of revelation via Jesus Christ do we see that God is Three Persons. In is only in light of this revelation can the Old Testament be made clear.

I'll buy that and agree with you here.

The Scriptures, in light of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, now reveal to us who God really is: The Trinity wanting from all eternity to share His life with man. Put another way, the Bible reveals why God chose to enter into history and becoming man.

Well said. I agree.

 

[OzSpen]

Please point out the commas in Papyrus 66, one of the oldest partial copies of the Gospel of John. Here is a sample:

View attachment 12588

No commas. And notice it is also written in majuscule letters. Minuscule letters, like punctuation, was not invented until centuries after Christ.

Here is John 19:25 in the Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century...

Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | John |

Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus Project is an international collaboration to reunite the...

codexsinaiticus.org

Notice there are no commas here either.

Correction. It is written in Uncial (capital) letters.

This is an example of a portion of the NT written in cursive letters (running writing):


Codex Ebnerianus, Minuscule 105, (12th), John 1:5b-10

Oz