The Trinity

[Drew]

Post 1 of 2: Argument that Jesus sees Himself as YHWH returning to Israel

One Old Testament theme often overlooked is the theme of the promised return of YHWH to Zion – that though God has abandoned His people through the exile, He will, one day, return to them. A wide range of Old Testament texts embody this hope. Here are just two:

Ezekiel 43:1-7:

Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; 2and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east[ And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. 3And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. 4And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate facing toward the east. 5And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. 6Then I heard one speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me. 7He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die,…

Remember the context. The Jews are in a state of exile. The temple had been abandoned by God and destroyed. This vision given to Ezekiel constitutes a promise that God will return to inhabit the “temple†once more.

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

This material, just like the Ezekiel text, was written during the time of exile. Once more we have a promised return of God to the temple.

These and other texts express a deep hope of the Jewish nation – the God that had abandoned them will one day return to them. When we forget such expectations, and reduce the discussion of Jesus’ divinity to technical matters about the boundaries between the concept of “man†and of “godâ€, we entirely overlook what really matters – the Jewish matrix of expectation into which Jesus was born. I suggest the Biblically literate 1st century Jew would be anticipating this return. If that Jew were being true to the Biblical tradition, he would at least be open to the possibility that YHWH might return to His people in the form of a “humanâ€. From the famous throne chariot vision of Ezekiel 1:

And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 26Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man.

I want to be clear: this and other texts such as Daniel 7 only hint at a possibility - there is no strong and pervasive theme in the Old Testament that clearly anticipates the notion of God incarnated in the form of man. But, and this is key, neither is such a possibility over-ruled, with texts like this one from Ezekiel and the one from Daniel 7 giving the hint of the possibility a divine human figure.

This is why arguments against Jesus’ divinity that are grounded in conceptual distinction entirely miss the point (e.g. Jesus is man, and a man cannot be God, Jesus is the “son†of God and therefore cannot be God, etc.). The real issue is the grand plan of covenantal redemption that we see woven through both testaments. If honouring the coherence of that story leads us to see Jesus as divine, so be it – the conceptual distinctions are derivative, not fundamental.

As I argue below, Jesus clearly sees Himself as fitting into the story in a specific way – it is His life’s work to embody the promised return of YHWH to Zion. And that makes Him “divineâ€, with divinity understood in the appropriate framework – not the framework of conceptual categories that have little connection to large Biblical narrative of covenantal redemption, but rather in the context of a God who promised to return to His people. In that framework, we have a young Jew named Jesus who saw Himself as called to the vocation of implementing that promised return.

Part 2 to follow.....

 

[Drew]

Post 1 of 2: Argument that Jesus sees Himself as YHWH returning to Israel

Much of the gospel of Luke is the story of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Towards the end of that journey, Jesus tells the parable of the returning king – the story of a king who goes away and then returns to call his servants to account. This parable is found in Luke 19:11 and following.

This parable has almost universally been understood to constitute a statement by Jesus that He will go away, though crucifixion, resurrection, and then ascension, only to return in the future (i.e. in the 2nd coming). On such a reading, Jesus sets Himself, as He tells the parable, in the role of the king who is about to leave.

I suggest this is not the correct reading. Instead, we should understand that in telling the parable, Jesus is setting Himself in the role of the returning king, not the departing one. On such a reading, the departing king represents YHWH leaving his people by abandoning the temple and sending the Jews into exile, something that lies in the past of Jesus’ audience. If this interpretation is correct, Jesus can logically fill only one role in the parable: YHWH returning to Zion as promised. And this means, of course, that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel’s God.

Why should we read the parable this way? Well, for starters, the parable does not really work on its traditional reading. Note what happens to the third servant – all that he has is taken from him. This really cannot be reconciled with the notion that the returning King is Jesus at his 2nd coming, calling his people to account. Nowhere in the New Testament is there even the slightest suggestion that any of Jesus’ followers will be cast out and lose all at Jesus’ 2nd coming as the parable would seem to suggest on the traditional reading. It is clear from the scriptures that that believers who “build with hay and stubble” will still be saved. So it is very hard to make the parable work with Jesus as the King about to go away and return at a 2nd coming.

Besides, consideration of what happens next makes it clear that Jesus is setting himself in the role of the returning king. Note what happens after parable is told – Jesus rides on to Jerusalem and, upon seeing it, says the following:

"If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43"For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

Clearly, Jesus sees Himself as the King returning in visitation, returning to judge Jerusalem who is set in the role of the unfaithful 3rd servant. If, as many believe, the returning King in the parable is Jesus at His second coming, then it would be deeply misleading for Jesus to give the parable then immediately ride into Jerusalem as He does, to palm branches waving no less, with all the imagery of a returning King that this action clearly evokes. No. Jesus clearly intends his listeners to understand that He is the returning King, not the departing one. In giving this parable and then riding into the royal city as a king, Jesus is clearly telling us that He, through this teaching and these actions, is embodying the fulfillment of the hoped for return of YHWH to his people. And what does Jesus do next?:

Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'

Note how this maps perfectly to this prophecy about the return of YHWH to his people:

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

The overall picture is clear. As per an earlier post, we have the strong Biblical tradition of the promised return of YHWH to Zion (and his temple) after the time of the exile. Now here, in Luke, we have the journey of a young Jew named Jesus to Jerusalem. As He is about to enter, He tells a parable of a king who goes away and then returns. Next, He laments over Jerusalem and declares that she is not recognizing His mission as a “visitation”. In the context of Jews who saw themselves still in exile, and still awaiting the return of YHWH, Jesus’ intended meaning is clear. In saying that Jerusalem has not recognized her visitation, He is saying that she has failed to recognize that, in His very actions, the promised return of YHWH to Zion is being fulfilled. And then Jesus enters the temple and overturns the tables in judgement, fulfilling the Malach 3 promise that YHWH will come suddenly to the temple in judgement. The coherence of this picture is compelling. Jesus is embodying the return of YHWH to Zion. And that, of course, makes Him the embodiment of Israel’s God.

This is why arguments like “Jesus cannot be divine since Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted” are a spectacular exercise in missing the point. Such arguments assume a model for the nature of God-hood and human-ness and then leverage that assumption to make the case against Jesus’ divinity. Well, we should be getting our concepts of who YHWH is from the Old Testament, not from conceptual definitions with no connection to the Jewish worldview. And in the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who has left His people and promised to return. When Jesus, then, so obviously sees Himself as embodying that promised return, that, and not vague conceptual arguments, makes the case that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel’s God. Again, the conceptual arguments you make are deeply misleading since they are built on a model of the “boundaries” between god and man that make no reference at all to the Scriptures.

 

[Free]

And you believe in Modalism - that Jesus is basically a phantom of the emanated "being". That you do not acknowledge Jesus as a separate person to the father - this view has always been considered as Modalism. Jesus and the Father are not numerically 'one' - they are numerically 'two' - they are separate and distinct persons.

You are not following what I am saying as what I believe most certainly isn't Modalism. I have always acknowledged that the Father and Son are separate and distinct, just as the Holy Spirit is separate and distinct. That is not modalism. One being that is God, one essence, three distinct persons.

Numerically one but a compound unity, as the word 'one' can mean and how it is often used.

The Trinity is a unity of 3 separate and distinct persons. They are not numerically 'one'; they are 'one' in will and purpose. You are disputing this by saying that Jesus and the father are numerically 'one', not two. This is Modalism.

"That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us.
And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.
I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them, as you have loved me."
(John 17:21-22)

According to the definition you have given on 'one'; these MUST all be numerically 'one'.

Yes, of course Jesus meant numerically one. Do you think he meant 'two' or 'ten' or any other number? It seems as though you don't understand the idea of a 'compound unity.' One always means one but it can be absolute unity or it can be a compound unity.

Are far as the Trinity goes, they are numerically one--there is only one God--but they are three distinct "persons". This is what we must make sense of. We certainly cannot make them all the same person, as in Modalism, but we certainly cannot say they are so distinct that they are three separate Gods, as you have done, as that is polytheism. We must hold to monotheism.

Your views on the trinity (and many other things) are very discordant.

You have yet to show otherwise.

 

[smaller]

This thread seems to have gotten sidetracked on the subject of Jesus' physical return to Israel being some sort of fulfillment of some sort.

As it pertains to the TRINITY, God is in fact consistently patternistic. In the beginning of the Book was God. The disclosure of His Seed, of His Christ comes early in the text, but was with God in the beginning. It was an advance disclosure of God's Own Arrival into His Creation through the seed of Eve.

In the order of God His Fleshly arrival is exactly the way that God determines and the specific pattern that Paul laid out in 1 Cor. 15 which is familiar territory to many good students of the text as this: First the natural. Jesus came in natural flesh, sinless as it was, it was a natural or fleshly arrival. The Second sequence in this pattern is: Then the Spiritual. Which Jesus delivered to Israel in the Promise of sending His Own Spirit to live and to dwell in them. This is the portion that has been transpiring since Pentecost in those God Himself has elected to receive and to abide within. This is the Holy Spirit in us:

2 Corinthians 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The pattern of the Trinity is laid out quite well in these matters as a progression from the Father to the Son, God Himself in Flesh and finally The Spirit.

First the natural, then the spiritual.

This latter portion, the arrival of the Spirit is presently a deposit. But it should rightfully contain a great deal of respect between us all as we observe these matters. It is certainly not worth diminishing the Spirit of God in Christ in others.

I try to keep in mind that any here who have called upon the Lord do for a fact have Him abiding in them, as covered as that may be to most of us in these observations.

The understandings are often only as hard as we try to make them.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Tri Unity]

Your response to my post was:

1. Part strawman. I never said anything that would justify this:

2. Question-begging;

3. Patronizing.

I will now make my actual argument and we will see if you actually engage it.

If you do, you will be the first. When, in the past, I have presented this argument, people who would deny the essential unity of Jesus and God the Father have, despite multiple reminders, never actually engaged it.

I wonder why?

Note: All I am presently doing is reponding to my perception that you hold that there is not some kind of unity of essence between Jesus and the Father. To say this does not, on my understanding anyway, deny that Jesus and the Father are separate persons. You may disagree. OK, we'll have that discussion if necessary. I do not even know what "Modalism" means but others tell me I am not a modalist. Again, all I am presently arguing for is that Jesus sees Himself as being so "united" with the Father that He can say "God promised to return to you: He is doing so through me. Therefore, I am, in some sense at least, saying "I and the Father are indeed one"

Stand by please.

Patronizing? Yes. Your original post was somewhat pompous, so a patronizing response seemed appropriate.

My argument was/is against free, who stated that Jesus and the Father are numerically one, not 'one' in unification. They have a singularity of will and purpose, as you had pointed out, but not a singularity of identity. You seem to be now agreeing with me.

Modalism stated that the distinction of the Father and Son was only superficial, that the two (numerically) were really one (numerically). The distinction observed, according to them, was only in respect to the ministry which was portrayed. The persons of the Godhead were really just MODES (or faces) of the one and same God. This view has been lately adopted by people like free who have not discerned the individual persons in the Godhead. They have exchanged the word 'mode' for 'person', but in reality it is the same formula for modalism which was denounced as Sabellianism in the 3rd century. Eventually this heresy has resurfaced under a different strategy by adopting the Nicene Creed but explaining the Creed through the eyes of Modalism.

 

[Tri Unity]

This is why arguments like “Jesus cannot be divinesince Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted†are a spectacular exercisein missing the point.

Your argument is not relevant to the discussion. You are trying to argue for the divinity of Jesus. This is not being discussed or challenged. You have missed the point. The discussion with free was whether or not Jesus ia numerically one with the Father (meaning the Father and Son are not two, they are numerically one), or whether Jesus is 'one' with the Father by unification.

 

[Drew]

Your argument is not relevant to the discussion. You are trying to argue for the divinity of Jesus. This is not being discussed or challenged. You have missed the point. The discussion with free was whether or not Jesus ia numerically one with the Father (meaning the Father and Son are not two, they are numerically one), or whether Jesus is 'one' with the Father by unification.

I have not missed the point. I am not simply arguing for the divinity of Jesus. I am showing that His journey to Jerusalem constitutes (is) the promised return of YHWH to Zion, thereby establishing an essential unity between Himself and Jesus.

If my friend Fred said "I will return to Montreal" and then I argued that my return to Montreal constitutes the fulfillment of that promise. I am effectively saying "I am Fred".

Now please, challenge the actual argument, if you can.

 

[Drew]

PatronizingNow tell us, where, precisely, have I been "pompous"?

Good luck....

Still waiting.....

 

[Tri Unity]

You are not following what I am saying as what I believe most certainly isn't Modalism. I have always acknowledged that the Father and Son are separate and distinct, just as the Holy Spirit is separate and distinct. That is not modalism. One being that is God, one essence, three distinct persons.

God is three distinct persons; not one person. The Godhead is 'one' in unity and singularity, and there are three seperate persons within the Godhead who may each equally be recognized as God without there needing to be Polytheism.

When an envoy speaks on behalf of a king, we do not assume that there are two kings, although there are now two who speak in the name of the King - the King and his envoy. The singularity remains the same.

Jesus came in the name of His Father. He is of the same essence with the Father. Jesus was "begotten, not made, before all things". This has always been the understanding of the Church. It was only when Arianism focused on the idea that "there was a time when Jesus was not" that a more robust language was adopted to shield against Arianism.

Numerically one but a compound unity, as the word 'one' can mean and how it is often used.

The numerically one idea came from the adoption of Homoousios (same essence) which was denounced several times in church councils because of this confusion you now have. Jesus and the Father can have the same essence without being numerically one. God has 'numerically one' essence. The Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all three seperate divine persons. They are three persons, not one person. They share divinity, and this divinity is singular. There cannot be polytheism when there is one singular divine essence which only these three share.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Now tell us, where, precisely, have I been "pompous"?

You pompously disagreed with Tri-Unity by ... disagreeing with Tri-Unity. :toofunny

 

[Tri Unity]

I have not missed the point. I am not simply arguing for the divinity of Jesus. I am showing that His journey to Jerusalem constitutes (is) the promised return of YHWH to Zion, thereby establishing an essential unity between Himself and Jesus.

If my friend Fred said "I will return to Montreal" and then I argued that my return to Montreal constitutes the fulfillment of that promise. I am effectively saying "I am Fred".

Now please, challenge the actual argument, if you can.

Your argument is not related to our discussion.

 

[Tri Unity]

You pompously disagreed with Tri-Unity by ... disagreeing with Tri-Unity.

You will jump in on any action which gives you opportunity to attack me. You don't even understand what is being discussed.

 

[Pizzaguy]

You will jump in on any action which gives you opportunity to attack me.

Wrong, you accused Drew of being disrespectful, all he did was politely disagree and ask some questions. My intent was to voice my opinion to him in public that he did not commit the offense that you indicated he did. Just like you were public in your accusation.

You don't even understand what is being discussed.

Apparently, I understand the trinity as well as you do - but prefer to sit on the sidelines, especially since Drew is now here. I'm gonna need popcorn and a 2 liter coke for this!

Please carry on!

 

[farouk]

God the Father is sometime referred to as the Fount of Deity. It is of the Father that the Son is begotten. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Thus it is not unreasonable to refer to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Persons of the Trinity, even though they are equal.

 

[DiscipleDave]

Does anyone really get The Trinity? Whenever I ask people, I get John 1:1 quotes and a bunch of sort of disconnected thoughts.

And yeah I've heard all the stuff like I am my father's son, my daughter's father,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

In Heaven, there is a Throne, and this Throne has three seats on it, the one in the middle is raised from the other two on its left and right. The Father, which is not a physical being, but pure light, pure love is present in the middle of the Throne, and encompasses the whole throne, no man has seen Him. To the right sitting on the Throne is Jesus Christ, creator of all physical things, to the left sitting on the Throne is the Holy Ghost which is the understanding and wisdom to make all physical things that Jesus created work together and maintain. these three are God.

Is it not known that Scriptures interprets Scriptures? yes it is, and that is True. Do we have Scriptures that describe how more then one thing can actually be one? Yes we do. Scriptures quite clearly teaches us that a husband and wife are no longer two, but they are ONE. Oh, now i understand How Jesus and the Father are ONE, in the same way. Even as we are ONE with them if we walk in Him.

If a person can understand and grasp the understanding of a husband and a wife are no longer Two, but they are ONE flesh, then it will be easy for them to understand the trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are no longer three, but one flesh. Even as the husband and the wife are no longer two, but one flesh. Do you see how Scriptures has revealed to us the simplicity in understanding the trinity. Who then is the author of confusion? Is it not satan? God very plainly describes perfectly how two can be one. why then is it sooooo difficult to understand how three can be one? its not, man makes it difficult by and through his own interpretations.

hope this has helped in some way.

^i^

 

[Fred Marsh]

I did a recent in depth study and teaching on this and the simpliest way to explain it is as follows.
Isaiah 9:6 states Jesus will be called 'Mighty God'. The Hebrew word used here for 'Mighty' is 'Gibbor'. The full Hebrew used for 'Mighty God' is El Gibbor.
We all know that God the Father is called EL Shaddai, which means ALmighty God
The Hebrew for the 'Spirit of God' is EL Ruach.

If this were so obvious, why did the whole Jewish intelectual community miss it? They spoke Hebrew.
I believe that the trinitary aspect of the Godhead is not revealed until the New Testament when Jesus tells his disciples to go and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The Trinity is a Christian concept and Christianity does not come into being until the time of the New Testament.

 

[Fred Marsh]

Does anyone really get The Trinity? Whenever I ask people, I get John 1:1 quotes and a bunch of sort of disconnected thoughts.

And yeah I've heard all the stuff like I am my father's son, my daughter's father,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

What if three men decided to put on a play. The first man said, "I will be the author, I will write the script." The second man said, "Ok, I will play the lead role," and the third man said, "I will be the director."

In the above scenario we have three men who are equal as man to man. They have decided to create a creation (the play). Each has opted to take a specific role in the creation. This will define the relationship each of the individual men will have to the creation and it will also define what their relationship to each other will be in the context of the creation. The three men have one relationship as man to man apart from the creation and they have a different relationship in the context of the creation.

A close examination of the Bible will show that the above scenario is a close parallel to the trinitarian relationship.

 

[Asyncritus]

Fred

We can use all manner of analogies to prove almost anything. Most of them, if not all. fall flat on their faces somewhere or the other.

In your example above, you've got a committee of three. What if we said a board of directors consisting ot 10,15, 25 or so members? That would be a nonsense.

Analogies from the natural world are also dangerous - after all, a single orchid fruit capsule can contain 250.000 seeds. Nobody would argue (I hope) that there we have an analogy to the Divine.

Ther only safe analogies are the scriptural ones - and for the trinity, I can safely say that there are none. Maybe you can think of one - but if you could, you would not be using the one above.

Your comment is extremely apposite:

If this were so obvious, why did the whole Jewish intelectual community miss it? They spoke Hebrew.

An excellent question.

If the Jewish community as a whole missed it, then Jesus and all the apostles also missed it, since they were Jews as well! They spoke Hebrew, but more than that, they were inspired by God.

I believe that the trinitary aspect of the Godhead is not revealed until the New Testament when Jesus tells his disciples to go and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The use of 'in the name' of the Father, Son and H Sp, is not a trinitarian statement. Jesus is simply saying go baptize 'by the authority vested in you by the F, S and HSp'.

Just as if a policeman was to arrest you 'In the name of the Queen of England'. It isn't the Queen who's arresting you, far less the whole of England.

It is saying that 'I'm arresting you by the authority vested in me by the Queen of England'. Nothing more complicated than that.

The Trinity is a Christian concept and Christianity does not come into being until the time of the New Testament.

You're a bit early there.

If you look at google on the subject, you'll find that the trinity is

a. not a biblical concept and

b. did not come into existence till centuries after the NT was completed.

Try this: http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The Origin of the Trinity.htm

I don't know how authoritative it is, but you will find a lot of other articles on the subject if you search.

 

[Free]

Fred

We can use all manner of analogies to prove almost anything. Most of them, if not all. fall flat on their faces somewhere or the other.

In your example above, you've got a committee of three. What if we said a board of directors consisting ot 10,15, 25 or so members? That would be a nonsense.

Analogies from the natural world are also dangerous - after all, a single orchid fruit capsule can contain 250.000 seeds. Nobody would argue (I hope) that there we have an analogy to the Divine.

Ther only safe analogies are the scriptural ones - and for the trinity, I can safely say that there are none. Maybe you can think of one - but if you could, you would not be using the one above.

Yes, all analogies fail at some point. One of the better ones is the triple point of water--water at a specific pressure and temperature can exist simultaneously as a solid, liquid and gas. One substance coexisting in three different forms; each distinct yet the same substance.

An excellent question.

If the Jewish community as a whole missed it, then Jesus and all the apostles also missed it, since they were Jews as well! They spoke Hebrew, but more than that, they were inspired by God.

Please show one Jew in the Bible prior to Christ's death and resurrection that believed the Messiah was going to die and be raised as the means by which God's kingdom would be made manifest and salvation would come to the Jews, never mind all mankind. There are many similar points that could be made which show the error of your argument.

The use of 'in the name' of the Father, Son and H Sp, is not a trinitarian statement. Jesus is simply saying go baptize 'by the authority vested in you by the F, S and HSp'.

Just as if a policeman was to arrest you 'In the name of the Queen of England'. It isn't the Queen who's arresting you, far less the whole of England.

It is saying that 'I'm arresting you by the authority vested in me by the Queen of England'. Nothing more complicated than that.

It isn't more complicated but it isn't close to that either. "In the name" is singular but all that that singular name entails is found in "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." As M. R. Vincent states:

"The name, as in the Lord's Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person."

Remember, the Jews knew only one name that would fit: YHWH.

If you look at google on the subject, you'll find that the trinity is

a. not a biblical concept and

b. did not come into existence till centuries after the NT was completed.

Try this: http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

I don't know how authoritative it is, but you will find a lot of other articles on the subject if you search.

If I Google, I can find out that God doesn't even exist and this is all futile. The very opening sentence of that article is misleading and in error.

Regardless, the Trinity is most certainly biblical and it's foundations, the separate beliefs that form doctrine of the Trinity, most importantly the deity of Christ, were in existence by the early second century, within the lifetime of the followers and disciples of the Apostles.

 

[Fred Marsh]

Fred
We can use all manner of analogies to prove almost anything. Most of them, if not all. fall flat on their faces somewhere or the other.

Why do we go to the trouble of creating analogies? I think that the answer is to make difficult concepts intellectually plausible. The God of the Bible is one. There are no other gods, according to the Bible. There are three major monotheist religions that are to be traced back to the Bible (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Judaism and Islam are monotheistic with God as one Person. Only Christianity is monotheistic where the one God is manifested in three Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

One God manifested in three Persons, this is difficult to present as intellectually plausible ,but there is more than this. There is the problem of “God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility” - how can God control all things and yet hold man responsible for his own action? There is “the problem of evil” – if God is all powerful and hates evil, why does evil exist? There are also the issues of providence, predestination, and election.

The analogy we create to make the Christian doctrine of the Trinity must not only make the Trinity intellectually plausible, but it must, at the same time, include the other problem area. I maintain that my simple analogy does all this.