Bible Study Trinity

[stovebolts]

That's quite a story. Something I noticed, it may not mean anything but this is Babylonian, Marduk/Bel, and in the OT Molech/Baal. Could it be the same pagan god just a Hebrew version of the name?

The story is actually just a chapter from an amazing epic. I have Pritchards Ancient Near Eastern Texts (ANE).
The names of the gods you mentioned are not Hebrew. To answer your question though, really requires an understanding of dates and culture.

If we go back to a time before Abram, we see the king Sargon the great. His region started as Sumetian which is around the Persian gulf and extended to modern day turkey. We see El and his pantheon. (Elohim). They were gods that concerned themselves with justice and we have stories such as gilgamesh. King Gilgamesh was oppressing the people and they cry out to El, and he responds. It is a fantastic epic and parallels the genesis account in many ways. This is the start of what is to become Akadian and then later the Babalonian empire.

Meanwhile back in Canaan, you have your Molechs, Chemosh etc who are angry gods and require human sacrafice.

It was believed that gods were like kings in that they occupied territorial space. As these gods moved territories, they merged with existing gods due to their similarities.

The canaanite gods made their way into Babylon and started merging with those gods.

To explain all this properly would require a lot of work on my part. I have the resources, but I dont have the time. I have to believe somebody has already done this work, but I've never looked that hard.

Anyway, yes moloch and bal are essentially the same God except they come from different geographies and simply merged attributes when the conquering army took over that area, or made the kings from those areas came into partnerships etc.

 

[Deborah13]

Offering a belated thank you. That was more of a reply than I expected. Thanks.

 

[Deborah13]

Thanks everyone. Good information. :nod

 

[Razeontherock]

I think Deborah is on to something. Jung, the psychoanalyst into "depth psychology" and such, explored the concept of "archetypes," which gained some popularity w/ Joseph Campbell. The idea is that the ancient deities may have different names, somewhat different myths associated with them, but the core concept, identities are the same. Earth Goddess, God of the Underworld, God of War, etc.

Christianity is a real game changer, of course. Jesus began His ministry at a time when The Mystery Cults--higher forms of paganism promising salvation and rebirth--were hitting it big in the ancient world. "You must die to be born again." So, there's an element of what pagans were looking for in Christ, but He is, of course, a one of a kind Savior. CS Lewis called the myths, stories, concepts, etc. that pagans had that overlap with Christianity "good dreams," presumably given to them by God Himself. Something like that, anyway.

This concept deserves a thread! Part of the same expression is all the various flood stories ...

 

[Runner]

thanks for this. The Trinity is something I kind of just rolled with, largely because it goes with the "Christian Worldview" I'm trying to develop, but I have never done intensive review of -why- The Trinity is such a big deal within Christendom, so...thanks, again.

You make an important point that I have made in other recent posts. I know from your posts that you are an intelligent, sincere and dedicated Christian. Yet even among Christians such as yourself, how many just "roll with" key doctrines because, hey, that's what a Christian is supposed to believe? It was some time after I had been with Campus Crusade and attended a Baptist seminary that I realized I really had no depth of understanding at all - only what I had been spoon-fed and uncritically accepted (albeit often with a nagging sense of "Can that possibly be the way it really is?"). I had no idea there were multiple perspectives on almost every Christian doctrine, each of them held and defended by Christian leaders, teachers and scholars of the highest caliber.

I think there are (or ideally should be) two levels to an understanding of the Trinity:

1. An understanding of where the doctrine came from and how it developed. Things like the influence of the personification of God's "Word" and God's "Wisdom" in the OT ... the tension in the OT between the God who was "present" (walking in the Garden, writing on the tablets, wrestling with Jacob) and the God who was utterly transcendent ... the influence of Philo of Alexandria and the Greek concept of the Logos ... and the three-century struggle to come to grips with who Jesus actually was and how he fit within a monotheistic religion.

2. An understanding of the doctrine as a "blueprint" for God. What does it even mean ... how does it work ... what does it tell us about the nature of God ... how do we connect the dots?

I suppose someone could omit the first step and say "Who cares? We have the doctrine, and all that is important is to understand what it means and how it works. I can drive my car without knowing anything about it." I tend to think that time spent on the first step will greatly inform one's efforts at the second step.

The second step is no easy one in its own right. Questions such as what does it mean ... how does it work ... what does it tell us ... how do we connect the dots? resist straightforward answers even if you carefully assemble every Bible verse even remotely related to the Trinity. One may conclude, as I have, that the doctrine is less useful as a dogmatic "blueprint" than as a more open-ended "way of thinking about" the transcendent Creator, how Jesus relates to him, and how he relates to humans.

I realize that this thread is operating at the second step, but I would encourage those who are not familiar with the history of the doctrine to at least take a look at some of the excellent studies that are available. One that I found useful (and that is thoroughly Trinitarian) is The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity by Stephen R. Holmes (senior lecturer in systematic theology at the University of St. Andrews), https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ASKDDDI/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title. Holmes is also one of the contributors to Two Views On the Doctrine of the Trinity in the consistently excellent Counterpoints series, https://www.amazon.com/Two-Views-Do...25269923&sr=1-1&keywords=views+of+the+trinity.

 

[WIP]

Is it possible that sometimes we try to dig too much and instead of letting the Holy Spirit give us insight we impart our own? I know as I read through some of the debates they seem to do more toward muddying the waters than clearing them up most times.

“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 18:3 ESV

"Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
Luke 18:17 ESV

“Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
Mark 10:14-15 ESV

At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."
Matthew 11:25-26 ESV

 

[Runner]

Is it possible that sometimes we try to dig too much and instead of letting the Holy Spirit give us insight we impart our own? I know as I read through some of the debates they seem to do more toward muddying the waters than clearing them up most times.

This is certainly one legitimate perspective, but it can also be a cop-out, an excuse not to do any serious thinking. I believe the Holy Spirit gives insight throughout my prayerful process of digging and reflection, even if I am digging in a secular philosophical text or a Buddhist text for that matter.

God did bless us with analytical abilities far beyond those of a little child, and I do not think he regards it as "straying" when we use them. Often one has to do a great deal of "muddying" before "clarity" emerges.

The "little child" verses, I believe, relate to child-like trust and honesty. One can have child-like trust and honesty in the midst of the deepest digging and reflection. I don't want a child-like pilot on my next flight to Europe.

If someone with lesser curiosity and perhaps less intellectual capacity or less opportunity for study and reflection wants to say, "Hey, I simply believe in Jesus, I simply trust what the Baptist pastor tells me, and that's my Christianity," I have no objection and don't regard this individual as a lesser Christian. It's one approach; it's not mine.

My quest has always been for the Truth, or as close to it as I can get in this lifetime. If it were the Nicene Creed, fine. If it were Scientology (ha!), that's where you'd find me.

What I bristle at - I'm not accusing you, because you make a legitimate point - is when those with less curiosity and perhaps less intellectual capacity or less opportunity for study and reflection try to use the "child-like" verses to turn the tables and make curiosity, intellectual capacity, and thought and reflection into negatives: "Real Christians just believe. You smart people muck things up. This isn't what God wants."

Using as an example my post above, someone might go through the process I describe and, after long study and reflection, indeed say "The Trinity is a mysterious doctrine indeed. I simply choose to accept it without claiming to be able to explain it because I believe it best expresses the nature of God." This to me is quite different from someone who says, "The Trinity? Gee, I don't really know what it's all about. But you gotta believe it to be a Christian, don't you? So I accept it in that child-like way Jesus wants us to accept everything."

 

[stovebolts]

Runner

As opposed to laying out your blueprint and criticism, you may find leading by example more conducive by leaning in where the topic was left off.

Is there anything theological which you could build upon? I will post a continuation tomorrow, but I purposefully left out the history, but do plan to weave it in at the appropriate time.

 

[Runner]

Runner

As opposed to laying out your blueprint and criticism, you may find leading by example more conducive by leaning in where the topic was left off.

Is there anything theological which you could build upon? I will post a continuation tomorrow, but I purposefully left out the history, but do plan to weave it in at the appropriate time.

Because I am not a Trinitarian, I intentionally refrained from "theological" input since this is not a debate forum. I was responding specifically to Christ_empowered and his point that he had always accepted the doctrine of the Trinity without giving any real thought to it.

What, pray tell, was my "criticism" in your mind? Are you perhaps reading something into my posts that isn't there?

 

[stovebolts]

Because I am not a Trinitarian, I intentionally refrained from "theological" input since this is not a debate forum. I was responding specifically to Christ_empowered and his point that he had always accepted the doctrine of the Trinity without giving any real thought to it.

What, pray tell, was my "criticism" in your mind? Are you perhaps reading something into my posts that isn't there?

Your an intelligent, educated and articulate member. As such, criticism is not always a negative. Example, criticism is crucial for textual exegesis.

As a heads up, we really dont have any "debate forums" any longer. We are aggressively moving toward a theological discussion board as opposed to an apologetic.

 

[Runner]

Your an intelligent, educated and articulate member. As such, criticism is not always a negative. Example, criticism is crucial for textual exegesis.

As a heads up, we really dont have any "debate forums" any longer. We are aggressively moving toward a theological discussion board as opposed to an apologetic.

OK, but when a forum is called Biblical Growth and Study and a thread is a devotional study "of" the Trinity, I really didn't think that yet another tangent on "whether" the Trinity is biblical was appropriate. If you can deal in a meaningful way with the history of the doctrine without launching that tangent, you will be a magician. There are certain horses that have been beaten to death, and this seems to me like one of them.

FWIW, on the "Was Jesus God?" thread, I had prepared a post based on James D. G. Dunn (Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?) and his interpretation that the Rich Young Ruler passage as it appears in Mark and Luke (and as it is cleverly modified in Matthew and entirely omitted from John) is indeed an explicit denial of divinity by Jesus. My point was not that Jesus is not the second person of the Trinity but that it is dishonest to pretend the Bible is completely clear or that only troublemakers and Jehovah's Witnesses question the doctrine. Dunn, Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Durham, is consistently described as "one of the world's preeminent New Testament scholars." Alas, the moderator closed the thread just as I was attempting to post!

 

[Razeontherock]

There is no merit to any idea that the Laity didn't know who Jesus was until Constantine precipitated the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325.

The Laity knew exactly who Jesus was from the beginning, and never wavered on their understanding of the Gospel or the Godhead from the Day of Pentecost until the Nicene Creed.

Various "other" understandings on this point were all labelled as error, and named as a specific heresy, usually after the name of the heretic teaching that particular error.
One of the best parts about reading these specific heresies is the in-depth reasoning explaining exactly why they are wrong. They are very instructive if our goal is to know Jesus better; they were also far closer to the Source.

 

[stovebolts]

Razeontherock ,
I think that in our gentile minds in the age of reason, we have made the trinity an equation.

I hear it a lot... Jesus is God. This simply is not accurate and creates so much controversy because the above verbiage turns the words God and Jesus into a synonym.

If we look at who God is, we would express it this way.
God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Jesus even tells us when we baptize, we baptize in this manner.

When we view Jesus in trinity, we dont say Jesus is God, rather we say, "Jesus Christ, God the Son".

I want to dwell on a foundation I have already laid from John 14. God is a Father moved through the Spirit to love His Son well before the creation.

If we really want to know God and understand that God is love, we can only truly understand it through Trinity.

If God was numerically singular, his love would be dependent upon his creation. That would make him a lonely God before creation, not a loving God. But God is love, and we see this in Trinity, and that love flows out into creation because love is outward, and not self serving. This is why God says his creation is "very good".

Thoughts?

 

[Razeontherock]

Yes, the early Church was very adamant about this, long before the Nicene Creed.
It's so fundamental to everything else that when Rome wanted to change it the great schism that had been brewing for centuries became official in 1054. Even then, Jesus Himself wasn't changed in any teaching yet the implications are so severe that the rift is no closer to being bridged than it was 1,000 years ago.

We also have this: "the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily" Colossians 2:9

I don't recall seeing this mentioned yet in the thread, (or the recently closed one that attempted to address this topic) but we always have to ask ourselves, why did they include a passage like that? In this case it does more to make us examine our Christology than it does to spell it out clearly, and the Church at that time never had to deal with the range of error encountered over the next 500 years. Yet the claim cannot reasonably be made that the original Apostles never considered this and Trinity is some later invention. The doctrine is established early, from Jesus' own words, as you allude to here.
Our Christology is always central to Christianity, and always has room for growth.

You touch on a couple other points here that I don't want to muddy the water with but could make for great topics of discussion in their own right:

1) "before creation" makes no sense, since time began with the existence of both matter and space. The best theories in science unwittingly say Genesis 1:1 is right about this.
I of course do know what you mean by the phrase, yet there is great opportunity to seek God, and He is known for sharing His perspective of things with our species! A great Scriptural example is "from everlasting to everlasting," such as we see in Psalm 103:17. As I understand it the gist is ' from the vanishing point past, to the vanishing point future;' with the idea that it exceeds our capacity to understand, in both directions.

2) Considering God's existence alone with no creation, does creation exclaim that God 'needs' anything, in some sense? This may strike some as unreasonable, but do we have the capacity to comprehend God as being vulnerable?
Doesn't sin hurt God Himself? Or must we stick to the notion I expect we've all heard preached, that 'God doesn't need us?'
30 years ago I was ok with the idea. Now? It no longer fits with the rest of what I've come to know of God.
Psalm 19 speaks to this; so does the Cross. Why does Jesus tell us to take up our own cross if He doesn't in some sense need us? If God is infinite, can't He handle being vulnerable? And how does this impact our vulnerability to God Himself, and to each other? How much more do good works make sense if God needs us to do something ...