Was the Trinity included in Jesus’ gospel?

[Former Christian]

Free

If you’re a Calvinist, you’re laughing at me. If you’re not, you’re laughing with me. Either way, I’m happy if you’re happy.

FC

 

[francisdesales]

“I think a factor that you are not considering, something that is seen even in Sacred Scriptures, is the concept of a development of understanding of revelation - what Catholics would call "Sacred Tradition". Interpreting those Sacred Scriptures.â€

I’ve considered it. Just don’t believe in it. In the Bible or as a valid means of understanding the Bible. It’s an idea by interpreters for those who believe in the practice of interpretation.

What don't you believe? That theological doctrines don't develop? That Paul's own ideas did not mature with his writings? That the Apostles knew everything without having to reflect on and meditate upon what Jesus said and did?

Or is it that you do not believe that an organization that writes a book would have better knowledge of what it means than an outsider? Perhaps you know more about Shakespeare's writings than Shakespeare did?

“Apparently, there was/is a correct way of reading those Scriptures.â€

I believe there’s a correct way of reading the Scriptures. It’s just not the same as your correct way as a Catholic. Nor the same as the correct way to any Protestant. You need to take my moniker more seriously.

Why should I take that seriously? What sort of respect is that supposed to draw from me? Because you supposedly tried and found Christianity wanting? What evidence can you present that tells me that "your" way is correct and mine is wrong? Because some Catholics don't practice their faith, that's your "proof" that demands my respect of your moniker??? :

The correct way to read the Scriptures has always been the same. Listen to God.

Which, apparently to you, means "listen to whatever I think and feel today". God speaks through the Church, the Body, with one voice. How exactly are you "listening to God" while filtering out your own personal feelings and whims?

We certainly are supposed to "listen to God", but taking into consideration what He has ALREADY SAID!

“if we presume that the Bible is a book of the Church and for the Church, it stands to reason that the Church as an entity is the authoritative interpreter of theology that develops when one reflects on Scriptures.â€

If we presume that the Bible is a book of God to be used by Jesus Christ through the Spirit, it stands to reason that Jesus Christ is the authoritative interpreter of theology to those who are growing in grace and in the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ continues to guide individual men through the Church, His Body. Through pastors, preachers and evangelists (eg. Eph 4:11-13). Nowhere does the Bible state your paradigm of "individual scripture reading and interpretation", esp. when outside the Church's authoritative meaning.

Where does Paul make such statements - "Well, here is my writings, the Bible, you know. Figure it out for yourself and let Jesus tell you what it means"...

Where does the Bible say what you are implying? Where is this "individual reading" outside of the interpretations of the community, led by the elders? "Use the book of God by Jesus Christ through the Spirit". What exactly DOES that even mean?

Interpretation has always been the incorrect way to read the Scriptures.

That's patently ridiculous. ALL books are subject to interpretation. Even one sentence can have multiple meanings, depending upon what the intent of the author was. Later in your post, you prove you don't even believe that with your statements.

“Noting that the Bible is not a systematic theology treatise, it would seem that there is a necessity for an authoritative interpreter,â€

Noting that the Bible is not a systematic theology treatise, it would be best to not try and fix it.

Whose fixing it? We are trying to be guided by it for today's living. We are trying to discover the deeper meaning that God has placed there, trying to hear God speak to us today through that Bible.

If God wanted us to have a systematic theology treatise, God would have given us one to begin with.

That's your opinion. If God wanted us to be happy, He would have just had us be born in heaven... And about evil...

Apparently, there is something behind God's plan that you are not considering. Your ways are not God's ways...

“No doubt, the Church interpreted the "power to bind and loosen" as part of that pedigree given by the Christ.â€

If you’re saying what Catholics usually say about the so called "power to bind and loosen", the verses interpreted by the Catholic to refer to their own power to interpret have a different meaning to me.

The power to "bind and loosen", in the context of first century Judaism, has a pretty specific meaning. If your meaning is different, then you are partaking in the art of subjective interpretation and changing the meaning to suit your own imaginations...

Like I said before, either one follows the authoritative interpretation of the Church, believing in what the Scriptures state - that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth with the power to bind and loosen Christians - OR, they themselves become "authoritative interpreters", making God in their own image... Even the Pope doesn't claim such authority for himself, but yet, we have millions of "popettes" running around claiming even greater authority for themselves... 2

Is God revealed, or does one invent Him?

Regards

 

[Former Christian]

Francisdesales

Why should I bother to answer your post when in all probability both posts will be deleted? You’ve already had one post on this thread deleted because you chose to make it an issue of the Catholic Church, your Church. Here you are doing it again. Pull yourself together man. I’ve seen far better contributions from you.

Protestants don’t share your view of the Catholic Church. And I, not even being a Protestant, being one who still believes in the Bible, but that Christianity (including Catholicism and Protestantism) doesn’t represent the Bible....I don’t believe your Church represents anything but itself. If your going to go all denominational on us, go on the 1 on 1 and talk to Savedbygrace57 who has the same attitude. So you can accuse and excuse at will.

I’ll let the moderators decide if there’s anything in your post that they want me to answer. But rest assured, it’ll be a personal answer that’ll have little, if any, meaning to a Catholic.

FC

 

[Drew]

I'm not sure if we've covered this yet, but ...
God in the OT, and Jesus in the NT, were certainly not about to blow the people's minds....

I do not understand why you seem so focused on this particular aspect of this issue.

I assert and have extensively argued the following: Through symbolic actions and appropriate verbal allusions, Jesus clearly represented Himself as the embodiment of Israel's God.

I am not sure why you appear to draw a "line" in respect to who could, and who could not, "understand" this. Can you explain why, as a believer in the Trinity, you are so concerned with this distinction?

 

[Drew]

BTW anybody know what's happened to Drew? I miss our jousts. Hope he's OK.

I am alive and well.

I was on a vacation in the outback of Norway for 2 weeks with very intermittent access to the internet (and then only via my cell phone).

I do appreciate your kind words here and I suspect we will shortly get back at it, hammer and tong.....

 

[John Zain]

Noting that the Bible is not a systematic theology treatise, it would seem that there is a necessity for
an authoritative interpreter, especially when theology pulls in several directions on theological themes.

Any that would be the Holy Spirit.
I would suggest that those who have one or more of the following gifts
are in the best position to hear (clearly and deeply) what the Spirit has to say:
word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, prophecy.
These people have received the blessed baptism with the Holy Spirit.

 

[John Zain]

I do not understand why you seem so focused on this particular aspect of this issue.
I assert and have extensively argued the following: Through symbolic actions and appropriate verbal allusions, Jesus clearly represented Himself as the embodiment of Israel's God.
I am not sure why you appear to draw a "line" in respect to who could, and who could not, "understand" this. Can you explain why, as a believer in the Trinity, you are so concerned with this distinction?

I'm focused on this issue because it happens to be the Thread Title.
Post #1 is deep and tricky (and you heve failed to grasp the content).

I thought that I had already explained this ...
We should be aware of these facts in case someone said to us:
"I don't see where Jesus told the general populace about the Trinity, or even that He was God."
... vs ...
Jesus told His disciples about these things ONLY so they would be reminded of them LATER
by the Holy Spirit (after they were born again), and have them written down for you to read.
I.E. the disciples had absolutely no idea what He was talking about.
No one does who does not have the Holy Spirit.

But, hey, they were part of the "poor" that Jesus was anointed to take the gospel to,
I.E. many of them were fishermen, after all.

 

[John Zain]

I was on a vacation in the outback of Norway for 2 weeks ...

No, I'm afraid you were mis-informed ...
you were actually in Australia, but glad you had a good time anyway.

 

[Asyncritus]

I am alive and well.

I was on a vacation in the outback of Norway for 2 weeks with very intermittent access to the internet (and then only via my cell phone).

I do appreciate your kind words here and I suspect we will shortly get back at it, hammer and tong.....

The distance some people will go just to avoid me...!

Glad you're well and back. Hope you had a great time.

Async

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales

Why should I bother to answer your post when in all probability both posts will be deleted? You’ve already had one post on this thread deleted because you chose to make it an issue of the Catholic Church, your Church. Here you are doing it again. Pull yourself together man. I’ve seen far better contributions from you.

My last deleted post was not an issue of the Catholic Church. It was about my personal journey TO the Catholic Church and the objectivity behind it. You brought up that aspect by your discussion on subjectivism and your denial of anything objective. Clearly, personal subjectivity is not the only choice out there for the person who believes that Jesus is the Christ!

The ToS does not allow Catholic doctrinal discussion, correct? Things like the Church's teaching on Purgatory and Mary.

Now, in my most recent post, I did not bring up the dreaded word that the Mod's don't want to hear. I think your post here is trying to poison the well, quite frankly. By claiming I am breaking the ToS, you transcend having to confront my questions that poke your bubble on "interpretations" and other misconceptions that I question without using the "WORD".

My rhetorical questions are meant to lead you or anyone like yourself to question their viewpoint. Isn't that the point of "Apologetics"??? To present alternative views without becoming too pushy? Naturally, I believe my questioning will lead to a particular direction. Is that not the purpose of EVERYONE making comments here??? Are my questions offensive? DO you know more than Shakespeare did about Romeo and Juliet??? Apparently, the truth is obvious and you prefer to poison the well.

Mere mention of THAT Church is not against the ToS. Discussing particular "C" doctrine (for the ultra-sensitive, I apologize for using the letter "C", please forgive me) is against the ToS, NOT discussing whether the Bible discusses Scripture alone v Scripture and Tradition - which would lead the person TO the Church established long before the Protestant denominations... If you came to the conclusion that I was speaking about the Catholic Church, well-done. That was my intent. That line of questioning led you to the natural direction. But I am not discussing Catholic doctrine. I am questioning YOUR beliefs - that are built upon sand and are easily defeated with 2 sentence comments, as my post above notes. If the self-examination leads you to re-consider your currently-held ideas, that is all I can do - present an opportunity to reflect on where we stand.

I find it ironic, though, that the most "tolerant" people are in reality MOST intolerant of anyone who questions them. Isn't that ironic? In my case, I happen to be Catholic, so discussion is not tolerated, even IF the ToS is not breached. I was asking you questions about your current beliefs and how they are wrong. If you insert "Catholic is the true way", I have presented the truth without resorting to doctrinal discussions. HOWEVER, it is not necessary to go down the "Catholic" road to answer my questions. Provide me an alternative, or explain yourself viz a viz interpretations and "hearing God's voice"...

Protestants don’t share your view of the Catholic Church.

Of course they don't. But I can certainly present it and clarify misperceptions. Perhaps someone will say "Hmm, that makes sense" and as a result, may not consider Catholics as pagans, but more like themselves as Christians. Is that a problem for you? Is that not the goal of ecumenism, to break down dividing walls?

And I, not even being a Protestant

:biglol

being one who still believes in the Bible, but that Christianity (including Catholicism and Protestantism) doesn’t represent the Bible....

THAT comment is against the ToS, so perhaps you should reconsider lecturing me about what I can and cannot say. There is no Biblical paradigm for "worshiping by myself" in the Bible, so you should really re-consider exactly how "pure" your religion is in relation to the Bible and make such accusations.

go on the 1 on 1 and talk to Savedbygrace57 who has the same attitude. So you can accuse and excuse at will.

And what exactly are you doing? I ask some questions, and you don't approve of the answers that you provided, so you "accuse" and "excuse"... Accuse me of violating the ToS and excusing yourself from submitting your fallacious point of view to scrutiny.

I’ll let the moderators decide if there’s anything in your post that they want me to answer. But rest assured, it’ll be a personal answer that’ll have little, if any, meaning to a Catholic.
FC

And now the name-calling begins...

 

[Free]

Irrelevant. As is the behavior of water, an inanimate object.

Why? Why instead of dealing with the point that something as simple as water works as a decent analogy for three persons in one God, you would rather simply call it irrelevant and dismiss it?

It is just an analogy, and like all analogies for God, it does fall short. But the fact that under the right conditions a single substance can exist in three states at one time, gives plausibility to the argument that the infinite Creator could conceivably exist as three persons in one Being.

“I don't believe I have said that God is a person. I have continually stated that he is one God, one being. If the Bible clearly states there is one God and clearly states that the Father is God in nature, that the Son is God in nature, and the Holy Spirit is God in nature, then what is one to do? This is about what the Bible states, not what man thinks.”

Ah, well, that clears that up. So God isn’t a person to you. Psalm 100 and Isaiah says he is. Rather clearly I might add. Just as clearly as the New Testament presents each of the three considered parts of the Godhead as persons.

Technically, no, God isn't a person. We simply ascribe "personhood" to God as that is what best fits our understanding based on how he has revealed himself and how he communicates with us. He uses personal pronouns because he is the one true God who is a personal and relational being.

Please try to understand what I am saying. As I have stated previously, I am clearly trying to avoid contradiction by referring to God as a being who in someway consists of three persons, where "persons" must be properly defined and understood. It is contradictory to say that God is a person within whom there are three persons, just as it is to say he is three gods within the one God.

Language must be precise with such a difficult topic, or at least as precise as a couple of lay people can make it, to avoid coming to incorrect conclusions.

“And if you're not a Trinitarian, the Bible affirms to you that there's no plurality within the one God. I believe in Trinitarianism because I have thoroughly studied the matter.”

Obviously. I’m still stuck in the middle somewhere.

My only point is that your argument works every which way and as such, is not an argument against Trinitarianism.

I’m sure you’ve thoroughly studied the Trinity. An expert on the matter I presume.

No. In no way do I consider myself an expert and have never claimed to be. I have studied it thoroughly enough to know that it best makes sense of all that Scripture reveals about God.

I used to “study” denominational doctrines. Until I found out it only leads to interpretations, and a lot of confusion if one’s honestly seeking what the Scripture actually says. I’ve learned to simply observe what’s in the Bible. It’s been very effective in bringing to light the differences between what the Bible says and denominational interpretive doctrines. The more I observe, the less I believe what the denominations are saying.

With all due respect, I would find such statements amusing if they weren't so self-defeating and didn't come across as being self-righteous. Unfortunately, such statements are made too often. You are doing precisely what you are arguing against--interpreting the Bible the way you see fit. But more than that, you are saying everyone one is wrong and you're right. Everyone in denominations who believes the truths proclaimed by those denominations is wrong and only those outside can find the real truth. This of course presumes that what denominations teach are wrong.

But you have missed the obvious: You are your own denomination.

Please tell me that you at least don't eschew theologians like our other non-trinitarian poster, that you at least study what a variety of theologians have to say on such matters.

Instead of observe, I could say I listen to what Jesus is teaching me through the Bible. But since almost everyone makes that claim, it becomes meaningless as a point of authority except to the individual. In the same way that “the Bible says” has become meaningless as a point of authority because almost everyone says that, including Catholics these days. Meaningless because the claims have resulted in different doctrinal understandings. And I for one don’t think it’s the fault of either Jesus or the devil, or even the flesh. People just don’t understand the Bible alike for a lot of different reasons. I can only hope that my reasons are honest and not due to any outside influences or by the influence of the flesh or the ability of the mental imagination (interpretation) within. Being aware is half the battle in my opinion. Walking by the Spirit is the other half.

Not sure how to respond to this other than to say I do understand what you are saying. I don't disagree but I don't know if I fully agree.

I think the main thing in all these posts of yours is that you have hit on both the difficulty in biblical interpretation and the penchant for men to believe that they are the ones who are right.

“The whole is one of the overarching themes of the OT, that God himself is the Savior of Israel and the world”

Isa 43:11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. (ESV)

Funny you can see an assumed significance for the latter part of that verse, but not for the first part. What of “I am Jehovah”? (ASV) Doesn’t that sound like a person to you?

Of course there is significance to the first part. It is the one true God communicating with his creatures.

But I must also ask: What is it about "besides me there is no savior" that keeps you from addressing the point I am making?

Hos 13:4 But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior. (ESV)

Doesn’t “I am Jehovah thy God from the land of Egypt; and thou hast known no God but me” (Darby) sound like a person to you?

It sounds like the one God communicating with his people. Doesn't it also sound like he, himself, is the only savior? For all your emphasis on personal pronouns, you seem to be ignoring that God is stating the he is the only savior.

“Have you ever referred to Christ as your savior? Christ is the central figure of the entire Bible, from cover to cover. This is a huge argument against your position. Drew is the one who first introduced it here and argues it best, so if he chimes in, he chimes in, although he likely won't since it literally does get ignored, but I won't get much into it.
Suffice it to say that it is entirely consistent with the trinitarian position. Even in the first chapter in the NT we see the following:

Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Mat 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
Mat 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). (ESV)”

Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
(ESV)

How is that not consistent with what I have stated?

 

[Free]

“Does the NT state anywhere that the Son and Holy Spirit share in the divine nature? The NT clearly applies attributes to the Son and Holy Spirit which are attributes of God alone, hence why they are God. Humans, although partakers of the divine nature, are mere creatures, and therefore cannot, by definition, be said to be God. We do not have those attributes of God which differentiate the Creator from the creature.”

So far as I know, the Greek word “sharing” is only used of those who are in Christ. Never in any sense of the three assumed to be God.

Agreed. So what implication does that have on your previous statement:

"The Son and Holy Spirit share in the Divine nature of God. And that seems pretty obvious to me. What I question is whether that means they’re persons of God. The ones who are in Christ and who share in the Divine nature of God, doesn’t mean they’re persons of God to anyone, so far as I know."

We agree that the Bible's speaking of believers sharing in the divine nature does not mean that they are in any way persons of God. But why do you then speak of the Son and Holy Spirit "sharing" in the divine nature when the Bible does not mention it?

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians read a lot more into that one verse than is really there. It is evidence for neither side except through the practice of interpretation. And through that practice it can mean anything.

Based on reason, it is the only rational conclusion. Unless someone can show me what is wrong with my logic. I don't even see how it could be said that I am reading more into that verse than is there. It is clearly stated, and as I have stated several times, is in full agreement with other NT passages.


“And this is clearly supported by John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17, which both speak of Christ creating, or being involved somehow in creation of, every single thing that has been created. Not to mention there is absolutely no escaping John 1:1 and it's clear statement that the Word, the pre-incarnate Christ, was in existence already at the beginning of creation, without completely and utterly destroying the text.”

For some reason, Trinitarians think that non-Trinitarians deny that Christ was involved in creation, when they clearly don’t. To the JW’s, Jesus is the first created being, and in his creation, was obviously there in the beginning of creation.

I only believe that Jesus had a created part through his mother Mary. So to me he isn’t the first created being in that sense. But he is the first born of all who are in himself (Rom 8:29), the first born from the dead (Col 1:18). What first born of all creation (Col 1:15) means, I haven’t a clue. Non-Trinitarians claim it refers to his creation. Others claim it refers to his creation of creation.

We aren't that far off from each other. I, of course, believe non-trinitarians are wrong in their understanding of Col 1:15 because of the two verses that follow it. They get so hung up on Jesus being "the firstborn of all creation" that they neglect to take it in context and say that it means he was the first thing created.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Since verse 16 states that "by him all things were created" and "all things were created through him," and verse 17 says "he is before all things," the meaning of "firstborn of all creation" cannot mean that he was the first created thing as this would put the three verses into contradiction. Sure, they say verses 16 and 17 mean everything else that was created, or "all [other] things" as the JWs NWT puts it, but clearly is not what the text is saying.

John 1:3 makes this even more clear, to the point that even if we granted Col 1:16-17 are meaning "all other things," it would then make those two passages contradict.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

The simplest and most plain reading is exactly that which is written: Christ created (or was at least in some way involved in creating) everything single thing that was ever created.

It then logically follows that Christ himself could not have been created. I honestly cannot, for the life of me, see how there can be any other conclusion that doesn't involve injecting something into the text that isn't there.

The use of "firstborn" is easily explained by its uses elsewhere. In the OT "firstborn" is used in more than one way but one which implies the rights and position as one who is firstborn. So, applied to Col 1:15, it is perfectly sound to say that it is speaking of Jesus' preeminence over creation. This neither contradicts the verses that follow nor introduces a new thought into the text necessary to "make it work," as "all [other] things" does.

So we once again arrive at this mystery of the Father being the eternal God and the Son being eternal as well--an attribute of God alone--but who obviously is not the Father. I am simply trying to take all this into account without excluding neither Jesus' humanity nor that which shows he is God in nature.

I will try and answer your other post later but with the way things are going, I don't know when I'll get to it.

Why is it that one of your posts turns into two for me? This could be a very long discussion.

 

[Former Christian]

Free

Et tu Freetus?

Lighten up people.

We’d better get back on track before the moderators do more than just remove a couple of posts.

I just came on this thread with a question that bothers me about the Trinity. And here you guys are discussing the Trinity with me like I know what I’m talking about. I have no idea what I believe about the Trinity at this point. I only see certain things in the Bible. Like in the Old Testament, Jehovah God is presented as a single entity. And in the New Testament, the Father and the Son and the Spirit are presented as single entities. It doesn’t square with the Trinitarian idea as I understand it. And that the Spirit is presented as a single entity rather than a force, doesn’t square with the usual non-Trinitarian idea that the Spirit is just a force.

Both you and Francis commented that the word person isn’t precisely what the original formulators of the Trinity had in mind in their use of whatever Greek word it was they used. But having given that idea some thought, it doesn’t square with the fact that the individuals under consideration are indeed referred to as persons in the New Testament. So I’m still left with the dilemma I started with. And the fact that the New Testament presents the three as persons really messes with the idea of Modalism, by the way.

In addition there’s the problem of the use of the plural “elohim†in the Old Testament to be accounted for. There is the explanation that the plural is used as a sign of grandness or some such. If that can be shown to be true, that problem would be solved. Otherwise it wouldn’t be too hard to believe that there is more than one God, but only one God who is Jehovah. And we who believe in the God of the Bible, who is Jehovah, really aren’t to be concerned with any other Gods. And Paul did say in 1 Cor 8:5 that there are Gods many and lords many, while making it very clear:

1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (KJV)

Since it is definitely true that there are many lords, why couldn’t it also be just as true that there are many Gods? Perhaps other Gods who didn’t have a hand in creation? Or perhaps that solves the riddle of the use of “us†in relation to creation. Jesus and the Spirit were obviously there. The Spirit according to the Old Testament and Jesus according to the New Testament. But maybe there was more than one God involved, but Jehovah is the primary source of creation. And that phrase “to us†is right there in the Greek.

Now, I realize that such a thought is ultimate heresy to Christians. But please take into consideration I’m just presenting, not a viewpoint, but questions that come to mind due to things observed in the Bible. And some speculation besides. Like I said, one can read a lot into 1 Cor 8:5-6 that really isn’t there. I’m not advocating Mormonism, Trinitarianism, non-Trinitarianism, or any other kind of ism. I’m only hoping that someone will say something that will answer my questions in a way that I can find plausible.


“Why is it that one of your posts turns into two for me?â€

Maybe you have more to say. Maybe explanations take longer than questions. Maybe you’re trying too hard to refute me.


“This could be a very long discussion.â€

If it’s a long discussion when I don’t know what I’m talking about, think how long it would be if I did?


FC

 

[Drew]

Like in the Old Testament, Jehovah God is presented as a single entity. And in the New Testament, the Father and the Son and the Spirit are presented as single entities. It doesn’t square with the Trinitarian idea as I understand it.

I think there is a legitimate way to reconcile these seeming contradictions. Yes, the OT presents Jehovah as a single entity. And yes, the NT expresses the notions of "God the Father" and "Jesus the Son". But if we allow for the possibility that the Bible consists in a progressively unfolding elaboration of what God is doing in the world, we can see the NT as expressing truths that are consistent with what is there in the OT, even if such truths are not explicitly expressed in the OT.

Thus, for example, we can see the material in 1 Corinthians 8 (where Paul talks about the Father and the Son, while clearly drawing on Deuteronomy 6 and its allusion to a "single" God) as Paul's digging down deeper into the truth that is there in the Deuteronomy material.

 

[John Zain]

And yes, the NT expresses the notions of "God the Father" and "Jesus the Son".

Let's not forget that there are at least 4 references to "Father" God in the OT.

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

The idea of a progressively revealed Bible is an expansion of what Paul said about the mystery, that there was something not revealed to the Old Testament believers.

Did the New Testament writers interpret the Old Testament writers in order to substantiate new revelation unrevealed before? Why limit this progressive revelation to the Bible? Revelations 22:18-19 only applies to the book of Revelation, unless it’s interpreted to apply to the Bible as a whole. Jesus saying “It is finished†only applies to what he did on the cross, unless it’s interpreted to apply to something more. Why isn’t it possible for revelation in the form of a progressive understanding of prior revelation to continue to the present day? Why isn’t the way the Church operates after the first century a form of progressive revelation? Or is that just a human matter?

While there are certain Biblical verses that seem to point to the idea of a Trinity, the doctrine wasn’t really authoritatively revealed until the fourth century. It wasn’t revealed in the form we have today in the West until the eighth century, and not fully accepted in that Western form until the tenth century. The difference between the Eastern form and the Western form of the Trinity becoming one of the doctrinal reasons for the East/West split in the eleventh century. After the sixteenth century, a new form of the Trinity was revealed among the Protestant Churches. All through a process of the development of understanding of prior revelation, a form of progressive revelation.

That’s where the idea of progressive revelation leads, to the similar idea as understood by the Catholic Church. And if we believe in that idea of progressive revelation, all the problems of the Trinity are solved at once. Just hear what the Church has to say on the matter.

The idea of progressive revelation sounds good on the surface. Would solve a lot of problems. But the idea of progressive revelation goes hand in hand with the practice of Biblical interpretation. And I can believe in neither without losing my faith in the Bible.

But a good point that hasn’t, so far as I know, been before brought up in relation to the Trinity. The Trinity is apparently a popular subject for discussion. I haven’t had the time to read all of the posts on the two threads as yet, pretty much centering myself in the problems I’m facing personally concerning the Trinity.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

John Zain

Could you list those four Old Testament references you spoke of? The word father is used almost a thousand times in the Old Testament. You'll have to pardon my laziness.

FC

 

[John Zain]

Could you list those four Old Testament references you spoke of?
The word father is used almost a thousand times in the Old Testament.

“Everlasting Father†(Isaiah 9:6)
“You, O Lord, are our Father†(Isaiah 63:16)
“I (God) am the Father†(Malachi 1:6)
“Have we not all one Father?†(Malachi 2:10)

 

[Former Christian]

John Zain

Thanks.

FC

 

[Drew]

Drew

The idea of a progressively revealed Bible is an expansion of what Paul said about the mystery, that there was something not revealed to the Old Testament believers.

Agree

Why isn’t it possible for revelation in the form of a progressive understanding of prior revelation to continue to the present day?

I am open to this possibility.

While there are certain Biblical verses that seem to point to the idea of a Trinity, the doctrine wasn’t really authoritatively revealed until the fourth century.

If you have not been reading my posts about this in other threads - and I suspect you have not, simply because you appear to be "new" - you would not know that I believe that the primary means Jesus used to assert His divinity was not "explicit declarations", but rather symbolic actions and cryptic sayings. I suggest that the case for Jesus' divinity rests primarily on these kinds of things, not on "verses" that express doctrine in a compact and explicit manner.