Was the Trinity included in Jesus’ gospel?

[Drew]

I’ve been sayin’ … the Trinity never was part of da gospel.

I’ve been sayin’ … it’s basically a later revelation to believers.

I doubt it.

While it may be true that Jesus did not go around making direct claims of divinity, there is an absolute wealth of material in the gospels that makes the case that He represented Himself to others as the incarnation of Israel's God. More specifically, and has been spelled out in grisly detail in a range of recent threads, Jesus performed symbolic actions, and used appropriately coded verbal allusions, to clearly assert His belief that He was the incarnation of Israel's God.

Here is just one:

On his final journey to Jerusalem, we have this statement from Jesus:

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Jesus is drawing on this image from the book of Ruth:

"May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge."

Yet one more time - to add to other examples - we have Jesus setting Himself in the role of Israel's God.

This is Trinitarian theology, understood how it is means to be understood - not in terms of arid conceptual categories, but in terms of the very concrete story of Israel, abandoned by her God, and then looking keenly forward to His return to them.

Jesus is that very return of the living God to the people of Israel.

Let us now consider the implications of Jesus not being the embodiment of the God of Israel, knowing that He was not, and yet going ahead and making the statement that He makes.

Jesus knows the Old Testament inside and out. Would Jesus place Himself in the role of the God of Israel as "mother hen" if He (Jesus) did not believe that He was the embodiment of the God of Israel? Let the reader judge how likely that is. One would need to believe that Jesus has used the “hen with Israel under its wings” metaphor without being aware that this very same metaphor has been used to characterize God in the Old Testament.

 

[Drew]

But Jesus didn't make any comments to his disciples about being Deity.

Post 160 in this thread and posts 214 and 215 in http://www.christianforums.net/f41/1-problem-solve-christian-theology-36676/index15.html directly challenge this assertion of yours.

Please comment on these posts.

 

[John Zain]

Drew,

Your mother hen was not known by the multitudes, not even by the disciples.
This is just another parallel case of:
-- Jesus' always talking in parables
-- Jesus commanding the enlightened ones NOT to tell anyone else

All of this mother hen stuff was for LATER ... for guys like us to pick up on.

Do you think every Tom, Dick, and Harry walkin' around back then was a theologian?

For cryin' out loud, if Jesus wanted to clearly claim divinity to those people, He could have.

 

[Asyncritus]

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?

Because an orchid fruit can contain up to 250,000 seeds in one pod. So can we reasonably say that there are 250,000 in one God? I doubt it somehow: and that is because analogies are useless in matters like this.

God Himself did not use them - and He knew Himself far better than you could.

He invariably chooses the singular pronouns to describe Himself: I, my, me, myself, mine - never 'our','ours' and suchlike.

If that's what He did, then why are you seeking to add to it and ruin that beautiful simplicity?

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.

Here goes the Greek rubbish again. God has revealed Himself very much as a person who loves, hates, feels, thinks, helps, fights, and all the personal attributes you could wish for. Why would you say that 'God isn't a person'?

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.

As I said before, you completely ruin the value of language by insisting on this notion. Me, I, my, mine, now suddenly become meaningless and impossible to understand. Is it 'I am the Most High God' or 'We am the Most High God'?

It it 'You are my beloved Son', or is it ''You are our beloved Son?'

This is confusion thrice confounded, and then some.

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.

With all this linguistic uncertainty, Free, you are chronically unable to even know if a conclusion is incorrect or not - because you can't tell who you're talking to or about. Precision in unattainable.

On the other hand, the Bible itself is painfully clear on the point of the unity of God. It is really unmistakable, and the veriest child can understand what He is saying:

'I am the Lord. Beside me there is no God' is easily understandable by a child. With the trinitarian mishmash, as you say, not even you can understand or express it. How then were the Jews to teach these things to their children and grandchildren? I know I couldn't.

 

[Free]

Because an orchid fruit can contain up to 250,000 seeds in one pod. So can we reasonably say that there are 250,000 in one God? I doubt it somehow: and that is because analogies are useless in matters like this.

Analogies are useless? Did Christ not use analogies all the time? Clearly you do not understand the analogy I have given. No analogy is perfect as they all fall short in some way, but some are certainly far better than others and are useful for gaining understanding.

As I said before, you completely ruin the value of language by insisting on this notion. Me, I, my, mine, now suddenly become meaningless and impossible to understand. Is it 'I am the Most High God' or 'We am the Most High God'?

It it 'You are my beloved Son', or is it ''You are our beloved Son?'

This is confusion thrice confounded, and then some.

Please read the posts above.

With all this linguistic uncertainty, Free, you are chronically unable to even know if a conclusion is incorrect or not - because you can't tell who you're talking to or about. Precision in unattainable.

Whatever are you talking about?

On the other hand, the Bible itself is painfully clear on the point of the unity of God.

What do you mean by "unity of God"? Can one be said to be a unity?

It is really unmistakable, and the veriest child can understand what He is saying:

'I am the Lord. Beside me there is no God' is easily understandable by a child.

There is no disagreement with Trinitarianism.

With the trinitarian mishmash, as you say, not even you can understand or express it. How then were the Jews to teach these things to their children and grandchildren? I know I couldn't.

What are you talking about?

 

[childeye]

There is one Truth capable of living in all men. There are countless lies that can live in one man.

 

[Free]

Et tu Freetus?

lol Are you thinking this is your end?

Lighten up people.

What on do you mean? Is someone not being light?

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

I'm sure we're fine. It is difficult to discuss the topic without addressing the Trinity as well.

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.

You sometimes come across as though you know what you're 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.

But this is precisely what I and others have been trying to point out: they are distinct personalities to be sure, but the passages I keep giving show that the Son is eternal and therefore God in nature. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms the diversity in the unity.

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.

They are spoken of in terms of personhood which is the way that we can relate to them. They are centers of rational being whom act and will upon creation and desire our love and relationship. Christ is the only one whom we could call a person, as far as the modern meaning of the term, but he is yet much more than that. Perhaps I am making more of it than I should but to me, it seems as the use of "person" is causing you to think of beings that are completely distinct and individual from each other, which is not the case. There is a distinctness, yes, but there is a unity of essence and nature.

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.

Which is why I reject Modalism and believe Trinitarianism.

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.

I believe that that is the case and do not think that it necessarily supports Trinitarianism.

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.

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Isa 44:8 Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Isa 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

(All from the ESV)

That there is only one God is without question. The Bible uses "lords" often as it has different meanings or connotations, but when using it of God it has the highest meaning and in that sense, there is only one Lord.

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.

What is not plausible about what I have stated regarding 1 Cor 8:6? If I have read into it more than is there, then it should be easily shown by pointing to an error in my reasoning.

“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?

I was being facetious. I just found it amusing, that's all.

 

[Free]

Regarding the topic, I have to agree with Drew that the Trinity is implicit in the gospel. I would go further and argue that Jesus did in fact reveal his true nature to the Jews, both implicitly and explicitly, for which on more than one occasion they wanted to stone him.

But that is only a part of it as we must not be content to focus on the parts and ignore the whole, which consists also of the OT. This is a much larger and more involved topic than has already been discussed.

 

[John Zain]

Regarding the topic, I have to agree with Drew that the Trinity is implicit in the gospel.
I would go further and argue that Jesus did in fact reveal his true nature to the Jews,
both implicitly and explicitly, for which on more than one occasion they wanted to stone him.
But that is only a part of it as we must not be content to focus on the parts and ignore the whole,
which consists also of the OT.
This is a much larger and more involved topic than has already been discussed.

Just a reminder that this thread is about Jesus' gospel, not OT hints about Him, not Paul's gospel, etc.
Next thing you guys will bring in will be what the Holy Spirit says to people.

Of course, He made sure the Jewish leaders got the message (He came to the Jews first).

If the Trinity is implicit in Jesus' gospel,
where did He teach the Divinity of the Holy Spirit to anyone except His disciples?

Jesus was anointed to take His gospel to the poor, so just what did He teach to the poor (the multitudes)?
Anything about His Deity, or that of the Holy Spirit? And it had to be clearly preached.
No one preaches the gospel to the lost in little subtlties, and parables, etc. ... and expect them to get it.

 

[Free]

Just a reminder that this thread is about Jesus' gospel, not OT hints about Him, not Paul's gospel, etc.
Next thing you guys will bring in will be what the Holy Spirit says to people.

Of course, He made sure the Jewish leaders got the message (He came to the Jews first).

If the Trinity is implicit in Jesus' gospel,
where did He teach the Divinity of the Holy Spirit to anyone except His disciples?

This certainly is not the correct way to "do theology" and come to a proper understanding. You simply cannot divorce Christ and his message from the OT. It is a part of the context.

Jesus was anointed to take His gospel to the poor, so just what did He teach to the poor (the multitudes)?
Anything about His Deity, or that of the Holy Spirit? And it had to be clearly preached.
No one preaches the gospel to the lost in little subtlties, and parables, etc. ... and expect them to get it.

Whether Jesus said such things through parables or spoke plainly about them is irrelevant.

 

[John Zain]

Free,

Unfortunately, there isn't room for a paragraph in thread titles.
But, my Post #1 made it abundantly clear that I was referring
to Jesus' preaching to the multitudes (the poor, etc.),
who were the ones that He was sent to preach to.
Sure, there were others involved: the Jewish leaders and the disciples.

I'm developing a thread, "Reasons why Jesus kept His Divinity quiet".
Perhaps you'll find it interesting.

 

[Former Christian]

Free

“Regarding the topic, I have to agree with Drew that the Trinity is implicit in the gospel. I would go further and argue that Jesus did in fact reveal his true nature to the Jews, both implicitly and explicitly, for which on more than one occasion they wanted to stone him.â€

Do you also think that anyone who doesn’t believe in the Trinity doesn’t believe in the true Gospel?

FC

 

[Drew]

Just a reminder that this thread is about Jesus' gospel, not OT hints about Him, not Paul's gospel, etc.
Next thing you guys will bring in will be what the Holy Spirit says to people.

The case has been made in great detail - Jesus undertook symbolic actions and used carefully crafted cryptic statements to clearly declare Himself as the embodiment of Israel's God.

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

You realize that using symbolic actions and carefully crafted cryptic statements to clearly declare makes no sense, don't you?

FC

 

[Levi]

I don't know if anyone has bought this up but when I was a young Christian I read in the book of John what I regard as the most clear cut and defining statements that Jesus made of the trinity some of them go something like this:

John 14:9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Then he states this:

15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth

Then He makes this statement which makes it quite plain that He and the Father are the Spirit of truth he was speaking of:

23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

The entire book of John is filled with statements about the trinity.

 

[Drew]

Drew

You realize that using symbolic actions and carefully crafted cryptic statements to clearly declare makes no sense, don't you?

FC

Perhaps my choice of words was not the best.

But the key point is this: one can indeed "make a point" through cryptic statements and symbolic actions.

Those, like Asyncritus, who deny that Jesus saw Himself as divine need either dismiss this entirely legitimate mode of making a point and / or engage the implications of the individual examples of its use.

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

You mean he needs to interpret something to make it go his way?

FC

 

[Free]

Free

“Regarding the topic, I have to agree with Drew that the Trinity is implicit in the gospel. I would go further and argue that Jesus did in fact reveal his true nature to the Jews, both implicitly and explicitly, for which on more than one occasion they wanted to stone him.â€

Do you also think that anyone who doesn’t believe in the Trinity doesn’t believe in the true Gospel?
FC

I tend to lean that way since it is even more specifically, it is important to believe in who the Bible reveals Christ to be.

 

[Former Christian]

Free

It's OK if you think I'm an unbeliever. Who knows but that one day I'll agree with you. Doctrinal denominationalism and judgment. It's why I'm a

Former Christian

 

[Free]

Free

It's OK if you think I'm an unbeliever. Who knows but that one day I'll agree with you. Doctrinal denominationalism and judgment. It's why I'm a

Former Christian

I purposely stated that "I lean that way" since my mind is not made up on the matter. I'm not judging you as to what you are. We have more in common then you know, despite the fact that I disagree with the way you look at some things (not only things in this thread).