Can the Formal Doctrine of the Trinity Be Proven By the Bible? (Gospel, Jehovah's Witnesses)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's nice to hear. I'm curious, though, as to what part of my post you don't agree with. I ask because you seem to have a pretty good knowledge of the scriptures and I value your opinion.
God is omnipresent. That means God is everywhere at once, both in time and space and even beyond time and space. He transcends those boundaries. Therefore, God can, if he chooses, manifest himself as a physical being inserted into the temporal universe at a particular time and location whenever he wishes. BUT still be everywhere else at the same time. Which is exactly what he did apparently, multiple times in the ancient days. God's physical manifestation of perfect humanity was Jesus - whom we call God the Son. God manifests invisibly within the universe, past and present and future, at all places simultaneously in a non-corporeal form we call The Holy Spirit. God is manifested OUTSIDE the universe in the spiritual and heavenly realms in his absolute divine state - his actual presence - and this we know as God the Father.
Let's talk about this a bit more. Do you make any distinction between God's ontological omnipresence and His functional omnipresence? The Bible actually never uses the word "omnipresent" with respect to God, so if you're going to insist that He is, in fact, omnipresent, you really need to be more specific. From virtually every passage that alludes to God's "omnipresence" (without ever once using that actual word), I believe I could argue very convincingly -- using the Bible and no other source -- that while He is clearly functionally omnipresent, He is clearly not ontologically omnipresent.
It's one thing to imply that God was a single essence who was both (1) present everywhere and (2) at a single location. It's quite another to claim that this is an easy concept to grasp (i.e for those who are spiritually-minded). I'm sure you would also say that this single essence was also simultaneously (2) non-corporeal and (3) corporeal. And if I were to read my Bible and shed my carnal nature, this too would make perfect sense to me.
That's nice to hear. I'm curious, though, as to what part of my post you don't agree with. I ask because you seem to have a pretty good knowledge of the scriptures and I value your opinion.
I may have to look a little closer ... but I don't think I'd disagree with any of it. That's weird. I might have phrased a few things differently, but the gist of it sounds about right. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Simple and easy. "One" in the sense that they are so thoroughly unified in purpose, attributes, etc that interaction with one is interaction with all three. I believe that is what you're saying.
The thing of it is, by all indications, the original belief set of Christians was very simple. They believed in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Period. No need for anything else. No need to twist everyone's brains in a knot by claiming they were one substance or one being. It was simple and beautiful.
IMHO, the Trinity is a direct result of Jewish criticism of early Christianity. The Jewish faith had become extreme monotheistic purists by that point in time and they would have mercilessly attacked the "obvious polytheism" of the Christians. It has always seemed to me that the Trinity was a massive effort to slam the square peg of three divine beings (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) through the round hole of strict monotheism. And they ultimately failed. Jewish Unitarians still view the Trinity as "poorly disguised polytheism." So they failed to please the folks who were most likely the biggest driving force for them to adopt the Trinity doctrine in the first place.
There's a ton more that goes into it. Greek mysteries and things like that. But I'll just leave it at that for now.
Let's talk about this a bit more. Do you make any distinction between God's ontological omnipresence and His functional omnipresence? The Bible actually never uses the word "omnipresent" with respect to God, so if you're going to insist that He is, in fact, omnipresent, you really need to be more specific. From virtually every passage that alludes to God's "omnipresence" (without ever once using that actual word), I believe I could argue very convincingly -- using the Bible and no other source -- that while He is clearly functionally omnipresent, He is clearly not ontologically omnipresent.
It's one thing to imply that God was a single essence who was both (1) present everywhere and (2) at a single location. It's quite another to claim that this is an easy concept to grasp (i.e for those who are spiritually-minded). I'm sure you would also say that this single essence was also simultaneously (2) non-corporeal and (3) corporeal. And if I were to read my Bible and shed my carnal nature, this too would make perfect sense to me.
Let me ask you. Do I need to make a distinction, based on something the Bible says OR can I even make a distinction between two types of something that the Bible doesn't specifically mention, as you admit?
But when I say God is omnipresent, I mean God the FATHER is omnipresent both within the creation and without the creation. He is omniscient in all things. But that does not mean his physical manifestation in a single place in a corporeal form would necessarily be omni-anything given the limitations of the physical form. Such as Jesus, when he claimed not to know the hour or the day. But neither did Jesus need to have all the divine prerogatives of God the Father imbued in his physical form in order to be sinless and perfect as a man.
You've already inferred you share the belief that God is "functionally" omnipresent, so that's good enough for me. Since the Bible DOES NOT use the phrase "ontologically omnipresent" either... I'm curious to know how you would have me go about proving it as a separate quality from scripture. But.. I also wonder why you would require a distinction to be made between the two types of omnipresence - assuming there are two - when there's no scriptural basis at hand. Who knows? Maybe there are three, or four, or a hundred types.
Why isn't it easy to grasp that... if God is everywhere at once, he can be in a single location at the same time and in all single locations everywhere else in both space and time. That's what omnipresence is. And the universe is nothing but a vast collection of single locations.
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 09-27-2014 at 12:04 AM..
I think I grasp it just fine. I just don't see it actually being taught in the Bible and cannot find any clear evidence that it was believed in nor taught by the apostles. Can you?
So which is it? You grasp it or you don't grasp it? If you grasp it, where are you grasping it from? If you don't grasp it, I ask have you ever read the Bible? Concerning the apostles. Apostles had a hand in writing the New Testament and the first century church. If you grasp the concept of the trinity, than how is it that you don't see it in the New Testament written by apostles.
And if you ask me what I mean by referencing Hebrews One in regards to the trinity, I must again ask you... do you read the Bible very much?
The word "trinity" isn't in the Bible. Like "rapture". Its a label attached to a general concept.
Can the Bible Alone Actually Prove the Trinity?...The Poll question
Well, proof would have to be from the Bible because there are plenty of extra biblical sources even some unlikely sources associated with trinitarian religion that shed light on the Trinity for what it is.
Even then one can use the Bible to disprove the Trinity.
The Catholic Encyclopedia: "For nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person. Mention is often made of the Spirit of the Lord, but there is nothing to show that the Spirit was viewed as distinct from Yahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signify God considered in His working, whether in the universe or in the soul of man."
The Encyclopedia Americana: "Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge: "Many say that the Trinity is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith."
The Paganism in Our Christianity: "The origin of the Trinity is entirely pagan."
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: "The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy. That errors and corruptions crept into the church from this source cannot be denied."
The Church of the First Few Centuries: "The Doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation. It had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. It grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."
The Illustrated Bible Dictionary: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible…It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."
The Encyclopedia of Religion: "Theologians agree that the New Testament does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: "The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity."
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." –(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
Judging by the date of this source the Trinity was questionable as a Christian doctrine before any of us were born...
The Nouveau Dictionary Universel: "The Platonic Trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave rise to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches…This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century BCE ] conception of the divine trinity…can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." (Paris,1865-1870), edited by M.Lachatre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
So which is it? You grasp it or you don't grasp it?
Grasp it? Yes. Believe in it? No.
Quote:
If you grasp the concept of the trinity, than how is it that you don't see it in the New Testament written by apostles.
Find me a passage that actually says, "The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct and separate person, but one God and one single being."
Quote:
And if you ask me what I mean by referencing Hebrews One in regards to the trinity, I must again ask you... do you read the Bible very much?
You're smug condescension is noted and summarily ignored. What has the passage in Hebrews got to do with the Trinity?
No. It isn't obvious. The Holy Spirit isn't even mentioned in that passage, so how could it possibly be obvious?
I contend that the apostles never taught the "three persons, one being" Trinity. Yes there were three divine individuals. I accept and believe in all three, which takes the word Trinity to it's most basic definition: A group of three or triad. The state of being threefold or triple. The apostles taught all three divine beings. They never once stated nor suggested that those three divine beings were "one in substance" or "one single being."
If you can show me where they clearly and explicitly taught said doctrine, that's fine. I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong. But I've read the Bible plenty and no such passage exists.
It really does throw a wrench in the works when you consider that any passage of scripture that says "One True God" is translated from a phrase in Hebrew that says "One True Gods". The plurality of the word Elohim, which is constantly used in such passages, definitely creates problems for the uncompromising Unitarian. It also creates problems for the "three persons, one being" Trinitarian. The constant use of the term Elohim to reference that "One True God" leaves the door wide open for plurality. If the "One True Gods" is composed of three or more individual beings, they are still "the One True Gods."
The use of the word Elohim is not as complicated for some who believe in one God, YHWH or Jehovah as is commonly used in English. However, care is required when reading the scriptures with Elohim as noted below:
"The presence of the article, the singular construction of the word, and its context show with sufficient clearness whether it must be taken in its proper or its metaphorical sense, and what is its precise meaning in each case."-The Catholic Encyclopedia
"Elohim, singular Eloah , (Hebrew: God), the God of Israel in the Old Testament. A plural of majesty, the term Elohim—though sometimes used for other deities, such as the Moabite god Chemosh, the Sidonian goddess Astarte, and also for other majestic beings such as angels, kings, judges (the Old Testament shofeṭim), and the Messiah—is usually employed in the Old Testament for the one and only God of Israel, whose personal name was revealed to Moses as YHWH, or Yahweh. When referring to Yahweh, elohim very often is accompanied by the article ha-, to mean, in combination, “the God,”-Encyclopedia Brittanica
The divine name ('Ělōhîm ) most frequently used in the Old Testament, a plural form of Eloah, which appears only in poetical books (34 of the 57 times in Job alone). The form Elohim, when used of the God of Israel, is a plural of majesty, signifying the one God who embodies in Himself all the qualities of divinity, and is almost always accompanied by singular verbs and adjectives. Elohim is used also for other gods in general (Ex 18.11; Dt 10.17) and for particular gods, e.g., Chamos, god of the Moabites (Jgs 11.24); the goddess astarte of the Sidonians (1 Kgs 11.5); beelzebub, god of Accaron (2 Kgs1.2)." -New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2003
So the word Elohim at times denotes plural of majesty, at other times denotes false gods, still in other uses it refers to "angels, kings, judges." But when referring to the one God of Israel the Israelites would have understood Elohim as meaning "the God."
The use of the word Elohim is not as complicated for some who believe in one God, YHWH or Jehovah as is commonly used in English. However, care is required when reading the scriptures with Elohim as noted below:
"The presence of the article, the singular construction of the word, and its context show with sufficient clearness whether it must be taken in its proper or its metaphorical sense, and what is its precise meaning in each case."-The Catholic Encyclopedia
There's no such thing as a "metaphorical sense" for the word elohim. There is its abstract sense ("divine") and its concrete sense ("deity, god"). There is no metaphorical sense in Biblical Hebrew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
"Elohim, singular Eloah , (Hebrew: God), the God of Israel in the Old Testament. A plural of majesty,
It's not a plural of majesty. It's used to refer pejoratively to singular foreign deities, which flatly undermines such a notion. It's a concretized abstract plural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
the term Elohim—though sometimes used for other deities, such as the Moabite god Chemosh, the Sidonian goddess Astarte, and also for other majestic beings such as angels, kings, judges (the Old Testament shofeṭim),
It is nowhere used in reference to judges, and it is only ever applied to kings considered legitimately divine. Additionally, angels were considered gods in the ancient Israelite worldview.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
and the Messiah
The Hebrew Bible nowhere refers to any messiah with the word elohim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
is usually employed in the Old Testament for the one and only God of Israel, whose personal name was revealed to Moses as YHWH, or Yahweh. When referring to Yahweh, elohim very often is accompanied by the article ha-, to mean, in combination, “the God,”-Encyclopedia Brittanica
But the definite article is used in many references to other deities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
The divine name ('Ělōhîm ) most frequently used in the Old Testament, a plural form of Eloah, which appears only in poetical books (34 of the 57 times in Job alone). The form Elohim, when used of the God of Israel, is a plural of majesty,
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
signifying the one God who embodies in Himself all the qualities of divinity,
This notion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Hebrew Bible's use of the word elohim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
and is almost always accompanied by singular verbs and adjectives. Elohim is used also for other gods in general (Ex 18.11; Dt 10.17) and for particular gods, e.g., Chamos, god of the Moabites (Jgs 11.24); the goddess astarte of the Sidonians (1 Kgs 11.5); beelzebub, god of Accaron (2 Kgs1.2)." -New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2003
So the word Elohim at times denotes plural of majesty, at other times denotes false gods, still in other uses it refers to "angels, kings, judges."
No, it only ever refers to gods, whether angels or kings. It nowhere refers to judges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
But when referring to the one God of Israel the Israelites would have understood Elohim as meaning "the God."
No trinity, twinity or inbetweenity...
The above is pretty myopic and naive, but that's what one comes to expect from primarily devotional scholarship.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
