POST ONE OF FOUR
Madhuri;
I apologize that I did not offer much in the thread you started regarding why there are differing beliefs among christians regarding the Trinity. You asked :
I believe that ALL Christians (with extremely rare exception) believe 1) that there is a Lord God (the father of a messiah); 2) believe in Jesus (as the son of God) and 3) they believe in the Holy Spirit (as a revelator). I do not think there is much controversy over whether these three entities (i.e. the “trinity”
exist, but rather the core controversy regards their individual natures and their relationship to one another. An overly simple description of this controversy is whether these three entities are actually THREE SEPARATE entities, or if they are ONE SINGLE entity having three separate manifestations.
In the thread you started, a Christian claimed that the bible is clear on the nature of the trinity and those (millions of Christians) who do not believe as he did, simply misunderstood the bible. I simply wanted to provide a counterpoint to this claim as a comparison. I do not want to debate, but merely discuss the “clarity” of modern biblical text and offer some reasons as to why I think many, many of the world’s Christians believe that the “trinity” exists as THREE SEPARATE entities rather than ONE SINGLE entity with multiple manifestations. (Either view creates additional controversies). I am also speaking from the context of a Christian that came from a “Three is really One” Christian belief; and became convinced of and moved into a “Three is really Three” Christian belief. I also admit that I don’t spend much time with modern christian theory, but my interest lies in the early Christian beliefs in their earliest periods.
The data and reasoning underlying the belief that The Father; the Son; and the Holy Ghost are separate individuals is different for the modern and typical “sunday school” christians than it is for the “historian-christian”. In this regard, I should point out that the belief in a trinity made up by “three individuals”, whether correct or incorrect, existed before Jesus time as the Jewish records describing the trinity attest (I’ll give examples later). As one moves backward in time through ancient texts, the evidence for three-individuals becomes even stronger. This is a small part of the reasoning behind the assertion that the “three is really one” theory originated and became more popular a few centuries AFTER Jesus when an evolving Christianity is trying to define such doctrines. (Origen, admits that the christians of his day had not even come to decide if God the Father was embodied or not).
If this assertion is true, then we should see textual evidence of this. And we do. In fact, as one looks further and further back in time in Judao-Christian history, the textual descriptions of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost become ever more clearly descriptions of individuals. Conversely, as one moves away from the earliest Judao-Christianity, then Christian textual descriptions evolve and begin to describe the various “three is really one” type of Trinity.
With this as a basic context, perhaps I can offer a few examples of why I think many modern christians believe that the God head / trinity, is made up of three individuals.
1) INDICATIONS OF “UNITY” OF THE FATHER; THE SON; AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
There are many, many textual indications where the trinity are described by terms used for separate individuals. Though there are a few textual indications that indicate the trinity are one individual, they seem, on the surface, to be fairly strong.
One wishes both to know what the original text read and that the NT text was clearer. Many Judao-Christian texts are very clear that the earlier doctrines show they are different individuals, and later texts are the ones upon which the trinity is based. However, the earlier the text, the more clearly the non-trinitarian view is expoused.
“ONENESS”
For examples : A frequent theme described in christian texts is UNITY. Translators of biblical text have Jesus say “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) If the translators are correct, using the word "one" for their relationship, what then is the underlying meaning of the concept “oneness” mean? Not only is Jesus “one” with his Father, but Jesus teaches the same principle by the same words for other relationships that are obviously NOT “one” in reality. A man is to “... cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. (Matthew 19:3-6). No one assumes that the man and wife lose their individual bodies and other individual characteristics, but that some other sort of unity is meant by such phrases.
Speaking to his disciples Jesus says he will ask the Father to send a comforter to them and “20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” John 14:20-23. The same difficulty exists with the concept of being “in” the father in the same way the disciples are to be “in” Jesus and Jesus is “in” them. We are dealing with a different symbology using different idioms than we are used to using. And in this, we must be careful.
For example : In prayer, Jesus lifts up his eyes to heaven (presumably to another entity which was unnecessary if HE WAS that same entity) and asks for his disciples : “21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:21-22) It is obvious that Jesus is saying that he is “in the father” and that he indicates that “we are one”, but he then asks (and clarifies) that the disciples also “be one, even as we (God and Jesus) are one". It stretches rationality to suppose this means the godhead to include the 12 disciples. It is more rational to assume a different type of unity is meant by such phrases. A sort of unity that men can have with one another and a type of unity men can have with Jesus and with God the Father. Clarification is missing in such descriptions.
THE PROBLEM OF TEXTUAL CORRUPTION AND LACK OF CLARITY
Just as there are discrepancies between all known early manuscript families of the New Testament, Our Modern texts derived from them are not without errors, nor are the trinity proof texts free of error. Some of these errors are unknown, but some have been known for many years.
For example : 1 John v.7 has been used as a proof-text for the trinity : ‘There are three that witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are at one. There are three that witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus, and there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit’.
However, it has long been recognized that the text starting with “There are three that witness” to the end, is not IN any early Greek New Testament Text, but rather, it represents a later, spurious addition to the text. Textual changes and errors do not tell us anything about the original text, but they do indicate the nature of doctrinal changes within christianity. When fictitious textual changes occurred, they usually are done to reflect the doctrinal bias of their authors. Once doctrinal trains are moving they are difficult to correct or stop.
For example : When Erasmus is one of the first scholars who shocked contemporaries by omitting the false text for the trinity in 1 John v.7. The outcry was so great that he he foolishly promised to insert the reference if it could be found in ANY Greek manuscript (since it did not exist in the earliest Greek manuscripts that anyone knew of). However, someone found a “late and worthless“ manuscript with the text that had been rendered into Greek. Reluctantly, he inserted the text back into his second edition in 1519. Luther, who had made no rash promises and thus his version did NOT include the text (unfortunately, the KJV did). Initially, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, endorsed the text as authentic, but this endorsement was reversed forty years later as it became undeniable that the text was one of the later additions to the text. Even during the reformation, Scholars knew Erasmus was correct in culling spurious additions to the New Testament Text. However, what is to be done with unknown additions; mistranslations; lack of a critical text; or even simple lack of clarity.
POST TWO OF FOUR FOLLOWS
Madhuri;
I apologize that I did not offer much in the thread you started regarding why there are differing beliefs among christians regarding the Trinity. You asked :
I feel empathy for any non-christian trying to understand the myriads of Christian theories. However, to give specific context, might I describe the core controversy I am commenting on?
I believe that ALL Christians (with extremely rare exception) believe 1) that there is a Lord God (the father of a messiah); 2) believe in Jesus (as the son of God) and 3) they believe in the Holy Spirit (as a revelator). I do not think there is much controversy over whether these three entities (i.e. the “trinity”
exist, but rather the core controversy regards their individual natures and their relationship to one another. An overly simple description of this controversy is whether these three entities are actually THREE SEPARATE entities, or if they are ONE SINGLE entity having three separate manifestations. In the thread you started, a Christian claimed that the bible is clear on the nature of the trinity and those (millions of Christians) who do not believe as he did, simply misunderstood the bible. I simply wanted to provide a counterpoint to this claim as a comparison. I do not want to debate, but merely discuss the “clarity” of modern biblical text and offer some reasons as to why I think many, many of the world’s Christians believe that the “trinity” exists as THREE SEPARATE entities rather than ONE SINGLE entity with multiple manifestations. (Either view creates additional controversies). I am also speaking from the context of a Christian that came from a “Three is really One” Christian belief; and became convinced of and moved into a “Three is really Three” Christian belief. I also admit that I don’t spend much time with modern christian theory, but my interest lies in the early Christian beliefs in their earliest periods.
The data and reasoning underlying the belief that The Father; the Son; and the Holy Ghost are separate individuals is different for the modern and typical “sunday school” christians than it is for the “historian-christian”. In this regard, I should point out that the belief in a trinity made up by “three individuals”, whether correct or incorrect, existed before Jesus time as the Jewish records describing the trinity attest (I’ll give examples later). As one moves backward in time through ancient texts, the evidence for three-individuals becomes even stronger. This is a small part of the reasoning behind the assertion that the “three is really one” theory originated and became more popular a few centuries AFTER Jesus when an evolving Christianity is trying to define such doctrines. (Origen, admits that the christians of his day had not even come to decide if God the Father was embodied or not).
If this assertion is true, then we should see textual evidence of this. And we do. In fact, as one looks further and further back in time in Judao-Christian history, the textual descriptions of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost become ever more clearly descriptions of individuals. Conversely, as one moves away from the earliest Judao-Christianity, then Christian textual descriptions evolve and begin to describe the various “three is really one” type of Trinity.
With this as a basic context, perhaps I can offer a few examples of why I think many modern christians believe that the God head / trinity, is made up of three individuals.
1) INDICATIONS OF “UNITY” OF THE FATHER; THE SON; AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
There are many, many textual indications where the trinity are described by terms used for separate individuals. Though there are a few textual indications that indicate the trinity are one individual, they seem, on the surface, to be fairly strong.
One wishes both to know what the original text read and that the NT text was clearer. Many Judao-Christian texts are very clear that the earlier doctrines show they are different individuals, and later texts are the ones upon which the trinity is based. However, the earlier the text, the more clearly the non-trinitarian view is expoused.
“ONENESS”
For examples : A frequent theme described in christian texts is UNITY. Translators of biblical text have Jesus say “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) If the translators are correct, using the word "one" for their relationship, what then is the underlying meaning of the concept “oneness” mean? Not only is Jesus “one” with his Father, but Jesus teaches the same principle by the same words for other relationships that are obviously NOT “one” in reality. A man is to “... cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. (Matthew 19:3-6). No one assumes that the man and wife lose their individual bodies and other individual characteristics, but that some other sort of unity is meant by such phrases.
Speaking to his disciples Jesus says he will ask the Father to send a comforter to them and “20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” John 14:20-23. The same difficulty exists with the concept of being “in” the father in the same way the disciples are to be “in” Jesus and Jesus is “in” them. We are dealing with a different symbology using different idioms than we are used to using. And in this, we must be careful.
For example : In prayer, Jesus lifts up his eyes to heaven (presumably to another entity which was unnecessary if HE WAS that same entity) and asks for his disciples : “21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:21-22) It is obvious that Jesus is saying that he is “in the father” and that he indicates that “we are one”, but he then asks (and clarifies) that the disciples also “be one, even as we (God and Jesus) are one". It stretches rationality to suppose this means the godhead to include the 12 disciples. It is more rational to assume a different type of unity is meant by such phrases. A sort of unity that men can have with one another and a type of unity men can have with Jesus and with God the Father. Clarification is missing in such descriptions.
THE PROBLEM OF TEXTUAL CORRUPTION AND LACK OF CLARITY
Just as there are discrepancies between all known early manuscript families of the New Testament, Our Modern texts derived from them are not without errors, nor are the trinity proof texts free of error. Some of these errors are unknown, but some have been known for many years.
For example : 1 John v.7 has been used as a proof-text for the trinity : ‘There are three that witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are at one. There are three that witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus, and there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit’.
However, it has long been recognized that the text starting with “There are three that witness” to the end, is not IN any early Greek New Testament Text, but rather, it represents a later, spurious addition to the text. Textual changes and errors do not tell us anything about the original text, but they do indicate the nature of doctrinal changes within christianity. When fictitious textual changes occurred, they usually are done to reflect the doctrinal bias of their authors. Once doctrinal trains are moving they are difficult to correct or stop.
For example : When Erasmus is one of the first scholars who shocked contemporaries by omitting the false text for the trinity in 1 John v.7. The outcry was so great that he he foolishly promised to insert the reference if it could be found in ANY Greek manuscript (since it did not exist in the earliest Greek manuscripts that anyone knew of). However, someone found a “late and worthless“ manuscript with the text that had been rendered into Greek. Reluctantly, he inserted the text back into his second edition in 1519. Luther, who had made no rash promises and thus his version did NOT include the text (unfortunately, the KJV did). Initially, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, endorsed the text as authentic, but this endorsement was reversed forty years later as it became undeniable that the text was one of the later additions to the text. Even during the reformation, Scholars knew Erasmus was correct in culling spurious additions to the New Testament Text. However, what is to be done with unknown additions; mistranslations; lack of a critical text; or even simple lack of clarity.
POST TWO OF FOUR FOLLOWS
Last edited:
