When did God tell the Israelites that He was three persons?

[Soapy]

I have heard many debates about the so-called Trinity God that the greater sect of Christianity is supposed to believe in. However, I cannot find in the scriptures anywhere where God tells anyone that He is three persons.

I know that God tells the Israelites that He is ONE GOD and that they should have no other God but He…, but I can’t see anywhere where it is stated, inferred, conjectured, shown, nor proved to the Israelites, Jews, nor Christian’s, that He is three person!

Are there any such proofs, suggestions, inferences, etc….?

 

[metis]

The Trinitarian concept is a theological construct within Catholicism whereas Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the essence of God. The concept of essence was from Aristotle and Plato, which the early Church used since the first books in what became the N.T. were in Koine Greek. Generally speaking, scholars living in the Mediterranean region would well know how that concept works.

es·sence
[ˈesəns]
NOUN

1. the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character:
   "conflict is the essence of drama"
   synonyms:
   
   • philosophy
     a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is.

 

[PureX]

God never told the "Israelites" that He is three persons, and as far as I know, they have never presumed it to be so.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

The Trinitarian concept is a theological construct within Catholicism whereas Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the essence of God.

Does this mean that the Christians that existed before Catholics declared its belief of trinitarianism were unitary?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does this mean that the Christians that existed before Catholics declared its belief of trinitarianism were unitary?

No - just contrarian.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have heard many debates about the so-called Trinity God that the greater sect of Christianity is supposed to believe in. However, I cannot find in the scriptures anywhere where God tells anyone that He is three persons.

The assumption that everything must be derived from scripture is an assumption. Its a choice that you have made, not something commanded in scripture.

I know that God tells the Israelites that He is ONE GOD and that they should have no other God but He…, but I can’t see anywhere where it is stated, inferred, conjectured, shown, nor proved to the Israelites, Jews, nor Christian’s, that He is three person!

There is no Jewish scripture in which God says he is one God. It doesn't exist. That is a Christian rewrite using Greek ideas. In what scripture verse does God ever say anything to Israel directly? You have criticized someone else for not finding their stuff in scripture while being unable to source your own stuff. You bring extra things from outside from the Greeks which is fine, but it is strange to then criticize catholics for doing the same thing. You have a very long chain of reliance upon Greece which you deny the catholics. It is the Greeks who have the term 'Theos' which takes the Hebrew word 'El' and reformats it into something different. Our term God comes from this Greek theos which is not the same as el. The original verse does not speak about God as we understand God. It distinctly uses two separate Hebrew terms both of which you have swapped out for 'God' which is derived from Greek philosophy.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I have heard many debates about the so-called Trinity God that the greater sect of Christianity is supposed to believe in. However, I cannot find in the scriptures anywhere where God tells anyone that He is three persons.

I know that God tells the Israelites that He is ONE GOD and that they should have no other God but He…, but I can’t see anywhere where it is stated, inferred, conjectured, shown, nor proved to the Israelites, Jews, nor Christian’s, that He is three person!

Are there any such proofs, suggestions, inferences, etc….?

I agree, there is a problem with the term 'persons', but not with the teaching that God has dwelt on earth in a man. Nor is it wrong to believe that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, is distinguishable from the Son. This is why the formula of the trinity, 'Father - Son (Word) - Holy Spirit' exists. It explains how a transcendent God can come to earth as Christ, and exist in the Church as the Holy Spirit.

 

[rosends]

There is no Jewish scripture in which God says he is one God. It doesn't exist.

just checking -- did you intend to write this? What would you make of Ex 20:2 in which God speaks of himself in the singular as God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Trinitarian concept is a theological construct within Catholicism whereas Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the essence of God. The concept of essence was from Aristotle and Plato, which the early Church used since the first books in what became the N.T. were in Koine Greek. Generally speaking, scholars living in the Mediterranean region would well know how that concept works.

es·sence
[ˈesəns]
NOUN

1. the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character:
   "conflict is the essence of drama"
   synonyms:
   • philosophy
     a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is.

I've referenced Joel Burnett's A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim before. The author argues, convincingly in my opinion, that the term 'elohim is a grammatical form which he calls "concretized abstract plural" -- a reference to something possessing multiple qualities/characteristics (or, perhaps, essences). A good example might be the Hebrew word mayim (water).

 

[exchemist]

The Trinitarian concept is a theological construct within Catholicism whereas Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the essence of God. The concept of essence was from Aristotle and Plato, which the early Church used since the first books in what became the N.T. were in Koine Greek. Generally speaking, scholars living in the Mediterranean region would well know how that concept works.

es·sence
[ˈesəns]
NOUN

1. the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character:
   "conflict is the essence of drama"
   synonyms:
   • philosophy
     a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is.

False. The doctrine of the Trinity long predates the split between Eastern and Western Churches ad is also shared by the Copts and other branches. So it is far from being just part of Catholic theology. It was the belief of just about all Christians, once a coherent body of doctrine had coalesced after the earliest days, apart from the various "heresies" of Arianism, the Cathars etc, and then some post-Reformation groups in the Western church.

 

[AlexanderG]

I have heard many debates about the so-called Trinity God that the greater sect of Christianity is supposed to believe in. However, I cannot find in the scriptures anywhere where God tells anyone that He is three persons.

I know that God tells the Israelites that He is ONE GOD and that they should have no other God but He…, but I can’t see anywhere where it is stated, inferred, conjectured, shown, nor proved to the Israelites, Jews, nor Christian’s, that He is three person!

Are there any such proofs, suggestions, inferences, etc….?

In early Christianity, there were many different sects. Some believed Jesus was a separate god from Yaweh, some believed Jesus was only a man who was granted divinity by god during his life, some believed he was the son of god, and others believed he was the same being as god.

The trinity theology comes from a passage in the NT about what to say when baptizing someone, namely it says to mention the father, son, and holy spirit. Unfortunately, this text is generally considered by NT scholars to be a much later addition to the original bible. The rest of the justification for the trinity is extremely tenuous, based on really ad hoc interpretations.

Most likely, the early church decided to kind of smear all the different sects together into the trinity, which is logically contradictory on its face and is very difficult to understand. Still, it helped keep the new religion unified and gave a veneer of plausibility to Christian claims of monotheism.

 

[exchemist]

Does this mean that the Christians that existed before Catholics declared its belief of trinitarianism were unitary?

That seems to be his claim, but it is false.

 

[Brickjectivity]

just checking -- did you intend to write this? What would you make of Ex 20:2 in which God speaks of himself in the singular as God.

[Exo 20:1-3 NIV] 1 And God spoke all these words: 2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3 "You shall have no other gods before me...."​

This is the NIV which is considered a premier English translation, so it is about as good a translation as we get. Therefore it has problems, but its as good a translation as can be obtained generally, and it treats the scripture in question the same way as most others. Soapy feels confident about it.

Soapy claims that God says to Israel the he is the one God or is one God, but it appears to be Moses who speaks to Israel on behalf of the LORD. There is no direct address to Israel as Soapy seems to claim. This lowers the authority of the speech from "God said to Israel" to something else. It is at best Moses saying it to Israel, not 'God' talking directly to Israel.

That is only half of what is wrong. In Moses words here in Exodus 20 is the phrase 'Your god', showing possession and creating a problem with Soapy using the modern term 'God' in the verse. The Hebrew term 'Eloheem' has been changed to 'God'. Why? 'God' is a philosophically derived English term implying a divinity that is over all people everywhere, but this scripture verse has the term 'Your' in it addressed to Israel. It is specific to Israel and not to everyone, not over everyone, not for everyone. It does not say "I am God" but "I am the LORD your God" and is addressed not to everyone everywhere but to Israel. Therefore Soapy's appeal to it being about 'God' is shaky in spite of the translation. He is, after all, questioning large bodies of churchmen and using scripture as his solid basis. Shouldn't the scripture he uses support his position without translational trickery -- without sliding things around and tapping things in with hammers? Shouldn't he rely upon something that doesn't exclude all people other than Israel when talking about the God of all people everywhere?

Should we view everyone everywhere as Israel? If not, then this 'Elohim' should not be translated 'God', but it is. Soapy is not at fault for that, however he does make the mistake of criticizing catholics for not being able to find support for their ideas about trinitarianism in scripture but then mistakenly appeals to this scripture to support his own claims. He has no more support for his claim than the catholics have to their trinitarian one.

There is no Jewish scripture in which God says to Israel "I am one person: God." It is at best some semantic slidery that doesn't reflect the original intent of the verses claimed by Soapy.

 

[rosends]

[Exo 20:1-3 NIV] 1 And God spoke all these words: 2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3 "You shall have no other gods before me...."​

This is the NIV which is considered a premier English translation, so it is about as good a translation as we get. Therefore it has problems, but its as good a translation as can be obtained generally, and it treats the scripture in question the same way as most others. Soapy feels confident about it.

Soapy claims that God says to Israel the he is the one God or is one God, but it appears to be Moses who speaks to Israel on behalf of the LORD. There is no direct address to Israel as Soapy seems to claim. This lowers the authority of the speech from "God said to Israel" to something else. It is at best Moses saying it to Israel, not 'God' talking directly to Israel.

That is only half of what is wrong. In Moses words here in Exodus 20 is the phrase 'Your god', showing possession and creating a problem with Soapy using the modern term 'God' in the verse. The Hebrew term 'Eloheem' has been changed to 'God'. Why? 'God' is a philosophically derived English term implying a divinity that is over all people everywhere, but this scripture verse has the term 'Your' in it addressed to Israel. It is specific to Israel and not to everyone, not over everyone, not for everyone. It does not say "I am God" but "I am the LORD your God" and is addressed not to everyone everywhere but to Israel. Therefore Soapy's appeal to it being about 'God' is shaky in spite of the translation. He is, after all, questioning large bodies of churchmen and using scripture as his solid basis. Shouldn't the scripture he uses support his position without translational trickery -- without sliding things around and tapping things in with hammers? Shouldn't he rely upon something that doesn't exclude all people other than Israel when talking about the God of all people everywhere?

Should we view everyone everywhere as Israel? If not, then this 'Elohim' should not be translated 'God', but it is. Soapy is not at fault for that, however he does make the mistake of criticizing catholics for not being able to find support for their ideas about trinitarianism in scripture but then mistakenly appeals to this scripture to support his own claims. He has no more support for his claim than the catholics have to their trinitarian one.

There is no Jewish scripture in which God says to Israel "I am one person: God." It is at best some semantic slidery that doesn't reflect the original intent of the verses claimed by Soapy.

I'm using the Hebrew. In the Hebrew, it is pretty clear who is talking and what is being said. It is a first person, singular statement.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no Jewish scripture in which God says to Israel "I am one person: God." It is at best some semantic slidery that doesn't reflect the original intent of the verses claimed by Soapy.

Without engaging in semantic slidery, how would you interpret the Sh'ma?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Without engaging in semantic slidery, how would you interpret the Sh'ma?

Even if I could, which I can't, it wouldn't a good thing necessarily. If people started looking to me for answers then the haters would find me and try to make me a tool. What good I could accomplish would be undone probably.

I'm using the Hebrew. In the Hebrew, it is pretty clear who is talking and what is being said. It is a first person, singular statement.

In the English its not so clear, so thank you. I will probably need some time to think about what that means.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Even if I could, which I can't, it wouldn't a good thing necessarily. If people started looking to me for answers then the haters would find me and try to make me a tool. What good I could accomplish would be undone probably.

(Oy - could somebody help me here?)

 

[Brian2]

I have heard many debates about the so-called Trinity God that the greater sect of Christianity is supposed to believe in. However, I cannot find in the scriptures anywhere where God tells anyone that He is three persons.

I know that God tells the Israelites that He is ONE GOD and that they should have no other God but He…, but I can’t see anywhere where it is stated, inferred, conjectured, shown, nor proved to the Israelites, Jews, nor Christian’s, that He is three person!

Are there any such proofs, suggestions, inferences, etc….?

Yes

 

[cataway]

10 “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah,
“Yes, my servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and have faith in me
And understand that I am the same One.
Before me no God was formed,
And after me there has been none.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Does this mean that the Christians that existed before Catholics declared its belief of trinitarianism were unitary?

The Catholic church can trace itself back to the first century. Ignatius wrote of the Catholic Church before his death in 110 CE. Ignatius was ordained a bishop by Peter himself. Obviously Peter thought Ignatius trustworthy enough to teach what the apostles taught. Thus, one can reasonably say that the Catholic Church that Ignatius wrote about was one and the same church as that developed by the apostles.

You can also make a reasonable argument that the Nazarenes were not the same as the Catholic church. After all, these Christians were all Jews who obeyed Torah law and continued in the sacrifices. This is the only group i know of that someone can reasonably say existed prior to the Catholic Church.

There is scant evidence as to what the normative teaching on the divinity of Jesus in the first century. However, by the second century, the most common understanding was actually Modalism -- the idea that there was only one God, but this one God had different modes of existence. I forget the name of the church father, but someone in the second century wrote extensively against this position, and promoted a kind of proto-trinitarianism.

It was not really until the 4th century that the Catholic church (in response to Arianism) nailed down the Trinity as Christians know it today.