Doctrine of the Trinity

[slubberdegullion]

In deference to IPW's request to break up his original thread on Christian views on God, I've decided to create this one to discuss the Doctrine of the Trinity.

 

LBC made the following points:

what about the prophets that told of the coming Messiah?. But I spose you have to believe that Jesus WAS the Messiah. So if you do believe, then YES the old testament does refer to Jesus, but not to the trinity. agreed?

Yes, there were OT prophets that spoke of the coming Messiah, and it seems pretty clear that they were referring to Jesus. But there aren't any references to the Trinity in the OT, at least as far as I have seen.

what about John 14:15-26? seems pretty clear to me that Jesus is refering to himself, God and the Spirit. But then again....these people you speak of that know this stuff, would they say Jesus didnt say this either?... I guess I dont see how this can be invented in the 4th century when its agreed that John was written around 90 A.D.

The book of John is one of the most magnificent and infuriating books of the bible. You're right, it was written sometime around the year 90. However, it is far more than a telling of the Jesus story from a different view. The book of John is actually a much more compelling story about the evolution of the early Christian church, and not an historical narrative of Jesus' life and times. While the books of Matthew and Luke were based on the book of Mark (Mark was the first gospel written, and seems to be the most historically accurate), John was written not as a biography of Jesus, but as a document to illustrate his - John's - own growing faith.

 

His motives are clear; to bring non-believers into the Christian fold by using metaphor and allegorical story-telling, not unlike the oral tradition of which you speak. The language is romantic, thematically the book is based on the promise of the Word of God, and the symbols are full of the imagery of dark and light.

 

The two Gregorys and Basil, in developing their concept of the Trinity in the 4th century, used these themes to make their case, thereby healing a schism in the early Christian church.

 

Now, a quick note: Just because the Doctrine of the Trinity is entirely man-made does not make it any less potent and powerful for believers. The aim here is not to denigrate the belief; rather, it is to shed light on the evolution of the church and how this particular doctrine came to be.

[ReluctantRomeo]

In deference to IPW's request to break up his original thread on Christian views on God, I've decided to create this one to discuss the Doctrine of the Trinity.

 

Three threads... but they're really on one topic?

[ReluctantRomeo]

But there aren't any references to the Trinity in the OT, at least as far as I have seen.

 

You wouldn't expect them, even within classic christian theology, since Jesus is seen as something of a watershed in human history and in our knowledge of God.

 

Nevertheless, there are hints:

 

- God appears to Abraham as 3 men, not one.

- Elohim for God... a plural noun which always takes a singular verbs.

- God sometimes refers to himself in the plural (eg "let us go down" in the Babel story). And this despite the fact that plurals of majesty are unknown in ancient languages.

- etc.

[ReluctantRomeo]

Three replies... but one answer

 

OK, enough Trinity jokes.

 

The book of John is actually a much more compelling story about the evolution of the early Christian church, and not an historical narrative of Jesus' life and times.

 

John was written not as a biography of Jesus, but as a document to illustrate his - John's - own growing faith.

 

None of the gospels are straight biography. All of them have a message - moreover, a message which rather relies on the veracity of the narrative. John is no exception and makes frequent recourse to "I was there and saw this" motifs.

 

And the words of Jesus as recorded in the gospel of John make a clear case for a binity, at least. "I and the father are one" etc.

[slubberdegullion]

And the words of Jesus as recorded in the gospel of John make a clear case for a binity, at least. "I and the father are one" etc.

Yes, that's recorded in John. But you'll note that this quote only appears in John and none of the other gospels.

 

Also, given that the book of John was written about 60 years after the death of Jesus, that pretty much precludes a first-hand witnessing of the events of Jesus' life.

 

To re-iterate, this does not mean that the book of John somehow has less veracity or meaning to Christian believers. It does mean, however, that the metaphors and allegorical themes are not historical tellings of Jesus' life but rather of the early movements in the Christian tradition.

[ReluctantRomeo]

Also, given that the book of John was written about 60 years after the death of Jesus, that pretty much precludes a first-hand witnessing of the events of Jesus' life.

 

On the contrary. Tradition holds that John was 16 or so when he first met Jesus... and that he was the only disciple to live into old age.

 

16 + 3 + 60 = 79, so entirely plausible that he was around to see his book published

[slubberdegullion]

On the contrary. Tradition holds that John was 16 or so when he first met Jesus... and that he was the only disciple to live into old age.

 

16 + 3 + 60 = 79, so entirely plausible that he was around to see his book published

Yes, it's possible, I grant you. But given the average life expectancy for men of that era, it's not very likely. (I tried to find a link with support and an actual life expectancy chart for that era, but wasn't successful. If/when I do find one, I'll post a link.)

 

I'm not familiar with this tradition of which you speak, so I really can't comment on it. But my point stands: John writing was a reflection of the early Christian church, and not an historical biography.

 

There's an excellent treatise on this subject by Marcus Borg entitled Reading the Bible for the First Time, which goes into much greater detail than I could possible ever muster. It's probably available in your local library.

[ReluctantRomeo]

There's an excellent treatise on this subject by Marcus Borg entitled Reading the Bible for the First Time

 

Thanks. I haven't read this one, but I know of him from his part in the "Jesus seminar". Great concept, but I find it academically weak and it is usually considered discredited, except as a marketing ploy. I suppose though that what he is selling would find buyers in the North American religious market.

[Becoming]

Another OT "reference" to the Trinity: Creation story: "Let US make earthling [closer to original language's image of a dust creature] in OUR image" (And no, I don't want to get into the whole aliens thesis here!).

 

There's also the Spirit of God/God's breath moving throughout the OT, inspiring various people to do certain things that indwells Jesus at his baptism.

 

I love the concept of the Trinity. I think it was a brilliant way to try to explain how the early church saw Jesus, an ordinary man, as divine. See William Placher's Narratives of a Vulnerable God.

[slubberdegullion]

See William Placher's Narratives of a Vulnerable God.

Thanks for the reference, I'll be sure to check it out.

[slubberdegullion]

Great concept, but I find it academically weak and it is usually considered discredited, except as a marketing ploy.

Well, you can certainly agree or disagree with the Jesus Seminar and the way they go about defining certain passages in biblical scholarship, but I find that most of the people and organizations who wish to discredit their findings often have ties to the fundamentalist movement, usually (though not always) in the southern US.

 

These are often the same people who have strong political ties to republican initiatives, are extremely conservative, and are the ones who support the long-since-discredited biblical creation myth. In short, they're not big on reality.

 

But all that aside, I'd encourage you to check out the book and decide for yourself.

[ReluctantRomeo]

most of the people and organizations who wish to discredit their findings often have ties to the fundamentalist movement, usually (though not always) in the southern US. These are often the same people who have strong political ties to republican initiatives, are extremely conservative, and are the ones who support the long-since-discredited biblical creation myth.

 

Well, I'm happy to lay into the Jesus Seminar and I'm none of the above

 

I think both groups are nuts... and the word fundamentalist applies equally well to both. Fundamentalism just seems to be a touch sillier when it concerns disbelief rather than belief.

 

 

But all that aside, I'd encourage you to check out the book and decide for yourself.

 

Thanks for being patient with my rant

[Apex]

These are often the same people who have strong political ties to republican initiatives, are extremely conservative, and are the ones who support the long-since-discredited biblical creation myth. In short, they're not big on reality.

Oh great. Let’s hear more conspiracy theories.

[Outcast]

Three threads... but they're really on one topic?

 

 

One question: Why does it matter?

[ReluctantRomeo]

 

One question: Why does it matter?

 

I don't know I had some time to kill earlier and I think I helped start the storm in this particular tea-cup...

[Becoming]

Why does the Trinity matter? I think it does help explain how the human Jesus could be divine. The doctrine itself sees it as God's inherent communal relationality that's always going out of itself to come back in in an endless kind of recycling that through the Spirit of Christ now embraces humanity. If we are created in the image of God and God is communal in nature, then we're to be communal creatures as well. If Christianity is to avoid becoming a me-and-my-guru-Jesus kinda self-help mentality that is rampant today, it needs to recover this relationality. That's why I think it's important.

[Outcast]

No. Why does it matter how and where it was validated or not?

[Becoming]

No. Why does it matter how and where it was validated or not?

 

Sorry. Misunderstood. Lots of people can't figure out why the doctrine itself matters.

 

In answer to your real question, dunno. Maybe some folks like to know where some of these things come from in order to know if they can trust it to be true . . . ? Like the doctrine of original sin and women being the source of all sin in the world and all that BS. In order to counter a doctrine that's not seen as helpful, you have to trace its origin in its historical context in order to see what it was addressing as problematic, question whether that's still true, etc.

 

Is that what you mean? I may still be offbase. I always appreciate your insights.

[Outcast]

Yep - that's exactly what I mean. Just wondering if people are trying to quantify and scientize (how's that for coinage? lol) this stuff to believe it.

[Becoming]

Yep - that's exactly what I mean. Just wondering if people are trying to quantify and scientize (how's that for coinage? lol) this stuff to believe it.

 

I think you're on to something there. (And love the word.) Which makes science and what we can KNOW ultimately God, and faith impossible really.

[konfused]

I am one who does not believe in the trinity, but rather in the humanity of Jesus. This is not a new belief and has been around since the beginning. There were two factions fighting over church dogma in the 4th century. The Anthasians (sp.) supported the divinity of Jesus and the Arians supported the unitarian view of only one God. The council of Nicea was established to make a final decision in the matter. Those are the facts. My belief is that Constantine the Great helped to decide the matter afte he made Christianity the state religion of his empire, something that had less to do with spiritual growth and more to do with unifying his faltering kingdom. As any fleeting Roman emperor would, Constantine wanted to return to the time when his kingdom was most respected; specifically, the time of Augustus Ceaser. We all know how Augustus Ceaser was deified by the senate. Its not surprising that Constantine would want the same. What mortal human would not want to be thought a God. If Constantine sided with the Unitarians, who said there is only one God, he was out of luck. However, if he sided with the Trinitarians who believed in three Gods in one, the possibility of his own deification remained. This is not my own theory but borrowed from historical scholars.

[ReluctantRomeo]

However, if he sided with the Trinitarians who believed in three Gods in one, the possibility of his own deification remained. This is not my own theory but borrowed from historical scholars.

 

Which scholars? Sounds like a "for want of a nail" argument to me.

[Nicholas]

Now, a quick note: Just because the Doctrine of the Trinity is entirely man-made does not make it any less potent and powerful for believers.

 

I think it does make it less powerful.

 

If it helps you understand God, then it is good. If it causes confusion and division, it is not good. I think that's a simplification, sure, but a neccesary one.

 

The mysteries have done more harm than good. It's just an accident that whomever developed the idea of the Trinity had their belief codified in mainstream Christianity. Whether or not the trinity is three seperate entities or three persons in one God has zero bearing on anyone's faith experience. It's self-important esotericism.