Hello Friar Ted. We can usually count on you and Polycarp to be 2 of the more prepared and thoughtful posters.
A problem-----IMV-----is that discussions about the bible and things like the Trinity often are complex enough, and have different constituent parts, that they devolve into splintered parallel discussions.
It’s well established that the Trinity is a settled matter in the vast majority of Christendom. So it has to have an origin somewhere.
The point of this thread is to perhaps identify the true source of the Trinity. Towards that end, we’re focusing on the OT, and whether there is/was a scriptural OT basis for the Trinity. Any companion discussions we may have on the Trinity may focus on the Gospels, or NT-------or the Council of Nicea.
If in the end we reveal that the Trinity derives from Jewish superstitions/ traditions, or the Nicean Creed, or Gospels not in the generally accepted Canon, or even pagan religions, and they’re accepted as valid authorities, who am I to quarrel? *This OP in this thread, however, *maintains the Trinity is unheard of in the OT, and unheard of in Judaism.
As to your post, the “Metatron” reference says, in part, "…There are no references to Metatron as an angel in the Jewish Tanakh or Christian scriptures (New and Old Testament)…"and “… Although he is mentioned in a few brief passages in the Talmud, Metatron appears primarily in medieval Jewish mystical texts and other post-scriptural esoteric and occult sources, such as the Books of Enoch…”
As I mentioned, my interest is revealing the true source of the Trinity, and if someone views Jewish mystical texts. and the book of “Enoch” to be valid authoritative sources from which to worship God I have no quarrel. But, let’s be clear, “Metatron” is not in the generally accepted bible canon.
As to your cite in Isaiah, here is all of Isaiah 59:
Now does Isaiah 59 make a case explicitly or implicitly for Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as a triune god head? No.
Having been raised as a trinitarian I well acquainted with the pervasiveness of the Trinity. It isn’t ever questioned, and accepted as fact from our earliest memories. So, IME the Trinity is virtually never vetted against what the bible actually says, and the Trinity is shoehorned into texts that never explicitly say it, and virtually never even imply it. (and in every instance it is past tenuous) IMV, this post has this same bias; a belief precedes the reading so the Trinity is imputed into the text.
I have read that the ancient Indo-European religion has been shown to emphasize a “trinity.” Roman paganism was derived from that religion and preserved some sense of trinity. This was then imposed on Christianity as it was Romanized.
I lack any expertise to defend or refute this thesis. Googling “Indo-European trinity” gets interesting-looking hits; I hope some Doper expert will explain it back to me! :dubious:
Then you have the Psalmist stating ( 81 in RC version 82 in KJV) stating," I said you are gods and sons of the most high," Jesus backs this up in John 10; “It says in your law, I said you are gods, so why do you accuse me of Blasphemy,because I call God my father, when your father’s did”.
These discussions tend to fracture and devolve and so I’d prefer to focus on the OT in this thread. I think we’d be more likely to have a more comprehensive discussion. I think companion discussions in that effort would include the Gospels, post Christ NT writings and a historical review to see if pagan religions influenced Christianity. (much like Christmas etc)
So I’d like to shelve that discussion for now, other than to say that septimus was spot on. There’s boodles of evidence that the Trinity has pagan influence.
Commandment # 1–2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Does God say he is the ONLY god? NO! Only that he is the bestest.
I’ve never been able to wrap my head around the Jehovah Witnesses idea that God is God and Jesus is a god, but there’s only one God.
Please cite the text so we can investigate it, ok?
God is in fact speaking in the singular, first person.
If you’re implying he’s leaving the door open that he might be part of a triune god-head (which he’s not even implying here!) because he didn’t say “There is no Trinity”, I’d say that’s kind of riduculous.
You’re never going to make a case for an OT Trinity because of what God ***didn’t ***say. You’ll have to make that case on what he ***did ***say.
But he didn’t did he?
I don’t know why as I’ve corrected you more than once.
But perhaps we’ll get to that if there is interest. We’re focusing on the case for the Trinity in the OT in this thread, so please let’s stick to that for now, please.
I would add that his discussion is contextually the OT Jews.
Your logic-------that the Trinity is present because he expressly didn’t say it wasn’t-----then requires some previous knowledge of the Trinity from somewhere elseto retroactively apply to these texts.
Both **tomndebb **and **Dex **have stated (correctly imv) that the Trinity is a result of later works.
Sure God didn’t expressly say there wasn’t a Trinity, but that not’s saying much. In fact, *it’s not saying anything.
*
It is pretty clear that the idea of the Trinity developed in the first century. There is no evidence that it was handed to any of the apostles as a complete idea and it does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures–nor does it appear in the intertestamental works.
One conjecture that I have heard is that the early church certainly clung to the Jewish notion of one God. However, as the concept that Jesus was, himself, God developed, along with the statements of Jesus that He would send His Spirit, the idea that God was three and one developed along with it.
As to when the idea was formalized, there is strong evidence that it was a matter of belief before the end of the first century. Matthew’s Gospel ends with the exhortation to go and baptize “in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit” which indicates a concept of the three. References to the father and son are frequent, of course, but several passages in Matthew, Luke, and John refer to the Spirit as a separate entity. If we include the descending Spirit at the baptism of Jesus, such a reference is found in all four gospels.
I appreciate your comments and I’m surprised to see the use of the word “Elohim” is “unassailable proof” (your exact words) of the Trinity. So I’d like to investigate the word.
“Elohim” is a word that does notmean “God.” I trust we’re in agreement on that, right? When used in connection with Yahweh, it’s describing his qualities. Elohim is the plural of majesty or excellence. As you noted, it is a plural word.
Yet the Hebrew scriptures also uses the same word to describe mighty creatures that aren’t Yahweh at times, right? At Psalms 8:5New English Bible and **Jerusalem Bible *render elohim as: "You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones.” * At the same location the The Greek Septuagint Version ** renders elohim as “angels.”
Psalms 82:1-6 uses elohim in reference to human judges. At Gen 42:30 Joseph is referred to as the “lord of Egypt”, using “adhoneh”, the plural of excellence. The Greek language does not have a plural for majesty or excellence so when translating used “Theos”, a singular word is used to represent God. Pagans from Babylon often referred to their gods as Elohim as well. In fact Elohim is used in the same way for individual pagan divinities, such as Dagon (1Samuel 5:7) and Marduk (Daniel 1:2), who were not triune gods.
Aaron Ember, author of The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures states, *“Several phenomena in the universe were designated in Hebrew by plural expressions because they inspired the Hebrew mind with the idea of greatness, majesty, grandeur, and holiness.” *
The same guy says later, “Various theories have been advanced to explain the use of the plural form elohim as a designation of the God of Israel. Least plausible is the view of the old theologians, beginning with Peter Lombard (12th century), that we have in the plural form a reference to the Trinity. … That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in elohim (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. … elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God. It ranks with the plurals adonim [“master”] and baalim [“owner,” “lord”] employed with reference to human beings.” (bolding mine)
Would you really say “There is no other logical explanation for how a plural word can take a singular pronoun.”?
Given the TONS of evidence surrounding the use of the word “Elohim” would you really say the use of it to designate Yahweh "is absolute proof of the Trinity."?
