# The Bible and the Trinity: What did Jesus have to say about the Trinity? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2013, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771 "2013-03-12T23:59:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/21 "2013-03-13T03:10:01Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Another interesting one is Matthew 24:36 “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.” It seems pretty blunt. > > For me, I think, the biggest problem with the Trinity is that no one can describe it meaningfully. You get a lot of mystical language, and confusing things about “persons” and “aspects” and so on – and the lovely physics metaphor of the triple point of water – but, ultimately, people have to say, “It’s mysterious, and I don’t understand it.” > > Harold Camping, in his many radio shows, answering questions about the Bible, has repeatedly had to say that he cannot explain the concept, because it is too mysterious for our understanding. To me, that’s an awfully weak defense for something someone is claiming to be true. Exactly. There are just tons of texts in Jesus’s own words that indirectly refute the Trinity. Too many to count. And I have never heard an explanation from the texts that stood up under scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/22 "2013-03-13T03:13:11Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I have made my case for the trinity: a direct quote from Jesus where he says that he and God are one, that he is in God and that God is in him. > > How much simpler can he make it. > > Now can you please address my criticisms of you self-proclaimed \*\*overwhelming \*\*refutation of the Trinity. > > Your persistent refusal to do so make sit look like you are just here to witness. > > Thanks. You’re welcome. I think you’re hijacking the thread and asking you to stop. The intention is to use Jesus’s own words to make a case for the Trinity, if a case exists. If it doesn’t in your view, please don’t jump in with unrelated points just to have someone to debate. Please. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/23 "2013-03-13T03:15:37Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Exactly. > > There are just tons of texts in Jesus’s own words that indirectly refute the Trinity. > > Too many to count. So many apparently that you are unable to post even a singe one. 😃 > [@](#): > > And I have never heard an explanation from the texts that stood up under scrutiny. Well, no. When you are presented with such explanations, you simply dismiss them as “a personal treatise on the Trinity and other things”, as though such explanations could be anything else. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/24 "2013-03-13T03:22:11Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > You’re welcome. > > I think you’re hijacking the thread and asking you to stop. > > The intention is to use Jesus’s own words to make a case for the Trinity, if a case exists. > > If it doesn’t in your view, please don’t jump in with unrelated points just to have someone to debate. > > Please. I think you are witnessing in a thread that is masquerading as a debate and asking you to stop. I have pointed out no less than three times that Jesus said explicitly that he and God are one being, and that he is in God and God is in him. You clearly have no interest or ability to actual debate this issue, which is why you have to avoid even acknowldeging that direct quotation from the Bible. The intention of this thread is to debate your claim that you had constructed an \*\*overwhelming \*\*refutation of the Trinity. If you didn’t want to debate that claim, then you should concede that you have not constructed \*\*overwhelming \*\*refutation of the Trinity, as you claimed. So start defending the claims you made and addressing the direct scriptural quotes that I have presented. Please. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/25 "2013-03-13T03:22:59Z")
**Blake** ’s energy is laudable but I think he’s injured the thread with this silly hijack. I’m pleased to concede that you overwhelmed me with an eviscerating superior argument. I’m speechless. For those who still want to talk, please re-read the OP. I ask you… Did Jesus make an implicit or explicit case for the Trinity? Can you show with concise cites? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/26 "2013-03-13T03:35:16Z")
I think **raindog’s** ’s inability to defend his \*\*overwhelming \*\*refutation of the Trinity should be clear to all by now. I’m pleased to accept his concession that I have refuted the argument in the OP. I hold little hope that it will actually render him speechless on this topic. His attempt at witnessing is annoying but now that he has conceded i think we can get back to debating his claims. For those who still want to talk, please re-read the OP. I ask you… Is the OP really an \*\*overwhelming \*\*refutation of the Trinity, or is it an argument from ignorance coupled with a strawman mischaracterisation of the Trinity? > [@](#): > > Did Jesus make an implicit or explicit case for the Trinity? > > Can you show with concise cites? For the seventh time: > [@Originally Posted by Jesus](#): > > "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.\*\* I and the Father are one\*\*.” > > Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” > > “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because **you, a mere man, claim to be God**.” > > Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that t **he Father is in me, and I in the Father**.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. Why, oh why, do you refuse to acknowledge this direct quote from the man you claim to worship? Of course we all know why. Because the first thing you are going to have to say is that Jesus’ words can’t be taken literally here. And that will lead people to ask the obvious question: why are Jesus’s words able to be interpreted literally when talking about the Father being superior or having a different will, but figuratively when he says that he and the father are one, with the Father in him and He in the Father. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/27 "2013-03-13T04:02:15Z")
How many Catholics does it take to change a light bulb? Three – but, they’re really only one! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/28 "2013-03-13T04:30:25Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Blake > > I’m asking you to make a concise case for the Trinity using cites. Your lengthy posts look more like rants than a response to the OP. > > Please stick to the requests and stop hijacking the thread. > > Thanks. > [@raindog](#): > > I think you’re hijacking the thread and asking you to stop. > > The intention is to use Jesus’s own words to make a case for the Trinity, if a case exists. It looks to me as though you are trying to shape the debate’s outcome by putting unnecessary restrictions on others’ posts. Blake has provided the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospel to make his point. That he has also provided additional information does not appear to be harmful to the debate and it will only become a hijack if you continue to point at it and cry “not allowed.” You are perfectly free to ignore his posts, responding only to those of which you approve. You are not free to order other posters regarding the shape or structure of their posts. Let it go. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/29 "2013-03-13T04:35:43Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > It looks to me as though you are trying to shape the debate’s outcome by putting unnecessary restrictions on others’ posts. > > Blake has provided the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospel to make his point. That he has also provided additional information does not appear to be harmful to the debate and it will only become a hijack if you continue to point at it and cry “not allowed.” > > You are perfectly free to ignore his posts, responding only to those of which you approve. You are not free to order other posters regarding the shape or structure of their posts. > > Let it go. > > [/Moderating] Actually I don’t think he did, although it’s possible that in his lengthy diatribe I overlooked it. But I agree, I’ll let it go. I didn’t order anyone. And, I will ignore his posts. Thanks for the guidance. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/30 "2013-03-13T05:23:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > IBlake has provided the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospel to make his point. [/Moderating] > [@raindog](#): > > Actually I don’t think he did, although it’s possible that in his lengthy diatribe I overlooked it. > > …And, I will ignore his posts. And this, folks, is the Jehovah’s Witness debating tradition at its finest.. For the fifth time **Raindog** : > [@Jesus](#): > > "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. **I and the Father are one**.” > > Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” > > “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because **you, a mere man, claim to be God.** ” > > Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that **the Father is in me, and I in the Father**.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. But hey, it’s so much easier to ignore inconvenient facts than to engage in debate. Of course we all know why. Because the first thing you are going to have to say is that Jesus’ words can’t be taken literally here. And that will lead people to ask the obvious question: why are Jesus’s words able to be interpreted literally when talking about the Father being superior or having a different will, but figuratively when he says that he and the father are one, with the Father in him and He in the Father. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/31 "2013-03-13T14:30:16Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > **John 1:1** and the indefinite article is an exhaustive discussion and I doubt it would fare well on this MB. Translation - you would not be able to defend the Watchtower position - IF anyone cared to actually debate you on it - this was handled in less than 1/2 dozen posts a few years back quite easily. The Watchtower position is ‘exhaustive’ because its wrong. The actual translation is quite simple to understand. (Will post link to GD thread if anyone cares on this - but I will not otherwise engage in this discussion with raindog) ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/32 "2013-03-13T15:02:33Z")
I think a comprehensive look at the Trinity would reveal that the Trinity likely started in the decades after Christ. (although codified in the Nicene Creed 3 1/2 centuries later) Just exactly **when** , and by **whom** is an interesting discussion, I think. If it indeed did not come from the OT, nor Jesus---------and had this discussion continued I would have made the argument that it didn’t come from Peter, Paul & Co either-----than it would have revealed that the Trinity comes from a non-biblical source. I think that _that_ discussion; the historical record that shows that Christianity in the aftermath of Paul & Co was heavily influenced by pagan religions is well documented by biblical scholars and historians of all sorts. In that respect, the Trinity is similar to Christmas----a well intentioned Christian practice that isn’t just influenced by pagan beliefs/ practices, it was a pagan belief that was _ **co-opted** _ by elements of Christianity. Fast forward a couple thousand years and we are blinded by a rich and poignant tradition and the the endemic ignorance that centuries of time tend to induce. There is no better example than “Elohim”; a word used to establish _“unassailable proof”_, a word that upon cursory review proves to be quite assailable. _Really_ assailable. At any rate, this thread was to be the second of four. At the outset, I made it clear that I would continue if there was interest. There doesn’t appear to be so I will not continue with the other threads. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/33 "2013-03-13T18:36:01Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Translation - you would not be able to defend the Watchtower position - IF anyone cared to actually debate you on it - this was handled in less than 1/2 dozen posts a few years back quite easily. > > The Watchtower position is ‘exhaustive’ because its wrong. The actual translation is quite simple to understand. > > (Will post link to GD thread if anyone cares on this - but I will not otherwise engage in this discussion with raindog) Yes, please post the link. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/34 "2013-03-13T18:53:45Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Yes, please post the link. Thank you. [As requested -](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=407727&page=2) starting at post 74 - **dougie\_monty** is/was a practicing JW as well. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/35 "2013-03-13T18:55:33Z")
> [@simster](#): > > [As requested -](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=407727&page=2) starting at post 74 - **dougie\_monty** is/was a practicing JW as well. Thanks. I have terrible luck with this board’s search engine. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/36 "2013-03-13T19:31:44Z")
I will post this once as I think **tomndebb** ’s advice was excellent and certainly applies to my impression of **simster** ’s contribution to this thread. I will say this however…On more than one occasion I found myself on the same side of an argument with **DtC** , a former, and well known atheist poster, who was reputed to be knowledgeable about the bible. AFAIAC, either the OT, or Jesus mentioned the Trinity or not. Either there is a compelling argument for the Trinity or not. “Elohim” is “unassailable proof” of the Trinity _or it is not._ In the first couple years I posted, the fact I was a JW was opaque. I never hid the fact, but because it wasn’t germaine to the discussion it never came up. After it became known, on more than a few occasions I offered----and posted----as an atheist. I was able to do that because A) I wasn’t witnessing. (I never intentionally do that here, and to the extent it might seem that way it’s entirely incidental to the discussion at hand), and; B) If I’m not witnessing so it’s virtually never germaine to the discussion. In fact, while I didn’t share the view that **DtC** was knowledgeable about the bible, I felt he was pretty good with history. I’d bet he would be intellectually dismissive of a biblical case for the Trinity _ **for the exact reason I am.** _ Imagine, a celebrated board atheist in bed with me. It would be bad form and offensive for me to dismiss **tomndebb** because he’s a Catholic, **Polycarp** because he’s an Episcopalian, or **Marley23** because he’s an atheist. Either Jesus made a case for the Trinity or he did not. That discussion doesn’t require faith, and could be advanced just as easily by an atheist. By ignoring the OP, and allowing the kind of nonsense in post #31 without some moderation you will continue to keep GD as intellectually anemic and incestuous as it’s become. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/37 "2013-03-13T19:44:12Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Just exactly **when** , and by **whom** is an interesting discussion, I think. If it indeed did not come from the OT, nor Jesus---------and had this discussion continued I would have made the argument that it didn’t come from Peter, Paul & Co either-----than it would have revealed that the Trinity comes from a non-biblical source. Two responses to this paragraph: First, everything that is found only in the Christian New Testament could be regarded as “non-biblical” at the time it was written. The first canon was not compiled until around 150 with Marcion’s attempt to expunge all references to Judaism from Christianity by limiting the books that could be used for preaching to a limited number of writings. The church rejected his efforts, condemning him as a heretic, but even then the earliest effort of which we know to compile a canon that included both testaments was the Muratorian Canon from around 170 and Origen’s list from around 200. “The Scriptures” for the first decades of Christianity were the writings of Judaism. (There is further conflict in this matter, because Christianity, as it spread to the Gentiles, tended to use as their source the Septuagint (Greek translation), which differed in several places from the Hebrew scriptures. None of those differences, however, tend to bear on the question of the trinity.) The books that were eventually gathered into the New Testament canon were those chosen after they had been written and circulated among Christian community, much earlier than erroneous claims that they were chosen at Nicaea, but certainly not at the time they were written.) There are quite a few ideas that have remained with Christianity regardless that they do not appear in “the bible” however that is defined. Luther could proclaim “_sola scriptura_” to his heart’s content, but even he carried a few non-scriptural ideas in his theology. Second, as has been pointed out in this thread and its companion, there are references in the New Testament that easily support a Three Person God with (given an association with the Father and Jesus throughout) several references to the Spirit, notably the Great Commission at the end of Matthew (naming all three members of the Trinity), in every one of the Baptism of Jesus narratives, and in John, chapters 7, 14, 15, 16, and 21. There is no place in scripture where anyone makes a philosophical declaration that God is three persons in one God. However, with many declarations that there is only one God combined with multiple references to three persons as God, the groundwork was certainly laid in scripture from which that conclusion could be drawn. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/38 "2013-03-13T20:36:37Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I will post this once as I think **tomndebb** ’s advice was excellent and certainly applies to my impression of **simster** ’s contribution to this thread. > > I will say this however…On more than one occasion I found myself on the same side of an argument with **DtC** , a former, and well known atheist poster, who was reputed to be knowledgeable about the bible. > > AFAIAC, either the OT, or Jesus mentioned the Trinity or not. Either there is a compelling argument for the Trinity or not. “Elohim” is “unassailable proof” of the Trinity _or it is not._ > > In the first couple years I posted, the fact I was a JW was opaque. I never hid the fact, but because it wasn’t germaine to the discussion it never came up. After it became known, on more than a few occasions I offered----and posted----as an atheist. > > I was able to do that because A) I wasn’t witnessing. (I never intentionally do that here, and to the extent it might seem that way it’s entirely incidental to the discussion at hand), and; B) If I’m not witnessing so it’s virtually never germaine to the discussion. > > In fact, while I didn’t share the view that **DtC** was knowledgeable about the bible, I felt he was pretty good with history. I’d bet he would be intellectually dismissive of a biblical case for the Trinity _ **for the exact reason I am.** _ Imagine, a celebrated board atheist in bed with me. > > It would be bad form and offensive for me to dismiss **tomndebb** because he’s a Catholic, **Polycarp** because he’s an Episcopalian, or **Marley23** because he’s an atheist. > > Either Jesus made a case for the Trinity or he did not. That discussion doesn’t require faith, and could be advanced just as easily by an atheist. > > By ignoring the OP, and allowing the kind of nonsense in post #31 without some moderation you will continue to keep GD as intellectually anemic and incestuous as it’s become. AFAIK, no one has dismissed you _because_ you’re a JW - but they have busted your arguments because they are poorly made - which may, in fact, be because you are a JW. The fact that you want to control the conversation so narrowly shows that you have no real interest in discussion EXCEPT to those that already agree with you. Have a pleasant day. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/39 "2013-03-13T20:50:24Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > For me, I think, the biggest problem with the Trinity is that no one can describe it meaningfully. You get a lot of mystical language, and confusing things about “persons” and “aspects” and so on – and the lovely physics metaphor of the triple point of water – but, ultimately, people have to say, “It’s mysterious, and I don’t understand it.” The Tao that can be described meaningfully is not the eternal Tao. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771/40 "2013-03-13T22:09:59Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Two responses to this paragraph: > > First, everything that is found only in the Christian New Testament could be regarded as “non-biblical” at the time it was written. The first canon was not compiled until around 150 with Marcion’s attempt to expunge all references to Judaism from Christianity by limiting the books that could be used for preaching to a limited number of writings. The church rejected his efforts, condemning him as a heretic, but even then the earliest effort of which we know to compile a canon that included both testaments was the Muratorian Canon from around 170 and Origen’s list from around 200. “The Scriptures” for the first decades of Christianity were the writings of Judaism. (There is further conflict in this matter, because Christianity, as it spread to the Gentiles, tended to use as their source the Septuagint (Greek translation), which differed in several places from the Hebrew scriptures. None of those differences, however, tend to bear on the question of the trinity.) The books that were eventually gathered into the New Testament canon were those chosen after they had been written and circulated among Christian community, much earlier than erroneous claims that they were chosen at Nicaea, but certainly not at the time they were written.) There are quite a few ideas that have remained with Christianity regardless that they do not appear in “the bible” however that is defined. Luther could proclaim “_sola scriptura_” to his heart’s content, but even he carried a few non-scriptural ideas in his theology. I agree with you, but entertaining all of these ancillary items in a single thread would make have a comprehensive discussion all but impossible. There is probably a _dozen_ worthy threads in your first paragraph alone. So, in an effort to have a comprehensive discussion about the Bible and the Trinity, I’ve segregated 4 aspects of the discussions and listed them more than once in this and the initial thread. More than once. So, asking “What did Jesus have to say about the Trinity”, doesn’t require the reader to be a Christian, Trinitarian, or anything else. It doesn’t require the reader to accept his veracity, nor assume his silence meant he wasn’t God. It also doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be found elsewhere in the NT, right? And, I said we’d consider the rest of the NT if there was interest. So this thread simply asks if Jesus’s words support the Trinity. Is that so hard? > [@](#): > > Second, as has been pointed out in this thread and its companion, there are references in the New Testament that easily support a Three Person God with (given an association with the Father and Jesus throughout) several references to the Spirit, notably the Great Commission at the end of Matthew (naming all three members of the Trinity), in every one of the Baptism of Jesus narratives, and in John, chapters 7, 14, 15, 16, and 21. > > There is no place in scripture where anyone makes a philosophical declaration that God is three persons in one God. However, with many declarations that there is only one God combined with multiple references to three persons as God, the groundwork was certainly laid in scripture from which that conclusion could be drawn. I would have been pleased to investigate the rest of the NT cites in the thread dedicated to the NT. Considering Trinitarians see Jesus as God, his words were worthy of special consideration. If you’d ,like to have a discussion and make that case, I’ll start that thread. But the kind of shrill ,off point arguments made by simster and blake make it unproductive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bible-and-the-trinity-what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-the-trinity/652771.md?page=3)