You are the first poster to note the Tom Waits reference in my username.
20 cool points for you!
Because tripods are stable.
The actual reason is something nobody’s noted yet: to permit bad jokes about being anointed with Three-in-One Oil! 
Seriously, very early on in Christian worship, people began referring to Christ as theos (god). Paul occasionally uses this terminology, ascribing something “to Christ our God” in his benedictory letter closings. It has to be remembered that ancient Greek usage was not classificatory, as is second nature to us moderns – Something was theos, someone kyrios, not because there was an intent to classify them as “god-and-not-man” but out of a sense of deity present in them. Effectively, what they were saying was that they saw God in Jesus Christ, in much the same way as a preacher today might exhort his flock to live in such a way as people see Christ in them.
As The Raindog notes, Jesus Himself did not claim Godhood in any of His teachings, rather stressing by His own example humility and service to others. He does, however, claim authority where it needs to be claimed, as when someone tries to use the Jewish Law to convict Him. Most notably, and blasphemously from a Jewish standpoint, He forgives sins. This is the prerogative of God alone; not even the High Priest would claim to be able to do so. The healing miracles that cause so much incredulity among us moderns are accompanied by pronouncements of forgiveness – and what we miss in those stories is the exact reversal of our attitudes from the attitudes of those who would hear those stories when they were first told: any half-baked miracle-monger could heal, or claim to; healing stories were a dime a dozen – but this guy not only heals but forgives sins! That’s against the rules! Ain’t nobody doing that stuff, or even claiming to. It would be like someone confessing to a crime on this board, and Friar Ted telling him not to worry; he’s pardoned. AFAIK Friar Ted is not the President or a Governor; he can’t do that!
The bottom line of all this is that not only is the High and Holy One, the Spirit in the Sky (or Magic Sky Pixie, if you feel so inclined) supposed to be God – but somebody who walked around, took a leak against a terebinth tree when his bladder was full, someone who enjoyed a flask of wine and a good bull session, a man who knew people you could look up with a little effort – He was God as well. And further, that indwelling Presence that moves and guides you, reshapes your inward perceptions, convicting you of your error when you think to do something inhumane and encouraging you to have the courage to do the right thing when it’s risky – that’s God too.
And yet, this whole concept is grafted on a tradition whose central affirmation is “Hear, O Israel – the Lord your God, the Lord is One.” And we’re talking about three different Entities who all have claim to Godhood. No wonder the rabbis are treating that idea like somebody just suggested that God and the Devil were down at the pub having a couple of brews and a game of darts together!
The Trinity thing is a way of making sense of the seven statements:
[ol][li]The Creator and Ruler of the Universe is the same God Whom Jesus called Father.[/li][li]Jesus the Messiah is God in human form.[/li][li]The Holy Spirit of God is God too.[/li][li]The Father is not Jesus.[/li][li]God the Father is not the Spirit of God who indwells us.[/li][li]And neither is Jesus.[/li][li]Despite all this, there is only one God.[/ol][/li]
All the stuff about three Persons and one Substance is an attempt to impose a definition based in Aristotelian metaphysics on what was for them an observed fact: God was evident in three different Persons and yet was still One.
But metaphysics is like potato chips: it’s hard to stop at one. So they went on to define the two natures of Christ united in a hypostatic union, the “procession” of the Holy Spirit (first major bone of contention between Catholics and Orthodox), and all the other dogmata that plague students of systematic theology.
Jake the Plumber said:
But don’t the cites say** just that?**
Well…Those cites (and there are many more…) are addressing Christianity. There is no history that I’m aware of that shows that the early Christians, particularly the first century Christians. thought of God as part of a trinity.
The above cites talk about the influence of trinitarian concepts on Christianity, not Judaism or any other faith. Further there are ample cites to show that Christianity was influenced by pagan beliefs. There are no biblical cites to show that Jesus referred to a trinity, ever.
True, but that is the origin of Catholicism, right? (Although the RCC maintains continuity back directly to the Aplostle Peter)
It is clear that the influence of trinitarian beliefs continued unabated including Greek and Roman influences. History does not show pervasive use of the trinity in Christianity until hundreds of years after Christ’s death. There’s no indication that I’m aware of that trinitarian beliefs/influence somehow stopped 1000 years before Christ.
**Polycarp said:[/B
Cites?
There is a distinction made in the bible between “god”, “God” and the Supreme God, the Sovereign of the universe. Satan himself is described as a god.
Cites?
True! Or, in another analogy people might see me in my son. Still, that doesn’t make my son, me; nor does it make the flock, Christ.
Cite?
There is scripitural basis that I’m aware of that the forgiving of sins was the prerogative of God alone. It would certainly appear that any and all of the powers that Christ displayed were conferred to him by God Himself. (including the authority to forgive sins!)
In fact, didn’t he confer some limited authority to the apostles in his absence to forgive sins? John 20:23 says, "“If you forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if you retain those of any persons, they stand retained.”
Listen I agree with you. The ability to forgive sins is industrial strength power. Where I’m struggling is that I find no basis to believe that a subordinate Jesus, of the non-trinity variety, couldn’t be conferred with some authority to do just that, by God.
IOW, I see no text where God says that He has reserved for Himself the power/right to forgive sins.
In fact, it would appear that all of Jesus authority–all of it—came from God, and Jesus was extremely quick and consistent in giving God credit for virtually everything. (including his authority…)
It would appear that Jesus had some latitude to confer some very limited to the apostles in this regard also…(Cite above)
Grafted is right! Catholic theologian Hans Küng said “Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity…"
The Jews do not accept the trinity because there is no biblical basis to believe it. This has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. If the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, that has little to do with God as a person[s]. In their reading of the bible there is no reason to believe that God is part of a trinity.
In fact, I wonder why there isn’t compelling evidence to support the trinity in the OT. If God is part of the trinity, why doesn’t he say that in the OT? He always describes Himself as the only one. (De 6:4, Ex 20, 2,3, Isa 45:5, Ps 83:18,Ge 1:1, and hundreds of other cites, all of which describe God in the singular)
I can see why the rabbis are afraid to go into the pubs.
I see the seven statements and I can see how the trinity is an effort to make sense of them. But…if the seven statements don’t have a scrpitural basis, why look for concepts that support them?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to look at what the bible has to say on the matter rather than looking for concepts that aren’t supprted in the bible?
Personally, I thought Trinity’s Dualities (and her legs) were pretty darn nice.
Trinity:
What was
What Is
What will be
Three persons One God
… Besides if it was a duality, who’d break a tie vote? Thats just crazy.
The Vice-President.
I kind of hate to bring this up, but I know Christians who will use this as OT evidence of the trinity: Gen 3:22 - “…'See, the man has become like one of ** us**, knowing good and evil…”
(bolding mine).
You are correct, Sir! 
To the OP-
Matthew 28:18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Jesus started the whole threeness thing. If he had dropped off the Holy Ghost/Spirit, then Duality would be an option (indeed it is the Theology of Armstrongist & Assembly of Yahweh believers).
Let’s look at what it says, and what it doesn’t say.
It says “us.” It shows that God is speaking to someone. It simply indicates that He’s not alone. Given that He’s talking about Adam and Eve (and no other humans existed yet) (and of course He’s in heaven) He’s talking to a spirit person. From biblical context, Jesus is identified as the “firstborn of all creation”, and God’s “master worker.”** (Pr 8:22-30, Col 1:15)** It is lilely that He is talking to Jesus in his pre-human existence. Jesus himself noted that his pre-human life pre-dated Abraham.
It’s illogical to believe that humans would have been the first of all God’s sentient creations. In fact, the bible clearly says that spirit creatures existed long before humans. The only thing that this text shows is that God was talking to someone.
What’s the context here? God created Adam and Eve, blessed them and put them into a paradise condition. They had the freedom of choice. He set before them conditions; conditions that they must maintain of they wished to continue living, presumably forever.
Yet, Adam and Eve chose to rebel. In the aftermath of their rebellion, God is speaking with [apparently] Jesus, although He may have been speaking to a congregation of His spirit creatures. (i.e. angels…)
Now if you gave birth to children and gave them the best you had to offer, including some reasonable restrictions, how would you feel if they chose to reject your wise counsel? If at some point in the future you discussed this with your wife can I assume from your words, “I guess Johhny knows more than we do. He thinks he’s accumulated more wisdom than we have”, that you and your wife are the same person?
That’s patently silly!
Does the word “us” in this text, in any way, say that God (presumably God and Jesus in this context…) are part of a triad? Or co-equal? Or that they’re both God? Or that they’re co-joined in any way? Or that there’s 2 of them? Three of them? Does this text speak in any----either explicity in the text itself, or can be it inferred from the context—that God is represented in a trinity?
NOT AT ALL.
To “see” the trinity in this text, one must come to the text predisposed to believe in the trinity concept! One must impute mening in the text that the text neither represents either expicitly or implicitly. (in context)
This is simply a concept looking for an explanation.
With all due respect, he did not.
Even taking this text at face value, Jesus identifies three personages, and says nothing at all that suggests they’re the same person.
Once again, what did he say?
He said authority was given to him. Did he give it to himself? That strains common sense. Does he in this text identify himself as being part of the trinity? NO. Does he say that he’s equal to God in any way? NO. Does he identify three persons? YES. Does he implicitly or explicitly say that they’re part of the same person? NO!
Throught his life, Jesus shows himself subordinate to God. In describing his planned return to heaven, he told his followers "‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’”(John 20:17)
The notion of the trinity is NOT found in this text, and can not be supprted anywhere contextually in any of the Gospels, and Jesus certainly never said it.
Great – you win, and the rest of us are idiots.
Enjoy your victory.
(Not this one is a little snarky…and does sting a little…)
I apologize if I offended you in any way. I’m not here to win.
I, like you, have strong feelings on the subject, particularly as both of us take our faith rather seriously. I’m sorry if I come on too strong.
In the end, there is a truth. I would encourage anyone to read the bible for themselves (as opposed to listening to people like me on message boards) and come to their own conclusions.
The Bible cannot be interpreted without the Church which created it, and any attempt to do so is bound to lead one astray. Those who rejected the authority of the Church in interpreting the Bible have been arguing amongst themselves for 500 years as to the plain meaning of the text, and have yet to come up with anything even vaguely resembling something akin to a pale shadow of a semblance of an attempt at a consensus. I shall stick with the Church, thank you, and not rely on my (or your) fallible and corrupt human judgment.
I disagree!
And I mean that with the greatest of respect! I am in complete agreement with you in principle. Of course, the very minute you forsake membership in that fraudulant church you belong to—and join mine— we’ll be in agreement in both substance and principle.
Get where I’m heading yet?
Jesus was born a Jew into the heart of Judaism. Maybe he didn’t get the same memo you received! The religious leaders of his day were NOT handling the word of truth aright. Now of course, for those who see Jesus as God’s son, Jesus had the authority, knowledge and right to lay siege to the existing religious establishment. Still, it remains that Jesus made it clear that anyone proclaiming to worship God must be endeavoring to do God’s will. (Matt 7:21-23) That cite also shows that there would be many claiming to serve God but would be rejected as being "worker’s of lawlessness."It is incumbent that we know what God expects of us.
Is it reasonable to give blind credulity to our churches?
In Acts, the Beroeans were approached by Paul (et al) and Acts 17: 11 says, “11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·ni´ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures** daily** as to whether these things were so.” It appears that the Beroeans were willing to join the church but first wanted to make sure that the things that were said “were so.”
A little more recently…William Tyndale, after being told “We were better without God’s law than the Pope’s”, replied, “I defy the the Pope and all his laws” and added, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause the boy that driveth the plow shall know more of the Scrpiture than thou dist.”
The church Tyndale would have been forced to be part of insisted that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate be used exclusively. In fact, anyone wishing to read the bible in English had to get permission from a Bishop–which was impossible as translating the bible into English was illegal. (the penalty of which was to be burned alive)
In the end, it is not only reasonable that we ask of our Church that what we’re being taught is based on Scripture—on the clear and uncluttered words contained in the bible— and not on some man-made tradition, no matter how rich and popular.
So I agree that the Church is important and necessary. (Heb 10:24, 25) But in the end we will stand alone before God and will be held accountable for our lives. (Heb 4:12,13) “I was following the teachings of my church” will not be an effective defense. (See Matt 7:21-23)
And so I agree with you in part. The church is a community of believers. But you can not offer your faith by proxy to the Church without examining the Scriptures yourself, and make your faith your own. It is entrirely reasonable to require of our church that they show us clearly that what they’re teaching us is God’s thoughts instead of somoene else’s, and is uncorrupted by things that God would find reprehensible.
Indeed, and we can know this by listening to what the Church has to say.
I’m not a big fan of blind credulity period, but if one finds it necessary, it is probably better to give it to the Church, against which Christ has promised the gates of hell shall not prevail, than to a man-made organization guided by individualistic interpretations of the Bible.
Good for ol’ Bill there. What does that have to do with me? I’m not Catholic.
Good for that church. What does that have to do with me? I’m not Catholic.
You see, the thing is, you and I are coming from utterly different perspectives. You see the Bible as the foundation of the faith, and the Church as being an organization of people who derive the particulars of their faith from the Bible. I see the Church as the foundation of the faith, and the Bible as those writings the Church has chosen to esteem above all others as expressing its faith. In Orthodox theological discussions, you will see the Bible referred to, but you will also see the fathers referred to, and I’ve even seen disputes resolved by referring to liturgical hymnography. All are products of the Church, expressing what the Church believes, and trying to understand the faith by referring only to the Bible is like trying to understand a book by referring only to the table of contents. If every copy of the Bible were destroyed tomorrow, it would certainly put a kink in the day-to-day life of the Orthodox, but ultimately it would be no biggie – we already know what we believe, and don’t need the Bible to tell us. The Church would still be around.
One more thing…
But my faith is not only my own, it is the faith of the Church, which is the Body of Christ, and the Body of Christ is the Church. Offering one’s faith to the Church isn’t offering it to Christ by proxy, it’s offering it to Christ.
You see, this is why I give up. The OP was a sort of debatable-GQ question: “What are the historical reasons why Christians have worshipped a Trinity rather than a Duality? How valid are they?” The first half admits of a factual answer; the second half is grounds for debate.
For The Raindog, strangely, everything must be proven out in terms of what the Bible says. The fact that Ybeayf belongs to a church which has held that Sacred Tradition includes and interprets Scripture, and is of equal value with it, and has done so for just short of twenty centuries now, makes no bones to him – He’s sola Scriptura in a way that would have Luther throwing inkwells at him, and he’s prepared to write off anything that doesn’t suit his idea of What The Bible Says.
In this he differs only in degree from a YEC fundamentalist who is convinced that “gays could change their lifestyle if they just exercised a little faith and willpower.”
We cannot even agree on the premises on which to found our cases for argument.
Ergo, argument is pointless.
Polycarp said:
I accept your premise. (as you describe it) It seems entirely reasonable to me, within the OP, to challenge the notion of a Duality.
IOW, if the OP is willing to crack open the door and call into question the validity of the Trinity, it is entirely reasonable to maintain that the notion of Duality cannot be the only legitimate alternative explanation for who God is.
There have been many threads that begin from a basic set of assumptions that I disagreed with. Yet, I am willing to respect the OP and show restraint. But this OP called into question the biblical validity of the trinity. The OP opened the door. If the trinity can’t be supported, I doubted that a duality could be either.
I doubt Luther would be throwing inkwells. Luther was likely from Missouri. In his mind, it was required for him that his church be teaching the unadulterated truth contained in the bible, without the taint of centuries of man made tradition and non-biblical teachings. If they couldn’t show him, than it was clear to him that the word of God had been perverted and their teachings were unacceptable to him. He was not willing to offer blind credulity to a church that he felt had strayed from Christianity.
It is both unfair and untrue to say the I am willing to “write off anything that doesn’t suit [my] idea of What The Bible Says.” The bible is not some nebulous hulking mass that is so indiscernable that it is impossible to sort out what it says on a particular matter. If I have mishandled the bible in stating what it has to say on a some matter, I am open to being corrected.
You are quite correct, however, that 20 centuries of tradition and/or teachings makes no bones with me at all. If it was wrong 20 centuries ago, the passage of time will not change that fact. Jesus himself called into question many of the made-made tradtions that had crept into the teachings and practices.
So I’m up to being re-educated. But I’m not as interested in What Polycarp Says, What Diogenes Says, What FriarTed Says, What yBeafy Says or What raindog Says as much as I’m intrerested in What The Bible Says.
Is there anything more important to one’s belief (as a starting point) than who God is? If my church tells me that He is part of a trinity, is it unreasonable for me to ask them to show me?
I don’t know them or beliefs well, and I’m quite reluctant to say anything more than that in response to this comment. (But I disagree with the statement…)
What are the premises?
Perhaps.