Trinity

[YiiNaa]

You still haven’t answered the question, YiiNaa.

I don’t think you’ve actually thought out your position of “I believe in the Gospels but I don’t submit to the authority of the Catholic Church” because…

you cannot know that the Gospels are the inspired word of God…

except through the authority of the Catholic Church.

Do you see that now?

Unless you can tell us what *other *way you know that the Gospels are inspired?

That’s my question.

The answer as I see it is this: you cannot know if the Gospel of Mark is God-breathed. You only know this because the CC declared it to be God-breathed.

I don’t need the CC to tell me that Mark is inspired. Luther said it was inspired, and I could follow Luther. I can’t tell that the gospels are inspired, but I simply believe they are because of the historical evidence for The Resurrection and other factors.

 

[YiiNaa]

I believe he meant denoms to be short for denominations…as in thousands of Protestant denominations.

Oh:shrug:

 

[JMJ_coder]

I’ve got a question on this. Were the earliest Christians (followers of the apostles) trinitarians(no evidence that they were), or was the trinity a later evolved and enforced doctrine?
If it was so, why should I trust tradition?

In writing, the word Trinity in our “modern” sense was first used by the early 200s. That doesn’t mean that is when the idea first arose, but when a single word to express that doctrine was first put down on paper.

The earliest baptismal formulas, as denoted in Scripture, point to a Trinitarian belief…I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. There seems little question that the Apostles and the first Christians thought that Jesus was God. Not only from Scriptures and the Apostolic Fathers writings, but also from non-Christian sources, such as Pliny who attests that Christians worship “Jesus, as a god”.

There is also no evidence anywhere to support that Christians every subscribed to a notion of more than one God. Christianity’s monotheism is rock solid from day one to today (and will remain so for eternity).

So, put two and two together and the belief in the Trinity from the Apostles can be deduced.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t need the CC to tell me that Mark is inspired. Luther said it was inspired, and I could follow Luther. I can’t tell that the gospels are inspired, but I simply believe they are because of the historical evidence for The Resurrection and other factors.

1. Where did Luther say it was inspired?
2. Why does Luther have some authority over you?
3. What about Philemon, Titus, 3 John? Are they inspired also because Luther told you?
4. How did Martin Luther know they were inspired

(Answer: because the CC told him they were inspired. So regardless: you still need to accept the authority of the CC when you declare the NT to be inspired.)

 

[YiiNaa]

Not really. First of all, we goes even beyond the title of Son of God in saying that he and the Father are one. Not just I’m a god like my Father, but I’m the same God as my Father.

Same God as my father? In the context of John 10:30, I beg to differ on what Jesus meant there. He was talking about his sheep wasn’t he? He was calling himself a god, just as we all are according to the psalms.(John 10:34)

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’

Secondly, he is emphasizing and eluding to his role as prophet, since he is making an appeal to the works and signs he has shown as a testimony to his words. Remember that in in the Old Testament a prophets words which he delivered from God had to be accompanied by demonstrable deeds and signs as a testament to those words’ truthfulness and origin from God.

From almost the first post you have been saying you want to understand this as a 1st century Jew would. Now that the 1st century Jews understand things contrary to how you want them to you change tunes to I want to understand this as a 21st century Jew? Can you explain this change in outlook?

I want to understand this as a 1st century jew well versed in the scriptures, not confused ones like those in the Bible.

Your assertion is false because since not even God the Father is referred to by the Tetragrammation in the New Testament, due to it being written in Greek, then trying to make an argument against Jesus’ divinity because he also is not referred to by such falls flat on its face.

As you say, the Tetragrammation would be translated as Kyrios in the Greek New Testament. So, to answer you question of where is Jesus referred to as Kyrios in the New Testament;

Matthew 7:21-22; Mark 7:28; Luke 11:1; John 9:38

There are many, many others, I merely wanted to give you at least one example from each of the four canonical Gospels.

I don’t know what you know, but I have given you four out of dozens or hundreds of references to Jesus as Kyrios in the New Testament.cc

I believe the God the father was called YHVH in the original aramaic, which was translated into greek as Kyrios. Even if my argument fails, nowhere in the OT was the messiah called YHVH.

Kyrios, as we know can have many meanings other than YHVH, You can use reason to understand if kyrios can be translated as YHVH in the context.

Matthew 7:21

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Mark 7:28

“Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

Luke 11:1

One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.

John 9:38

Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped.

You cannot translate any of these occurrences as YHVH

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t tell that the gospels are inspired, but I simply believe they are because of the historical evidence for The Resurrection and other factors.

What historical evidence for the Resurrection?

And what other factors?

 

[YiiNaa]

In writing, the word Trinity in our “modern” sense was first used by the early 200s. That doesn’t mean that is when the idea first arose, but when a single word to express that doctrine was first put down on paper.

The earliest baptismal formulas, as denoted in Scripture, point to a Trinitarian belief

…I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. There seems little question that the Apostles and the first Christians thought that Jesus was God. Not only from Scriptures and the Apostolic Fathers writings, but also from non-Christian sources, such as Pliny who attests that Christians worship “Jesus, as a god”.

There is also no evidence anywhere to support that Christians every subscribed to a notion of more than one God. Christianity’s monotheism is rock solid from day one to today (and will remain so for eternity).

So, put two and two together and the belief in the Trinity from the Apostles can be deduced.

I don’t see evidence that people believed Jesus was God, although they worshiped him as God.

1 Chronicles 29:20 - 30

Then David said to the whole assembly, “Praise the Lord your God.” So they all praised the Lord, the God of their fathers; they bowed down, prostrating themselves before the Lord and the king. The next day they made sacrifices to the Lord and presented burnt offerings to him: a thousand bulls, a thousand rams and a thousand male lambs, together with their drink offerings, and other sacrifices in abundance for all Israel. They ate and drank with great joy in the presence of the Lord that day. Then they acknowledged Solomon son of David as king a second time, anointing him before the Lord to be ruler and Zadok to be priest. So Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king in place of his father David. He prospered and all Israel obeyed him. All the officers and warriors, as well as all of King David’s sons, pledged their submission to King Solomon. The Lord highly exalted Solomon in the sight of all Israel and bestowed on him royal splendor such as no king over Israel ever had before.

David was worshiped alongside God

 

[JMJ_coder]

Same God as my father? In the context of John 10:30, I beg to differ on what Jesus meant there. He was talking about his sheep wasn’t he? He was calling himself a god, just as we all are according to the psalms.(John 10:34)

He is talking on many levels, but on the level where he is speaking in John 10:30 you can’t shoehorn that into a notion of gods as is addressed in the Psalm, as you can when he appeals to his prophetic role just a few verses later on. No other Jewish prophet every claimed I and God are one.

 

[JonNC]

Nah, I know the bit about him leaving them in, just not thinking they were divinely inspired. It just slipped my mind while reacting to CARM. On a brief side note, though, (directed at JonNC) what do you think he would have done had we had the Dead Sea Scrolls back then? One of my friends who’s Lutheran suspects that Luther actually would have kept Sirach and Tobit in

I’d agree, as there would be little reason not to. One must remember that his view was that they were disputed, not rejected.
But then, I’m not convinced Luther didn’t take his POV on them a bit too far. ISTM that American Lutherans ought to be more open to them, and that seems to be happening…slowly.

Jon

 

[JMJ_coder]

I want to understand this as a 1st century jew well versed in the scriptures, not confused ones like those in the Bible.

You mean like Paul, who testified to Christ being in the form of God in Philippians or the author of Hebrews (who many claim is also Paul) who professes Jesus as bearing the very stamp of God’s nature. In the words of the Nicene Creed, Jesus is consubstantial with the Father.

 

[Razanir]

I don’t need the CC to tell me that Mark is inspired. Luther said it was inspired, and I could follow Luther. I can’t tell that the gospels are inspired, but I simply believe they are because of the historical evidence for The Resurrection and other factors.

There are a few issues with this. If you go strictly by Luther’s advice, you’d still be reading deuterocanon; you just wouldn’t consider them divinely inspired. Also, he only had a Biblical canon because he borrowed it from the Catholic Church. So in following Luther, you’re still following the RCC.

On a side note, wouldn’t it make more sense to listen to the Queen of England on this? You profess Anglicanism, not Lutheranism, and as I remember, the head of England is the head of the Anglican church

 

[JMJ_coder]

I believe the God the father was called YHVH in the original aramaic, which was translated into greek as Kyrios. Even if my argument fails, nowhere in the OT was the messiah called YHVH.

Well, in Isaiah 9 he is referred to as the Mighty God (Deus fortis, in the Nova Vulgata).

Kyrios, as we know can have many meanings other than YHVH, You can use reason to understand if kyrios can be translated as YHVH in the context. You cannot translate any of these occurrences as YHVH

So, in other words, I’ll take it to mean God when it helps my case and not to mean God when that would hurt my case. Got it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I don’t see evidence that people believed Jesus was God, although they worshiped him as God.

They would be pretty two-faced if they gave the worship due only to God to someone they didn’t believe to be God.

David was worshiped alongside God

I don’t see the textual evidence that their adoration given to God was extended to their sequential homage to King David. The evidence and phrasing seems to indicate adoration to God and only homage to the king.

 

[YiiNaa]

He is talking on many levels, but on the level where he is speaking in John 10:30 you can’t shoehorn that into a notion of gods as is addressed in the Psalm, as you can when he appeals to his prophetic role just a few verses later on. No other Jewish prophet every claimed I and God are one.

1.There is no denial that Jesus is superior to all of the OT prophets
2.Jesus could have meant that he was co-equal the father, but I dispute this because he is inferior to his father, and because of the verses after it.
3.Jesus had every right to say this because he submitted to God’s will, and because he is an agent.

 

[YiiNaa]

Well, in Isaiah 9 he is referred to as the Mighty God (Deus fortis, in the Nova Vulgata).

So, in other words, I’ll take it to mean God when it helps my case and not to mean God when that would hurt my case. Got it.

In the hebrew he is called Mighty God(el gibor), not the Mighty God.
The hebrew Isa 9:6 that has a greater meaning, and cannot be used in it’s direct context (messianic one) to prove the deity christ.

Can you show me a single occurence of Lord in the NT, where you believe Jesus is called YHVH?

From what I see, my argument remains untouched. Jesus despite his exaultation by God, is never called YHVH.

 

[pablope]

I think christians that deny ST have a scriptural basis to make this claim.

What is the scriptural basis to deny Sacred Tradition? Even St. Paul to hold fast to traditions…both oral and written.

So anybody who denies ST is denying what St. Paul says…ergo, denying what the Bible says.

1.All scripture is God breathed, and the word of God should be the final authority

 

[JMJ_coder]

Can you show me a single occurence of Lord in the NT, where you believe Jesus is called YHVH?

Let’s go simple. John 20:28 - Jesus called Lord (Kyrios) and God (Theos).

From what I see, my argument remains untouched. Jesus despite his exaultation by God, is never called YHVH.

God the Father is never called by the Tetragrammation in the New Testament. Your argument doesn’t hold water.

 

[pablope]

I don’t need the CC to tell me that Mark is inspired. Luther said it was inspired, and I could follow Luther. I can’t tell that the gospels are inspired, but I simply believe they are because of the historical evidence for The Resurrection and other factors.

If you could follow Luther…then why do you not believe Jesus is God? Luther believed in the Trinity, the Eucharist…so do you believe the same as he does?

 

[pablope]

In the hebrew he is called Mighty God(el gibor), not the Mighty God.
The hebrew Isa 9:6 that has a greater meaning, and cannot be used in it’s direct context (messianic one) to prove the deity christ.

Can you show me a single occurence of Lord in the NT, where you believe Jesus is called YHVH?

From what I see, my argument remains untouched. Jesus despite his exaultation by God, is never called YHVH.

Where does God say, where is it in the Bible…that to be called God, or to be considered God…Jesus had to be called YHVH?

Or you are just making this your own condition?

 

[Seeker]

Thanks for welcoming me

Jesus is not the word, he is what the word became (John 1:14). In the OT the word logos(word) never meant a person.

Then what did the Logos/Word in the OT mean, please enlighten us…Oh and what’s your definition of a “Person”?