When was the Trinity revealed?

[Paidion]

Hi Homer,
Do you have any concrete grammatical evidence that the Hebrew word means "gods" instead of "God"?
You indicated that Lange stated that the expression was literally "son of the gods." But could this have been only Lange's opinion?

You may want to take a look at John Gill's exposition of the verse:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/comment ... -3-25.html

[Homer]

I read Gill, nice sermon but doesn't solve anything. Lange's commentary on Daniel was written by Otto Zockler. Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, and C. F. Keil (Keil & Delitzsch) all say gods is plural in Daniel 3:25. Zockler also references Daniel 3:12 & 18.

This article points out that this part of Daniel was written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew and would seem to end the controversy:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_son_of_god.htm

[darinhouston]

I have never found the Trypho discourse very useful. When it comes to the historic evolution inquired by the original post, I have found two books very interesting. They deal with the issue from two pivotal time periods in this regard and from two completely different approaches, but they each spend a significant amount of time discussing the various views and their historic development, so are very enlightening on basic historic development no matter where you fall on this issue.

This issue was particularly influential during the Fourth Century around Nicea and Constantine’s rule and before the Roman papal influence was dominant. What was surprising to me was how much this issue dominated the next fifty years after Constantine’s death as his sons Constans and Constantius (an Arian) saw this issue as dominating their attempts to concentrate support for their own political efforts against each other. Particularly interesting was how dominant the Arian views became following Nicea and I was completely unaware that Athanasius was exiled as Arius and Eusebius (and others) even were accepted back in communion and regained their positions and influence (only to lose it again). We don’t often even learn that subsequent councils accepted the Arian formulations of the nature of Christ, though some bishops refused to follow their authority (again, Romanism hadn’t yet dominated the world). I find the political influences in both time periods as highly enlightening to the extent with which we should dogmatize this idea. I also was struck by how pious even the most “heretical” bishops and clergy were on both sides (particularly the Arians) as well as how literate and engaged the lay and even non-religious were at this time (and later).

The second time period was during and following the Reformation, particularly embodied in Calvin’s ruthless attacks to silence Michael Servetus both in “court” and in violent efforts to have him tortured and killed. Unknown to most is how the brilliant Servetus escaped to “hide” in medical school and during this time and after as he practiced as a physician became the first to discover and describe the “human circulatory system.” It is again instructive that he was able to explore both issues only because of his refusal to follow the oppressive religious proscriptions against such things as questioning the orthodox and dogmatic views even in medicine at the time and his willingness to consider “heterodox” if not “heretical” views. Again, his piety and effort to find “Truth” is seldom appreciated, notwithstanding his character flaws.

“When Jesus Became God,” by Richard E. Rubenstein details the historic and especially geopolitical issues surrounding The Council of Nicea and subsequent councils. Rubenstein is coming at it from the perspective of religious conflicts and their roots and influences. The issues that came directly from what I perceive as an artificial “agreement” with the creed (inherent in most credal disputes) and the subsequent and frequent power reversals and alliances that formed were really interesting.

“Out of the Flames: The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World, by Lawrence Goldstone and Nancy Bazelon Goldstone, approaches the issue as bibliophiles researching the history of the surviving copies of Servetus’ treatises after most of his works were burned. As with the Fourth Century, the time period surrounding the Reformation enjoyed a widespread intellectual debate within the common folk and in particular about the Trinity and Jesus’ Divinity. We have seen how ruthless Calvin and his followers were to quash the competing Soteriological views, but less known is his battles against non-trinitarians in general and Servetus in particular.

Both books can be hard to find, but Half Price Books online tends to have them. I highly recommend both books if you have any interest in the development of Trinitarian ideas. (Archive.org also has free pdf and “rough” kindle versions of one or both of them).

Not specifically dealt with in these books was the development of the Trinitarian views of the Holy Spirit. I have often thought this is the most significant weakness in Trinitarian positions, and it was my exploration of the separate personhood of the Holy Spirit that has led to my reconsideration of these issues. I find almost every argument with respect to the Holy Spirit defective, and am convinced that the Holy Spirit is nthing less than the Father himself (who is said to “be” Spirit). I think it’s particularly interesting that Trinitarian have no problem with the subordination arguments as to the procession of the Spirit from the Father AND the Son, but objected most vigorously as to any subordination of the Son Himself. I find this among the many inconsistent and illogical positions necessary to support a modern Trinitarian position.

[Paidion]

I find almost every argument with respect to the Holy Spirit defective, and am convinced that the Holy Spirit is nothing less than the Father himself (who is said to “be” Spirit).

I, too, see the Holy Spirit as being the extension of the Father's Person—to any part of the Universe He wills, and especially into the hearts (or minds) of the faithful.
However, I also see the Spirit as being the extension of the Son's Person.

2 Corinthians 3:12-18

12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold,
13 not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end.
14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.
15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts.
16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

Verse 14 speaks of Christ, and so my understanding is that the phrase "the Lord" (in verses 16-18) refers to Christ. So my thought is that the Father and the Son share the same Spirit, and that Jesus' words that the Father and He will come to anyone who loves Him and make their home with him (John 14:23), indicates that they will do that by means of the Holy Spirit that they share.

Yet, sometimes the New Testament writers seem to differentiate between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus.

1Co 2:11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.

Ac 16:7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.
Php 1:19 for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance.

[Homer]

Hi Darrin,

You wrote:

I also was struck by how pious even the most “heretical” bishops and clergy were on both sides (particularly the Arians) as well as how literate and engaged the lay and even non-religious were at this time (and later).

Appreciate your comments. I do think that on judgement day there will be no quiz requiring an explanation of the Trinity or other relationships. For me the scriptures plainly indicate:

There is one God.

Only God should be worshipped.

It is to proper to worship Jesus.

One of the most admired Christians I have known was a member of the Seventh Day Church of God (Seven Day Adventist without Ellen G White) and an Arian. He worked for me and had once been a brawling troublemaker. When he became a believer there was a profound change. When someone would mistreat him if I said anything about it his reponse was always "yes but..." followed by saying something good about his offender. His humble piety was such that I thought to myself "I can't be like Jesus, I just wish I could be like Verne".

As David Bercot commented, the early Christians believed Chistianity was a simple religion and prioritized following Jesus over dogma.

[darinhouston]

Appreciate your comments. I do think that on judgement day there will be no quiz requiring an explanation of the Trinity or other relationships. For me the scriptures plainly indicate:

There is one God.

Only God should be worshipped.

It is to proper to worship Jesus.

I think that syllogism fails short.

Could God give His authority to another for a given territory (like Earth and the created order)? If this one metaphorically had the scepter and ring of the King and came with all given authority of the King, would the subjects have a right to say this one would not have the right to be worshipped? Would worship of this one having such a derived authority be an affront to the King who granted that authority. Who am I to question the royalty of the prince even if he is not the King?

Incidentally, I find it interesting that few would entertain “heretical” Arian views, yet many of the “Trinitarian” defenders I hear these days sound much more Arian than Athanasian. Few today would seriously even question the subordinationism that was at the core of the Nicean era controversy.

If we believe in the duality of man, then one way I resolve the issue is perhaps everything “carnal” with Christ was human, but the “spirit” He was given was the very eternal Spirit of God (the same indivisible Spirit we receive and respond to and can be filled with). We can be filled with the Spirit in measure, but His spirit may have been entirely the Holy Spirit from His birth.

I wish we’d had 2000 years of honest theological discourse to explore these possibilities, but when we burn heretics and their books and squelch our differences, we perpetuate and reinforce error (I believe that most heresies are an over-response to other error).

[JamesFrench]

Angels are referred to in Old Testament as "Sons of God," being created beings. It was not Jesus in the fiery furnace with the three thrown in, but an angel of the Lord protecting them. Jesus was born of a woman and did not exist except in God's foreknowledge before conception. Trinity doctrine has tainted much in Christianity unfortunately.

[Paidion]

Jesus was born of a woman and did not exist except in God's foreknowledge before conception.

The early Christians taught that Jesus was "begotten before all ages."

Even Jesus Himself affirmed, "Before Abraham was I am."

He also indicated that He had glory with the Father before the world existed.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

[darinhouston]

Paidion, what’s the clearest reference for 1st century Christians believing in begetting before the ages?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

Well, I found only one example in the second century of the exact phrase "begotten by the Father before all ages," but many others which say the same thing in essence.

These things , my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. (Letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians, ch 10)

And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him. (2nd Apology of Justin, ch 6)

From the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten Thee. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent:Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Justin—Dialogue With Trypho, ch 31)

But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God... (Justin—Dialogue With Trypho, ch 60)

But that which is truly a sign, and which was to be made trustworthy to mankind,—namely, that the first-begotten of all creation should become incarnate by the Virgin’s womb, and be a child,—this he anticipated by the Spirit of prophecy, and predicted it... (Justin—Dialogue With Trypho, ch 84)

In his Dialogue With Trypho, Justin also stated many other times that Christ was begotten before all created things.

Even the apostle Paul states that our Lord was "the firstborn of all creation."

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Col 1:15 ESV)