The Trinity

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ah but you miss my point. and are you really going to use the Muratiorian fragment as an authority on what the canon is and is not? Because you will run into problems with today’s canon. Back to my point, the fact that the official canonization of the bible happened after Nicæa suggests that they were in a position to make a canon that conforms to the new doctrine of Trinitarianism and even change parts of it that would distract from it. Did it happen? Well parts of John would suggest that they did. Was this the extent of it? Probably not.

My problem with your argument here is the idea that canonization was a single post-Nicaea event. It would be more accurate to speak of canonization as a gradual process (indeed it was still ongoing over a millenia after Nicaea), and I stand by my use of the Muratorian fragment to show that the the canon existed in a very similar form to its modern incarnation long before Nicaea. We know that the Muratorian canon shows four Gospels and thirteen of the fourteen Pauline Epistles - the very same writings which make up the bulk of the modern New Testament. And this of course was long before the Arian controversy and the emergence of a distinct Trinitarian faction.

For that reason, I don't think you can say that the Trinitarians made any substantial alterations to the scripture. Perhaps you could tell me some particular books/verses you had in mind? I don't doubt there will be divergences from the Muratorian fragment, and indeed other ancient manuscripts, but I would be surprised if there is anything that alters core doctrines.

Ok… I might not be according to you. However, I have argued this with other Trinitarians, which still thinks that two separate ontological Gods is a heresy.

I said we did not have a big difference between us in terms of how we view any potential subordination of Christ to God/the Father. In this regard, I do not think you diverge from traditional Trinitarian views on the matter. Of course, I think it is very much heretical to speak of two separate Gods. But besides this last point, I think we have more in common than perhaps what either of us originally thought we did. I am genuinely cautiously optimistic that in time we might come to some sort of agreement.

Well… Christ could well be acting in his role as a divine agent of the almighty, giving him licence to use such phrases even though he does not possess those attributes.

In John 8:58, the context makes it clear that Jesus is making this claim for himself, and not simply speaking on God/the Father's behalf:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (John 8:56-59)"

If Jesus claims to be the uncreated "I AM", how can you claim that he is one of the inferior, created elohim?

Sorry m8, I do not believe you would reach this understanding if not for Athanasius or someone like him.

And I doubt you would be arguing for Subordinationism if a group of early Christians had not articulated the idea. Ultimately what matters is whether our beliefs stand up to scrutiny, and that's what this debate should be about.

I read Deuteronomy with great skepticism. I suspect it to be a fabrication.

I think this sort of reasoning is very problematic for our discussion here. We are trying to arrive at an understanding of scriptural truth, and that depends on the idea that there is a particular truth contained within the scripture. If you are going to start saying that Jesus himself quoted fabrications and erred in such a way, and that Jesus in fact had a wrong understanding of what the original, non-fabricated Deuteronomy said, well then there is no one scriptural truth for us to arrive at. We might as well say it is a bunch of contradictions, and abandon all our previous efforts to reconcile different passages.

At the end of the day we both came here to defend a particular interpretation of scripture. Subordinationism for yourself and Trinitarianism for myself. The very nature of the debate presupposes an inherent truth and consistency within the scripture. Without these things, this debate becomes meaningless.

You completely sidestepped my point.

I'll bring things back to your original point here, which was this:

"You are quoting a doxology. Saviour is not mentioned in your first quote, you are inferring it. But still, it is through Christ’s atonement whereby men can be saved, but it was God who sent the Messiah – and hence he can easily be called a Saviour as the Assyrian King Cyrus who was named Saviour of Israel."

First off, I would say that the context in which Cyrus is called saviour is incomparable to when God or Christ is called saviour. To return to the verse I gave to which you were responding here, it is important to remember that in the New Testament and speaking in terms of spiritual salvation, we are told that there is only one, singular Saviour:

"Neither is there salvation in any other [than Christ]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

And yet, of course, elsewhere God is called saviour (Jude 1:25), and Cyrus also is called saviour (Isaiah 45:1). Right away, an important piece of context to note is that one is from the New Testament, and one from the Old. In the Old Testament, the Jewish word "mashiach", meaning "messiah" or "anointed", was used to refer to everything from kings, to prophets, to the ritual components within the Temple. In the New Testament, it is used in a very different way, being used instead as a particular title for Jesus (hence "Jesus Christ", with "Christ" coming from the Greek "Khristos" and that in turn coming from the Hebrew "mashiach" - I know that you already know this, I just say this so you can follow my reasoning). This context makes it clear that when God is called our Saviour in the New Testament, this word was being used in a much more particular sense than when it was used in the Old Testament to refer to a variety of people and objects.

So, that's why I don't think you can compare God being called Saviour in Jude 1:25 to Cyrus being called Saviour in Isaiah 45:1. The New Testament Gospels and Epistles speak very clearly of one Saviour, yet bestow that title to both Christ and God in a way that they never do to any other figure like Cyrus.

But I recognize that there is another aspect to your argument, where you say that God can be called our Saviour on the grounds that he sent the Saviour to us. This would of course only make God our Saviour in a very roundabout sort of way, and for that reason I don't think it is the plainest way to read the verse. I would also say that it conflicts with the use of "messiah" as a specific title throughout the New Testament, and one which was reserved only for the Saviour himself. As a Trinitarian, I can say that God was that Saviour himself, and that's why I think Trinitarianism is the best way to understand such verses.

Well you see… All of your quoted scriptures needs to be reconciled with the following scriptures:

*various verses speaking of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit seen acting independently and simultaneously*

Right, but you didn't make any attempt to answer the question and verses which I put to you! But I have brought them up again earlier in this post so I'll leave this here.

As for the verses which you put to me, I have no problem with them as a Trinitarian. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are physically distinct from each other (at least when/if any of them takes on physical form) but share a single essence or nature which dwells fully in each of them. That is Trinitarianism and it is fully compatible with the verses you showed me.

Also, I agree we need to have a view to reconcile various passages. On the one hand we have those which talk of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as seemingly independent entities. On the other, we have those which seem to suggest a sort of unity and indivisibility of nature. For most Christians, Trinitarianism is the answer which allows for the reconciliation of such verses - one nature fully and indivisibly present in three persons.

The problem with your view is “a single essence” this do not allow for ontological different in nature.
The scriptures I quoted clearly speaks of ontological difference, in that they were separate in space (location) at those specific incidents. Witnesses saw and heard three different sources. The Jesus on earth, the ascending dove and the voice from heaven. Stephen the martyr saw two personages in his vision: God the Almighty and his son who stood at the almighty’s right hand. Jesus clearly deferred to his father in judgment and action. It was not according to Jesus’ will, but to God the Father’s will. Clearly a distinction of nature.

Of course, I agree that "a single essence" does not allow for "ontological difference in nature", especially when we are using the terms 'essence' and 'nature' interchangeably. Which is why I would not argue for ontological difference in nature; rather, I would argue for ontological difference in personhood. I believe in one God and one divine nature, that dwells fully and indivisibly in both the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each are capable of independent action, yet share entirely a single nature. That is Trinitarianism.

[Sigurd]

My problem with your argument here is the idea that canonization was a single post-Nicaea event. It would be more accurate to speak of canonization as a gradual process (indeed it was still ongoing over a millenia after Nicaea), and I stand by my use of the Muratorian fragment to show that the the canon existed in a very similar form to its modern incarnation long before Nicaea. We know that the Muratorian canon shows four Gospels and thirteen of the fourteen Pauline Epistles - the very same writings which make up the bulk of the modern New Testament. And this of course was long before the Arian controversy and the emergence of a distinct Trinitarian faction.

Well... If you think canonization of scripture is limited to a decision to which book to be included, you are right that it began long before Nicæa. But canonization includes translation and the perils it will bring. If all translators became Trinitarian before any notable translation was performed, you suddenly have a bias towards Trinitarianism and you get situations like with Erasmus and 1. John 5:7.

For that reason, I don't think you can say that the Trinitarians made any substantial alterations to the scripture. Perhaps you could tell me some particular books/verses you had in mind? I don't doubt there will be divergences from the Muratorian fragment, and indeed other ancient manuscripts, but I would be surprised if there is anything that alters core doctrines.

Little things like godhead instead of Divine, God instead of a god etc... there are many places where Trinitarian bias is shown in the translations, especially if the translators are ordered to make the translation reflect a specific understanding of doctrine (see KJV).

In John 8:58, the context makes it clear that Jesus is making this claim for himself, and not simply speaking on God/the Father's behalf:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (John 8:56-59)"

If Jesus claims to be the uncreated "I AM", how can you claim that he is one of the inferior, created elohim?

See... you take the English translation too literally. This is the main problem with Biblical fundamentalism.
If you go and look at the Greek, you will notice it is a phrase used multiple times in the NT, yet it is only translated like this in John 8:58. The words are ego eimi and is used among others of Paul. Does he claim divinity when he wishes all where like I am (not a reference to YWHW)? I notice that in other translations of the Bible, this phrase is translated as: I was, I was before Abraham, I have existed before Abraham was born etc.

The very nature of the debate presupposes an inherent truth and consistency within the scripture. Without these things, this debate becomes meaningless.

Alright... but as there are as many interpretations of scripture as there are denominations of Christendom, it becomes difficult to rely solely on the texts alone.

I'll bring things back to your original point here, which was this:
…
But I recognize that there is another aspect to your argument, where you say that God can be called our Saviour on the grounds that he sent the Saviour to us. This would of course only make God our Saviour in a very roundabout sort of way, and for that reason I don't think it is the plainest way to read the verse. I would also say that it conflicts with the use of "messiah" as a specific title throughout the New Testament, and one which was reserved only for the Saviour himself. As a Trinitarian, I can say that God was that Saviour himself, and that's why I think Trinitarianism is the best way to understand such verses.

Yet Cyrus was called messiah in his own right, and of course as you say in a dualistic way as all of Esaias' writings, used as a Messianic prophecy.

Right, but you didn't make any attempt to answer the question and verses which I put to you! But I have brought them up again earlier in this post so I'll leave this here.

The use of I AM in NT is not the same as the use of I AM in the OT... It really shouldn't be I AM in the OT, the phrase is ’eh·yeh and is translated into English as I AM. If you go to a translation in another language, you will see what I mean. The two phrases are not the same and shouldn't be recognized as such.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well... If you think canonization of scripture is limited to a decision to which book to be included, you are right that it began long before Nicæa. But canonization includes translation and the perils it will bring. If all translators became Trinitarian before any notable translation was performed, you suddenly have a bias towards Trinitarianism and you get situations like with Erasmus and 1. John 5:7.

Little things like godhead instead of Divine, God instead of a god etc... there are many places where Trinitarian bias is shown in the translations, especially if the translators are ordered to make the translation reflect a specific understanding of doctrine (see KJV).

Its very easy to say that so and so may have corrupted bits and pieces here and there... but that's only a relevant argument insofar as you can show the verses I am using to be corruptions. Like I said, we have enough historic evidence to know that the Trinitarian faction around the time of the Arian controversy did not substantially alter the Bible. At the end of the day, I am not Erasmus and I'm not bringing up 1 John 5:7.

See... you take the English translation too literally. This is the main problem with Biblical fundamentalism.
If you go and look at the Greek, you will notice it is a phrase used multiple times in the NT, yet it is only translated like this in John 8:58. The words are ego eimi and is used among others of Paul. Does he claim divinity when he wishes all where like I am (not a reference to YWHW)? I notice that in other translations of the Bible, this phrase is translated as: I was, I was before Abraham, I have existed before Abraham was born etc.

I am not educated in other languages, but the wikipedia page says that "ego eimi" is translated as "I am" in several places throughout the Bible, including the New Testament, citing the example of John 9:8. This part seemed particularly relevant:

When used as a copula, with a predicate, "I am X", then usage is equivalent to English.

When used alone, without a predicate, "I am", "he is", "they are", typically mean "I exist" etc.

Homer Odyssey 4:133 ‘Wouldest thou then return again with us to thy home, that thou mayest see the high-roofed house of thy father and mother, and see them too? For of a truth they still live (eisi, 3rd person plural of eimi), and are accounted rich.’[1]

This is so unless there is an implied predicate in immediate context.

This would appear to suggest that the KJV makes the correct translation.

Yet Cyrus was called messiah in his own right, and of course as you say in a dualistic way as all of Esaias' writings, used as a Messianic prophecy.

Do you not agree that the New Testament makes it clear that we have one Lord and Saviour? Would you agree that that Saviour is not Cyrus? Because that's what things boil down to here.

The use of I AM in NT is not the same as the use of I AM in the OT... It really shouldn't be I AM in the OT, the phrase is ’eh·yeh and is translated into English as I AM. If you go to a translation in another language, you will see what I mean. The two phrases are not the same and shouldn't be recognized as such.

Of course, in the OT it is in Hebrew, and in the NT it is in Koine Greek, so it will not be exactly the same. However from what I've come across it seems to me that "I am that I am" is consistent with the way in which the Hebrew was translated into Greek by the Jewish diaspora. Again I can only offer wikipedia, but it lists the various ways in which the diaspora translated the Hebrew:

Septuagint Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I am HE WHO IS (ho ōn): and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, HE WHO IS (ho ōn) hath sent me unto you.[2]
Philo : And God said, "At first say unto them, 'I am (egō eimi) THE BEING', (ho ōn, nominative of ontos) that, when they have learnt that there is a difference between THE BEING (ontos, genitive of ho ōn) and that-that-is-not (me ontos), they may be further taught that there is no name whatever that can properly be assigned to Me (ep' emou kuriologeitai), to whom (hoi) only (monoi) belongs (prosesti) the existence (to einai). (Philo Life Of Moses Vol.1 :75)[3][4]
ho Ōn, "He who is" (Philo, Life of Moses I 75)
to Ōn, "the Being who is" (Philo, Life of Moses II 67),
tou Ontos, "of Him that is" (II 99)
tou Ontos, "of the Self-Existent" (II 132)
to Ōn, "the Self-Existent" (II 161)

The theme would seem to be one of self-existence or being unbegotten and eternal, which I think the KJV captures nicely.

[Sigurd]

Its very easy to say that so and so may have corrupted bits and pieces here and there... but that's only a relevant argument insofar as you can show the verses I am using to be corruptions. Like I said, we have enough historic evidence to know that the Trinitarian faction around the time of the Arian controversy did not substantially alter the Bible. At the end of the day, I am not Erasmus and I'm not bringing up 1 John 5:7.

Somebody brought up 1 Joh. 5:7 and it is a well known verse to use supporting Trinitarianism.
Historic? Name one surviving complete copy of the Bible or a NT document from around the time of Arian. Do we even know all the contenders? Besides, this is a debate in its own right - Bible infallibility one which I would love to join.
But let this be my point; The move from Subordinationism to Trinitarianism is very subtle. There is no need to do substantial editing and since the beginning of the use of the method eclecticism, it shows that there are differences between the fragments existing of the traditional canon (the one we have to day). Either there has been a purposeful editing or the translators weren't so concerned with the preservation of the original text.

I am not educated in other languages, but the wikipedia page says that "ego eimi" is translated as "I am" in several places throughout the Bible, including the New Testament, citing the example of John 9:8. This part seemed particularly relevant:

This would appear to suggest that the KJV makes the correct translation.

I think you missed my point. You compared I AM from the old Testament with the use of I AM in the New Testament saying they are the same. I said - no, they are different. You can't quote OT and its use of I AM and put it next to the use of I AM in the NT - and declare; See, it is the same. That would be completely misguided Bible literalism.

Wikipedia is not considered to be a good source of reference in any scientific discipline.

The theme would seem to be one of self-existence or being unbegotten and eternal, which I think the KJV captures nicely.

Yet Christ is begotten and can therefore not be the one which is discussed here.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Somebody brought up 1 Joh. 5:7 and it is a well known verse to use supporting Trinitarianism.
Historic? Name one surviving complete copy of the Bible or a NT document from around the time of Arian. Do we even know all the contenders? Besides, this is a debate in its own right - Bible infallibility one which I would love to join.
But let this be my point; The move from Subordinationism to Trinitarianism is very subtle. There is no need to do substantial editing and since the beginning of the use of the method eclecticism, it shows that there are differences between the fragments existing of the traditional canon (the one we have to day). Either there has been a purposeful editing or the translators weren't so concerned with the preservation of the original text.

Once again though, do you have any evidence that the particular verses I am using are forgeries? Until you do so, all you can say is that you think it is plausible that they may be.

I think you missed my point. You compared I AM from the old Testament with the use of I AM in the New Testament saying they are the same. I said - no, they are different. You can't quote OT and its use of I AM and put it next to the use of I AM in the NT - and declare; See, it is the same. That would be completely misguided Bible literalism.

Wikipedia is not considered to be a good source of reference in any scientific discipline.

The part you quoted of me here was where I was addressing your concerns about the consistency of how "ego eimi" is translated throughout the NT. Later on in my post I did indeed argue that "ego eimi" and "’eh·yeh" were seen as having essentially the same meaning by the Jewish diaspora, and were translated as such. Like I said all I could turn to was wikipedia and it is not perfect, but its usually accurate and its the best I can offer as an ordinary layman. Again, let's just get down to business - do you disagree with the evidence I used from it?

Yet Christ is begotten and can therefore not be the one which is discussed here.

This is where an important distinction comes in, and one that is well established in orthodox theology - the idea of the eternal generation of the Son. Of particular relevance:

"There is no question that Calvin espoused the doctrine of the Son's eternal generation as being true with respect to his hypostatic identity, that is, with respect to his Sonship, and he employed the doctrine to distinguish between the Father and the Son as to their order, but he did not espouse the doctrine as being true with respect to the Son's divine essence."