redvip - Whoever explained that to you just described every heresy all mashed up together. Like 99% of christians they know absolutely nothing about their central dogma.
The Trinity Easily Explained in 29 Words
Very nice...well played... So in order for me to explain a theological concept, I have to do so based on YOUR naturalistic/humanistic terms, a framework for which is impossible to do without the use of specific theological concepts encapsulated in the Greek language - Saved_JW
Yes your challenge is to explain the central dogma of the christian religion accurately in way that can easily be understood by a normal person who has no knowledge of esoteric terms like Homoousios.
Why would that be a problem?
No thanks I wont take the bait.
It's not bait it's a perfectly reasonable question. No surprise you refuse to answer it.
impossible to do without the use of specific theological concepts encapsulated in the Greek language - Saved_JW
The earliest christians did not speak Greek let alone understand esoteric Greek theological terms. Therefore by your own admission they did not understand the trinity. Therefore according to you the earliest christians were not christian.
"the earliest Christians did not speak greek let along understand esoteric Greek theological terms."
Acts 17:22 // Paul speaks at the aeropagus quoting from Greek philosophers to make a case for Christianity
-Greek/Aramaic were two very common languages in ancient Palestine, the basis for which the Septuagint was written [and utilized by Jesus when quoting the OT] not to mention the entire NT was written in Greek.
sorry, I don't buy that argument.
"Therefore by your own admission they did not understand the trinity."
what exactly did I admit to? The entire basis of your belief that the earliest Christians did not believe in the trinity is the ASSUMPTION they didn't understand greek?
"Therefore according to you the earliest Christians were not Christians"
Nope, the earliest Christians had a very high view of Jesus, this is not to say there were not different streams of belief about the ontology of Jesus [see Gnosticism] however, 1st John seem to combat and refute the spread of Gnostic philosophy very early on. This was also the basis for forming the Nicene creed in 325 to defend traditional views of Christs nature. Which they did by using the more specific Greek language to define terms.
Paul speaks at the aeropagus
Paul had no concept like the trinity. But I'm not talking about trained Pharisees like Paul I mean the thousands of the earliest illiterate Hebrew christians.
the entire NT was written in Greek
I'm talking about before the NT was written. The first generation of illiterate Hebrew christians did not speak Greek. You said that it is impossible to explain the trinity without "the use of specific theological concepts encapsulated in the Greek language". Therefore these earliest christians could not have understood the trinity.
It follows that either belief in the trinity is of little importance or early christians were not christian.
the earliest Christians had a very high view of Jesus
I know they did... But that is a long way from the self-contradictory dogma of the trinity.
Your challenge still stands.
Dude, every time you clarify your statement, you carry more unfounded assertions that I have to address, which makes it increasingly difficult to respond.
"Paul had no concept of the trinity"
what do you mean by that exactly? If you mean the specific word Trinity, I would agree..but that does not assume the CONCEPT underlying the word was not understood by Christians. In fact, I use Paul more then anybody else to help support the concept of the trinity
"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."
"But I'm not talking about trained Pharisees like Paul I mean the thousands of the earliest illiterate Hebrew Christians."
Oh ok...because earlier you said:
"The earliest christians did not speak Greek let alone understand esoteric Greek theological terms."
Sounded like a broad brush statement, but the qualifier must be everybody except "Educated Pharisees"
What needs to be understood here is that Pauls main audience were GENTILES for which he wrote his letters in the greek language. Are we to assume that none of the GREEK church's he was writing to actually spoke greek or understood the theological concepts he was writing about?
"I'm talking about before the NT was written. The first generation of illiterate Hebrew christians did not speak Greek."
300 years before Jesus even arrived on the scene, you have the Selucid [Greek] Empire saturating its religion, language and culture in Palestine. Not only this but the entire ancient world. This was the entire basis of translating the Hebrew Bible into Greek [Septuagint or LXX] By the time jesus arrives on the scene, virtually all of Palestine is either utilizing greek as a primary language, or a fluent second language. It was necessary to learn to conduct business.
Why else would Jesus be quoting from the Greek Septuagint in a synagogue at Mark 7:6-7
All in all, the NT quotes and references the Septuagint in 340 instances, compared to 33 quotes from the Masoretic text.
The challenge you gave me is entirely based on your assumption that early Christians did not know greek so therefore could not have possibly understood the Trinity. I find that view wanting.
Based on that assumption, you setup a challenge robbing me of an explanation which makes use of words like "Essence" - Which is a biblical word by the way [words that actually have biblical theological concepts behind them]
that does not assume the CONCEPT underlying the word was not understood by Christians
Your JWesque proof-texting notwithstanding there is no description of anything approaching the concept of a trinity anywhere in Paul's writings.
Are you really asserting that the earliest illiterate Hebrew christians described their god in esoteric Greek terms like homoousios?
No ordinary christians today even begin to understand the nuances of person, essence and substance. Almost without exception they worship a committee of three gods or a single god with three hats. Already in this thread we have had every heresy offered by self-proclaimed christians.
It is evident you cannot explain it in simple terms. No christian who believes in the trinity should have the cheek to criticise the cult's "overlapping generation".
"In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw Yahweh sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. " Isaiah 6:1
"These things Isaiah said because he (Isaiah) saw His (Christ's) glory, and he spoke of Him (Christ)." John 12:41
YHWH was well understood to mean the Most High... The attributes of YHWH were fully explained by PAUL in the very verse I quoted earlier in Colossians. [For which he ATTRIBUTES them to Jesus]
So here you have John the Apostle of Jesus explaining that the person Isaiah saw was Jesus, and you go to Isaiah and you see him refer to the person of YHWH.
Two conclusions here
1- John made a mistake and attributed Isaiahs vision to Jesus
2- John was making a case for Jesus being God by attributing Isaiahs vision to Jesus
These are the theological considerations which led to our understanding of Christs nature which was later called the Trinity.
The answer to your Isaiah quote is blindingly obvious but I'm not going to get into JWesque proof-texting with you, we have all been there and done that. I know all the texts on both sides of the debate as well as anybody.
By the way there are three persons in the trinity not two.
My challenge remains. All your work is ahead of you.
From my earlier thread...
The apostles described themselves as witnesses of Jesus, they called him their only owner and Lord, and the one to whom they belonged. They were baptised in his name, led by his Spirit, rejoiced in his blessing and overflowed with praise for him.
But this is still a very long way from a trinity.