The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How Do You Explain the Trinity?

Paidion, this is specifically to you; you have a well-earned respect here and you can count me fully as one who has learned a lot from you and your gracious manner even when you disagree with someone. So I feel pretty safe in asking you for your take on something.

I’m going to link to a somewhat over-the-top group, imho, that nevertheless appears to make a pretty good case for Christ NOT being pre-existent. BUT I am not the scholar you are, so I’m hoping you may find the time to consider their arguments concerning certain scriptures, and let me know if they are completely unsound, or just a bit off-base, or if they are at least debatable. It’s not a long post, but still it will take a little time. If you have the time maybe you can take a look and report back. I’d really like to nail this one down one way or another. Be forewarned that imo they do use some hyperbole in their zeal, and they come out swinging, but as it goes along the ydrop much of the invective and get down to tacks.
Thanks.

BTW - not all their points are, to me, well-made at all. The first few for example. But some are.

hope-of-israel.org/12proof2.html

And your quoted text says this:

or

youtube.com/watch?v=O6kRqnfsBEc

I suppose all the folks studying Koine Greek in seminaries - have untrained minds. Right? And if so, how does one properly train the mind, grasshopper :question: :laughing:

Or should we study at both the local theological seminary and the Shaolin temple :question: And earn degrees, from both places :question: :laughing:

or

youtube.com/watch?v=j1wjvP-raOI

I guess your questions should be directed to them, eh?
Maybe there is no way to get to the truth of the matter. :astonished: :smiley:

Me thinks they are injecting more into the text, then what is actually there. :laughing:

Maybe we should ask Mulder and Scully, from the X-files. :laughing:

https://shop.catholic.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/t/r/truth-is-out-there_2.jpg

I found the last few of their arguments persuasive, but I was already in agreement with their conclusion, if not with their inflammatory rhetoric.

It’s like this Dave. I know languages such as French, Spanish and Russian. Now suppose I read a famous novel or short story, in the original language. And I write up a summary. And “the experts” are all in accord, with my plot summary. Then some unknown says this is what the story is** really** saying. We might have no way of knowing, if the author is dead.

However, experts can untangle obscure works, like:

The Critic of Pure Reason by Emmanuel Kant
Ulysses and Finnegan’s Wake by James Joyce

And come to a consensus, on the general plot and/or meaning. I really wouldn’t trust an obscure, alternative presentation.

But if it works for you - run with it. :laughing:

And here’s the obscure expert, showing how to play the piano properly :exclamation: :laughing:

or

youtube.com/watch?v=gUsJXwE73QU

Randy, I guess I don’t know what you are saying. I suppose the people on the website I linked to are all fools with an agenda, that have never studied the language, and that you know it better. That could be. I really don’t know. I’m more interested (but getting less so with each passing moment) in their presentation - are they right or wrong?
As to alternative understandings - it’s always: alternative to what? a guy just has to look at the arguments and make his best call. We’re not going to solve one problem on this Forum, of the many problems that have bugged the Church since her beginning.
And just as with the trinity, this pre-existence theory does not seem to have much effect in the wastelands - most people need much stronger medicine than medieval theory can provide.

It all goes back to inferences, Dave. Like I mentioned in another thread. We do we infer, from a simple, Old Testament story. Where the donkey is speaking?

Take the donkey speaking, in the Old Testament. It may well be:

That donkeys back then, were as intelligent as humans - but lacked speaking ability
God temporary made the donkey as smart as humans…but also gave it, the temporary ability to speak
Someone was acting as a ventriloquist, but God opened the donkey’s mouth
God spoke through the donkey
Some other plausible explanation

But we are making inferences.

So if we can’t agree on the donkey, we will have a harder time with more **abstract ** things - like the Trinity.

I just think that if God is the author of a book - either directly or indirectly…God would want the experts, to get the general plot right - at least. And communicate the general plot, to the uneducated masses.

or

youtube.com/watch?v=cX_tE0M3ZCI

I have no doubts that the general plot is pretty well understood, and that the obscure stuff will stay obscure.
And I’m pretty sure that the obscure stuff is not that important, or it would not be obscure.

As my main man says:
We answer again, that, if God be infinitely wise, he cannot sport with the understandings of his creatures. A wise teacher discovers his wisdom in adapting himself to the capacities of his pupils, not in perplexing them with what is unintelligible, not in distressing them with apparent contradictions, not in filling them with a skeptical distrust of their own powers. An infinitely wise teacher, who knows the precise extent of our minds, and the best method of enlightening them, will surpass all other instructors in bringing down truth to our apprehension, and in showing its loveliness and harmony. We ought, indeed, to expect occasional obscurity in such a book as the Bible, which was written for past and future ages, as well as for the present. But God’s wisdom is a pledge, that whatever is necessary for US, and necessary for salvation, is revealed too plainly to be mistaken, and too consistently to be questioned, by a sound and upright mind. It is not the mark of wisdom, to use an unintelligible phraseology, to communicate what is above our capacities, to confuse and unsettle the intellect by appearances of contradiction. We honor our Heavenly Teacher too much to ascribe to him such a revelation. A revelation is a gift of light. It cannot thicken our darkness, and multiply our perplexities.

Like I say before, Dave. If it works for you - run with it. I’m more concerned with how folks implement Christianity (i.e. love God and neighbor as thyself, aid the poor and suffering, etc.), then getting the theology exactly right.

If one is a true Inclusivist - like me…and gives leeway to Christ and the Holy Spirit, working through other religions…They can work through 'bad theology" and “Crazy theology”, just as well.

But then again…one who embraces Holy Fool theology and P-Zombie philosophy - does deviate from the norm. And if I combine the writing style of directly response copywriters (i.e. Clayton Makepeace, Ben Hart, Dan Kennedy)…with the zaniness of Curly Howard, Harpo Marks and Stan Laurel…I certainly don’t follow the “status quo”. :laughing:

If one is a true Inclusivist - like me…and gives leeway to Christ and the Holy Spirit working through other religions…They can work through 'bad theology" and “Crazy theology”, just as well.

I’m totally on board with that.
I think Channing’s point is excellent, and I’m totally on board with that as well. :slight_smile:

Hi Dave,

I’d like to comment on the statements concerning the “tampered” translations of John 17:5

I think it extreme to speak of the many translators who rendered the phrase “before the world was” as having “tampered with” and “twisted” the text “to fit prevailing pagan concepts.” Does the author really think that the nearly all translators who have so rendered it, have done this from the motive of “trying fit prevailing pagan concepts”? Which “pagan concepts” does he think they are trying to fit. The fact is that virtually all translators have tried to provide an honest and accurate translation of the Greek text. To hold that there is some kind of conspiracy in the almost universal translation of this text is either naiïve or dishonest.

The regular NIV has, “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” More than 100 scholars worked together to produce that version. I was unable to verify Marshall’s version of the NIV. It does not seem to be available online to read. There was one site that indicated a pdf of it, but when I clicked on it, a message came up saying that the site was not found.

In any case, the literal rendering of the Greek should be “with the glory I had before the world to be with you.” My Online Bible Program has the following very literal Diaglot translation:
And now glorify me, thou O Father, with thyself, with the glory, which I had, before of the the world to be, with thee.
The Diaglot is a little too literal. It should not translate “of the world” even though it is a genitive. It is because the preposition “προ” is always by the genitive that the genitive is used, and not because John meant “of the world” It should be “before the world.” But I do agree that it’s “before the world to be.”

The word “εχω” (or “echo” as the author has it) simply means “to have” as it does in English. As in English we can say “I have” in several different contexts. I think it dishonest to select ONE of these contexts and then state that the word has that meaning. Thayer’s lexicon has two pages, with two columns on each page under the heading “εχω”. It then gives a possible translation for each context. Yes, you can find “to have in store” in Thayer’s lexicon in connection with Matthew 14:17 “We have only five loaves here and two fishes,” John 2:3 “They have no wine,” and 1 Cor 11:22 “Do you humiliate those who have nothing?” It just happens that in these contexts, what the people had was in store. But that doesn’t imply that the MEANING of “εχω” is “to have in store.” Even in these contexts, the word means “to have.” The fact that the people had something in store doesn’t mean that we need to add “in store” to “have” in our translation.
The fact that the word “ειχον” (a form of the word “εχω”) is in the imperfect indicates only that it is to be translated as “I was having.”

It doesn’t follow from his previous paragraph that “I had” should be translated as “I am to have.”

The word “προ” means “before.” And yes, this means “previous to.” I don’t see how that fact helps his case.

I disagree with “I am to have” but agree with “before the world to come.” I think it should be, “the glory that I was having with you before the world to come.” It seems to me that “the world to come” was future to the time when Christ was having the glory with the Father, but past from our point of view. For that reason translators render it “before the world was.”

Thanks Paidion. I did not follow all of that, so I’ll re-read it in the morning. Before the election results start coming in, at which time I will begin my slow descent into madness…

Hmmm… I appreciate this is your position based on Justin Martyr’s thoughts but it is indeed less than a minority view which doesn’t show up in any of the commentaries I’ve been able to consult (do you have any further info on this); so IMO he is reading way more into the text than is genuinely there — but we can agree to disagree on that, no problems.

An “exact imprint” is exactly that… an “imprint” — an imprint is something OTHER than the original. The reason Jesus could say “he who has seen me has seen the Father” is because Jesus was God to Israel in kind with how Moses was “God to Pharaoh” i.e., He was God’s ordained Prophet aka mouthpiece… he spoke what he heard from the Father.

My understanding is that God’s “begetting” of Christ is not so much an act as it was an action… being declared and appointed the Son with power and thus Lord over all, i,e., the preeminent one.

Paidion did make an interesting point. The big five bible versions (i.e. NKJV, NIV, NLT, ESV and NASB), all have committees of scholars and translators. And they usually number from 90 - 120, and are comprised of scholars, of various denominational backgrounds. This way, they eliminate bias. And they have to come to a consensus, on how a chapter or book is translated. Let’s say three scholars are working on Luke. And they are from Baptist, Lutheran and Anglican backgrounds. Nothing is complete, until they are all in accord.

If I wish to understand something, I’ll take an online rendering, of the big five (NKJV, NIV, NLT, ESV and NASB). Then I’ll come to my understanding.

Note: KJV is one that makes them, the big six. I just feel that the NKJV is easier to understand.

One would hope so. But one would wonder if scholars are chosen for the committee if they are known to strongly represent a ‘minority report’ ? If one is a Calvinistic hammer, everything looks like a tulip. If one is an evangelical hammer, everything looks like Chalcedon.

There are criteria for choosing committee members. If we already know who the heretics are, no matter how learned they may be, there is no chance we want them on the team.

That being said, a good honest translation that gives more than lip-service to strong contrary opinions, even in side or foot notes, is a treasure.

The companies behind the bible translations, would have to choose scholars, from various known church denominations. And if they didn’t, they would be slammed…first and foremost, by the marketing arm, of rival bible translation companies.

After all, they want people to read about the prophets - for a profit. :exclamation: :laughing:

And no matter what the companies say about spreading the gospel, etc…they all want to create more profits. :laughing:

But If you want a Baptist bible, A Roman Catholic bible, or an A.E. Knoch bible - they are available :laughing:

Profit-prophet - I have a feeling you are really going to be on your game today Randy! :smiley:
The only ‘trinity’ (and I mean no disrespect) for me today is Big bowl of chile with some cornbread- a great beer or 2 - watch the election with a couple of friends. Try to fool myself into watching for historical purposes only. :laughing:

And add a shot or two of white lightening (for medicinal purposes only). I add that disclaimer, in case Hermano is following this thread. :laughing:

That is correct. It is indeed something other than the original. Yet, it may be another exactly alike the original. Suppose I have a photo of my wife in my left pocket. I have made an exact imprint of that photo and have placed it in my right pocket. I withdraw the first photo and say to you, “Here is a photo of my wife.” Then I withdraw the one from my right pocket and say, “Here’s another photo of my wife.” You look at it and say, “That’s the same photo!” But I reply, “No it isn’t. These are two different photographs. One is in my left hand and the other in my right.” You feel that when you saw the first picture, you saw the second." And you were right. In one sense they were the same picture; in another sense they were two different pictures.

Similarly, though the only-begotten Son of God is a different divine Individual from the Father, He is exactly like his Father. If you’ve seen Him, you’ve seen the Father. They are of the same divine essence, but yet they are two distinct Individuals.

To me that explanation doesn’t seem likely. The early Christians (not only Justin Marty) saw Jesus as having pre-existed. Even as late as the fourth century after Trinitarianism became established, the original Nicene Creed referred to the Son as having been “begotten before all ages.” Even the early Trinitarians accepted that wording. But later Trinitarians realized that those words were not consistent with Trinitarian teaching. So they changed the wording of the Nicene Creed to “eternally begotten.”