Paul Did Not Believe In The Trinity

[Uncle Dale]

Is stupidity a power? If so, then I rule the multiverse.

There are two kinds of stupidity -- the kind that comes from defective brain connections, and the kind

that comes from believing you are truly one of the iconic power figures of the Apocalypse.

God save us from the latter.

UD

[soren]

The problem is Soren... This particular verse is speaking of a Future event so it it the Ultimate.

Oh duh, you're talking about the first verse that consiglieri posted. In that case, I defer to Rhino, whose answer is good anough to speak for me.

[Zakuska]

Which one do you mean? I mentioned both Phillippians and Hebrews.

I was speaking of Corinthians 15... the subject of the thread.

[consiglieri]

Here you bring up one of the other salient issues in this line of thinking. Was Paul primarily a theologian, trying to unpack the revelation of God in Christ and all its myriad implications? Or was Paul primarily a witness to the resurrected Christ, passing on the basic gospel message to as many people as possible? I think he was both, but far more the latter than the former. The implications and new questions that arose when Christians began thinking deeply about these matters would have been beyond the scope of Paul's primary mission and identity.

I agree with you on this, Rhino.

But I think it works against you.

The 4th century Christian philospher/theologians who came up with the Trinity at least pretended that they were basing their doctrine on the scriptures, much of which was written by Paul.

If we take the view that Paul was not primarily a theologian, but rather a missionary, why should we think that there would be anything to cogently "unpack" from his epistles that would then support a subsequent theology of any kind?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I was speaking of Corinthians 15... the subject of the thread.

I have to agree with Zak on this.

1 Corinthians does seem to be speaking about the end times when Christ hands all things over to his Father, after Christ has conquered them all, the last enemy being death.

Therefore, Paul sees Christ's ultimate status as subordinate to the Father, and is not speaking only in terms of Christ's mortal existence.

Nope. No Trinity here.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Oh duh, you're talking about the first verse that consiglieri posted. In that case, I defer to Rhino, whose answer is good anough to speak for me.

Don't speak too soon.

Check out my response to Rhino above!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

Yes, many gods and lords and the like on earth, which Paul also says are, by nature, not gods at all (Galatians 4:. There is no God but one.

A no... BOTH In heaven and on Earth.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

So tell me... why is God filling heaven with Totum Poles?

There isn't "One God in all existance" thats a Saducee/Dueteronomist Heresy...

For US there is only One God to worship... and One Lord to obey...

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

[Hoops22]

Is stupidity a power? If so, then I rule the multiverse.

Appealing to unity will not help you here.

[consiglieri]

Appealing to unity will not help you here.

But it is unity in stupidity only.

The persons are still separate.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[BCSpace]

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

So tell me... why is God filling heaven with Totum Poles?

I've never seen it that way.

I see "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth" as the idol gods (remember that there are those who reckon the satrs to be gods) and "(as there be gods many, and lords many,)" as real and divine gods.

"be" (to exist) is the key word here. Paul first refers to those who are called (no existence or reality implied) divine gods. Then Paul, as an aside, mentions that, besides those that are called gods, there are gods (be) that exist.

[LifeOnaPlate]

In short, Paul didn't know everything. Obviously Paul knew nothing about temple marriage, spirit prisons, and a plurality of Gods either, so by your logic, wouldn't those also be off the table?

Yikes. It can't be proven Paul didn't know about any of these things. Paul doesn't mention bathing, but I can assume he knew how to keep himself clean.

[Casper]

Yes, many gods and lords and the like on earth, which Paul also says are, by nature, not gods at all (Galatians 4:. There is no God but one.

Death was not a part of the perfect human nature; it only entered the picture through sin. So the human nature of Christ can never die again, just as our glorified bodies post-resurrection will never die.

As you are a faithful LDS, I would hardly expect you to believe otherwise. Heck, I might even agree with you on (a), and in a nuanced way, (. What Jesus and the apostles taught was not the Trinity per se, but the building blocks of the doctrine. They provided the raw material of which the Trinity was and is best synthesis.

Take care, everyone

If the trinity is such an important belief to have (you can't be a real, BA, saved Christian without it!), why are there only these supposed "building blocks" found in the Bible? Why did none of the NT (or OT) authors come right out and give us the Trinity doctrine?

[Uncle Dale]

Yikes. It can't be proven Paul didn't know about any of these things. Paul doesn't mention

bathing, but I can assume he knew how to keep himself clean.

There may actually be a logical LDS response to this -- and that is, that Saul of Taursus was a Herodian,

and was thus not allowed into the "House of the Lord" in the Jerusalem Temple.

Saul is pictured as being in the High Priest's employ and evidently having some close connection to

the Temple guard or other armed men associated with the High Priest.

But if Saul was an Edomite on his mother's side, he may not have been considered "Jewish" enough to

pass beyond the Court of the Gentiles in the Jerusalem Temple.

If Mormons maintain that work for the dead, endowments, etc. were going on in the Jerusalem Temple

at that time, I suppose they would not have been done out for public view in the Court of the Gentiles.

Right?

But later on Saul/Paul attempts to enter the inner Temple grounds with a companion, and causes a

riot. Was 100% of the riot due to his companion, or was Saul himself still barred from that area?

UD

[Zakuska]

I've never seen it that way.

I see "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth" as the idol gods (remember that there are those who reckon the satrs to be gods) and "(as there be gods many, and lords many,)" as real and divine gods.

"be" (to exist) is the key word here. Paul first refers to those who are called (no existence or reality implied) divine gods. Then Paul, as an aside, mentions that, besides those that are called gods, there are gods (be) that exist.

I agree completely...

The Totem Poles remark was Rhetorical Sarcasm.

Sorry.

[rhinomelon]

If the trinity is such an important belief to have (you can't be a real, BA, saved Christian without it!), why are there only these supposed "building blocks" found in the Bible? Why did none of the NT (or OT) authors come right out and give us the Trinity doctrine?

Because that wasn't their mission. Their mission was witnessing to the gospel, to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. They passed on what they had seen and heard, and the next generations carried the torch, all the while digging deeper into the gospel and the life of Christ. As they kept studying and reciting and interacting with the ideas presented in the apostolic witness, questions arose ("We believe there is only one God, but we also believe Christ to be God 'in the flesh'. How do we explain that?"). The Trinity was the best response to these kinds of questions.

The same evolution happens in LDS circles, or regarding LDS doctrine. LDS scholars are still picking over the revelations of LDS prophets and apostles, coming up with new ways of understanding, filling in supposed "gaps" in the biblical witness, etc. As far as gaps go, if having the correct organizational structure is essential to being the true church, why did none of the NT authors clearly line it out? If one must be married in order to enjoy the highest level of celestial glory, why not make that clear? Or what about temple worship, or temple ordinances in Christian temples? The apostles didn't mention any of that either.

And the evidence that most LDS point to in order to validate their modern claims regarding church organization and temple worship are found in NT books that are not primarily theological in content, but historical (Acts, or the Gospels). This is exactly what I mean. The apostles didn't hand down a book of theological tenets to be memorized, but a (true!) story to be believed, lived and handed down. As more people came into that story, they began to dig deeper and to search out the deeper things implied and assumed in the story. So later on, the church was asking questions that hadn't been much of a factor in the apostle's thinking and teaching. The Trinity was developed to account for the various streams of thought in the gospel story, streams that became more apparent as more people studied the issues over time.

And thank you to Uncle Dale for pointing out some of the most important "building blocks" for the Trinity. One may not agree with the trinitarian conclusion, but to pretend it was simply made up out of the vacuum apart from any serious reflection on the biblical text is plain ignorance. Any cursory examination of the early church fathers will demonstrate otherwise.

Take care, everyone

[BCSpace]

Because that wasn't their mission. Their mission was witnessing to the gospel, to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. They passed on what they had seen and heard, and the next generations carried the torch, all the while digging deeper into the gospel and the life of Christ. As they kept studying and reciting and interacting with the ideas presented in the apostolic witness, questions arose ("We believe there is only one God, but we also believe Christ to be God 'in the flesh'. How do we explain that?"). The Trinity was the best response to these kinds of questions.

The revelations of JS happened in a very short time, beginning with the all important first vision. The creedal trinity came about over several hundred years, switching from a very distinct and robust anthropomorphic doctrine of God to an abstract one in a beauty contest with Greek philosophers. There is no line upon line, precept upon precept in this progression. It is a wholesale change.

And thank you to Uncle Dale for pointing out some of the most important "building blocks" for the Trinity.

He pointed out no such thing. What he pointed out are perceived blocks that can't stand with the Bible as a whole.

[Uncle Dale]

He pointed out no such thing. What he pointed out are perceived blocks that can't stand with the

Bible as a whole.

I think the part of trinitarianism that is most solidly based, is the equation of the Spirit of God in

the Hebrew Bible, with the Holy Ghost in the Christian Bible.

There are obvious stepping-stones of "pneumatology" that connect the two. Rabbinic Judaism evolved

the Spirit of God into the Shekinah, which seems to have a personality of its own.

However, in keeping with the "Lectures on Faith" in the 1835 D&C, I reject the personhood of the

Holy Ghost -- both in trinitarianism and in LDS structured henotheism.

The RLDS still retain a bit of that same "Lectures on Faith" theology and do not attach a body or an

independent will to the Holy Ghost. Heber C. Kimball, on the other hand, speaks of the Holy Ghost as

an exalted man -- but, for me, that is as far off the mark as is Christian trinitarianism.

So, I can see some building-blocks for that part of the trinity --- I do not see them for the trinitarian

"God the Son," other than the Logos -- which is non-canonical Jewish philosophizing, not Hebrew Bible.

UD

[BCSpace]

I think the part of trinitarianism that is most solidly based, is the equation of the Spirit of God in

the Hebrew Bible, with the Holy Ghost in the Christian Bible.

There are obvious stepping-stones of "pneumatology" that connect the two. Rabbinic Judaism evolved

the Spirit of God into the Shekinah, which seems to have a personality of its own.

Such a stepping stone does not seem to play any part whatsoever in the development of the trinity. Especially since the concept of indwelling has been shown to be significantly different than our resident trinitarians claim it to be. At best it seems a small collection of verses interpreted without the biblical context entire.

[rhinomelon]

The revelations of JS happened in a very short time, beginning with the all important first vision. The creedal trinity came about over several hundred years, switching from a very distinct and robust anthropomorphic doctrine of God to an abstract one in a beauty contest with Greek philosophers. There is no line upon line, precept upon precept in this progression. It is a wholesale change.

I disagree. There is a distinct progression, not a wholesale abandonment of what had been taught. Line upon line is actually very much how I would describe it, and almost how you'd find the progression laid on in books on church history. The revelation of God in Christ led to Christ being considered divine, which led to the initial question of the relationship of Christ to God, in which it was determined that since Christians only believe in one God, the Father and the Son must be somehow one God, or else Christ is not God but a creature, and so on and so forth. I know LDS will never accept this as true, but that is not the same as painting it as irrational, nonsensical, unrelated to the biblical witness, etc.

He pointed out no such thing. What he pointed out are perceived blocks that can't stand with the Bible as a whole.

I disagree. It appears we are at an impasse... I could easily say that the building blocks LDS use to create their doctrines don't actually exist, but I'm sure my personal opinion matters about as much to you, as yours does to me.

Take care, everyone

[Uncle Dale]

I could easily say that the building blocks LDS use to create their doctrines don't actually exist,

but I'm sure my personal opinion matters about as much to you, as yours does to me.

Some years back I was a bit peeved at Dr. Talmadge's equation of Jehovah=Jesus. To me it seemed

like blasphemy, and since it does not occur in RLDS theology, I assumed it to be a Mormon innovation.

However, after careful study, I had to admit that Talmadge did not invent the doctrine, and that Pres. Taylor

had already partly recognized its antecedents in his "Mediation and Atonement." The precept is an old one,

going back nearly to apostolic times, with "building block" hints of the same in the gospels and James'

epistle, to mention two possible sources.

I reject the Jehovah=Jesus equation, but I've been forced to admit that it is an ancient idea, and

one that at least some early Christians thought was orthodox.

UD

.

[BCSpace]

I disagree. There is a distinct progression, not a wholesale abandonment of what had been taught. Line upon line is actually very much how I would describe it, and almost how you'd find the progression laid on in books on church history.

You cannot go from an anthropomorphic God to an abstract one in this way. To go line upon line means building upon the last in which the last remains true. Not the case in trinity development.

He pointed out no such thing. What he pointed out are perceived blocks that can't stand with the Bible as a whole.

I disagree. It appears we are at an impasse... I could easily say that the building blocks LDS use to create their doctrines don't actually exist,

Using the Shekinah in this fashion is highly dubious at best, especially considering the initial physical nature of it (sexual). Even when you reach Christianity, looking at verses like John 17:22 where the Shekinah (doxa) is said to be described, there is no trinitarian abstraction or indwelling. Indeed John 17 is the very set which shows the oneness of God; they stand next to each other and agree (of one mind) with each other.

but I'm sure my personal opinion matters about as much to you, as yours does to me.

A curious statement.

[BCSpace]

I reject the Jehovah=Jesus equation, but I've been forced to admit that it is an ancient idea, and

one that at least some early Christians thought was orthodox.

At least as early as John who has Jesus claiming to be Jehovah (John 10:34-36). If you believe Jesus fits most of the prophecies about him, you might also go back as far as Genesis 49:10 and Shiloh.

[Uncle Dale]

At least as early as John who has Jesus claiming to be Jehovah (John 10:34-36). If you believe Jesus fits most of the prophecies about him, you might also go back as far as Genesis 49:10 and Shiloh.

John certainly has the highest Christology in the Christian Bible, other than Revelation. But I read it

as metaphysics and not as physics. That is to say, I do not develop Christology from John, as though

he were an exclusive and perfect source. Rather, I consult him from time to time, to see how well his

version of things compares to the synoptic gospels.

Unless I have missed something, I do not see John professing that Jehovah is the son of Eloheim, and

that Eloheim reigns in heaven while Jehovah walks the the earth. If anything, I see an equation of

Jesus with Heavenly Father in John.

But who are we to say that we know such things with utter perfection? If we do, then prophecy can end

today and the rapture can come tonight (neither of which I predict).

As for Jesus being referred to in the Hebrew Bible, I first of all reject that notion ----- but then I come

back to it at what you might call a "higher level" of spiritual discernment. All of which leads me to say

that he was not overtly mentioned at any point, but that there were prophetic visions of God's relationship

to Israel, and to the seed of Abraham, and to all humankind, that only Jesus could fulfill.

If that makes no sense -- then so be it. I do not expect holy things to make perfect sense to all people.

Uncle Dale

[BCSpace]

That is to say, I do not develop Christology from John, as though

he were an exclusive and perfect source. Rather, I consult him from time to time, to see how well his

version of things compares to the synoptic gospels.

The early trinitarians did not develop their doctrine from the scriptures, rather, they competed with the philosphers and tried to make it fit with the scriptures afterwards.

Unless I have missed something, I do not see John professing that Jehovah is the son of Eloheim, and that Eloheim reigns in heaven while Jehovah walks the the earth.

I see it......

In John 10, Jesus says "I said [refering back to Ps 82:6], ye are gods" which is a direct claim to being Jehovah. And then in John 20:17....

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

But who are we to say that we know such things with utter perfection? If we do, then prophecy can end today and the rapture can come tonight (neither of which I predict).

Such perfection comes from Ephesians 4:11-14 without the need for a rapture. Of course I understand you don't believe in the same living prophets and apostles as I do.

[Uncle Dale]

I understand you don't believe in the same living prophets and apostles as I do....

Perhaps that is indeed so -- but what it has to do with Paul's concept (or non-concept) of the trinity,

I know not.

Many people could come to talk with me, and truthfully remark that I do not believe, or accept, or

know what they know. I take that as a "given" in this life, and do the best I can under the circumstances.

But if I do not know and offer obedience to those same leaders, then I think I am in a less precarious

situation than are any Mormons, who might know and accept those leaders, but not give perfect obedience

to their counsel or instruction. At least I have that much justification in any disobedience I may show.

But let me put it another way. Let us say that you and I were to draw up a list of things we agree upon

and things we disagree upon. What percentage of items on such a list would be essential, or absolutely

necessary, or a matter of spiritual life and death? As a wild guess, let's say that out of 100 items on

such a list, we only agree on 90 of them. How do we assess that situation? How do we compare it to a

situation in which you hardly agree at all with some other person? Are we closer, or are we farther apart,

in having such disagreements?

After all, if we agreed upon 99 out of the hundred, you might begin to trust my judgement on such matters

so well, that you thoughtlessly allow me to lead you into apostasy on that single point of controversy.

Or, to look at it another way -- with the same 99 points of agreement -- what would it matter if those

same "living prophets and apostles" one day instructed you to believe as I do, on that single point?

Would that in any way make my discernment better or worse? Would I not be the same person as before,

but accepted in a different way, once the contention is removed?

That is how I look at such things as theological disagreements. In other words, I look first to see how

much common ground I can find -- and secondly how much of that common ground is essential. But

I also look at the disagreements, to see whether it would matter or not, if they were resolved.

If our only point of disagreement in such matters, is whether Sunday meetings should start at

10:00 or at 10:30, I would not worry about it very much, regardless of who we might most honor as

our role models in life. But if our point of disagreement was over whether adultery were a good thing;

then I would feel very differently about you and about the disagreement.

Again, what I say may seem relevant, or perhaps it does not --- but it is how I tend to think of these things.

Uncle Dale

[rhinomelon]

The early trinitarians did not develop their doctrine from the scriptures, rather, they competed with the philosphers and tried to make it fit with the scriptures afterwards.

I think that you understand the doctrine of the Trinity better than most LDS, but on the history of its development you simply don't have much credibility. The whole Arian controversy that led to the official formulation of the Trinity was precisely a debate over Scripture, and not about philosophy! Even a cursory reading of the church fathers demonstrates that they were steeped in the language of scripture. That you disagree with their conclusions is not surprising, but writing them off as philosophers merely posing as students of Scripture says much more about you than it does about them.

If you want some interesting reading, I would heartily recommend Robert Louis Wilken's "The Spirit of Early Christian Thought". It touches on all these issues and more, and is written by a man who studies the early church fathers to learn from and about them, and not to pass judgment on them based on a relatively recent modern system of doctrine.

Take care, everyone

[Gervin]

Take care, everyone

off-topic. Rhino - how's school? Were you able to find a good living location / arrangement? In DC?