/lit/ - Literature

[Jon Kolner No.22415475]

Why does the Bible never outright specify the Trinity as genuine? Why do Christians feel the urge to splice in Philo’s philosophy into their book Willy nilly?

[Anonymous No.22415480]

>>22415475
Because the Trinity was invented by the Catholics.

[Anonymous No.22415498]

>>22415475
Why are you ban evading?

[Anonymous No.22415614]

>>22415475
Genesis 1 talks about the Holy Spirit being involved in the creation of the universe, the prophets are pretty clear on the Son as the Messiah, and Matthew literally ends with an invocation of the Trinity.

[Anonymous No.22415662]

Because the trinity was invented in the 300's. It's like asking why the US constitution isn't talking about ChatGPT.

[Anonymous No.22415905]

>>22415475
The Trinity is not mentioned in the Old Testament but it is in the New Testament

[Anonymous No.22416165]

>>22415480
So was the bible.

[Jon Kolner No.22416227]

>>22415498
I’m not.

[Anonymous No.22416241]

>>22416165
All of the authors of the New Testament lived a couple centuries before Constantine

[Anonymous No.22416286]

>>22416241
Yes, but don't forget it was also around the time of Constantine that the church decided on which texts were to be treated as cannon. If you grant them the authority to do that, and don't believe in all the other claimant Gospels, then why would you say they can't also decide that the Trinity is from the true tradition? Why accept one decision and not the other?

[Anonymous No.22416306]

>>22416286
My view is that Scripture claims to be the living Word of God. If that is so, it must have been the Word of God upon authorship. It was not some council which conferred divinity upon the Word. The argument for the Holy Tradition which rests upon the compiling of Scripture gets its cart and horse mixed up

[Anonymous No.22416330]

>>22416306
The council didn't confer the divinity, but frankly it did decide which scriptures had the divinity to begin with and which didn't. Like how do you think this works? The bible didn't just appear one day, it took centuries of human involvement to make. Both writing the actual words as well as later sifting through all the texts and compiling the 'good ones' together. Before they did that these scriptures weren't seen as a single unit. Some churches would have this and that gospel, others different ones.

[Anonymous No.22416841]

>>22415662
The Messenger of the Lord and Shekinah (Spirit) of the Lord were not differentiated from God in the OT. The Targums predating the NT also called this Messenger the Memra. The Word. The divine agent of God who interacted with this world. When Moses spoke to God, it was this Messenger from the Burning Bush who said "I AM THAT I AM." It was this Messenger who appeared directly to Abraham and sat at his tent and told Abraham he would destroy Sodom. It was this Messenger who rescued Hagar and Ishmael, and who Hagar called "The God who sees me." And this is why Jesus told the Pharisees, "Before Abraham was, I am."
Logos is just a Greek translation of an older idea that had nothing to do with Philo or Neoplatonism or the medieval Church. Israelites referred to him as the Memra. He is not seperated or a different "god" than the Father. No different than your "word" isn't differentiated from you. Yet also distinct.

[Anonymous No.22416845]

>>22416841
Non-Christian reference here btw.
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra
Written by Jews themselves. Not dumb goy.

[Anonymous No.22417129]

>>22415475
It's to filter spergs. The trinity is intentionally incomprehensible and if you get caught on that then you failed the autism test. Granted plenty of spergs slip through but they're a more agreeable sort.

[Anonymous No.22417177]

>>22416286
>other claimant Gospels
which ones?

[Anonymous No.22417660]

>>22417177
Your mom's

[Anonymous No.22418203]

>>22416845
Shekinah is not mentioned a single time in the Old Testament nor in the Bible. It is a Gnostic false deity.

[Anonymous No.22418207]

>>22415475
Christ said that it was far worse to blaspheme the Holy Spirit than it was to blaspheme him. So, if you accept Christ, then you have to accept the Holy Spirit. And the Father is there too. So there you have it. The Trinity.

[Anonymous No.22418209]

>>22416330
>but frankly it did decide which scriptures had the divinity to begin with and which didn't.
Not really, because if they chose wrong they wouldn't change what the Creator had inspired and what was manmade. And many councils did choose wrongly.

>Before they did that these scriptures weren't seen as a single unit. Some churches would have this and that gospel, others different ones.
People who believed stuff like the gnostic gospels weren't Christians, though. The reason you had believers is because they were convinced that the Scriptures are the actual word of God, not because some other guy told them so.

[Anonymous No.22418227]

>>22415475
>Why does the Bible never outright specify the Trinity as genuine? Why do Christians feel the urge to splice in Philo’s philosophy into their book Willy nilly?
There are plenty of references to the Holy Trinity and many trinitarian declarations and references throughout. One clear example is 1 John 5:7, another one is Matthew 28:19. In Colossians 2:2, 2 Cor. 13:14, and Revelation 1:4-5 and many other places, there are too many references like this to name here. Also here is a chart showing all of the supporting passages that show that the Holy Trinity is one of the central teachings of the Bible, and Jesus Christ is attributed divinity throughout the Bible such as in Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1, and so on as well. Hopefully that helps, OP.

[Anonymous No.22419322]

>>22415475
Jesus is God, The Father is God, God is not Jesus, God is not the Father, ergo Jesus is not The Father. Simple logic.

[Anonymous No.22419325]

>>22415475
Ah, the ponderous query regarding the theological nuances within the Christian scripture and the elusive doctrine of the Trinity. One must tread carefully upon this labyrinthine terrain, for it is rife with historical and philosophical undercurrents.

The dearth of explicit Trinitarian articulation within the pages of the Bible precipitates theological reflection and ecclesiastical debates that have spanned epochs. The elusive nature of this doctrine has engendered the formulation of creedal statements, wherein the triune nature of the divine is inferred from scriptural interconnections, nuanced nuances, and, as some might assert, exegetical interpolations.

The enigmatic amalgamation of Philo's Hellenistic philosophical tenets with Christian theology signifies a historical interplay between Judaic monotheism and Greco-Roman philosophical cosmogony. The exegesis of scripture, especially during the early Christian epochs, sought to harmonize these intellectual currents. However, the resultant amalgamations, while contributing to theological elaborations, also engendered schisms and heresies that further underscore the complexity inherent in this intermingling.

The fusion of scriptural exegesis, theological inquiry, and philosophical discourse navigates a labyrinthine passage through epochs, replete with manifold perspectives and interpretive inclinations. To comprehend this dynamic amalgamation, one must delve into the annals of religious history, exploring the intricate dance between the philosophical yearnings of humanity and the transcendent narratives encoded within the sacred text.

[Anonymous No.22419352]

>>22418209
You're still missing the point. The only way we """"know"""" what the creator inspired and what he didn't is through such councils. And this patent fact has continued to this day, the Reformation itself was just another case of a man declaring he knows what God wants.
Why I originally brought it up was because someone said that; because the Trinity wasn't completely cemented as doctrine until the 300s its not significant, unlike the scriptures.
And my whole point was that the way we got the bible and the way we got the Trinity is basically the same.
Gnostic Gospels is a huge umbrella term, there are others besides it though, like the book of Enoch which some Ethiopian churches still have to this day.
And who are you to say they weren't Christians? They were disciples of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Anonymous No.22419360]

>>22419325
Those who assert there are "exegetical interpolations" are actually incorrect in this assertion. That is pretty much the base of the problem right there. God did indeed inspire the word a certain way, and those who attempt to tamper with those things, things which are higher than themselves (though they may seem to treat it like it's beneath them) will only get burned. They shouldn't trample God's word underfoot, then play dumb and act like they didn't know what they were doing.

[Anonymous No.22419365]

>>22415475
Christianity is a farce. It’s time to let go. If you must then follow Jesus as a role model but get rid of the dogmatic gobbledygook

[Anonymous No.22419369]

>>22419352
>You're still missing the point. The only way we """"know"""" what the creator inspired and what he didn't is through such councils.
Not me, anon.

"Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

That's what Jesus said, and it's through His help that discernment is possible. For with God all things shall be possible.

[Anonymous No.22419401]

>>22419369
Through him, and as an aside it's traceable through history in documented councils, church fathers and church doctors.
Like the reason you're not quoting the gospel of Mary at me is because of Irenaues.
You still haven't answered my main question, which is why would you trust the councils decision on what books of the bible are cannon, and not trust their decision that the Trinity is true?
And don't say that it's not because of the church that you have the bible, it 100% is. If not for those exact councils and men we wouldn't have the entire western Christian tradition.

[Anonymous No.22419446]

>>22419401
>Through him, and as an aside it's traceable through history
Both the good and the bad are traceable through history, so it cuts both ways. There were councils that made bad decisions, like the Arians who taught Jesus Christ wasn't divine, or Marcion who was the first person known to have created his own biblical canon list in the 140s.

Even though the Marcionites are admittedly old by our standards, that doesn't mean they were right. They said that things went bad with the church and that they had to "restore" the truth 115 years after Christ. In that sense, they're no different than Joseph Smith and Mormonism. And it's the same thing with Constantine's church as well.
>Like the reason you're not quoting the gospel of Mary at me is because of Irenaues.
Huh?
>which is why would you trust the councils decision
What council exactly? The one that added apocrypha to Scripture? I don't trust that.
>If not for those exact councils and men we wouldn't have the entire western Christian tradition.
Are you talking about Roman Catholicism or what? That's too vague, anon. Your story falls apart in the details.

[Anonymous No.22419463]

To be honest there's a lot of things the Bible doesn't tell you outright. Discernment comes by the holy Spirit. It doesn't matter how many times you read the Bible, without the holy Spirit you will only get a surface level understanding at best.

[Anonymous No.22419477]

>>22419446
Well then I'd ask how you got to your conclusions, which church do you belong to? Or are you just picking from the entire Christian mosaic for what you think is true?
Irenaues was the one who very very strongly campaigned against what we now call the gnostic Gospels.
Yes I was talking about Roman Catholicism, kind of, but also the Greek churches.
So what are you, a Protestant?

[Anonymous No.22419479]

>>22419446
By the way, to add to this post, I'm the one that has been defending (>>22418227) the fact that the Bible itself teaches the triune Lord and God, who is God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So you >>22419401 should stop acting like you aren't the one actually fighting against the truth of these things.

[Anonymous No.22419491]

>>22419479
I'm ex Catholic.

[Anonymous No.22419509]

>>22419477
>Or are you just picking from the entire Christian mosaic for what you think is true?
No, I am a bible-believer. The writings of non-inspired people is unreliable and shouldn't be used to establish a doctrine. The reason why I believe the Bible is because it is self-evidently true and God's word. That's how we've gotten this far, anon.

>Yes I was talking about Roman Catholicism, kind of, but also the Greek churches.
Ok, well both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Catholicism (or EO) are teaching and professing a works-based gospel that goes against the teaching of Scripture and the apostles. They are in that sense institutions of this corrupt world, and not the church founded by Jesus of Nazareth. And there is abundant proof for those who are actually interested to find out the truth. If any one of us would take the time to investigate what the Holy Bible says, it is painfully clear that they don't agree with it. That is also why they add all kinds of new things, their own teachings, similar to other false religions. I would encourage you to seek God and not be concerned with getting into the "right crowd." According to the account of the Bible, which is God's inspired word, people are saved and condemned as individuals, not based on what group they were in or are in. We shouldn't be seeking other peoples' approval firstly, but before that must come our duty to the Creator. That should be obvious, I might add, but people have a way of forgetting.

[Anonymous No.22419522]

>>22419509
>I would encourage you to seek God and not be concerned with getting into the "right crowd." According to the account of the Bible, which is God's inspired word, people are saved and condemned as individuals, not based on what group they were in or are in. We shouldn't be seeking other peoples' approval firstly, but before that must come our duty to the Creator. That should be obvious, I might add, but people have a way of forgetting.
Excellent post. God bless.

[Anonymous No.22419534]

>>22419509
Okay that's reasonable. I'm still not sure how you could define the cutoff point in history of when true inspired doctrine stopped being added. Because most people agree the gospels were written at least many decades after Jesus, sometimes a century or so.
It just seems like these early councils of bishops were practically contemporaries.

[Anonymous No.22419556]

>>22419534
In Mark 16, in the last few verses it says this:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."

So we see that there were certain signs that were meant to follow the apostles, as it says in the last few words, "confirming the word with signs following." These would be the sign gifts that accompanied the apostles of Christ. Such as speaking in tongues and surviving snake poison (as Paul in Acts 28). So the signs were meant to confirm the word, and that's why when the apostles were finished with their ministry, the signs stopped. At this time, the writing of inspired Scripture was completed, so the special signs, really miracles of God, were no longer needed to "confirm the word" that they spoke. Although we still have them today as we can read about them and with faith believe. As Jesus said to Thomas, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29).

[Anonymous No.22419680]

>>22419325
SHUT UP GPTFAG

[Anonymous No.22419725]

>>22415475
Okay, I hate to do it, but I will answer, just in case there is some Anon this information will actually help.
The beginning of prophet books usually start with "the word of the Lord came to... etc." Now when you read that (Jonah 1:1, for example) how do you imagine the sitaution? Do you imagine Jonah sitting there doing something and then he hears God's words? Probably so, we tend to imagine that when the word of the Lord came that it was an auditory thing. But it isn't, keep this in mind we will come back to it.
John starts his gospel, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. So many people think John is pulling from Plato because Word is transliterated Logos. but no, my thesis is that John is not borrowing from Greek literature, but from the old Testament.
Okay back to the word of the Lord phenomonom. We have explicit texts that show the word of the Lord as being a vision of God.
Samuel 3:1
>Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the Lord in the presence of Eli. And the word of the Lord was rare in those days; there was no frequent vision
The WORD of the Lord was rare, there was no frequent VISION. Now a vision is sight, right? When we imagine a vision it is a thing with sight.
As we continue in samuel 3 Sammuel is called by the Lord and he awakes and thinks Eli is calling him, and it says this in verse 7
>7 Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, and the word of the Lord had not yet been revealed to him.
notice that it says Samuel did not know the Lord and the Word of the Lord had not yet been revealed. The language in the Hebrew intimates that the Lord and the Word of the Lord are separate entities.
Then we read in verse 21
>21 And the Lord appeared again at Shiloh, for the Lord revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the Lord
The Lord revealed Himself by the word of the Lord. God is revealing Himself through the Word of the Lord.
Okay, one more short one. This is from Jeremiah 1:4
>4 The word of the Lord came to me, saying...
Okay so another instance of the Word of the Lord coming, but in verses 9-10 it says
>9 Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.
So the Word of the Lord is embodied and touching Jeremiah. This is actually a pretty interesting chapter to read because it switches who is talking and maniplulating Jeremiah, the Lord, the Word of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit are all seen in Jeremiah's call.
So when John calls Jesus the Word he is not making up a new title, he is saying "You remember the WORD of the Lord that kept occuring in the OT? Well that was God and He arrived in the flesh, Jesus Christ, who is God."
We also have the infamous Daniel 7 prophecy
In it a man is given equal authority with God.
.

[Anonymous No.22419765]

>>22419725
Continued...
>13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
So for a man to have equal authority with YHWH is a dramatic and amazing thing in the Bible. I cannot state this enough, the Jews did not know how to handle this information.
That is why when Jesus said "You will see the son of man coming with clouds" when they asked him if he was the son of God. They ripped their clothes and closed the trial because Jesus admitted to being this son of man who was equal in authority to God (Mathew 26:64).
Back to the Jews in the second temple period before Christ, they recognized from various passages that there seemd to be a Bitarian godhead (Two perosn instead of three). YHWH and this second power. There were defined sects of Judiasm who believed and were accepted by the religious authorities that YHWH was two powers. It was not until the destruction of Judah in 70 A. D. and the spread of Christianity that they denounced such beliefs. For more information on this you should read "Two Powers in Heaven" by Alan F. Segal. He is a secular guy, that makes him more authoritative to some people.
The fact that the trinity is not said explicitly is not of any concern. The Bible is seperated into thousands of small sections. Every chapter will have twenty or thirty dogmas in it. There is no one section on baptism, or salvation, or communion, or the church, or anything really. It is all "Line upon line... here a little and there a little" If you systematize the Bible's teachings then obviously God is a trinity.
I wrote a book about the problem of Evil it is on Amazon if you are interested. For more information on the trinity you should read the Alan Segal book and also Michael Heiser's Unseen Realm, the latter being a much easier read. Or Augustine's Trinity.

[Anonymous No.22419963]

>>22415475
XNITY PRIMER
read moar learn moar discern moar
history is important
the nicene creed was developed before the bible was canonized
and in fact the nicene creed was used to filter out the 100s of circulating "books" at the time and select those which promoted the true theology for christianity

[Anonymous No.22420006]

>Matthew 28:19
>Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


Jesus outright tells His disciples to baptize in the triune form. I don't know how more genuine and true you can get when Jesus Himself mentions the Trinity.

[Anonymous No.22420037]

>>22420006
All three are present when Jesus is getting baptized by John the Baptist as well.

[Anonymous No.22420075]

>>22419477
The man you are talking to here is retarded.

[Anonymous No.22420110]

>>22415475
The Bible never outright states the Trinity as genuine because it's a retarded post hoc contrivance of Orthodoxy.

[Anonymous No.22420115]

>>22417177
Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Judas, Mary, and probably a few others that I'm not remembering.

[Anonymous No.22420119]

>>22419369
>That's what Jesus said, and it's through His help that discernment is possible

Then I don't need an ecumenical council to decide which texts are scriptures and which ones are shitposts

[Anonymous No.22420127]

>>22418207
Trinitarianism is the idea that all three are the same, though. You can have those three things as separate entities, which is not trinitarianism, but Godhead tripartitism.

[Anonymous No.22420130]

>>22419325
By exegetical interpolations do you mean eisegetical interpolations?

[Anonymous No.22420170]

>>22420119
You can decide what you believe, but it's not up to you to decide what the true sayings of God are.

"And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God."
(Book of Revelation 19.9)

[Anonymous No.22420597]

>>22415475
The Trinity is merely shorthand for The Infinitude, as God is infinite; we only get Three of His Presences in this little world: Father, Son & Holy Ghost.

[Anonymous No.22421689]

>>22416165
No, it wasn't. Aside from the whole of the Hebrew Bible which forms the bulk of, and is necessary to understand, the new testament there is also the issue that of the five churches of early Christendom only three went on to be a part of the Catholic Church. Also the texts has significant sway in their own right before they were made cannon so they could not simply be altered. Evidence of this comes from the incoherence of the four gospels on quite a number of issues. The Christian religion has never been a monolith and even after the pope gained power the authority of the office would not allow him to alter the Bible by fiat without major schism.

[Anonymous No.22421740]

>>22415475
It's a metaphysical model of God built on biblical data. So same reason scientists make models from empirical observations, to make sense of the data.

[Anonymous No.22422975]

>>22415905
It's mentioned in the first few verses of Genesis -- God, his Spirit, and his Word.

[Anonymous No.22423237]

>>22415475

john 1.1

and no you wrong jehovah and you have to manipulate holy scriptures to fit your narrative ,shame on you.

[Anonymous No.22423247]

>>22415475

[Anonymous No.22423261]

>>22420115
not included because they came much later and therefore could not have been written by an apostle or a disciple of an apostle

[Anonymous No.22423266]

>>22419401
The first council is literally recorded by Luke in Acts, so the Gospel authors clearly knew that Councils were going to exist.

[Anonymous No.22423670]

>>22420170
>You can decide what you believe, but it's not up to you to decide what the true sayings of God are.

It's not up to an ecumenical council either.

[Anonymous No.22423679]

>>22423261
>they came much later

Okay, how do you know that? The earliest known copy of a text is the latest possible date of its authorship, but by no stretch of the imagination the confirmed date of its authorship.

[Anonymous No.22423684]

>>22423266
You can't record future events.

[Anonymous No.22424521]

>>22419509
Would you have the scriptures without the Catholic church ?

OK, Cult leader ,
"and there is abundant proof for those who are
AUKTUALLY interested"

[Anonymous No.22425863]

>>22423679
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45BoAFKWqVg
start at 42:50 and watch about 30 minutes of it

[Anonymous No.22426931]

>>22415475
The Bible has my batpism written into it in the 1990s

Ok now Bible Study team, what does THE BIBLE SAY about repairing Honda Civics and Toyota Camrys from 1996?

[Anonymous No.22427707]

>>22422975
No.

[Anonymous No.22427718]

>>22427707
Retard.

[Anonymous No.22427913]

>>22427718
Okay I'll admit that I didn't know that there was the word Ruach Elohim (or just Ruach) and it's interesting
However I know from a few Hebrew Bible PhD scholars (through academic lectures), that there is no sign of the Trinity in the Old Testament and I'm pretty sure they know this word
Wikipedia also notes that it doesn't necessarily mean spirit, I don't know Hebrew so won't argue myself
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_1:2#Analysis
Most translations have taken it from KJV or some other Christian translation written at the time when the Christian doctrine of Trinity was developed so words like that were confirmation of their doctrine, especially when they translated from Septuagint and not directly from Hebrew

And speaking of "The Word" (Logos), is only mentioned in the New Testament. In the Genesis God is creating through word, God is not the word. So your theory is far-fetched

[Anonymous No.22427949]

>>22423684
Acts literally sets precedents for Church structure and the reality of institutional theological discourse (Council of Jerusalem). Acts also plainly shows that there are theological figures who should be spurned as heretics (Simon Magus). The precedents are clearly laid out in scripture.

[Anonymous No.22428785]

>>22423670
>It's not up to an ecumenical council either.
Yes and?

[Anonymous No.22428796]

>>22424521
>Would you have the scriptures without the Catholic church ?
Yes. Catholicism was working as hard as possible to burn every Bible. And when that didn't work they changed strategies and started scheming to make counterfeit versions of the Bible, and now they work to displace the inspired word of God from the received text of Scripture.

[Anonymous No.22428808]

>>22415475
Christians didn't make up the Trinity; it's in both the Old Testament and the New.

I'm gonna let Sam Shamoun explain it to you.

https://youtu.be/hMfiiKi-0BU?si=dVSkGz47a7PzEZTc
https://youtu.be/PYm3N13WsrI?si=EnOuVBKTYJ7w8veD
https://youtu.be/j7gZUuBlucQ?si=jODJ0uHd7oygDFhe
https://youtu.be/-Y94Wpj3ET4?si=QPHjbL7yN4YR-YC4
https://youtu.be/L1deOnOBius?si=AP5k1i3uWB1Ttpw6

[Anonymous No.22428834]

>>22427913
"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth."
- Psalm 33:6

>so words like that were confirmation of their doctrine
They were also accurate. And by the way the KJV isn't translated from the Septuagint, it's entirely from the Hebrew, specifically the 1525 Bomberg text of the Old Testament.

[Anonymous No.22428842]

>>22416165