When did the Trinitarian concept enter and disrupt the strict monotheistic religion of Judaism and early Christianity?

[stilllearning]

Care to elaborate what you disagree on in post 94. or just giving me a red x w/o explanation.

Not speaking for Dino, but from what he has posted would say he is talking about the two powers in heaven concept that the Jews saw around the 2nd temple period.

Rabbinical scholar Alan Segal wrote about how some Jews did see two powers. Not sure it would be a easy argument to have here as it is a academic argument and believe his book is around 85 dollars. You can type two powers in heaven in you tube and will give arguments made by other Rabbis on the matter.

Bart Ehrman who we all know is no friend to the faith broke down the premise of the book thusly:

(Published on 8 Sept 2016)

‘Rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of Two Powers in Heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the Two Powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the 2nd century a.d. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the 2nd Temple era (ca. 200 b.c.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Daniel 7:9ff., Exodus 23:20-23, and Exodus 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the Two Powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship.

The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not. Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no 2nd distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the 2nd Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the 2nd Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate 2nd Yahweh. In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the Two Powers teaching a heresy sometime in the 2nd century AD.’

 

[CS1]

This topic is one that never ceases to shake my head.

The Truth is that the God of the Bible is one God who has revealed Himself in three distinct persons and is yet one.

The issue is that men ( and women) cannot fully comprehend the Divine Nature of God.

Therefore, they use human rational and secular terms to explain what no one can know fully outside of what God Ordained man to know and as HE provided them.

Revelation of God's Divine Nature
1. General Revelation= We know God is by what HE created, even the Eternal Godhead Roman chapter 1

2. Special Revelation = By the word of God, we know about God's Nature:

God is One

1. Deuteronomy 6:4-5

God has a Triune nature

1. Genesis 1:2
2. Matthew 28:19-20
3. John 1:1
4. John 14: 26
5. John 15:26
6. Ephesians 4:4-6
   
   God is eternal,
   1. Genesis 21:33
   2. Psalm 90:1-4
   3. Revelation 1:8

God is omnipotent

1. Genesis 18:14
2. Isaiah 14:27
3. Matthew 19:26

God is omniscient
1 Chronicles 28:9
2. Acts 1:24


God is omnipresent

1. Psalm 139:7-10
2. Isaiah 66:1
3. Matthew 28:20
   

This is not even all the word of God given for the Divine Nature of GOD. Yet many think they know all and come and speak profanely (to make common) of God and do not approach the Holy Mighty God reverently when speaking of HIm.

Reducing him to Water, ice, and Steam to describe a Holy God? Or a Chicken egg? Or some other kind of humanistic explanation for the living God and HIS son and HIS Holy Spirit? Foolishness. Professing to be wise, they become Fools!

 

[Stan_the_Man]

This topic is one that never ceases to shake my head.

You should shake of leg instead

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Not speaking for Dino, but from what he has posted would say he is talking about the two powers in heaven concept that the Jews saw around the 2nd temple period.

Rabbinical scholar Alan Segal wrote about how some Jews did see two powers. Not sure it would be a easy argument to have here as it is a academic argument and believe his book is around 85 dollars. You can type two powers in heaven in you tube and will give arguments made by other Rabbis on the matter.

Bart Ehrman who we all know is no friend to the faith broke down the premise of the book thusly:

(Published on 8 Sept 2016)

‘Rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of Two Powers in Heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the Two Powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the 2nd century a.d. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the 2nd Temple era (ca. 200 b.c.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Daniel 7:9ff., Exodus 23:20-23, and Exodus 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the Two Powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship.

The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not. Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no 2nd distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the 2nd Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the 2nd Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate 2nd Yahweh. In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the Two Powers teaching a heresy sometime in the 2nd century AD.’

First off, I always question the intention of the Scholar you have chosen to use here, Bart Ehrman. He is an admitted minister who now revoked his ministry and claims to be agnostic/atheist.


To answer your post:
Growing up reading the Torah/Scriptures/Talmud this portion of the Talmud that deals with Daniel 7 always made me laugh. It made me laugh because the truth of it is what we Christians know but the Jews still cannot see even though 2 famous 2nd century Rabbis proved the truth about the Messiah but could not relate what they understood to Jesus.



"I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire." (Daniel 7:9)

"I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14)

The Jewish sages understand "Daniel 7:13" as the coming of the Messiah: (this speaks of Sages 500 B.C.)

"one like a man was coming That is the King Messiah."


Talmud:
Sanhedrin 98a

"Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction between two depictions of the coming of the Messiah. It is written: “There came with the clouds of heaven, one like unto a son of man…and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom…his dominion is an everlasting dominion” (Daniel 7:13–14). And it is written: “Behold, your king will come to you; he is just and victorious; lowly and riding upon a donkey and upon a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). Rabbi Alexandri explains: If the Jewish people merit redemption, the Messiah will come in a miraculous manner with the clouds of heaven. If they do not merit redemption, the Messiah will come lowly and riding upon a donkey."​

This is the portion I always thought most interesting
And it is written: “Behold, your king will come to you; he is just and victorious; lowly and riding upon a donkey and upon a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9)

Jesus fulfilled this and they still knew it would happen but could not see it was Jesus.

 

[Dino246]

Many verses of Scripture distinguish between the Father and Son in power, greatness, and knowledge. However, it is a great mistake to use them to show two persons in the Godhead. If a distinction exists between Father and Son as persons in the Godhead, then the Son is subordinate or inferior to the Father in deity. This would mean the Son is not fully God, because by definition God is subject to no one.

By definition, God has all power (omnipotence) and all knowledge (omniscience). The way to understand these verses is to view them as distinguishing the deity of Jesus (the Father) from the humanity of Jesus (the Son). As a man, Christ was subordinate to the Spirit of God that dwelt in Him.

This is incorrect. Jesus subjected Himself to the guidance of the Holy Spirit within Him. As a man He was temporarily and intentionally less capable than the Father. See Philippians 2:5b-8.

John 5:19 says, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (See also John 5:30; 8:28.) In Matthew 28:18 Jesus proclaimed, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth,” implying that the Father gave Him this power. In John 14:28 Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I.” I Corinthians 11:3 states that the head of Christ is God. All these verses of Scripture indicate that the man could do nothing of Himself but received power from the Spirit. The flesh was subject to the Spirit.

Again, temporarily.

These verses describe the relationship of Christ as a man to the indwelling Spirit of God. If we interpret them as making a distinction between two persons called God the Father and God the Son, there would be a contradiction. We would have God the Son with the following characteristics that are not of God: He would not have any power of His own; He would not have full knowledge; He would not do His own will; He would have someone greater than Himself; He would have His origin in someone else; and He would eventually lose His own individuality. These scriptural facts contradict the concept of “God the Son.”

Only temporarily. Jesus the man did not have full knowledge nor full power.

Take another read through John 1:1-18.

 

[Dino246]

As promised...

The above post from stilllearning covers the major points, though I would cite Michael Heiser rather than Bart Ehrman.

The most obvious example is Genesis 19:24, where we have a visible Yahweh on Earth calling down fire from Yahweh in heaven.

I can't locate my copy of Heiser's The Unseen Realm, but that is the source I'd recommend for a more thorough study.

 

[JohnDB]

We should consider the dual nature of Christ in the framework of biblical terminology. The term “Father” refers to God Himself—God in all His deity. When we speak of the eternal Spirit of God, we mean God Himself, the Father. “God the Father,” therefore, is a perfectly acceptable and biblical phrase to use for God (Titus 1:4). However, the Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Bible defines the Son of God as the child born of Mary, not as the eternal Spirit of God (Luke 1:35). “Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature.

“Son of God” never means the incorporeal Spirit alone, however. We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. The terms “Son of God,” “Son of man,” and “Son” are appropriate and biblical. However, the term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural.

The Son of God is not a distinct person in the Godhead but the physical expression of the one God. The Son is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:13-15) and “the express image of his [God’s] person” (Hebrews 1:2-3). Just as a signature stamp leaves an exact likeness on paper, or just as a seal leaves an exact impression when pressed in wax, so the Son of God is the exact expression of the Spirit of God in flesh. Humans could not see the invisible God, so God made an exact likeness of Himself in flesh, impressed His very nature in flesh, came Himself in flesh, so that humans could see and know Him.

.....Great Commission

......baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and was God.
....and the Word Became flesh and made His dwelling with men.
He was the Light of men....

Those that received him, those who believed IN his name (Emmanuel....God with us) He gave the right to be called children of God (bene Elohim...and Elohim is plural not singular)

 

[stilllearning]

First off, I always question the intention of the Scholar you have chosen to use here, Bart Ehrman. He is an admitted minister who now revoked his ministry and claims to be agnostic/atheist.

It was a intentional choice as @Dino246 points out I could have used Heiser. Which I could have used his review as well as others. I chose Erhman because he is not what one would call an ally to the faith where others might be seen as one. As I stated Bart is no friend of the faith. So was my reasoning behind my intention.

Same mindset someone might have when arguing that Forrest was the best cavalry officer during the American Civil War. Then another says he was over rated so one would use the words of his enemies as a proof of his skill. Like Grant and Sherman called him the devil and Sherman said speaking of him. That Forrest was the devil and if we must sacrifice 10,000 lives and bankrupt the federal treasury then we must as it would be worth it. Paraphrased of course.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

It was a intentional choice as @Dino246 points out I could have used Heiser. Which I could have used his review as well as others. I chose Erhman because he is not what one would call an ally to the faith where others might be seen as one. As I stated Bart is no friend of the faith. So was my reasoning behind my intention.

Same mindset someone might have when arguing that Forrest was the best cavalry officer during the American Civil War. Then another says he was over rated so one would use the words of his enemies as a proof of his skill. Like Grant and Sherman called him the devil and Sherman said speaking of him. That Forrest was the devil and if we must sacrifice 10,000 lives and bankrupt the federal treasury then we must as it would be worth it. Paraphrased of course.

Nice choice then

 

[Mem]

yes, three men, and they were Larry Curly and Moe.

Thanks for the thumbs up, @Inquisitor, I would've noticed the typo otherwise. ... and would've sworn that I had written, "they weren't (the three stooges)".

 

[Mem]

Thanks for the thumbs up, @Inquisitor, I would've noticed the typo otherwise. ... and would've sworn that I had written, "they weren't (the three stooges)".

Wow, I did it again... oh well, whatever...

Anyhay, I'll be "unwatching" the thread, again, because posting in any thread automatically selects "watch" for you.

 

[JaumeJ]

What is there to prove?

All 3 persons of the Trinity were Present at the exact same moment in time.

I don’t need a ten inch long post to prove what Scripture already plainly says.

We are taught by our Father in the Old Testament that God is One. Jesus Yeshua teaches the same. Once more the Prophet, Isaiah teaches the following:
Isiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

 

[tylerbones1313]

Tertullian (c. A.D. 150–225) was the first person recorded by history to use the words trinity (Latin: trinitas), substance (substantia), and person (persona) in relation to God. He was the first to speak of three persons in one substance (Latin: una substantia et tres personae). Tertullian adhered to the economic conception of the trinity. That is, he believed that the trinity exists for the purpose of revelation only, and after this has been accomplished the distinctions between the persons will cease. However, he definitely differed from Irenaeus in that he used the Logos doctrine of the Greek apologists. Tertullian equated the Logos with the Son. He believed the Father brought the Logos into existence for the creation of the world and the Logos was subordinate to the Father. The doctrine of the trinity posed no problem for Tertullian, for his whole theology rested on the thought that the more impossible the object of faith is, the more certain it is. He has been characterized by the statement, “I believe because it is absurd.”

There is some question as to what Tertullian actually meant by his trinitarian formulation, especially his use of the Latin word persona. According to a handbook of theological terms, in Roman law the word meant a legal entity or party. In drama it meant a mask worn by an actor or, by extension, a role played by an actor. Neither usage necessarily indicates the modern meaning of person as a self-conscious being. For example, one actor could play several roles (personae) and one legal corporation (persona) could consist of several individuals. On the other hand, the word could also designate individual human beings.

In the fourth century, the Greek word hypostasis was used in the official formulation of trinitarian doctrine. According to Noss, hypostasis was an abstract word meaning subsistence or individualized manifestation. He said, “When this formulation was translated into Latin, the rather abstract Greek for individualized manifestation became the rather concrete word persona, and connotations of distinct and self-contained personality were suggested in a way not intended by the original Greek wording.” However, this concrete Latin word was precisely the one Tertullian had used earlier. Another scholar stated that by the time hypostasis was translated into persona the two words were basically equivalent, both meaning “individual being.”

It is apparent that many people in Tertullian’s time opposed his new formulation. By his own admission the majority of believers in his day rejected his doctrine on two grounds: Their Rule of Faith (early creed or statement of belief) prohibited polytheism, and his doctrine divided the unity of God. Our knowledge of the early modalist believers Noetus and Praxeas comes from their strong opposition to Tertullian and his strong opposition to them. If Tertullian meant only that God had three roles, masks, or manifestations, there would be no conflict with modalism, especially since Tertullian did not believe in an eternal trinity. Therefore, we conclude that Tertullian did mean three essential differences in God and that persona did connote or imply a distinct personality, as suggested by Noss. In any case, it is clear that in Tertullian’s day modalists saw his doctrine as sharply opposed to their own, which was the majority belief of the time.

Here is one final note on Tertullian. He became a follower of Montanus, who claimed to be the last prophet before the end of the world and whom the institutional church deemed to be a heretic. Tertullian eventually began to praise celibacy and condemn marriage. In the end, he was excommunicated along with the rest of the Montanists.

 

[tylerbones1313]

Everyone quit posting, so I assume we agree. All I want is to seek Truth within Scripture, it is the FINAL authority we should live by. And if 1000's of years of Church history distorted God's word, from What Jesus taught and what the biblical authors wrote, then we have a duty to point that out, For souls lie in the balance on what we say.

 

[Stan_the_Man]

Everyone quit posting

No man, nobody is going to quit posting in this thread man!

 

[tylerbones1313]

What of passages of Scripture that seem to describe more than one person in the Godhead? They appear to do so only because of years of usage by those who believe in more than one person in the Godhead. When a person strips his mind of all man-made interpretations, connotations, and doctrines, viewing these verses through the eyes of the original writers (who were devout, monotheistic Jews), he will understand these verses to describe either the multiple attributes and roles of God or the dual nature of Jesus Christ.

I am glad everyone here agrees that God is numerically ONE Inseparable strictly monotheistic God. Everyone needs to know the truth.

 

[Eli1]

What of passages of Scripture that seem to describe more than one person in the Godhead? They appear to do so only because of years of usage by those who believe in more than one person in the Godhead. When a person strips his mind of all man-made interpretations, connotations, and doctrines, viewing these verses through the eyes of the original writers (who were devout, monotheistic Jews), he will understand these verses to describe either the multiple attributes and roles of God or the dual nature of Jesus Christ.

I am glad everyone here agrees that God is numerically ONE Inseparable strictly monotheistic God. Everyone needs to know the truth.

I don't believe this but you have free-will to believe whatever you want.

 

[tylerbones1313]

I don't believe this but you have free-will to believe whatever you want.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Eli1]

Can you elaborate?

I already did, but if you're here to generate website traffic, then good for you.
Traffic of any kind for a website is a blessing for the owner.

 

[tylerbones1313]

I already did, but if you're here to generate website traffic, then good for you.
Traffic of any kind for a website is a blessing for the owner.

I am here to spread the message of truth with sound doctrine, so by chance one soul can be saved by what we say here. And welcome honest open scripturally backed discussion on this Truth and how we arrive there that souls can be touched by the power of His word.