Loading...I recently did a webinar discussing the origins of the doctrine of the Trinity. It’s an issue that I am often asked about. Where did the idea come from? How does it work? If God the Father is God, Christ is God, and the Spirit is God – how is it that Christians don’t have three Gods? And if they have three Gods, aren’t they polytheists? On the other hand, if Christians want to insist there is only one God, and that they are monotheists, how can they say that Jesus and God are both God, let alone the Spirit? If they are both, or all three, God, then there is not just one God! So what’s going on with this Trinity business?
It’s an involved question, and I’ve decided to make a series of posts on the question. Let me start by making sure we are all on the same page when it comes to what the doctrine of the Trinity involves. This is important because a lot of people assume that if they see a passage in the Bible which mention God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit all in one verse or one passage (e.g., Matthew 28:19-20), or at least they infer the presence of all three in one passage, as Christian readers have long done, even in rather unexpected places – for example, the very first chapter of the Bible! (Genesis 1:1-2, 26) – that this is the doctrine of the Trinity. But no, it is not.
The Trinity is much more than just having these three beings named at once. It’s a distinct way of understanding the three in themselves and in relation to one another. The doctrine states that the Godhead is made up of three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These are not all the same person. They are three people. Moreover, each of these three persons is fully God. In fact, they are all equal to each other (no one is “superior” to the others) and they are made up of the “same substance.” And together, the three of them are the one God. That’s the doctrine. These three are one.
It is easy for non-Christians to laugh and call it nonsense. But the people who came up with the doctrine were not idiots. Most of the serious theologians who developed the full logic in the fourth and fifth centuries were deep thinkers and highly trained in philosophy. Many of them were smarter, frankly than you and me. Or at least me. They understood that the doctrine did not pass the normal standards of logic. And that applying those standards to it could not yield sense. If one of them were alive today and you suggested they were an idiot for believing an obviously contradictory view, they may well ask you how well versed you were in quantum physics.
I’m not going to support the doctrine, obviously. I don’t believe in a God at all, let alone a Triune one. But it’s not nonsense. It’s far deeper than I’m going to be able to explain, partly because I don’t go that deep philosophically. But I will say that on the other hand, if anyone thinks they fully understand the doctrine, they almost certainly do not understand it. And all the analogies you hear (if you hear any) simply do not encapsulate the idea; the Trinity is like water: it comes in three states, liquid, gas, and solid – but they are all the same H2O; or it is like a toaster; or it is like an egg, or it is like…. Yeah, no it’s not really. The best theologians would consider the doctrine a mystery, not a logical equation. You don’t believe in mystery? Well, on one level either do I. But I don’t think you have to be an idiot to believe in it.
OK, so to start, I need to make a categorical statement about the doctrine of the Trinity, which may come as a surprise to some people: the doctrine is not explicitly taught anywhere in the Bible, and in fact is never even mentioned in the Bible. That doesn’t mean it’s not theologically true, or even metaphysically true. And it doesn’t mean that the Bible proved irrelevant to developing the doctrine over time. It still could be true: the Bible doesn’t teach *most* of the things that are true!). Moreover, it still could be based on the Bible: lots of things that Christians insist are true can be based on the Bible even if they are not explicitly stated there. Some Christians insist the Bible opposes abortion; others insist the Bible supports a woman’s right to choose; some Christians claim that the Bible teaches that the Kingdom of God arrived on earth on the Day of Pentecost, other Christians say the Bible teaches it will arrive in 2021, others say it ain’t comin’ at all; some Christians insist that the Bible teaches that God will send the majority of people who have ever lived to eternal torment in hell, other Christians claim that the Bible teaches that in the end all will be saved.
These various views are necessarily deductions from various passages of the Bible that are interpreted differently. The odd thing is that all Christians use the same Bible, and many Christians are so convinced that their interpretation is right and the others wrong that they literally cannot see why others don’t see it that way. Must be misled by the Devil. Or their own evil natures. (Unlike me…) In almost no instance is there a direct statement that could settle the issue, such as “Thou shalt allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy up to the sixth month,” or “God’s Kingdom will arrive on earth on March 9, 2021,” or “Thou shalt overlook all the other passages that suggest otherwise: in the end, all people will be given an eternal reward in heaven, even a man who shall be named Hitler.”
Doctrines, ethical norms, and, well, other views, normally have to be teased out of biblical passages if they are to be used in support. Pick your doctrine: the full deity of Christ; American exceptionalism; opposition to slavery; the Rapture; women’s right to preach; and … the Trinity. And if you respond to one of these by saying, LOOK! It’s right here! And quote me a Bible verse … Then I’m going to respond by repeating what I said above: this seems so obvious to you that you don’t seem to realize the verse(s) don’t actually say that. You are interpreting them that way. But there are other ways to interpret them. And often far better ways.
So back to my point. There is nowhere in Bible that we have an explicit reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, that there are three persons in the godhead, and the three are actually one. With an exception. The doctrine of the Trinity DOES seem to be explicitly taught (or nearly explicitly taught) in 1 John 5:7. Here is what it says:
There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.
Right! There it is. That’s just about as explicit as can be. There are three. They are in heaven (meaning they are divine beings). They are God the Father, and the “Word” of God (i.e., Christ), and the Spirit. And those three are one. So the Trinity is indeed taught in the Bible, right?
It will take me two posts, but I’m going to explain why this verse was not originally in the New Testament. It was added by a later scribe. This is not a disputed point among biblical scholars – except for some rather hard-core fundamentalists. The evidence is so overwhelming that I agreed the verse wasn’t original back when I myself was a rather hard-core fundamentalist.
After I explain the situation in the posts that follow, and I will then move to the bigger question, of where the doctrine of the Trinity actually came from.
I don’t understand quantum physics, but I haven’t studied it either. People who have, like physicists who don’t routinely spout nonsense, tell me it makes sense so I take their word for it. But I think I understand what is meant by terms like “person” and concepts like “one” and “three.” So if you tell me it’s explained by smart people above my pay grade that I shouldn’t refer to as idiots, and if you need to tell me that three or four times, then I’ll defer to your wisdom, and say, “OK, they’re not idiots. They’re sophists.”
No one understands quantum physics! We are learning to understand it but at the present time we are only standing at the beginning of a very long road.
The basic principle of quantum physics is a break from the macro world above it. Nothing is certain and entanglement is king.
To simplify, in quantum computing the sort of equivalent of a bit is a qubit. However, in the non quantum, world with certainty, a bit has two potential values — true or false (1 or 0 — on or off). In the quantum world the qubit can have these same values or both at the same time. Even shades of values are possible. Even more unsettling is the act of observation isn’t passive but destructive. If you look at the state of a qubit — it changes! In the case of a quantum particle, you can know its location and its speed but you can’t know both at the same time!
It appears a parallel can be drawn between that quantum state and the trinity, ie things aren’t necessarily as they might appear using regular views of the world, so accept it.
Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience called the Bible “the big book of multiple choice.” Depending on which passages you accentuated (or added, for ancient scribes) and which passages you downplayed or ignored you could end up with practically any doctrine.
All Christians DO NOT use the same bible! Us Roman Catholics have a bible quite different from Protestants as well as certain branches of the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox churches! In the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Book of Enoch is considered canonical; it is not in any other Orthodox Church. In early Latin bibles, the Epistle of Laodiceans was considered canonical; even today there are some Vulgates you can purchase that have the text. Most Protestants I speak with are not even familiar with the two books mentioned above.
Thank you for an interesting blog.
What I don’t get here is why, according to the trinity idea, it has to be three persons. What’s the problem with the water parable? Why can’t it be one “person”? Would that lead to problems somewhere else in the doctrines?
/Stefan
Because if it is one person then that person was talking to himself when he prayed; and he felt foresaken by himself; and he begot himself; and he was the son of himself and the father of himself; and… Yeah, the church fathers had a field day with the idea! (the same water is not ice, liquid, and gas *at the same time*)
Ah… but the more we learn the more complicated it gets. Water now is generally viewed to have between 6 and 8 “states”. Liquid water can have as many as 3 states depending on temperature. I know, that’s crazy. But, it appears to be true.
Another conclusion can be made for individuals talking to themselves, even arguing! But, that doesn’t reflect well on perfect beings so is excluded from consideration. ?
The trinity issue is confused by the common understanding among Christians that one of those persons compromising “God” is in a sort of bodily form. That bodily form has a beginning in time, but the person of the trinity represented by that form would not have a beginning in time. Presumably the remaining persons would not have a beginning in time. The bodily form must have some sort of relationship with the other persons that didn’t exist prior to the bodily form, implying a change in something that is supposed to be eternal and changeless. Is that a complication, or is it just my inability to wrap my head around the issue?
The bodily form is what teh Son assumed at the incarnation; but the Son existed before he was incarnate, and did not have a beginning. His essence is changeless even if he took on a bodily form.
and did not have a beginning.
Unless you’re an Arian, of course.
Cant wait for this thread! Will you be explaining why the verse in Matthew isn’t implying the trinity in a later post?
It think the key point is that simply saying Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does not describe how they relate to each other, and the doctrine of the trinity is how they relate to each other (completely equal in substance/essence, three distinct beings, all eternal, but completely one). One way to look at this is that church fathers will often refer to Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Holy Angels. But they did not mean to to suggest all these were equal with one another and “one.” Naming the supernatural beings together does not explain their reliaationship, and the relationship is what the doctrine of the trinity sets out.
Do these later church fathers talk about baptizing persons in the name of Holy Angels? Matthew 28:19 makes an equivalence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in terms of baptizing persons in the name of these three. Why would Matthew not simply say to baptize persons in the name of God? It would seem that Matthew has stated a relationship between the three in terms of how persons are to be baptized. This verse may not be a complete statement of the trinity, but I don’t think this verse can be so easily dismissed as not implying the trinity.
No, they don’t. And yes, it is odd. But it still is not a statement that the three distinct persons and all make up together the one God.
I look forward to learning more about the passage being added later. I often wonder if the so-called Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20 was originally in Matthew’s gospel. It doesn’t sound like something Jesus would say. It sounds like something later Christians would append. Perhaps you could post of this question one day?
I may do that! But yes, it is almost certainly not something Jesus really said. It was originally in Matthew’s Gospel, but it is somethin g that later Christian story tellers put on his lips.
A great post!
I have no problem at all to rely on the idea that one become more than one. I don’t have to go furhter than into the natural world, or even the physical start of this universe from a singularity, a point who eminated outward and became this known universe. Yes, all from one singularity.
I can also go into pscyhcology and to use Carl Gustav Jung’s theories, even though he seemed to parallell a gnostic view, but he was first of all a psychologist. Much of his fundamental pscycological understanding was that a human originated form a pshycic oneness, out of one conciousness, and emintated out into this world we know just a little part of.
I have to say that the christian gnostics expressed who some have claimed could have been inspired/associated with the the author(s) of the Gospel of John. In the Apcrychon of John (pretty much the similar ideas found in eastern religion, and psycological ideas like those of Dr. Jung, and the physical creation in itself.), they express the creationmyth expressing the start as the One (Noesis) who eminates into a kind of trinity, «the thinking (the One(Noesis) a thought (Barbelo) of itself thinking(the Son/Christ)» which is the the devine structure, a trinity. The expansion is described in the picture of a «watery light», an emination from one into many rings of watery light.
These ideas are not more abstact than this singularity point idea, or the oneness of the psycie (soul) from Dr. Carl Jungs perseption, but rather quite similar.
And I find this much easier to understand than elaborate about the one can’t be three, or three can’t be one, a resonation which i feel misses a dimention or two .
As an abstract concept, the Trinity is quite lovely. It allows one inclined to frame his or her world in theology to experience a “profound dizziness” when contemplating the illogic of the proposition. It’s not unlike a Japanese koan, where the goal is to get the thinker into new modes of consideration. Illogic is a feature of the Trinity, not a bug.
I say all of this in praise of the Trinity as someone who personally finds the Trinity abhorrent precisely because of its appeal to irrationality. However, it is a categorical error to attack the “rationality” of the Trinity, since the concept makes no claim to such.
I am looking forward to your posts, Dr. Ehrman, because the historical evolution of this concept and its designers are a fascinating study.
Cheers
So the Son, aka Jesus, is of seemingly dual nature, fully divine and fully human.
Is then the Father also of dual nature, fully divine and fully X? And the Holy Spirit/Ghost fully divine and fully Y? If so, what are X and Y?
Or is it all just too mysterious for humans to understand?
No, only the son became incarnate as a human. The others have not changed status.
There’s a saying (by whom, I don’t know) that goes “If you don’t believe in the Trinity, you will surely lose your soul. But if you try to understand the Trinity, you will surely lose your mind.”
Hey, that’s a good one!
The saying apparently comes from a sermon by Dr Robert South in the 1660’s:
“… as he that denies it may lose his Soul, so he that too much strives to understand it may lose his Wits.”
Wow, sermons back then were solid affairs! Here’s another gem:
“Or why should I by chewing a Pill make it useless, which, swallowed whole, might be Curing and Restaurative.”
Source:
https://scriptoriumdaily.com/lose-my-wits-unhinge-my-brains-ruin-my-mind-pursue-distraction/
Dr. Ehrman,
Thank you for reiterating that “theologians were deep thinkers and highly trained in philosophy” more than we give tend to give credit to. Philosophy can be had without the advances in education in our modernity and many had stood the test of time.
I agree with your article (as I typically do with ~95% of your arguments) particularly when it comes to the Bible explicitly defining what came to be known as the Orthodox definition of the Trinity. Yes, we see phrases in the Bible in which the 3 define beings are referenced and colluding together for a unified purpose such as in MATTHEW 28:18-20: “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”; or your reference in John 5:7 which we know John is a later “Christolized” Gospel.
The Collusion of the 3 beings does not necessitate the definition of the Trinity. One theology which I’m familiar with and hold is that they are colluding to “one in purpose” and not one in being. If I recall correctly, I believe original translations to Greek actually held this view.
Ah, I am minded of John Donne:
Batter my heart, three-person’d God, for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o’erthrow me, and bend
Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp’d town to another due,
Labor to admit you, but oh, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv’d, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be lov’d fain,
But am betroth’d unto your enemy;
Divorce me, untie or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
Ah, brilliant.
My favorite is “When thou hast done, that hast not done; for I have more.” (Of course it’s a pun: Donne, and his wife was named Moore)
Dr bart some people think that you secretly a believer and part of secret society or group to make bible looks wrong and problematic , and you hired by them, is that true ? All of this true or you just try twist the truth ? Are you close with dan barker ? Is dan barker genuine atheist or not ? Conspiracist think all this bible critics were hired so the truth will be hidden or something, im not hating im just curious
Ha! Ha! That’s the funniest thing I”ve heard in a long time. Tell me, how much are they paying me? I need to ask for a raise if people are onto us…
Yes, I know Dan a bit, and yes, he is definitely an atheist.
Dr bart i also want to know. How you know the forged on bible becuase the original writing were not there also do critics agree on this forgery except the fundamentalist ?
Look up “forged” or “forgery” on the blog and you’ll see the criteria scholars use to determine if an author is probablyl not whom he claims to be.
I am sure you are aware of James White (the hard core fundamentalist that gets under your skin) who will debate the Trinity till the end of time. Anyhow, he believes the doctrine of the Trinity can most plainly be found in the canyon between Malachi and Matthew (as if these books are back to back in terms of when they were written ….)
So he believes the Trinity was most plainly manifested in the immaculate conception? Hmmm seems rather odd that the heart of Christian faith is discovered, after all, in the margins! He did write a book, The Forgotten Trinity, and I have considered taking a look at it. But if I find 1 John 5:7 as proof text I will burn the book!
I didn’t know that, but my sense is that he’s willing to debate any of the millions of things he has firm opinions about till the cows come home. And since he doesn’t live on a farm, they never come home.
I remember watching James White debating a gay Christian activist on homosexuality and the Bible.
That God can be 3 yet only 1 is a mystery. That Jesus is fully human and fully divine is a paradox. Theological definitions: Mystery means we know it doesn’t make sense but we believe it anyway. Paradox means we know it is contradictory but we believe it anyway. Any way you look at it Christianity is hardly monotheistic: not only do you have the Father, Son and Holy Spirit but there is also Satan who is clearly a kind of god, and angels are immortal beings able to act on humans which makes them a kind of god, there are the heavenly creatures seraphim and cherubim (which are never called angels in the Bible), and demons likewise are gods able to intervene in human affairs. Judaism and Christianity are more accurately henotheistic: they believe there is only one supreme God to be worshipped, but they acknowledge the existence of other godly beings (see the First Commandment, for example!). (Please note: I am an ex-Christian, not a JW or Muslim, and not picking on one religion versus any other! They all have their paradoxes and mysteries.)
Hello Dr. Ehrman! Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the doctrine of “oneness” that is taught by some Pentecostal groups? It seems to be modalism or at least a form of it. If so, what is your take on that?
I’m afraid I don’t know the ins and outs.
OK Bart, now if the end of the world comes on March 9, 2021, we’re all holding you responsible 😉
You can sue me on March 10.
Maybe March 9 2023? Ahaha
Considering the current insurrection in Washington, could you do a post on Romans 13? Many of the insurrectionists claim to be Christians, after all.
It’s a very intersting dynamic in early Christianity. The book of Revelatino, e.g., is vehemently opposed to the ruling authorities. But yes, that certainly would be timely….
Just to point out the stupidity of it all I had posited my own trinities:
God, Lord and Heavenly Father = Trinity 1
Father, Son and Holy Ghost = Trinity 2
Spirit, Water, and the Blood = John’s Trinity 3
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost = Trinity 4
The spirit and soul and body = Trinity 5
The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob = Trinity 6
God the Father, God the Mother, God the Son = Nazarene & Muslim Trinity 7
God, Lord and Heavenly Father = Trinity 8
God, the Son and the Disciples = Trinity 9
The one, the intellect and the soul = Greek Trinity 10
God was, God is and God will always be = Revelation Trinity 11
Yes it is easy to dismiss the doctrine of the Trinity as illogical and therefore silly but I totally accept that the people behind its development were mighty intellects indeed. But saying it’s a mystery to deflect criticism is troubling and does seem like some sort of egregious ‘get out of jail free’ card. Isaac Newton (no atheist) rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. However, I like the analogy with quantum physics which can also seem counterintuitive to the uninitiated.
My sense is that the concept of mystery was not originally invoked to ward off criticism but to celebrate the wonder of it all. But it certainly ahs been used to respond to criticism.
I always thought Nabeel Qureshi did a fantastic job on his presentation of explaining the trinity.
For folks not familiar with Nabeel, he was a muslim apostate that converted to a Christian apologists who gained some notoriety and recently passed away. You can youtube his presentations on his logic around the trinity if your heart delights.
Yes, he was my student years ago.
He wasn’t a mainstream Muslim. He was an Ahmadi before he converted to evangelical Christianity.
It seems that the “ice/water/steam” thing is the most common metaphor, at least in my experience. The funny thing is that as far as I can tell, this actually is or at the very least closely resembles a formal heresy—modalism or Sabellianism—condemned in the 3rd century as being anti-Trinitarian.
It’s pretty weird when believers in the Trinity describe it in terms of a doctrine that was condemned as anti-Trinitarian!
Yup, that’s right!
Hi highly doubt that Moses, who declared the Shema, and whom Jesus also affirmed the Shema believed/preaching the Gospel that YHWH = HE is made up of three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that form one God
28 “One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but HIM.”
Most of the world’s great philosophical and spiritual traditions claim that all things are one. (Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher, was the first to use the term “Logos,” or “the Word,” – which to him represented that through which all things are one.) In Chinese philosophy the trinity is “jing/qi/shen.” Shen is spirit, jing is essence or physical manifestation of spirit, and qi is the energetic intermediary between the two. (The word qi is identical in meaning to latin spiritus, greek pneuma, and sanskrit prana). The Christian trinity seems to be identical to that philosophical concept – God is the spirit of all, the Son is the physical manifestation, and Holy Spirit is the energetic intermediary that gives life to all physical things. All are God’s children – “ye are Gods”. Then comes the escalating Christology in service to those that invented it.
In physics current field theory claims that all matter is simply minute manifestations of energy in fields that extend through all of space. The holy grail of physics is unifying quantum mechanics and gravity – where all forces are one (and described mathematically). Same philosophical concept basically – just with math.
Just one guy’s understanding . . .
I had a missionary once try to explain to me that the trinity is like a three leaf clover. In my head I was thinking, “should I tell him that’s a heretical view?” (I didn’t).
King Ghidorah from the Godzilla series is a three-headed space dragon with three heads but with one mind. Is that a valid way of thinking about the Trinity. three heads, one mind?
That sounds a bit more like one person with three parts instead of three persons?
Dr Ehrman,
1. Why Holy Spirit has no Plot Lines in Bible? Why it/he/she is quite?
2. For a 3rd Century Proselytizing Jewish Christian, would it not be easier to Introduce Jesus to Roman Citizens of Asia Minor, as a God (Yup…he is a God Too) and not simply as a Jewish Prophet who made a lot of sense?
3. And to keep Gospel of John in the Sacred proto-collection, had to amalgamate the Paraclete into Jesus/God as well and hence we have Trinity? (The issue of someone returning to give comfort to humanity has led to many many confusions, disturbances and birth of new religions in east)
regards,
Kashif
1. The HS may not be as prominent as God and Christ, but there are important passages: John 14, 16; Acts 2, throughout Luke, etc. 2. We don’t know how Jewish Xns proseletyzed in Asia Minor 3. Yes, these passages did become important for thosetrying to understand the trinity.
The most powerful struggle with the Trinity I have seen is that of the boxing trainer Frankie Dunn played by Clint Eastwood in “Million Dollar Baby.” He never does figure it out despite his struggle.
Eldridge Cleaver (the famous Black Panther [no, not that one]) once likened the Trinity to 3-in-One Oil. I think that is as good an explanation as any.
Dr Ehrman,
1. You began this post as “I recently did a webinar discussing the origins of the doctrine of the Trinity”….where can we get a link to this webinar?
2. As an scholar, would you agree that Trinity is the most difficult doctrine in Christianity?
3. If Jesus becomes alive and visit us in 2021….would he be surprised to look at prevailing Abrahamic religions?
regards
1. I’m afraid it is not for public circulation! 2. I’d say there are others that can’t be understood either (such as how Christ can be 100% God and 100% human). 3. He wouldn’t recognize any of them, including the one founded on him.
Dr. Ehrman: As a practicing and zealous Roman Catholic, do you think you could beat the late Father Raymond Brown in a debate? He is my hero!
Depends what we were debating and who was judging the debate! He was flat-out amazing as a scholar; massively well read, knew everything, gave precise and compelling arguments; was a master of languages. We agreed on far more than we disagreed on. And he was very generous to me when I was just starting out as a young scholar and he was a major superstar.
Wow, you actually knew him?
Yup. And my friend and guest-blogger Joel Marcus was one of his best students.
Dr. Ehrman, would you ever consider writing a post about Dr. Bruce Metzger? For instance, how good was he with Biblical languages? Do you think he would find most of your writings and scholarship questionable or disagreeable?
Oh, I”ve written several about him! Do a word search for his name and you’ll find them.
I’m married to a Bulgarian and so am a bit more conversant with Eastern Orthodoxy than most in this country. The direct cause of the schism was the word “filoque”, the economical Latin term meaning “and the son”. The Nicene Creed said that the Holy Spirit “proceeded” from the Father, but later, the Westerners preferred to add modify this to “proceeded from the Father and the Son,” while the Easterners refused this emendation, resulting eventually in the horrors of the 4th Crusade and later, the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims. But what does this mean? Wouldn’t either formula imply that the Spirit is less than coeternal with the Person or Persons from which he proceeded? Is there any way to make sense of this?
Yes, that’s right. The issue is whether the Spirit proceeded ONLY from the FAther or from both Father and Son, and the issue is not the full deity of the Spirit but the full deity of the Son. (As I understand it)
There are Christians today who seem to have a contradictory belief regarding one aspect of the Trinity: On the one hand, Jesus ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of God (which implies permanence). On the other, Jesus is my constant companion, comforter, and guide. How far back into church history does this contradiction about the current state of Jesus go? (Most of the Biblical accounts appear to treat the appearance of Jesus as an unusual and particular event.) When in church history did this contradiction arise?
I don’t believe those who hold this view see it as a contradiction. Christ is omnipresent, so he can be seated at the right hand and at the same time be with you.
Of course, a large number of Christians don’t subscribe to the full trinitarian doctrine as worked out in the 4th century, but would still say, if asked, that they believe in the Trinity. I don’t think your definition of the doctrine is meant to imply that they are wrong (which I think would be most unfair, in part because I was one of them), but is rather a question of defining your terms for the purpose of this historical investigation.
I remember finding Tertullian’s analogies helpful, e.g. that Christ is to God as a ray of light is to the sun. Had Tertullian lived in another age he would definitely have compared the Holy Spirit to the gravitational field (c.f. Kepler).
Did it not occur to a single one of the 300 excellencies at Nicaea that the sound and fury over the correct anthropomorphizing of the “Father” and “Son” relationship was much ado about nothing? If they weren’t “idiots,” why the unflagging determination — on pain of persecution as a heretic, no less! — to characterize an ineffably transcendent God in terms comprehensible to mortal man?
The Theodicy Problem is not dismaying for yours truly as I freely dispense with the “omnipotent” component of the triad. (Actually, the rock-too-heavy-to-lift type concessions suggest that they will, as well — but are for some reason loathe to admit it.)
No extrapolation from the material to the spiritual plane will be perfect. But it seems to me that the of H2O analogy does hold water. The liquid, gaseous and solid forms ARE “of the essence” or (Department of Redundancy Dept.) “of one substance”: H2O.
Does it follow from the fact that this material substance can exist in only one mode at a time that the simultaneous, immaterial existence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is too much heavy lifting for an omnipotent God?
If so, doesn’t your own father-son-brother trifecta dispense with the simultaneity objection?
You may want to read up on Nicea. When you do, I suspect you’ll be changing your mind about their idiocy. You may want to start with the books of Lewis Ayres.
Thank you, professor. But my real interest is in the historical Jesus and the “Word” he brought (and to that end I am currently engrossed in “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium” — an excellent work by my favorite scholar/author.)
How the mission and message of Jesus were perverted by the emerging church — from the self-proclaimed apostle, Paul, through the self-serving creed propounded by the aborning RCC at Nicaea — might be of interest IFF there is an analysis by a bona fide scholar who, rather than being a Christian apologist, has the objectivity of an agnostic/atheist. I’m guessing that, unfortunately, TWO such is too much to hope for.
I should clarify that I did not mean to suggest that Council members actually were “idiots.”
While you were making your career in the world of text criticism I was making my own in the world of politics — and even seventeen centuries later I can detect that stench lingering over official recognition of the Christian movement. I suspect that the Council of Nicaea wasn’t so much about theology as devising a loyalty oath to empower the emperor’s catspaw church. The attendees weren’t idiots. They were a Christian reincarnation of the Sadducees.
THere is, as you might imagine, a lot written on that. For starters, check out the great George BErnard Shaw, “The Monstrous Imposition on Jesus.” Full of wit, by one famous for things other than biblical scholarship.
Now that one sounds very intriguing. But it must be a pretty obscure work as a quick check at my usual sources didn’t turn up so much as an out-of-stock notation — which is probably just as well since the stack on my nightstand is becoming a Leaning Tower of Babel (in no small part an edifice of YOUR creation! 😉)
The search did, however, turn up this spot-on quote:
“Christianity as a specific doctrine was slain with Jesus, suddenly and utterly. He was hardly cold in his grave, or high in his heaven (as you please), before the apostles dragged the tradition of him down to the level of the thing it has remained ever since.”
— George Bernard Shaw
I was especially amused by the fact that Shaw acknowledges both or our perspectives! Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll keep an eye out for the title (and in the meantime, perhaps, reduce the precariousness of the back-stack.)
It’s an essay. YOu can find it in the book edited by Wayne Meeks and John Fitzmeyer, the Writings of St. Paul.
Thanks, I had no problem finding that. The search turned upon another Shaw essay intriguingly titled, “Preface to Androcles and the Lion: On the Prospects of Christianity,” (a 37,000 word “Preface”?) available for free download as a pdf. I’m already enjoying this one and appreciating your recommendation of GBS for a non-apologist deconstruction/assessment of the gospels. Shaw is insightful, incisive and (of course) possessed of a wit and writing style that makes him an absolute joy to read — in the rarified heights of Mark “Letters from the Earth” Twain.
While not the specific work you mentioned, I’m sure you must have read it as your ability to casually suggest one — by title and author — beyond the search wherewithal of the Oracle of Mountain View has me wondering if you have actually read everything that has ever been published on NT text criticism!
Though I’m a big fan of “MacBeth” and “The Merchant of Venice,” I mostly took writing courses (my brother was the lit guy.) But if I ever happen to run into your English professor wife at a cocktail party — and she actually IS smarter than you — I think I’ll just keep my mouth shut. 😉
Trust me. She is. She doesn’t know as much, obvioulsy, as my fields of expertise. But everything else….
Although I wasn’t aware that a play could even HAVE a preface, much less one going to 37,000 words, two-thirds of Shaw’s “Preface to Androcles and the Lion: On the Prospects of Christianity” is an unapologetic, tour de force critique of orthodox apologetics.
Shaw’s assessment of the dharma of Jesus per the NT is both insightful and (from my admittedly amateur perspective) historically equitable.
Completely unexpected — and better still — is his utter evisceration of the bizarre and indefensible, post hoc, church doctrine of salvation by “Substitutionary Atonement.”
Unfortunately, the only way I’d feel comfortable challenging my misguided, Inerrancy-blinded friends with this extended preface to the tale of “Androcles and the Lion” would require first removing a very large thorn that completely hobbles his argument — a several thousand word digression into unwarranted and patently wrong-headed, political extrapolation.
I can find nothing whatever in the words of the Word to suggest that salvation is not an ENTIRELY spiritual and personal undertaking.
Did I miss a textual variant in which Jesus advocated some kind of collective moral order with, for example, charity rightfully provided by forcible redistribution of wealth? Am I missing the passage in which he lobbied the Sanhedrin to IMPOSE social reforms?
Sorry, I followed you until the end. Jesus never discussed broader governmental or social policy.
But you DID make it to the end, professor. The fact that “Jesus never discussed broader governmental or social policy” was the finish line!
Jesus not only taught that one should devote ALL heart, soul, mind and strength to love of God (which implicitly includes helping all of our fellow travelers on this mortal coil to do the same), but was the poster prophet for “Practice what you preach!”
He was crystal clear that EVERY temporal concern is at best a distraction, at worst a potentially fatal obstacle, and that all such should at least be eschewed, or better, utterly repudiated.
Wealth and the pursuit of it is the most obvious and ubiquitous danger. So Jesus, himself, had none at all, beyond the clothes on his back (which eventually went to the winner of a craps game.)
Home and family are also enormous impediments to spiritual pursuits — high-maintenance traps that require 6-day weeks of 12-hour days in gainful employment. So Jesus abandoned all three to become an itinerant preacher.
[to be continued]
Jesus wasn’t the slightest bit anxious about tomorrow — what he would eat or drink or where he would lay his head. He knew that God knew these things are needed and trusted that they would be provided.
Consider the birds of the air that neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns. Our heavenly Father feeds them! The lilies of the field neither toil nor spin, yet are more resplendently arrayed than Solomon in all his glory! (Not, mind you, that I have anything against birds or am having a go at the flowers…😉)
Tomorrow will have problems of its own. So we need only ask God to give us this day our daily bread. Jesus ate and drank and took shelter with anyone, regardless of station or reputation, who was willing to provide — until they weren’t. Then he moved on.
He was equally unambiguous that anyone who was unwilling to adopt his totally detached and disconnected, vagabond lifestyle was unworthy of following him. Jesus wasn’t the King of kings; he was the King of luftmenschen.
Does this sound like someone who would give a flying fig about “governmental or social policy”? (Even if the tree WAS in season.)
It should come as no surprise that a divine messenger would be entirely devoted to spiritual aspirations — taking no interest whatever in the machinations of secular government or the devising and implementation of social policy. Such worldly approaches to ameliorating the human condition could not more directly contradict the idea that salvation can ONLY come from unalloyed dedication to becoming one with the Father.
If there is anything surprising in Jesus’ silence on “governmental or social policy,” it is that he failed to explicitly reject the idea of such involvements! Indeed, if only he had added this to his list of distracting and futile pursuits, he could not have been claimed by political reformers — from wingtip to wingtip across the political spectrum — as the champion of THEIR cause.
It seems to me that the reason for his silence here is self-evident. But it became a Rorschach for political, true believers. The inkblot is in fact a void, the logical absence of what Jesus simply regarded as utterly irrelevant. Unfortunately, everyone from GB Shaw and Democratic Socialists to David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan, see in it validation for their own political beliefs and agendas.
Cleaning out my desk drawers, I’ve uncovered some of my own writings on theological topics back when I was a believer, from private notebook scribbles to documents once published online.
I’m in two minds about throw them all out (they are, frankly, rather embarrassing) or keep some of them for future reference. I am _probably_ not interesting to scholars. Any advice?
For now, let me paraphrase just a portion of my writings on the Trinity. A public document on the topic opens by stating outright that I have never liked the word as I feel it gets the emphasis wrong, and among other musings I speculate that God can bring the components of his own consciousness in and out of absolute unity, and that their distinctness is temporal rather than eternal, except in potentia (citing 1 Cor 15:28). I would definitely have been declared a heretic in the 4th century.
In another document, emphasising Christ as the Word of God, a portion of God’s essence sent into the world to complete assigned tasks, I point out that in existence in potentia is still existence, just as a gravitational field exists even when nothing is falling. If matter exists, gravity automatically does too.
Save them! Not for scholars but for yourself, down the road. I sometimes look at writings from my youth too. Embarassing, but on the upside — humbling! Maybe in decades to come I’ll look back on what I write *now* and be suitably embarassed!
How do Christian apologists justify the divinity of Jesus when he is recorded in the Gospels as praying to God?
Normally by saying they are both God — that became the standard doctrine later embodied in the Trinity: three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, all equal, but one God.
Thanks for your reply. So God is praying to God?
Well, the Son is addressing the Father. Son and Father in this understanding are *equal* but not *identical*. And if you ask how could the be distinct from one another and both be equally God and yet there be only one God, well, welcome to the doctrine of the Trinity (once you throw in the Spirit).
Dr Ehrman, I’m a long-time reader, please don’t take this the wrong way;) I have to call you out on this: “they may well ask you how well versed you were in quantum physics.” This attempt at making some sort of equivalence between QM and the concept of the Trinity is either disingenuous or ignorant, I can’t see you as being disingenuous, and there’s nothing wrong with being ignorant. QM was developed because experiments/observations resulted in inexplicable behavior, then-current theories simply got stuff wrong. Mathematics guided the way as they figured out what was going on, it defied common sense, it meant things weren’t what we thought they were, but NOTHING defied logic. It’s the polar opposite to explaining the Trinity, those theologians had beliefs and came up with rationalizations that could support them, NOTHING was based on real data. actual observations, as with QM. Highly intelligent people have been shown to be very good at coming up with rationalizations when they have false beliefs. Do you know what another name is for stuff that doesn’t “pass the normal standards of logic”? Nonsense. The Trinity IS incoherent nonsense.
My point is not that they are the same thing. I’d say the analogy hinges a good deal on what you (I mean you yourself) mean by “logic.” I (myself) do not take it as a mathmatical phenomenon, e.g.. As to the Trinity being incoherent nonsense, I think you must be saying it’s not based on scientific principles/method. Of course that’s right. But it definitely is not non-sense.
Maybe I read it wrong, I assumed you meant that QM seemingly defies logic and no one can really understand it so we shouldn’t assume the Trinity isn’t similar in that it seems to defy logic and just because I can’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s wrong or incoherent. I’m not sure what you mean by “do not take it as a mathmatical phenomenon”. QM in NO way defies logic, logic IS maths, maths IS logic, they’re inseparable. Claiming something defies logic is no less a statement than saying something defies mathematics. What would you think of an idea that defied mathematics, wouldn’t you immediately assume there’s going to be something wrong with it? You don’t believe in the trinity, so you know they’re trying to justify something that isn’t real, how could they not be spewing BS, there’s no corrective mechanism, QM always constrained by observation? Do you disagree that high intelligence facilitates elaborate rationales for false beliefs? This phenomenon is well understood by psychologists. The trinity says a=b and a≠ b. Most theologians and philosophers don’t think god can defy logic, why let these ancient faithfuls get a pass?
Logic is a tricky subject. The best theologians I know definitely think the Trinity defies logic. And you may be one of the world’s leading experts on QM — I really don’t know — but I have read plent of scientists who say that it doesn’t make sense and that if you think it does you don’t understand it. I don’t believe in QM a state is subject to the rules of truth annd falsity. And that normally is a presciptin of logic. Math might be logical but lots of logic has nothing to do with math.
If you’re interested in QM, I recommend Sabine Hossenfelder’s videos, she is kinda contrarian–she removes a lot of the ‘it doesn’t make sense’. QM doesn’t take away the truth and falsity of anything, it takes away the question. It’s because, as I said, stuff ain’t what we thought it was, it’s some other kinda stuff and we don’t really know what kind, but we can describe it with astonishing accuracy {George Carlin is greatly missed]. It’s not that you can’t claim that an electron is in one state or another, it’s in some kind of combination of the two, the question simply can’t be asked. If you know a a physicist, talk to them, I’m betting they would pretty much agree with me about QM and logic.
So you’re fighting my claim that the best theologians you know agree with, or was that a typo, did you mean doesn’t defy? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is interesting, more on that below.
Alternative approach: I should say I went and re-educated myself on some terms, what is meant by ‘incoherence’ philosophically is complex and trying to grasp a firm understanding would likely lead to me losing my dwindling will to live reserves. I think you’re saying the arguments/explanations aren’t nonsense because they’re logically consistent and I definitely ain’t got what it takes to show that is true or not, and the same for ‘nonsense’, I’m not about to start trying to quote Wittgenstein and Frege, much less Chomsky or Lewis Carroll though my raths are outgrabing their asses off. What I would say is that the justifications for the trinity are nonsense in that their assumptions stem form nothing but their faith, they made utterly unfounded assumptions, e.g., their god exists, any god could exist, that Jesus was god, a god, divine, whatever, worst of all, and the reams&reams of philosophical debates all guilty of this, they assume whatever attributes a god has that supports their arguments. Since there is no reason to even assume a god COULD exist, you can just make up arbitrary attributes, making consistency a given, but that means it’s all meaningless = nonsense.
I disagree. There is a lot of serious philosophy going on behind these discussions, by thinkers who were philosophically trained. The terms used are themselves philosophically ocnstrued. You may want to read a serious treatment of the debaes, for example by Lewis Ayres, if you want to see how it wasn’t just a matter of makin’ stuff up….
Dr Ehrman, virtually everything about the Trinity is made up or assumed, I don’t mean the terms used, though I think there are some of those, but that they can actually be used as applying to this god thing. The list of assumed things is long and include:
-supernatural can exist
-gods can exist
-the christian god, and also father-god, the holy spirit-god, and god-jesus
-god has attributes that are problematic in themselves e.g. omnipotence-very likely incoherent itself
-even the trinity is made up, it isn’t explicitly stated, even the Johannine Comma is vague
-meaning every attribute of it is made up
Compare the paucity of passages that lead to believing the trinity exists and the vast reams and reams of debate. Perusing Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it’s full of made up attributes,
-God’s being three Persons is a fundamental metaphysical fact, not a derivative fact.
-the divine nature, being unbegotten, being begotten, and proceeding [how does that work on eternal thing?]
The expected resort to divine incomprehensibility/ineffability/god’s mysterious. One definitional example given-“a truth which one should believe even though it seems, even after careful reflection, to be impossible and/or contradictory and thus false.”
to be continued
[this is long and you have been patient, thank you, it really is appreciated, I haven’t done a whole lot of commenting but have been a member since near the beginning and this topic means a lot to me]
BUT, what about the other side of that, a falsity that careful reflection leads one to view it’s truth as certain, that it would lead to contradiction if it was false? Once invoked, say, by claiming the trite ‘god works in mysterious ways’, you have just made it impossible to be certain about anything wrt god. Why isn’t that discussed? I can’t recall anyone doing so and I’ve been at this a long time.
It occurs to me that you’re a biblical scholar and I’m engaging you in theological debate, but you engage in such arguments all the time. I’m know you’ve discussed this, likely on more than one occasion but I can’t recall the details. I’m thinking you’re forced into it due to how theology rests on the texts and their meaning.
Back to incoherence. Maybe I can’t prove contradiction, but it’s clear the whole enterprise’s foundation is faith in absurdities upon absurdities.