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, and 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, and 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 persons. 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 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.
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.
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.disabledupes{8126684e415651dedef8eb48e7bd4a43}disabledupes
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.