tanya

Why should not the juxtaposition of θεὸς with κύριος in 1 Corinthians 8:6, repudiate my argument that Trinitarianism compelled widespread alteration of LXX? I must be wrong.

jakejonesiv

I was responding to a question from spin. I haven't read your contributions to the thread. But now that you bring it up, Trinitarianism seems a rather late explanation for a text that was in the Apostilicon. Unless you are asking for a refutation, we can leave it there.

Jake

Sheshbazzar

The roots of Trinitarian ideas are found in situations and expressions used throughout the OT texts.
The concept of an Elohim that revealed himself in three aspects (see Gen Chapter 18 where it is ONE 'YHWH' that is present in three individual bodies) is certainly not solely the invention of late christianity, but is as old as the Torah itself. (likely cribbed from other ancient 'triad' god combos)

The entire OT gave plenty of fodder for a -as then yet unidentified by an official Greek theological title- (trinity/trinitarian/Trinitarian-ism) concept.
So it is not at all odd that even the earliest of texts would incorporate trinitarian ideas and tropes, long before the invention and adoption of any 'official' Greek language theological title became attached. It was just a continuation of, and expansion on the material that was already present and recognized.
Even the ancient and pre-christ Jews, if they noted the triad tropes present within their texts, would have noticed the existence of this 'three-ness' and received it as one of the minor, but holy peculiarities of their sacred texts.

Of course once it had became the the cause de Guerra of the powerful and bloodthirsty X-ian religion, they (Jews) would no longer care to be associated with supporting the furtherance of the idea, (or further expansion of the concept as was being accomplished through the newly emergent texts of the christians) or be found participating in the drawing of any additional attention to these texts.

Along the lines of what tanya noted as 'trinitarianism compelled widespread alteration of LXX'. This did not nescesarily come about through any post-1st century christian 'alterations' of the LXX, as it could have just as well have originated through the ideas and the hands of pre-christian 'trinatarian' Jewish schools and scribes.
Thus unknowingly laying a even stronger foundation for the latter christian takeover.


.

Chili

. . . because the Gosples is where the, a, or this son of man becomes fully Man and so fully God as Lord God in the flesh. He was a 'child of Israel' which is equal to 'son of man' but still a child as son and a young man in becoming onward to fully man and so fully God with Thomas' exclamation "my Lord and my God" when [and so not until] all doubt was removed to so defrock Peter in faith on his next fishing trip. So now, Son of Man is the transition between earth and heaven and is Purgatory in Catholicism today.

Moreover, Jesus worship is not fitting for Pauls believers until they become son of man in their own right, just as Paul did on his own, and so leave the Church that got them thusfar like Jesus did in the gospels never to set foot in there again except maybe to throw them his placenta to chew on to leave them with a clean break as solitary individual now moving forward as Galilean among wolves who will feed him meat instead of milk until fully man.

Paul is a religionist starting the Church Jesus had promised to built who so is "the Lord" by example for believers to follow by indoctriation and Paul could have said "just look at me" [I am the walking evidence of what my urgency is all about] but that would be equal to telling them all 'it's all in your head' and they would not and never come back to follow his lead. As newborn Lord, child of Isreal, or son of Man THE ways of the Lord is the example to follow and not until then making son of man the transition stage between 'believer with doubt' and 'gnostic without.'Jesus IS Lord in the particular but never in the universal and so never is THE new God but may have been the latest new God at one time. He is just a stepping stone to be left behind in the end like a foot pillow to walk all over Christendom hence in the communion of saints and so "do greater things."

jakejonesiv

OK.

BTW, what is the earliest overt mention of the Trinity (as consisting of God, Son, and Holy Spirit) and to whom was it applied? Hint: It wasn't Jesus.

Jake

Chili

This may be interesting to know but the essence of the trinity was created when 'the man' was banished from Eden and God placed the cherub and the fiery revolving sword to gaurd the way to the tree of life and so you need both to get back there and be one with God as created.

Sheshbazzar

My friend Chili puts it in strange fashions, but I would agree with him that the concept is at least as old, or older than the texts of Genesis.

What is this oldest mention Jake? (I've heard so many of these parallel claims over the years that I am really uncertain of which triad you have in mind,
(and right now am a bit too lazy to spend the rest of the in day plowing through hundreds of articles and texts to locate that perfect example )

Chili

Thank you dear Chesh and I just wanted to add my little bit and say that it is archetypal to humans and the way that metamorphosis goes.

Sheshbazzar

Yes, Thank you Chili my friend, 'metamorphosis' is an apt descriptor.

jakejonesiv

The earliest unambiguous mention of the concept of the Christian Trinity goes back, not to Jesus, but to Simon Magus. “He taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, but descended in Samaria as the Father while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit.” AH 1.23.1. This would a modalist view of the Trinity.

Of course, if the text of Ireneuas was interpolated or forged in its entirety, all bets are off!

Jake