by Leolaia 20 Replies latest watchtower bible
Leolaia,
I did notice that in a number of the scriptures you quoted, the three entities mentioned are not the Father, Son, and Spirit but God, Son, and Spirit. Do you think that might indicate an understanding at the time of the Son as not being also God?
Thanks for your topic posts; I always make a point of checking them out.
And I hope your UK holiday you recently mentioned in another post was a great good time.
-- True North
So what was the point of all that? To present data for discussion and comment. Must I always spend a day or two to craft a long, lengthy analysis (as I commonly do) to give my personal interpretation? Why must I? Sometimes it is good just to present all the data together to see what people think. I personally have never seen a compilation of the relevant triadic texts organized in such fashion, where you could readily see how they vary and what they have in common. With all the many discussions on the Trinity this board reguarly faces, wouldn't it be nice to have all this data on triadic formulae in one place which people could easily refer to?
I think the texts show several things. First, they show that triadic thought was not foreign to early Christians. Many works erroneously depict it as a late importation of a pagan father-mother-son triad; while such influence may have played a role in reinforcing and restructuring triadic thought (and please note that such pagan triads are not trinitarian in essence or equality, they are merely triadic), early Christians were already trying to grapple with how the three salient elements of Christian theology (the Spirit, Christ, and God) relate to each other. Triadic language is only one way to talk about them together. Some early Christians tried to conflate two of these together; the Spirit was sometimes not distinguished from clearly Christ (this is most overt in the Shepherd of Hermas of Rome who explicitly identified the two), and others tried to merge Christ with the Father (e.g. Patripassionism). As I already explained in my Holy Spirit thread, christological development was itself parasitic on theological thinking on the Holy Spirit; the notion of Jesus as the pre-existent Creator of the cosmos drew on the same thinking in Jewish literature on the Holy Spirit/Wisdom. In the Eastern tradition, Jesus was in fact depicted as Wisdom incarnate. So there was variation and some instability in how Christ, God, and the Spirit were referred to and thought of. This is also clear from the triadic statements themselves. Some present the three in a way that anticipates later trinitarian thought; the best examples of these are probably 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 (which in a paralleled text has the three working together in the same divine work), Ephesians 4:4-6 (similar to the preceding text), Matthew 28:18-19 (which parallels the three together under one "name"), Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 61 (similar to the preceding text), and the Christian interpolation in the Testament of Isaac 1:1 (which is overtly trinitarian in designating the three entities as the "one God"). But other early texts (especially in Paul) do not clearly present the three as having paralleled roles; for instance, the only agentive entity in 2 Corinthians 1:21 is the Father, and the three are mentioned for quite different individual reasons in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, though all three are mentioned in the same text. Some texts present the Spirit not as a Person but in objectifying terms, e.g. the Spirit as merely a "pledge" in 2 Corinthians 1:21, and described as a "rope" in Ignatius, Ephesians 9:1. Other texts objectify the Son, e.g. the Son as merely a "cup" in Odes of Solomon 19:1-4. The most remarkable texts that figuratively describe the joint work of the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit are Ignatius, Ephesians 9:1 and Odes of Solomon 19:1-4, but there is no sense here of the three being co-equal. The parody of triadic thinking in Revelation 13:1-18 assumes an explicit subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son, and a subordination of the Son to the Father; such subordination however is described in terms of role, not nature. As for the actual language used in triadic formulae, we see tremendous but constrained variation. We find at least 6 different ways the F(ather), S(on), and H(oly Spirit) are mentioned: HSF, HFS, FHS, FSH, SFH, SHF. But of these, only two occur frequently: FSH (14 out of 29, or 48%) and SFH (10 out of 29, or 34%). Of these, FSH would later be the one enshrined in the Trinity creeds. But also note the very strong tendency for the H(oly Spirit) to be mentioned last: 24 out of 29, or 83%. Only 3 of 29 (or 10%) was the Holy Spirit mentioned first. So though there was a lot of variation, norms appeared to have been forming. The terminology used was also highly variable: S is variably called "Jesus", "Word", "Lord", Christ", "Christ Jesus", "Jesus Christ", Lord Jesus", "Lord Jesus Christ", and "Son". Of these, "Son" occurs only 8 out of 33 or 24% of the time. We find the same thing with the words used to refer to God/the Father/God the Father/etc. and the Spirit/Holy Spirit/Spirit of Truth/Paraclete/sanctifying Spirit/Spirit of Grace. The distinctive phrasing and ordering in the Nicene creed (and indeed in earlier trinitarian thought from Irenaeus onward) seems to derive specifically from the baptismal formula, which contains the same combination of features at an early date. And the different language used to refer to the three named entities does indeed suggest varying christological conceptions of Jesus and emphasizes different roles of Christ, the Spirit, and the Father, as they are mentioned together by different writers for different reasons.
Anyway, those are some of my quick comments....
Hi Leolaia, interesting.
Of course, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were not the only "triadic formulae" in scripture.
Of note the Ark and two "covering cherbus" were another three. The Ark of the Covenant represented some reference to the Father and his sacred holiness. The two angels which were on the top of the Ark of the Covenant and whose wings touched and were held over the ark were called the "covering cherubs". Satan was one of these two angels, Michael the other. When Satan rebelled then Michael kicked Satan off symbolic Mount Zion....
"And i shall put you as profane out of the mountain of God, and I shall destroy you, O cherub thatis covering, from the midst of the fiery stones."
To fast forward on this, because Satan and Michael were in this special position with respect to god, they formed a trinity, a unity of three. The two angels, Michael and Satan, were depicted on the walls of the temple and on the curtains, alternating the image of a cherub with a man's face (always a reference to Michael/Jesus the "son of man") with a palm tree. Thus even the Satanic-inspired imagery of being a beautiful goddess in the form of a tree is based upon the heavenly representation of a tree, and a palm tree at that. This relates to the tree of knowledge and that relates to feeding from this tree and giving knowledge and thus Isis is presented as a tree goddess with a breast giving suck to her followers. Knowledge is thus a critical thing for Satan, only for Satan it becomes disinformation and propaganda disguised as "education".
The milk-giving goddess was typified in another popular form in the goddess Artemis of Ephesus who had many breasts like dates (you can see photos of this goddess on the internet), but with legs bound close together she resembled a "palm tree" which goes back to the theme of Satan being a femine representation, generally, particularly in relation to Michael who becomes her husband. Thus the pagan-inspired "Song of Solomon" (not inspired book) which makes many references to the many forms of the Mother Goddess at 7:7 "This stature of yours does resemble a palm tree, and your breasts date clusters."
These are some links to various forms of the goddess described in Song of Solomon....
http://www.uwgb.edu/sophia/illustrations/images/artimus.htm
http://www.thewhitemoon.com/gallery/Artemis2.html
http://www.uwm.edu/Course/mythology/0600/751d.jpg - black Artemis.."A black girl I am"
http://www.uwm.edu/Course/mythology/0600/751e.jpg -- 4:1 "Your hair is like a drove of goats that have hopped down from the the mountain.."
Thus getting back to the trinity, it was likely to both Satan and Jesus that God was speaking in Eden when he said: "Let us make man in our image....male and female", the reference to the female and thus the "woman" being to Satan. Thus Satan is referred to as the "woman" in Genesis 3:15 when god was speaking to Jesus when he said: "I will put enmity between you (Jesus) and the woman (Satan) and between your seed and her seed." -- setting up the centuries long competition between Satan and Jesus, clamaxed in Revelation when Jesus finally kicks Satan out of Heaven. BUT... that brings us to another Christian trinity concept, that of the Father, the Son and the Church.
The Chuch, becoming the Bride of Christ, a select "144,000" (probably 1,440,000, 144K x 10) also takes the place in the trinity and thus becomes "God's temple" where he dwells. So the new Christian trinity is the Father, the son and the Church when you take reference to the original trinit of the Father (represented by the Ark of the Covenant) and the two covering cherubs.
This concept thus makes it a little awkward for the formal trinity doctrine to be that of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But no more awkward than say "in practice," with Catholics, the clear trinity is the Father, the glorified Mary and the Son.
I certainly see a sort of academic push to connect somehow, the woman with wisdom and the wisdown with holy spirit and then holy spirit with the Shekinah and back to the woman again, but it's awkward. There is not a clear concept of the woman/Mary being exchangeable for Holy spirit. Even the dove associated with Athena lends itself to Holy Spirit, but who Mary is in the Trinity and the Mother Goddess in the pagan trinity of the Husband/Son/Mother is a clear cross-over with much written about that, but Mary and Holy Spirit are not linkable in the Christian context of who the Goddess Mary is compared to Holy Spirit.
So anyway, the "trinities" are definitely there and in the foreground, whether defined as three equal gods or not is another issue.
By the way, I definitely believe that the "666" Beast is a reference to the Trinity, only as a false, non-orthodox Christian doctrine. The 666 identifies this beast as Christendom coming out of the "sea" which is Christendom, which believes in the trinity, with it's counterpart, the Lamb-Dragon Beast, not marked with the "666" coming out of the "earth" thus representing the "true worship" temple organization with better, more Biblically established beliefs and thus Jehovah's Witness organization GB (also called the "false prophet"). But the naming of this beast with the 666 certainly demonstrates that even in the Bible the trinity doctrine would be one that would infiltrate well into the Christian belief system for the most part, though at the same time, condemning it as a false doctrine. Thus the 6-6-6 is another "trinity" worth noting.
Thanks, again, for your research. I think I'm going to post something separate about Artemis and Song of Solomon now that I've gotten some good photo links.!!!
JC
Here's something interesting I found. The MOON GODDESS and it's three phases were a "trinity"......
The title White Goddess is identified with the ancient European Moon Goddess, who comes in a diversity of identities. Just as the Great Goddess frequently comes in a trinity of phases, the virgin of sexual love, the mother of nurturing and the crone of death, so the Moon Goddess is identified with a variety of trinitarian aspects which sometimes identify the aspects of the mother and her divine child with the waxing and waning moon. Among these are Hecate as the triple moon goddess Selene (Heaven), Artemis (Earth) and Persephone (Underworld), and the Queen of Heaven identified as Hebe (virgin) Rhea (mother) and Hecate (crone). In many places the Moon Goddess has inherited the more general title of Queen of Heaven encompassing the night sky along with its stars and planets, particularly Venus, stemming from Sumerian Inanna and continuing with Ishtar of Babylon, Hathor of Egypt. In Britain she gave her name to Albion.
Porphyry noted : "The moon is Hecate, the symbol of her varying phases ... her power appears in three forms, having as symbol of the new moon, the figure in the white robe and the golden sandals, and torches lighted; the basket which she wears when she is mounted high is the symbol of the cultivation of the crops which she made to grow up according to the increase of her light".
The name Hekate came originally from Heqit, the Goddess of Parturition amalgamating the seven Hathors of the birth-chamber - heq being tribal matriarch in command of the hekau or mothers words of wisdom (Walker 378).
Found HERE: http://www.dhushara.com/book/diana/diana.htm#anchor83589
Hello everyone,
Here's something interesting I found. The MOON GODDESS and it's three phases were a "trinity"......
Now, if you want something to blow your mind.
The Holy Spirit is a female!
The following is from the letter from Philip.
http://www.metalog.org/files/philip1.html
6. In the days when we were Hebrews we were orphans, having only our Mother (the Spirit°). Yet when we become Messianics°, the Father unites° with the Mother
16. The authorities were thinking that by their own power and volition they accomplish what they do. Yet the Holy Spirit in secret was energizing everything thru them as she wished
18. Some say that Mariam was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. They are confused,¹ they know not what they say. Whenever was a female° impregnated by a female? Mariam is the virgin whom no powers defile°, great among the consecrations for the Hebrew Apostles° and for the Apostolics°. Whoever of the powers (attempts to) defile this virgin, [... such] powers defile themselves. And the Lord was not going to say ?my Father [in] the heavens?, unless indeed he had another father? but rather he said simply [?my Father?]. (¹asyndeton; Lk 2:48-49!!, Ph 6; cp. Odes of St. Solomon 19:6? ?The Spirit opened the womb of the Virgin?;
87. The soul of Adam came into being from a Spirit¹, and her Mate is the [Christ]. The Spirit bestowed upon (Adam) is his Mother, and is given to him in his soul. [...] (Yet) because he was not mated [...] in the Logos, the dominant powers bewitched him. But those who mate with the [Holy] Spirit in secret [...] are invited individually to the Bridal-Bed, where they mate
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1083038631-5227.html
Yeah! I checked the word for spirit with the concordance. It is a femenine noun!
Faraon
It's very interesting indeed that the feminine gender of the Hebrew ruach is taken into account in the Coptic Gospel of Philip, although the intermediary Greek (pneuma) is neuter. I have no idea of the gender of the corresponding word in Coptic, but the feminine imagery is also built on "wisdom" (Greek sophia), as the broader context of v. 16 shows.
Hello Leolaia
Another Triadic
Colour Coding:
Red = Father ; Blue = Son ; Green = Holy Spirit
Is it a co-incidence or divine providence that there are three triadic passages in the Old Testament?
Many concepts that are taught in the New Testament like the Lord?s Supper second coming resurrection and final judgement, were also lacking in the Old Testament. Doctrine in the Bible developed between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
The Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, many OT ideas taught in the NT. No where in the OT do we find any clear indication of?In the same way, Old Testament writers introduced us to many doctrines that were revealed more fully in the New Testament. You said, "the striking absence of any triadic passages in the Old Testament demands an explanation" and now you have one! And it is one that makes sense and actually fits your general understanding of the doctrinal development between the Old and New Testaments! In face, so powerful is my reply to your third point, that I know you wish you had never even said it.
Tyre....Thanks for taking the effort to color code your much longer list. I'm sure it too will be very useful as a reference aid. The main difference between your more inclusive list and mine is that I focused on adjacent and/or paralleled mentions of the three entities (as formulae) and did not include instances where the entities are simply mentioned across a much longer passage (note the ... ellipses). But these less formulaic examples can still be informative, especially in how the entities relate in functional terms.
Thanks for posting that article too. It clearly explains how the WTS fails to appreciate the difference between the economical and the ontological trinity. As for doctrinal development between the OT and the NT, bear in mind too that it isn't a sudden leap between the two in terms of unique Christian revelation (tho in some cases this is definitely the case) but one can see intermediate stages in intertestamental literature such as the pseudepigrapha and the Qumran texts (examples include such things as the "Son of Man" notion, the Messiah as the Melchezedek-type High Priest, Gehenna, Judgment Day, and other things).
