Should we take Paul Seriously?

[Mikeb]

I have a question. We all know that the concept of the trinity was part of Paul’s paganizing of the Gospels, right? I mean the idea of the trinity is itself a thinly veiled plagiarism of Plato’s idea of man, (the intellectual self, the moral self, and the physical self). We are not criticizing Paul here, but simply recognizing his commission. Paul was commissioned of God to bring the Gospel to the pagan, gentile world. To do this Paul was required to use the categories of the Greco-Roman world to explain the stories of the Gospel, and few categories of thought are more basic than Plato’s trinity. Freud called the trinity the super-ego, the ego, and the id. Even our current branches of government, judicial, executive, and legislative correspond directly to Plato’s definition of the intellectual, moral, and physical self. So when Paul used this Platonic trinity to explain the idea of the Christian God, we can understand what he was doing and where he was coming from. My question regarding this is twofold:

First, is it still useful for us to employ the archaic categories of Platonism to understand a basically Jewish Story? Judaism and monotheism developed a different way of looking at the world. Judaism saw history, the concrete events of the world around us as a theophany, a revelation of God himself. This differs considerably from the archaic or Platonic ontology that saw this world as a reflection or representation of an ideal world.

Second, since we have now turned this expository contrivance of Paul, the Trinity, into a doctrinal pillar of the Christian faith, how many other contrivances Paul used to carry out his divine mission have been taken seriously and become elevated into doctrine?


Just asking,

Mikeb

[spl_cadet]

Actually I thought all the evidence for the Trinity was mainly found in John and Acts. Interesting to hear that it's also in St. Paul's letters.

[Mikeb]

Romans 15

15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, 16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

I count three

[AcousticJS]

Mikeb

Interesting post, but there are some problems with the theory that Paul invented the Trinity. The first is that it isn't only Paul who mentions it - it's all throughout the New Testament. For example, Jesus' baptism you have the Father speaking, the Son being baptised and the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus. At the end of Matthew, you have Jesus commissioning the disciples to baptise people in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If there was one book you wouldn't expect to find the Trinity it would be Matthew's gospel since it was written to and for Jews. The reason it is in there is because it is true!

Another problem is that the idea is also foreshadowed in the Old Testament. For example, the word used for God most often is 'elohim' which implies a plurality within God. Deuteronomy 6:4 (the great creed of monotheism used as the most fundamental statement of belief in Judaism) has the word 'one' as 'echad' which is a compound unity, like 'echad' bunch of grapes.

The best way of reconciling all of the information in all of the scriptures (not just Paul) is to believe that God is one, but three persons - in other words the historic doctrine of the Trinity.

Blessings in Christ
Jon

[Alukard]

Interesting idea but I don't really see solid proof for the idea of the Trinity in Paul's writings. I admit it is there in kernel form or in a vague sense, but not in the way we understand it now. As far as I know, it wasn't until Origen wrote on the Trinity that the doctrine got hammered out in any concrete sense. Origen was heavily influenced by Plato's philosophy, so if you want to look for Platonic influence on the doctrine of the Trinity, look at Origen and not so much at Paul.

[Woman]

One of these days I'm going to have to sit down with some good Trinitarians and try very hard again to understand the concept.

The idea of a triune Godhead isn't new. But, I never found a problem with the fact that early Christianity absorbed some of the local tradition, archetypes, etc. in order to appeal to the widest possible audience. It seems, in retrospect, inevitable. There are, after all, certain recognizable ideas in all wisdom traditions/religions. (Which I personally think is a great argument for theism)

But, that Rabbi Paul character has always given me trouble. Here is a fellow, highly emotional, who was a flat out opposer of Christ's teachings until well after Christ's death. He never met Jesus. It was after his "conversion" (and we all know how reformed people can become fanatics as they do a 180) that he virtually hijacked the movement, proclaiming himself an apostle and effectively dominating the early church through sheer force of will and brilliance.

I guess I'm going to have to hear what others to say on this issue.

[Woman]

One of these days I'm going to have to sit down with some good Trinitarians and try very hard again to understand the concept.

The idea of a triune Godhead isn't new. But, I never found a problem with the fact that early Christianity absorbed some of the local tradition, archetypes, etc. in order to appeal to the widest possible audience. It seems, in retrospect, inevitable. There are, after all, certain recognizable ideas in all world religions.

But, that Rabbi Paul character has always given me trouble. Here is a fellow, highly emotional, who was a flat out opposer of Christ's teachings until well after Christ's death. He never met Jesus. It was after his "conversion" (and we all know how reformed people can become fanatics as they do a 180) that he virtually hijacked the movement, proclaiming himself an apostle and effectively dominating the early church through sheer force of will and brilliance.

I guess I'm going to have to hear what others to say on this issue.

[Mikeb]

AcousticJS,

Thanks for your considered response.

You’re right, I shouldn’t blame Paul for the idea of the Trinity, although I think he does broach the subject in several places.

Romans Chapter 15 for instance: 15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, 16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Nonetheless, there are many other paganisms that can be more directly laid at Paul’s feet, but that’s another thread.

Concerning the trinity, your citation of the Gospel and OT reference to the plural nature of God is well taken. (My favorite, btw is “the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”) Nonetheless, I think (and my point probably should have been) that our Christian concept of the trinity changes the essential nature of the Jewish God. The Hebrew God was very much a God of this world. I mean He lived in a tent and they carried Him around in a box for heaven’s sake. But more importantly, he revealed himself in the concrete events of this world. The actual, everyday events of the Jewish Nation became a Theophany, a revelation of God himself. The blessing God placed on Abraham’s seed, the covenant He formed with Abraham, landed the horror of history square on the shoulders of the Jewish Nation. Their obedience to the covenant or violation of the covenant was seen to be the cause of the Nations historical fortunes. Thus, as a nation, the Hebrews became responsible for the historical fate of their nation. Through the prophets they saw their defeats, disasters, and triumphs as punishment or reward for their obedience to the divine covenant.

In the archaic, Greco-Roman mind the events of actual history were only made real when they repeated a mythic archetype or manifest an ideal form. The concept of the Christian trinity, whether we have Paul, Origen, or the Council of Nicea to thank for it, makes God an otherworldly presence. Our concept is of God the Father as Creator, Lawgiver, (form), God the Holy Spirit as the agent of actualization or sanctification, and God the Christ as the physical manifestation of God. This is Platonism, pure & simple.

If we read the Gospel as a Jewish story, I think our “faith” or belief in the story would rapidly be seen as beside the point. Faith, btw, is a Pauline doctrine developed to its fullest in, appropriately, the book of Romans. The Jewish Nation lived and experienced the covenant with God, their blood and bodies paid the price of violation, felt the joy of forgiveness and reward for righteousness. I think if we read the Gospel as a Jewish story we would turn, with Christ, away from this world forsaking the twelve legions of Angels, and walk with Him through Calvary into the presence of God.

But that's just what I think. I could be wrong.

Mikeb

[Mikeb]

Woman,

As you can see, I too have some difficulty with Paul.

Woman,

As you can see, I too have some difficulty with Paul.

hmmm...

[Woman]

Mikeb,


S'matter, ya never seen a girl with the hiccups before? :rofl:

S'matter, ya never seen a girl with the hiccups before? :rofl:

[Mikeb]

Woman,

BOOOO!!!

That help?


:rofl:

Mikeb

[AcousticJS]

Hi Mike

Fair point about the way greek-influenced Christianity (that I would say didn't reach it's fullness of development until Augustine of Hippo) has tended to put God at a distance. This has historically stopped people looking to see God at work in practical ways, and in the nitty-gritty of daily life. Thankfully there is a step away from that now, but I hope it doesn't go too far the other way where God ceases to be otherworldly. The scriptures seem to talk about both the immanence and transendance of God.

I still think that the idea of the Trinity representing the Platonic idea of body/soul/spirit is a bit beyond me, but I believe in the Trinity (that is that God is one being, but with three persons) largely because it makes the most sense of the biblical revelation of God. This idea might have agreement in other systems of theology and philosophy, but I would say that this is where they agree with the truth that God has revealed in the Scriptures, not the other way around.

It's not a huge issue to me that the Trinity is difficult to understand. There are analogies that help understand it, but it fits in with the trancsendance of God that we wouldn't be able to understand everything about Him. Thankfully, we don't have to understand fully to understand truly which is why we can still know Him through His imminence.

Probably a bit of a tangent post - sorry bout that. Just thinking as I type really.

God bless
Jon

[Mikeb]

Hi Again, AcousticJS,

Today @ 09:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45346#post45346)
AcousticJS:
Thankfully, we don't have to understand fully to understand truly which is why we can still know Him through His imminence.

Amen to that.

I think we might quibble about the amount of trancendence in our idea of God, I'd say the less the better, but otherwise, I think we pretty much Agree.

Thanks for your response.

Mike

btw-Ben Franklin was one right dude.

[Alukard]

I also think the Platonic distinction of body/soul/spirit fails to adequately serve as a corollary to the definition of the Triune God. You have to remember that the councils of Nicea and Constantinople fought vigorously to defend the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three distinct persons of the God-head and all of the same nature.

This is a key element to remember because in Plato's philosophy the body was considered corrupt and base while the soul was good and pure. Furthermore, they really didn't have any solid definitions or ideas concering the spirit so that becomes a little irrelavant. Anyways, the body and soul are of two completely different substances and natures and therefore they aren't adequate as models for comparison.

I believe it was Augustine who rationalized that the Trinity was similar to the human mind when he argued from the model of Reason, Intellect and Emotion. I believe these are three types he used, but then again I'm not exactly sure. Anyways, these three are attributes belonging to the mind and are of the same substance and nature. Therefore, I think this Platonic distinction is a little better to use as a model to explain and defend the Trinity.