### Introduction Christian Trinitarians believe "that there is one eternal being of God – indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit". The Hebrew bible book of Deuteronomy makes a few statements about the oneness of God: > **Deuteronomy 6:4** - "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, **the Lord is one**." > **Deuteronomy 4:35** - "To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; **there is no other besides Him**." These statements do not make distinctions between *being* and *personhood* and seem to point to a divine simplicity. ### "Gods you did not know" Deuteronomy later contains a stark warning for the Israelites about false gods and prophets, saying: > **Deuteronomy 13:1-3** - If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and show you omens or portents, and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, **‘Let us follow other gods’ (whom you have not known) ‘and let us serve them,’** you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you... The key injunction being against *other gods whom you [the Israelites] did not know*. ### Question - Do Trinitarian Christians believe the audience of Deuteronomy 13 (Israelites) knew of a triune god? - If Israelites did not know a triune god, why do Trinitarians believe Deuteronomy 13 doesn't prohibit following after a trinity? *This question is not suggesting that the trinity added new gods, but potentially that a triune god is different ontologically from a unitary god such that they cannot have the same identity (example: Trinitarians likely believe that the Mormon god is not the same god as the trinitarian god because the Mormon god is a created man who was exalted to godhood, therefore the Mormon god's fundamental nature is different from the trinitarian god)*

The authors of the Hebrew bible make several statements declaring the oneness of God: > **Deuteronomy 6:4** - "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." > **Isaiah 44:6** - "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.'" > **Deuteronomy 4:35** - "To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him." > **Deuteronomy 32:39** - "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand." > **1 Kings 8:60** - "That all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other." Under trinitarian hermeneutical approaches, these verses are not contrary to the trinity because they actually refer to the *single being* of God, not to the trinitarian *multiplicity of persons*. ### Questions - How do trinitarians know that the verses of the Hebrew bible which make positive claims about the "oneness of God" are in fact only referring to the "being of God"? - How are these verses exegeted for the referent to be only the "being of God"? - What about the wording of these verses give a clue about the distinction between "person" and "being"?

## Background: Christian Trinitarians believe "that there is one eternal being of God – indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit". Trinitarians generally believe that this doctrine is taught in the New Testament. They also generally believe the trinity is (minimally) simply compatible with the Hebrew bible, or (maximally) also clearly taught in the Hebrew bible. This is in contrast with traditional Jewish belief in a unitary deity. The authors of the Hebrew bible make several statements about the oneness of G-d: > **Deuteronomy 6:4** - "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our G-d, the Lord is one." > **Isaiah 44:6** - "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.'" > **Deuteronomy 4:35** - "To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is G-d; there is no other besides Him." These authors do not write about distinctions between *being* and *personhood*. ## Unfalsifiable belief? Under trinitarian hermeneutical approaches, the above verses are not contrary to the trinity because they could be interpreted to refer to *the single being of G-d*, and not to the trinitarian *multiplicity of persons*. This is a curious interpretation since concepts of distinction between “person” and “being” only appear in literature which post-date the completion of the Hebrew bible. ## Question If seemingly clear verses attesting to ontological oneness can be used in support of trinitarian doctrine, what could a biblical author have written in the Hebrew bible that would falsify the trinity? Is the trinity only falsifiable with a verse such as *"There is only one person of G-d"*, *"G-d is only one being and one person"*, or even *"The trinity as defined by Christian patristic fathers and ecumenical councils in the 4th Century CE is false"*?

## Background: Christian Trinitarians believe "that there is one eternal being of God – indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit". Trinitarians generally believe that this doctrine is taught in the New Testament. They also generally believe the trinity is (minimally) compatible with the Hebrew bible, or (maximally) also taught in the Hebrew bible. This is in contrast with traditional Jewish belief in a unitary deity. The authors of the Hebrew bible make several statements about the oneness of G-d: > **Deuteronomy 6:4** - "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our G-d, the Lord is one." > **Isaiah 44:6** - "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.'" > **Deuteronomy 4:35** - "To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is G-d; there is no other besides Him." ## Unfalsifiable belief? Under trinitarian hermeneutical approaches, the above verses are not contrary to the trinity because they could be interpreted to refer to *the single being of G-d*, and not to the trinitarian *multiplicity of persons*. This is a curious interpretation since concepts of distinction between “person” and “being” only appear in literature which post-date the completion of the Hebrew bible. ## Question If seemingly clear verses attesting to ontological oneness can be used in support of trinitarian doctrine, what could a biblical author have written in the Hebrew bible that would falsify the trinity? Is the trinity only falsifiable with a verse such as *"There is only one person of G-d"*, *"G-d is only one being and one person"*, or even *"The trinity as defined by Christian patristic fathers and ecumenical councils in the 4th Century CE is false"*?

Related: Why does the author of Hebrews render their quotation of Jeremiah 31:33 differently in two places? ### Background The book of Hebrews uses the Hebrew Bible as support for its arguments many times. The author cites Jeremiah 31:33 in two different places and chooses to render the verse curiously differently each time. The first citation occurs in Hebrews 8:10: > ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι **τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραὴλ** μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος, διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς Θεόν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν. (NA27) > > For this is the covenant that I will make with the **house of Israel** after that time, declares the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. The second citation is in Hebrews 10:16: > Αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι **πρὸς αὐτοὺς** μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος· διδοὺς νόμους μου ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς (NA27) > > This is the covenant I will make **with them** after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws on their hearts and write them on their minds For reference, Jeremiah 31:33 reads > כִּי זֹאת הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר אֶכְרֹת **אֶת־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל** אַחֲרֵי > הַיָּמִים הָהֵם נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה נָתַתִּי אֶת־תּוֹרָתִי בְּקִרְבָּם > וְעַל־לִבָּם אֶכְתְּבֶנָּה וְהָיִיתִי לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים וְהֵמָּה > יִהְיוּ־לִי לְעָם׃ (MT) > > But such is the covenant I will make with the **House of Israel** after these days—declares Hashem: I will put My Torah into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts. Then I will be their G-d, and they shall be My people. ### Definitions The definition of misquoting is to repeat something someone has said in a way that is not accurate . ### Question Which of the two citations is the accurate one? Is this an example of misquoting the Hebrew bible? Why does the author of Hebrews use "**house of Israel**" the first time and "**them**" the second time?

## Background: It has been a Christian belief that Jesus would return to Earth since the earliest days of the religion. The 1st century Pauline epistle to the Thessalonians says: > For the Lord himself **will descend from heaven** with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God *- 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17* The 4th century Nicene Creed contains the second coming as a creed of belief: > **He will come again in glory** to judge the living and the dead, > and his kingdom will have no end. Christians have also taught that this second coming will be when several as of yet unfulfilled messianic prophecies will be fulfilled by Jesus. Justin Martyr makes this point in the 2nd century *Dialogue with Trypho*: > And it was prophesied by Jacob the patriarch that there would be **two advents** of Christ, and that in the first He would suffer, and that after He came there would be neither prophet nor king in your nation (I proceeded), and that the nations who believed in the suffering Christ would look for His future appearance ... (*- Ch. 52 Dialog with Trypho*, emphasis added) > But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there **will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare** ... (*- Ch. 80 Dialog with Trypho*, emphasis added) ## Unfulfilled prophecies: *Dialogue* cites one of these. These unfulfilled messianic prophecies generally (since not all Christians agree that these will occur in the future, but breezing through Christian literature indicates most believe one or more of these will occur post second-coming) include: - Building the Third Temple, restoration of temple services (Ezekiel 37:26–28, Ezekiel 46) - Ingathering of the Jews to Israel (Isaiah 43:5–6) - World peace and end of war (Isaiah 2:4) - Universal knowledge of the God of Israel, cessation of religious teaching (Zechariah 14:9, Jeremiah 31:34) ## Second coming? What are the indicators in the unfulfilled prophecies that they will occur in a 'second coming'? How do second coming believers (specifically those who believe some messianic prophecies will be fulfilled in the second coming) differentiate the second coming from a failure to fulfill these prophecies?

The following is taken from the body of a recently asked question asking how many in the New Testament are called or actually claim to be the brother or sister of Jesus Christ. It is not scoped for Catholic answers only but it is asked by a Catholic and from a Catholic perspective: > Regardless of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary acknowledged as dogma by most Christians, which would necessitate a different interpretation of the words "brother" and "sister" It appears by this statement as though Roman Catholics, **by necessity**, assign interpretations to words in Scripture based upon Dogmatic statements made from Rome rather than their plain biblical usage. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary was dogmatized in 553 in Constantinople but it had been talked about within the church since it's possible earliest witness in the apocryphal Protogospel of James (circa 150). The Assumption of Mary, however, wasn't dogmatized until 1950 and, arguably has no biblical attestation. I don't know if there are any specific words in Scripture whose meanings, by necessity, must be interpreted differently due to accepting the dogma of Mary's Assumption but theoretically it is possible. Do Roman Catholics, by necessity, assign meanings to words in the Bible based upon dogmatic statements made hundreds and even thousands of years after the Apostles were finished writing Scripture? Is this really how Roman Catholics interpret Scripture?

I read with interest a comment on CSE recently that stated- > Scoping the question to Trinitarians in general may open the door to doctrines that may have some biblical basis, but are mostly based on tradition. From here **Is there a sector of Trinitarianism that would affirm the basis for their doctrine is *based on Tradition/Creed* and scripture provides secondary support only?** When strolling through the copious answers from a Trinitarian position intended to affirm such a belief, the scripture references are practically always taken out of context, partially quoted, or by using poor translations which have dubious connection to the original Greek. Following is a good example. >1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh. It *seems* that the object is to find scripture to support the traditional belief. While the texts used often *seem* valid, when scripture is allowed to interpret scripture they are seen as invalid due to the reasons noted above. There are abundant examples to choose, one example noted recently - >The only-begotten Son of God - John 1:18 - is their Creator. That is shown in John 1:1-14. This only-begotten Son of God "made everything that was made". From SE-BH . One can only assume then, the bible must be of secondary importance to the underlying doctrine. **Is there a sector of Trinitarianism whose doctrinal basis is Tradition/Creed first with scripture secondary?**