Have been digging into this subject a bit more thoroughly, in light of Nincs assertion that the removal of the Tetragram was intentional in the NT and was a theological point the NT authors intended to make regarding Christ's LORDship. (namely, that now Jesus = YHWH).
Found this echoed in the LSB translation. See "Names of God" in its foreword. https://lsbible.org/foreword/
Christ explicitly quotes the LXX of Isa 61:1 at Luke 4:18, 19.
Christ is "made Lord (kyrios)" by another; God, in Acts 2:36. YHWH and Kyrios are distinguished in verse 34, quoting from Ps 110:1.
The NT does not preserve the Tetragrammaton in its MSS, and its consistent replacement with κύριος reflects continuity with the Septuagint tradition rather than a suppression or marginalization of the divine name. The Septuagint translators rendered YHWH as κύριος, reflecting Jewish oral tradition, where “Adonai” was substituted for YHWH to avoid pronouncing the divine name. This practice predated Christianity and was already standard among Greek-speaking Jews. All extant NT MSS use κύριος or θεός in place of YHWH. There is no textual evidence of a transitional phase where the Tetragrammaton appeared in the NT before being replaced. The NT's emphasis on Jesus as κύριος (e.g., Philippians 2:11, quoting Isaiah 45:23) demonstrates a deliberate identification of Jesus with the God of Israel. This usage affirms continuity with the LXX tradition and does not indicate a suppression of the Tetragrammaton. While the Tetragrammaton may have influenced the theological framework of NT writers indirectly, its direct importance in the text is limited, given the absence of YHWH in the MSS.
While certain phrases like "your name" (e.g., John 17:11-12) may echo OT language about God’s name, they do not definitively refer to the Tetragrammaton. These references are better understood as part of a broader theological discourse rather than specific allusions to YHWH. The NT’s use of “name” often reflects a theological focus on God’s character, authority, and revelation in Christ (e.g., Acts 4:12), rather than a direct reference to the Tetragrammaton. The Jewish avoidance of pronouncing YHWH naturally influenced early Christian scribes, who adopted κύριος as the standard rendering. This does not imply an “indirect” presence of YHWH but rather reflects the continuity of Jewish reverence for the divine name.
The idea of an “eclipse” of the divine name misrepresents early Christian theology and the textual tradition. Early Christians inherited the Septuagint with κύριος already established as the Greek equivalent for YHWH. There was no “loss of capacity” to detect allusions to the divine name; rather, Christians continued the Jewish tradition of reverence by using κύριος. The Christian scribal practice of abbreviating κύριος (e.g., ΚΣ) and other sacred names demonstrates reverence rather than ignorance or neglect of the divine name. Early Christian theology emphasized Jesus’ identification as κύριος, the Lord of the OT. This was not a result of neglecting the divine name but a theological affirmation of Jesus’ divine identity (e.g., Romans 10:13, quoting Joel 2:32).
The use of κύριος in place of YHWH reflects the Jewish oral substitution of Adonai. Christians, as heirs to the Jewish Scriptures, naturally continued this tradition. The consistent use of κύριος in NT MSS suggests that early Christians saw no need to reintroduce the Tetragrammaton, as its reverence was preserved in the established scribal practices. By using κύριος for both YHWH and Jesus, the NT affirms Jesus’ divine identity without undermining the significance of the Tetragrammaton. This theological choice reflects a continuity with Jewish reverence for God’s name, not a departure from it.
The LXX, with its consistent use of κύριος, was a Jewish work that predated Christianity. Christians adopted this tradition without alteration. The early Christian movement arose within a Jewish context, and its textual practices reflect this heritage. The absence of the Tetragrammaton in NT texts is not evidence of an “eclipse” but a continuation of Jewish reverence for God’s name. While the Tetragrammaton is significant in the OT, its absence in NT MSS reflects a deliberate theological choice to emphasize God’s revelation in Jesus as κύριος, not a neglect or suppression of the divine name. Wilkinson’s analysis underestimates the centrality of κύριος in early Christian Christology, where it serves as a bridge between Jewish monotheism and the Christian affirmation of Jesus’ deity.
Edgar, I don't want to sneak the previous conversation in here, and if you'd prefer to omit all but the link, I'll understand, but I didn't get a chance to address something from the previous conversation about the DN in the NT. I'm an old man, and I no longer typically have the energy to stay up until midnight to make sure I can comment before discussions are locked. I get up for work at 3:30AM!
I sensed from the back-and-forth that there may be an assumption that the JW argument includes the assertion that the pre-Christians LXX mss. that contain the divine name in Hebrew characters reflect the "original" method of representing the divine name in Greek writings. I also got the sense that some may assume that if it could be shown that those mss. reflect a later stage in the transmission of the LLX, then the JW view has been refuted. If that is an assumption that some have, then I think it misses the point.
The JW view that the divine name was included in the original NT writings doesn't hang or fall on whether the original LXX had the divine name in Hebrew characters. Indeed, I don't think it did, as I agree with Tov, Skehan, and others that the original form was Iaw, and that *both* the use of Hebrew characters and Kurios came later in the transmission of the LXX.
What the mss. that include the name in Hebrew characters demonstrate is the Jewish obsession -- a healthily obsession, in this case -- with preserving the divine name in the biblical texts, and the Apostles were all Jews.
I'll also say that I find it impossible to take most critics of the NWT's restoration of the divine name in the NT seriously, as most of them seem perfectly happy to tolerate the practice of replacing the divine name with surrogates in the OT. People who, when discussing the divine name in Scripture, focus on criticizing the WTS, yet don't give equal time to criticizing Christendom's translators for replacing the divine name with surrogates in the OT, are hypocrites. Anyone who thinks that JWs are wrong to use the divine name in the NT under the assumption that this constitutes a restoration, should also think that Christendom's translators are wrong to replace the divine name with surrogates in the OT. Indeed, IF both choices were wrong, then Christendom's translators would be wrong over 6,500 times, whereas the WTS would only be wrong by a fraction of that number.
Sean, that's so true about Brill. At least they're consistent ☺
I grant the possibility that some scribes might have revised practically all/all pre-Christian MSS but I need more evidence before I can accept Pietersma's hypothesis. I have more faith in the correctness of the Goldbach conjecture.
On the other hand, I agree that the JW position does not stand or fall on whether YHWH originally appeared in the LXX MSS.
"On the other hand, I agree that the JW position does not stand or fall on whether YHWH originally appeared in the LXX MSS."
I know you realize this, but to ensure that others don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that the divine name (YHWH) wasn't in the original LXX writings; rather, I'm saying that it was there, but in the Greek form of Iaw. Do I know this with certainty? Of course not, but Tov and Skehan convinced me that this is the best explanation of the available data.
Sean, thanks for clarifying. I highly respect Tov and live his books and I've read Frank Shaw's book about Iao, but I still have questions about how one arrives at that position in terms of the extant MSS. Don't know if you've read De Troyer, but she argues that the divine name was represented numerous ways in the LXX.
For the record, I'm not a skeptic, but I like material evidence for significant claims.
The presence of the Tetragrammaton in the original NT MSS actually depends heavily on the continuity of Jewish scribal practices from the LXX. If the LXX itself did not consistently include YHWH, the JW claim that NT authors would have followed such a tradition loses credibility. Many scholars argue that κύριος (Lord) was the primary translation of YHWH in the LXX from its inception, reflecting Jewish oral traditions of substituting "Adonai" for YHWH during readings. The claim that ΙΑΩ predates κύριος is speculative and not supported by sufficient MS evidence. While ΙΑΩ appears in isolated and fragmentary MSS like 4Q120, its use was not widespread or consistent. The inclusion of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew or Hebrew script in some later MSS (e.g., P. Fouad 266) reflects *later revisions* rather than original practices. If the LXX MSS did not universally include YHWH, it is unlikely that NT authors, many of whom directly quote the LXX, would have REintroduced the divine name. This undermines the JW argument that YHWH or ΙΑΩ was included in the NT.
All extant NT MSS uniformly use κύριος or θεός when quoting the OT. There is no evidence of YHWH or ΙΑΩ in the NT text. The NT authors frequently apply κύριος to both God the Father and Jesus, demonstrating their theological conviction that Jesus shares in the divine identity. This deliberate use of κύριος undermines the claim that the Tetragrammaton was integral to NT writings. The Jewish practice of orally substituting "Adonai" for YHWH naturally carried into Greek translations and the writings of the NT. The use of κύριος reflects a continuation of this tradition rather than a deviation from Jewish reverence for the divine name.
Critiquing the NWT does not require addressing the broader question of how the divine name is rendered in modern translations of the OT. The NWT inserts "Jehovah" into the NT text without any MS evidence to support this choice. This practice is not equivalent to the decision by translators to render YHWH as "LORD" in the OT, which is based on centuries of Jewish and Christian tradition. The JW practice constitutes a theological imposition on the text, whereas the use of "LORD" in the OT reflects continuity with Jewish scribal practices. The claim that "Christendom’s translators" are wrong 6,500 times in the OT versus the WTS being wrong only a fraction of that in the NT is irrelevant. The issue is not about numbers but textual fidelity. If there is no MS evidence for YHWH in the NT, any insertion constitutes textual corruption.
According to George Howard:
“What I tried to show was that there is evidence that the Septuagint Bibles used by the writers of the New Testament contained the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. I argued that it is reasonable to assume that the NT writers, when quoting from the Septuagint, retained the Tetragrammaton in the quotations. This does not support the JW’s insertion of "Jehovah" in every place they want. To do this is to remove the NT from its original "theological climate." My opinion of the New World Translation (based on limited exposure) is that it is odd. I suspect that it is a Translation designed to support JW theology. Finally, my theory about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues disagree with me (for example Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should not be used as a surety for belief.”
While scholars like Tov and Skehan suggest that ΙΑΩ *may* represent an early Greek transliteration of YHWH in the OT, this does not support the JW claim at all that YHWH or ΙΑΩ was present in the original NT texts. MSS like 4Q120 use ΙΑΩ, but these are isolated and fragmentary examples and not representative of a broader tradition. The use of ΙΑΩ appears sporadically in sectarian or regional texts, not as a universal standard. The dominant tradition, as evidenced by the majority of LXX MSS and NT quotations, is the use of κύριος. The Tetragrammaton was represented in various ways in the LXX, including ΙΑΩ, Hebrew script, and κύριος. However, the widespread adoption of κύριος in both Jewish and Christian contexts points to its primacy as the standard rendering.
The absence of transitional evidence for the replacement of YHWH with κύριος in NT MSS severely weakens the JW claim. All NT MSS from the 2nd century onward use κύριος or θεός. There are no known MSS or fragments showing YHWH or ΙΑΩ in NT quotations of the OT. If a systematic replacement had occurred, we would expect to find transitional MSS with mixed usage, but no such evidence exists. The claim that scribes systematically removed the divine name from NT MSS requires extraordinary evidence, which is entirely lacking. Such a conspiracy would also contradict the early Christian emphasis on textual fidelity.
The JW insistence on restoring the divine name in the NT reflects a theological agenda that misunderstands early Christology and textual practices. The NT authors’ use of κύριος for both the Father and Christ reflects their belief in Jesus’ divine identity (e.g., Philippians 2:11, Romans 10:13). This theological affirmation makes the JW distinction between YHWH and Jesus untenable. If YHWH had been preserved in the NT, it would create confusion in passages where κύριος is applied to Jesus, undermining the coherence of early Christian theology.
The citation of Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4:18-19 does not undermine the interpretation of Jesus as YHWH but instead reinforces it when understood in its theological context. In this passage, Jesus applies the prophecy of Isaiah directly to Himself, inaugurating His ministry and claiming the fulfillment of the prophecy. The original Hebrew of Isaiah 61:1 contains Adonai YHWH ("Lord YHWH"), which the LXX renders as πνεῦμα κυρίου (Spirit of the Lord). In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus reads the passage and declares, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (Luke 4:21), explicitly identifying Himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. By using κύριος (Lord) as the Greek equivalent of YHWH, the NT continues the Septuagint's tradition and affirms that Jesus embodies the divine mission described in Isaiah. Jesus' self-application of this passage, with its reference to the Lord, does not distinguish Him from YHWH but integrates Him into the divine identity. This is consistent with the broader NT portrayal of Jesus as κύριος, the title used for YHWH in the LXX.
Acts 2:36 does not suggest that Jesus became Lord in a way that diminishes His divine identity but rather emphasizes His exaltation and recognition as Lord following His resurrection and ascension. The distinction between YHWH and κύριος in this passage does not contradict the NT's identification of Jesus with YHWH. Jesus Christ is fully God *and* fully man; and, that the doctrine of the Trinity also teaches that “the humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia). Acts 2:36 must be understood in light of Jesus' resurrection and exaltation. “Jesus Christ, forty days after His resurrection, ascended of Himself into heaven in the sight of His Apostles; and that while as God He was equal to His Father in glory, *as man* He has been raised above all the Angels and Saints, and constituted Lord of all things.” (Catechism of St. Pius X)
So it does not imply that Jesus was not Lord before (cf. Luke 1:43) but that His Lordship is now publicly declared and affirmed by His resurrection (cf. Romans 1:4). Peter quotes Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:34: "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand,'" demonstrating that the Messiah (Jesus) is invited to share in YHWH's authority. Although He received the title "The Lord" as man as well, but by this His human nature did not become God (because there can be no change in God), so it means sharing in the divine glory (doxa). So YHWH God can speak about the man Jesus from an aspect from which He is really not YHWH God, but a man as the Messianic King. The sharing of divine authority affirms, rather than diminishes, Jesus’ divine identity. The NT authors use the title κύριος to emphasize Jesus' divine authority and equality with YHWH. Acts 2:36 reflects the public acknowledgment of this truth following Jesus’ resurrection, not a creation of His Lordship.
The consistent use of κύριος in the NT, both for YHWH and for Jesus, reflects the NT authors’ deliberate theological choice to present Jesus as sharing in the divine identity. This does not involve confusion but rather highlights the continuity between the God of Israel and Jesus Christ. The NT applies κύριος to Jesus in contexts that explicitly identify Him with YHWH, such as Philippians 2:9-11, which declares that "every knee will bow" to Jesus, quoting Isaiah 45:23, a passage about YHWH. Passages like Romans 10:13 also equate Jesus with YHWH by applying Joel 2:32 to Jesus. The NT authors were aware of the theological implications of using κύριος for Jesus. If they did not intend to identify Jesus with YHWH, they would have clarified the distinction to avoid confusion, especially given the Jewish background of their audience.
One short point for now. Psalm 110:1-2 actually says YHWH/Jehovah said to my Lord, that is, David's Lord. Any ancient Jew reading this verse would not have concluded that the second lord was also YHWH. Nor is that the common Jewish way of reading the psalm.
Indeed, but Trinitarians do not interpret the Son here as being addressed as God in the NT application, but as the Davidic Messiah King, that is, as a man. And as a man, He is indeed not God.
This is what I have often argued with Muslim apologists, that Christian theology does not teach that once we have God, and then besides that there is also Jesus, who is also God, and that we pray to Jesus "instead of" God, etc. Anyone who does not understand Chalcedonian Christology will find it unnecessary to delve into Trinitarian theology, because he will be shooting himself in the face with it, cf. straw man. That is why there is a saying that the Theotokos is the refuter of all (Christological) heresies, since whoever understands it correctly, understands what hypostatic unity is, what communicatio idiomatum is. Although of course, if someone doesn't understand communicatio idiomatum, the question is how they can explain biblical passages like Luke 1:43, Acts 3:15, Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 2:8.
In fact, guided by Thomistic metaphysical logic, Chalcedonian Trinitarianism is the only pure monotheistic view of all religions.
Look at my arguments written to Muslim apologists about the Trinity vs. "Shirk":
Nincsnevem, you often say that people misunderstand the Trinity or Catholic doctrine. Well, I understand it pretty good but disagree with the Trinity.
Some Trinitarians might pretend that it all makes sense and is logical as can be, but I would beg to differ. People disagree with my theology all the time, but I see no need to accuse them all of misunderstanding my beliefs. Some do misunderstand but most just disagree.
"you often say that people misunderstand the Trinity"
That assertion always inspires an expansive yawn, and it's ironic, because the one asserting it unwittingly reveals his own ignorance. As anyone who has followed the work of Dale Tuggy knows, there is no "the" Trinity, which is why he calls his podcast "Trinities" (plural). What we actually have is historical language that is ambiguous and paradoxical, and a variety of very different ways of attempting to parse that language.
In addition to his other writings on the subject, I highly recommend Tuggy's contribution to the recently published volume, "One God, Three Persons, Four Views," published by Cascade books.
Regarding Luke 4:16-21, you stated “ Jesus' self-application of this passage, with its reference to the Lord, does not distinguish Him from YHWH but integrates Him into the divine identity.” Where?
Regarding Acts 2:36 you stated that this passage “emphasizes His exaltation and recognition as Lord following His resurrection and ascension”, something we can both agree on, but in one sentence or less, please answer this: according to that same verse, who “made” (ἐποίησεν -aor 3rd Pers sg) him Lord and Christ? What does the verse in question say? Feel free to include verse 34 if context helps. Keep it succinct please.
You also acknowledged that “He received the title "The Lord" as man as well.”, which you take to mean “sharing in the divine glory (doxa).” But this does not equate him to YHWH, as it refers to just his human nature in the Incarnation, am I right? How can he receive this title in his manhood after emptying himself of divine prerogatives as per his kenosis (Phil 2:5-11)?
He was “Lord” as a foetus before his birth as per “communicatio idiomatum” cf Luke 1:43.
In your view, how many uses of “Lord” are there? Does “Lord” = YHWH him all cases?
Just so we can keep it on topic, in OT YHWH texts quoted in the NT do you think it completely inappropriate to even mark these as having contained the divine name in the original Hebrew, say via italics or a footnote? Or should the translation just keep to “(the) Lord”? As there is no ambiguity in any case according to your view, as Christ is Lord(YHWH) in the NT in any case?
Finally, in your response, before any statements you make please buttress your replies with “in my opinion”, “my personal view is…” “I believe…” etc. it makes for much nicer reading in this setting, thanks.
Also, I enjoyed your “Shirk” article. Clarity of terminology is key.
I am not claiming that you are ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity. I am perfectly sure that if I were to ask the question, such as:
"What does the doctrine of the Trinity teach?"
"What is hypostatic unity and communicatio idiomatum?"
you would know the correct answer. What I sometimes see, however, is that you do not always automatically combine these with the Trinitarian exegesis of the Scriptures.
For example, the Trinitarian understanding never claimed that Jesus is the Messiah (Davidic king, high priest, prophet, mediator) as God. This would contradict not only the principle of the immutability of God, but also specific biblical statements such as 1 Timothy 2:5, Acts 17:31, Hebrews 5:1. It follows of course that all messianic statements such as the Psalm 110:1-2 you quoted also do not address Jesus as God, but as man, and so it is entirely correct that YHWH here addressed Him as non-YHWH.
In fact, according to the Chalcedonian tenet "inconfusedly" (ἀσυγχύτως), there is no ontological-substantial connection between the man Jesus and God, and conceptually there cannot be. Therefore, the Islamic accusation of "Shirk" is not true. Eutychianism would indeed be "Shirk" and, following the principle of God's immutability, is also a metaphysical impossibility.
These must be interpreted correctly, and it must also be determined if at any time a "communicatio idiomatum" statement is involved. For example: "God was crucified". This is a "communicatio idiomatum" statement, by definition not God as such, who was killed, Trinitarians know exactly that God is immutable and immortal, so this does not state anything about the Godhead. This is understood to mean that the one ("person", suppositum) who was crucified as a man is also God. This is how biblical statements such as Acts 3:15, Acts 20:28, or 1 Corinthians 2:8 should be understood.
This follows from the fact that even in everyday speech, when we describe events, we are narrating as that happen to the person, to the subject. For example, we do not say "the mother of my body", but only "my mother", although ontologically it is obvious that I only received my body from my mother. Nor do we say "X's body died", although it is evident that we ontologically state the fact of death only about his body.
Of course there are many different views, but if you want to argue with the Trinity, it would be fairer not to argue with what the Average Joe believes or knows about it, but rather with the Trinity as defined by the ecumenical councils and as explained in a more serious dogmatic book, such as this one: https://archive.org/details/the-trinity-and-god-the-creator-garrigou-lagrange-reginald
It's no great feat to "disprove" the Average Joe, who knows only that "three-something and something is one, Jesus is God and also His own Son, and the Fathersonholyspirit-somehing."
You asked: "Where does Jesus integrate Himself into the divine identity?" - The integration is implied by Jesus' self-identification as the fulfillment of Isa. 61:1-2. In the original Hebrew, the passage references "Adonai YHWH." Jesus proclaims that He is the fulfillment of this prophecy, thereby identifying Himself as the agent of YHWH's mission. The audience’s reaction further supports this interpretation: their amazement quickly turns to outrage when they realize the implication—that Jesus claims to be the Messiah, the one anointed by God, which carries divine connotations within a Jewish context. The text suggests more than a mere prophet or servant; Jesus explicitly aligns Himself with the divine mission and authority foretold in Isaiah. This integration is consistent with NT theology, where κύριος (Lord) is used to reflect Jesus’ identity as YHWH (cf. Romans 10:13, Phil. 2:9-11).
Acts 2:36 states: "God has made Him both Lord and Christ" You emphasized the verb ἐποίησεν ("made"). This has two aspects:
A) Just as Phil. 2:9 also declares ("God ... gave him the name that is above every other name"), that is, that as a man he received the “name” “Lord”, not in the sense that he ontologically became God (would be a metaphysical impossibility, compromising God's immutability), but that as a man he also shares in the divine glory (doxa), which he renounced in the "kenosis".
B) The other aspect is that "making" here reflects the public recognition and enthronement of Jesus as Lord and Messiah following His resurrection and ascension. Peter explicitly quotes Ps. 110:1 (Acts 2:34): "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand.'" This enthronement language underscores Jesus' exaltation rather than a change in His inherent nature. The verse reflects His glorification in His humanity, not a denial of His preexistent Lordship as God the Son (cf. John 17:5: “Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began”).
So Jesus received the title "Lord" in His humanity, “the name” in Phil. 2:9 eventually refers to the divine name itself—YHWH (cf. Isa.45:23). This "bestowal" does not mean that Jesus became God; rather, it publicly declares His divine identity and authority in the context of His incarnate mission. Phil. 2:6-7 shows that Jesus did not cease to be divine during the kenosis; He set aside His divine prerogatives temporarily, but His divine nature remained intact. His exaltation reaffirms His divine authority and glory, now revealed through His human nature.
You asked: “how many uses of “Lord” are there?” - The title "Lord" (κύριος) in the NT is used in various contexts:
1. YHWH (Divine Name): Referring to God, as seen in OT citations like Romans 10:13 (Joel 2:32) and Philippians 2:10-11 (Isa. 45:23).
2. Messianic Title: Applied to Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecies (e.g., Psalm 110:1, Acts 2:34-36).
2. Honorific Title: Used in polite address or recognition of authority (e.g., John 4:11, where the Samaritan woman calls Jesus "Sir").
In many cases, "Lord" refers to Jesus as YHWH, particularly in contexts quoting OT texts about YHWH. The NT authors deliberately equate Jesus with YHWH in these instances, while also distinguishing His roles in the economy of salvation (e.g., as Messiah and Mediator).
It is not inappropriate to mark OT quotations in the NT where YHWH was used in the original Hebrew. Many translations include footnotes to clarify this. For example, I would support the idea that where the NT contains an OT quote referring to YHWH, the Lord should be written in capital letters (LORD). The NT writers consistently used κύριος to render YHWH, reflecting the LXX tradition and emphasizing Jesus’ divine identity. Retaining "Lord" in translations maintains continuity with the theological intent of the NT authors, who present Jesus as YHWH in passages like Romans 10:13 and Phil. 2:9-11. Including footnotes for clarity is helpful, but substituting "YHWH" for "Lord" in the NT text would disrupt this continuity.
You asked: “So the correct Trinity understanding "as a man Jesus is indeed not God"?”
It depends on how you understand the question. If it means that He ceased to be God (Him being non-God at all) as a result of the Incarnation, then this statement is incorrect. If it means that the human nature He assumed as a result of the Incarnation is not God, and that deity cannot be asserted in any way ontologically-substantially about His human nature, then it is correct.
So the answer depends on understanding the distinction made in Chalcedonian Christology between the two natures of Jesus Christ—divine and human—united in one person (hypostasis). The divine Logos and the man Christ are united and connected by only one thing: the person, the subject (hypostasis, suppositum). So there is no ontological-substantial connection between the two natures, but rather a very unique Creator-creature relation.
Jesus Christ is one Person (the eternal Logos), with two distinct natures: divine and human. As God, Jesus is fully divine, possessing the divine essence and all attributes of God: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc. As man, Jesus is fully human, with a created human nature, including a body and a rational soul.
The human nature of Jesus is not divine. It is created, finite, and distinct from His divine nature. This is in line with orthodox Christology, which emphasizes that Jesus’ humanity never becomes divine, and His divinity does not diminish or change to accommodate His humanity. The divine and human natures of Christ are united in one Person (the Logos), without confusion, change, division, or separation (inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter). This means that while Jesus’ human nature is not God, the Person of Jesus, who acts and speaks through both natures, is God. The Chalcedonian definition essentially excludes the interpretations that:
1) The human and divine natures are indistinguishable and a kind of peculiar "mix" has been created (Eutychianism). This violates the principle of the simplicity and immutability of God.
2) That the man Christ and the divine Logos can be separated into two separate subjects (Nestorianism). This would essentially claim that there are two different Christs, there is a divine Logos, and in addition there is the man Jesus (two pieces of "I"), and the relationship between these two is only some loose, moral connection, like a relationship of inner friendship, mutual affection.
Therefore, the orthodox view is that in Christ the human and divine natures are (ontologically) distinguishable AND inseparable.
When we say, "as a man, Jesus is not God," it means His humanity, considered on its own, is not divine. However the Person (hypostasis, suppositum) of Jesus (the Logos) remains fully God, even while taking on human nature. Jesus’ human actions (e.g., hunger, fatigue, suffering, death) pertain to His human nature, but they are still actions of the divine Person. For example, God died on the cross in His human nature, but not in His divine nature, which is impassible and eternal.
So yes, "as a man, Jesus is not God" in the sense that His humanity is created, finite, and distinct from His divine nature. However, "as a Person, Jesus is God," since the human nature is united to the divine Person of the Logos. This unity ensures that Christ’s divine identity is not compromised, even as He fully participates in human experience. This nuanced understanding preserves both the full humanity and full divinity of Christ within the framework of the Trinity.
When scholars discovered Greek OT MSS in the 20th century that contained the Tetragrammaton, this was not a shocking revelation. Early Christian writers like Origen and Jerome had already described the existence of such LXX MSS. This indirect evidence provided historical context for the eventual discovery of these MSS. If the NT originally included the Tetragrammaton, we should expect similar indirect evidence. Yet no early Christian source, including those who had access to the earliest NT MSS, ever mentions the presence of the Tetragrammaton in the NT. The silence of these sources is deafening. The Library of Caesarea Maritima, founded by Pamphilus and expanded by Origen, was the largest Christian library of antiquity. Many, such as Gregory Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Jerome studied there. If any MSS of the NT containing the Tetragrammaton existed, they would have been preserved in this library. Yet none of these ever mentions a Tetragrammaton in the NT, even though Jerome documented textual variants in the NT.
The early Christian period was marked by theological disputes, with different factions accusing one another of heresy and Scripture manipulation. If the proto-orthodox Christians had removed the Tetragrammaton from the NT, we would expect their theological opponents to use this as ammunition against them. Yet there is no record of any group accusing the proto-orthodox of such a tampering. Polycarp and other proto-orthodox figures faced accusations from theological opponents like the Gnostics or Marcionites, but no group ever accused them of removing the Tetragrammaton. This was not a point of contention, even during highly charged debates over Christology, Scripture, and ecclesial authority. If the Tetragrammaton was originally part of the NT, its removal would surely have been a significant theological issue.
The JW claim implies that someone had the authority and ability to systematically remove the Tetragrammaton from all NT MSS. However, this is historically implausible. When Caliph Uthman standardized the Qur'an, dissenting textual traditions still survived, and variant readings are documented. By contrast, no evidence exists of dissenting textual traditions in Christianity where the Tetragrammaton was retained in the NT. The process of replacing the Tetragrammaton would have required unprecedented coordination across the diverse and dispersed Christian communities of the Roman Empire, something no single authority in early Christianity could achieve. Christianity was highly decentralized, with regional leaders such as bishops overseeing local churches. There was no mechanism for universally enforcing such a change. The proto-orthodox Christians lacked the power to standardize all MSS, especially when many were in circulation and held by diverse groups, including theological opponents. The lack of both evidence and a plausible historical mechanism for such a widespread alteration further undermines the JW claim.
If early Christians regularly invoked the Tetragrammaton in their worship, we would expect external sources to comment on this. Yet external writers, such as Roman officials or pagan observers, consistently describe Christian worship as centered on Jesus. Pliny the Younger in his letter to Emperor Trajan describes Christian worship as follows: "They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god..." Pliny does not mention Christians invoking the Tetragrammaton, even though such a practice would have caused great scandal to Jews. The Alexamenos graffito (c. 2nd century) depicts a Christian figure, with the inscription: "Alexamenos worships [his] God" This graffiti mocks Christian worship but makes no mention that Christians worship some kind of “Yaho.” The absence of any reference to the Tetragrammaton suggests that it was not part of early Christian practice. The consistent testimony of external sources aligns with the internal evidence: early Christians invoked Christ and did not use the Tetragrammaton in their worship.
"Of course there are many different views, but if you want to argue with the Trinity, it would be fairer not to argue with what the Average Joe believes or knows about it, but rather with the Trinity as defined by the ecumenical councils"
I wasn't referring to the "average Joe"; I was referring to trinitarian philosophers, many of whom hold VERY different views about how the ambiguous and paradoxical language in the creeds should be interpreted.
You should have realized this by virtue of my mention of Dale Tuggy.
One of the reasons that many people misunderstand the doctrine is because Trinitarians themselves typically use standard methods of argumentation to support it. This tends to obscure the fact that the doctrine is ultimately both presuppositional in character, in a sort of Bahsen-ian sense, and non-falsifiable in the Popperian sense.
Even if Jesus had explicitly said, "I am not God," one can easily imagine the modern committed Trinitarian replying, "Well of course Jesus isn't the Father; that's perfectly compatible with Trinity." If that's not non-falsifiable, then nothing is.
While it is true that some Gnostic groups used ΙΑΩ, this evidence does not support the idea that mainstream Early Christian communities adopted it. As noted by Origen and Irenaeus, Gnostic groups often borrowed names and terms from both biblical and non-biblical sources. The use of ΙΑΩ by Gnostics reflects their syncretistic theology rather than the practice of orthodox Christians. There is no textual evidence from first-century Christian MSS that ΙΑΩ was used in place of κύριος. The examples cited by Hylton, such as references to ΙΑΩ in Gnostic baptismal formulas, reflect heterodox practices, not the mainstream Christian tradition. The use of κύριος in NT MSS and early Christian liturgy is consistent and widespread. The nomina sacra for κύριος (ΚΣ) and θεός (ΘΣ) in early Christian MSS highlight the reverence with which these terms were treated. The absence of ΙΑΩ in these MSS underscores its marginality. If ΙΑΩ had been widely used in early Christian communities, we would expect to see transitional MSS or debates about its replacement with κύριος. However, no such evidence exists.
Jewish tradition consistently substituted "Adonai" for YHWH in oral recitation. The use of κύριος in the LXX reflects this practice. As such, the adoption of κύριος in Christian texts aligns with Jewish norms. The appearance of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew or transliterations like ΙΑΩ in certain Greek MSS reflects a reversion to Hebrew forms, likely motivated by sectarian or liturgical concerns. These efforts are distinct from the original translation philosophy of the LXX.
The evidence for the use of ΙΑΩ comes primarily from Gnostic texts and practices, which diverged significantly from orthodox Christian theology and liturgy. For example, the baptismal formula cited by Hylton reflects a Gnostic reinterpretation of Christian rites. Hylton’s claim that Acts 2:21 originally used ΙΑΩ instead of κύριος lacks MS support. All extant NT MSS consistently use κύριος in citations of Joel 2:32, demonstrating the early Christian alignment with the LXX tradition.
I agree with you that Jesus explicitly declares the fulfilment of Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4. I also agree that he is the Agent of YHWH. But I still fail to see how that means “sharing the identity of YHWH”, unless you concede that all of his agents throughout centuries past could properly be referred to as “God” or “YHWH” cf Hebrews 1:1. Do you believe that fulfilling agency passages makes one ontologically YHWH? Just to clarify, the LORD YHWH made Jesus Lord and Christ according to Acts 2:36 and it surrounding context, do you agree? Thanks for your enumeration of the various meanings to Lord in the NT. I agree with all the instances, but also Sarah called Abraham Lord in her heart. With so much ambiguity surrounding the term kyrios, is the insertion of Jehovah, Yahweh or Lord such a bad thing in OT quotations of the NY? How does it create more ambiguity, not less? In your view?
Finally from me, I am still struggling to see what the preincarnated Christ emptied himself of in his kenosis of Phil 2. By your estimations he retains the title Kyrios in all its connotations, including Master, “Sir” and even YHWH Kyrios. He “participates in the identity of YHWH” while on Earth (still not entirely sure what that means)but then goes on to receive an even higher name upon his exaltation, where he is given the name “LORD(YHWH)” again, when in fact he never gave it up in the first place, according to your view. Or have I misunderstood something? What Divine prerogatives did he supposedly give up if he retained so many?
First of all, you overestimate the differences between Trinitarian interpretations, and you're really implying, "oh, these guys are talking all kind of things, it's all pure chaos, so it's all nonsense."
The Trinity, as articulated by the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Councils, is not a paradox or contradiction but a profound mystery. Tuggy's critique hinges on claiming there are "many Trinities," which confuses the historical and dogmatic articulation of the Trinity with philosophical interpretations and speculative variations.
In Thomistic theology, the Trinity is understood with precise metaphysical distinctions: The divine essence (ousia) is numerically one, while the persons (hypostases) are distinct by their relations of origin (paternity, filiation, spiration). The doctrine does not assert that God is "three in the same sense He is one." God's oneness refers to His essence, while the threeness refers to the real relations within the Godhead. The councils affirm one divine nature subsisting in three distinct persons. Tuggy's focus on interpretive variance among philosophers does not refute the core dogma but highlights differences in philosophical articulation.
You claim the Trinity is presuppositional and non-falsifiable, suggesting it cannot be tested against Scripture. The doctrine is DEDUCED from biblical revelation, such as:
1) The Father is God (John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6). 2) The Son is God (John 1:1, John 20:28, Colossians 2:9). 3) The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3–4, 2 Corinthians 3:17–18). 4) The three are distinct persons (Matthew 28:19, John 14:16–17).
The relational and metaphysical distinctions emerge as a theological synthesis to reconcile these affirmations. Non-falsifiability is not unique to the Trinity. Any metaphysical doctrine (including the unitarian concept of God) operates within a framework of axiomatic acceptance of divine revelation. As Thomas Aquinas argues, revealed truths (e.g., the Trinity) are not subject to empirical verification but are consistent within their theological and philosophical system.
As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article confirms, early Christianity worshipped Christ alongside the Father, and the Nicene articulation clarified existing beliefs rather than inventing new ones. The development was not syncretistic but sought to define orthodox faith against heretical distortions like Arianism. Thomistic theology incorporates Aristotelian categories to explicate the Trinity, not to impose alien frameworks. This approach harmonizes faith and reason, avoiding the ambiguities Tuggy critiques.
Tuggy’s critique misrepresents the nature of theological discourse. Non-falsifiability applies equally to unitarians' interpretations of Scripture. For example, the unitarian rejection of Christ's divinity persists despite explicit biblical evidence (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9). The doctrine is not an empirical hypothesis but a revealed truth interpreted through Scripture and Tradition. It is evaluated within its epistemic domain, just as other metaphysical truths are.
By the way, Jesus Christ is indeed "not God" in three senses according to the doctrine of the Trinity, because He is: 1) not identical with the Father, 2) not identical with the entire Godhead, 3) as a man, He is not God.
"First of all, you overestimate the differences between Trinitarian interpretations"
Baloney. There are interpretations of Trinity that are so different that if one is true then the other must necessarily be false. That's just a fact, whether you're comfortable admitting it or not.
Also, Tuggy didn't call Trinity non-falsifiable, I did. You shouldn't attribute things to Tuggy that he didn't argue.
In discussions of Trinitarianism, the statements of "this refers to His human nature" is often misunderstood. I will give you a trivial analogy: imagine that you have a bunch of apples, some red and some green. You have two baskets, one for the green apples and the other for the red ones. Your job is to put each apple in the correct basket.
Similarly, one "basket" for the statements about Christ's humanity (Messiah, prophet, born, died, created, John 14:28, subordinate to God, etc.), and the other contains statements about Christ's deity (John 1:1, John 10:30, Philippians 2:6 etc.). Then all you have to do is take the "apples" and place them in the appropriate "basket".
After that, John 14:28 will no longer "jump out" of its "basket" and "bite" John 1:1, or John 10:30, or Philippians 2:6.
You state: “I still fail to see how that means ‘sharing the identity of YHWH,’ unless you concede that all of His agents throughout centuries past could properly be referred to as ‘God’ or ‘YHWH.’”
The distinction lies in the TYPE of agency Jesus fulfills compared to others. Hebrews 1:1-3 clarifies this distinction: Other agents (prophets, kings, etc.) were MESSENGERS who spoke on behalf of YHWH but were never identified with His essence. They were creatures, not divine in nature. Jesus, in contrast, is described in Hebrews 1:3 as "the radiance of God's glory and the exact imprint of His nature" (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ). This language explicitly identifies Jesus as sharing in the same divine essence (ὑπόστασις) as YHWH. This is not merely functional agency but an ontological reality. Thus, while agency might superficially seem to apply equally to all who represent God, Jesus’ agency is unique because it flows from His divine identity.
You asked: “The LORD YHWH made Jesus Lord and Christ according to Acts 2:36 and its surrounding context, do you agree?”
Yes, I agree that Acts 2:36 states, "God has made Him both Lord and Christ," but the interpretation of "made" (ἐποίησεν) must be nuanced. The context of Acts 2:34-36 shows Peter quoting Psalm 110:1: "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand.'" The exaltation language here is ENTHRONEMENT language, referring to Jesus’ public acknowledgment as Lord and Christ in His humanity after the resurrection.
This "making" does not imply a change in Jesus’ divine nature. As Philippians 2:6-11 demonstrates, Jesus already existed “in the form of God” (Phil. 2:6) but took on human nature, humbling Himself. The exaltation reflects His vindication and glorification in His humanity, not a transformation from non-divine to divine. The "making" is akin to an earthly king’s coronation. For example, a prince becomes publicly acknowledged as king upon coronation, but his royal identity as heir existed beforehand. So while the text emphasizes Jesus’ exaltation as Messiah (human role), it does not deny His preexistent divine Lordship.
You state: “With so much ambiguity surrounding the term kyrios, is the insertion of Jehovah, Yahweh, or Lord such a bad thing in OT quotations of the NT? How does it create more ambiguity, not less?”
I would argue that such insertions create more ambiguity for several reasons. The NT authors *deliberately* used κύριος to translate YHWH following the Jewish tradition and the example of the LXX. This was not arbitrary but reflected their belief that Jesus shares in YHWH’s identity. Substituting "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" risks breaking the theological continuity between the LXX and the NT. The NT uses κύριος to refer both to the Father and to Jesus, often applying YHWH texts to Jesus (e.g., Romans 10:13 citing Joel 2:32). Reintroducing YHWH or Jehovah could obscure the NT’s deliberate presentation of Jesus as Lord in the same sense as YHWH.
The NT was written for Greek-speaking audiences familiar with κύριος as the divine title from the LXX. Introducing a Hebrew name like YHWH into the Greek text would have been confusing and unnecessary for the audience. The use of κύριος allows the NT authors to emphasize Jesus’ identity without directly equating Him with the Father in every instance. For example, in Psalm 110:1 ("The LORD said to my Lord"), κύριος preserves the distinction between the Father (YHWH) and the Son (Messiah) while still affirming their shared authority.
Therefore, retaining "Lord" as the translation of κύριος maintains the theological and literary intent of the NT authors. Here we must understand, whose theological heirs are we, the living Christians, theologically?
Christ took the Pharisaic theology as a basis, and adjusted it - mainly in moral, less often in doctrinal matters (cf. Matthew 23:2-3). Among the apostles, it is the Pauline-Johannine Gentile Christianity where we must take the thread, in fact, the revelation ended there. That is why we must reject all Judaizing efforts aimed at restoring the theological climate that preceded the theological environment of Pauline-Johannine "Greek" Christianity.
What was the cultic use of the name Yahweh connected to, especially its everyday invocation? By the time of Christ, it was already a "fait accompli" in the case of the Aramaic-speaking Jews of Palestine. I see that this whole Tetragrammaton issue simply doesn't even come up in the apostolic letters, it's not a topic. So if the "apostate copyists" removed the Tetragrammaton, they should have taken out entire chapters, where, for example, it's about the invocation of the Tetragrammaton, that this Jewish tradition must be rejected, and that the pronunciation of the name Yahweh must be taught to gentile converts, etc.
You ask: “Do you believe that fulfilling agency passages makes one ontologically YHWH?”
No, agency passages alone do not make one ontologically YHWH. However, the NT goes beyond mere agency when it describes Jesus. Jesus is not merely ACTING for YHWH; He is identified as YHWH in passages like John 1:1 ("The Word was God") and John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I am"). Jesus performs actions that only YHWH can do: forgiving sins (Mark 2:5-7), commanding creation (Mark 4:39), and receiving worship (Matthew 28:9, Revelation 5:13-14). The NT authors do not present Jesus as a mere agent but as the full embodiment of God’s presence and authority, consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Nincsnevem, I disagree that the Trinity doctrine cannot be considered a paradox. Now I understand if you deny that it's an explicit contradiction, but numerous Trinitarians have pointed to the paradoxical nature of the doctrine. First, it's paradoxical to claim that a timeless God entered history at some point or assumed human nature. Second, to say there are three divine persons but one divine being is paradoxical too. After all, Peter, James, and John are three persons, yet they're also three beings. Furthermore, the eternal generation is paradoxical but we've discussed it before and I'm not going down that road again here. No posts will be approved that discuss the eternal generation.
Aquinas writes that human logic cannot fathom the Trinity, which implies that it's paradoxical. See also https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2011-12/20229/handouts/14%20Heaven,%20hell,%20and%20the%20Trinity.pdf
Especially see page 6ff, which explicitly calls the Trinity a "paradox".
“Kenosis” does not mean Christ ceased to be God or relinquished his divine nature. Instead, it refers to a voluntary self-limitation. The "emptying" is not about SUBTRACTION but ADDITION—Christ "emptied himself" by *adding* to his divine nature the limitations of human nature. This is a key distinction. He retained his divine nature but veiled the exercise of some divine prerogatives during the Incarnation.
You mentioned that Christ retains the title "Kyrios" in all its connotations, including YHWH, yet receives "an even higher name" upon his exaltation. Even in the Incarnation, Christ remained fully divine. He participated in the "identity of YHWH" because he is YHWH. His essential divine nature and identity as the eternal Son of God did not change or diminish. The "higher name" in Phil. 2:9 ("God ... gave him THE NAME that is above every name") does not imply that Jesus GAINED divinity or the title "YHWH" upon exaltation. Rather, it signifies that his authority and identity as YHWH are fully revealed and vindicated in light of his redemptive work. The exaltation is the public declaration of who Christ is, made manifest through his obedience, death, and resurrection. In other words, the name "LORD" (Kyrios), while always true of Christ, is now explicitly acknowledged by creation as he assumes his place as the glorified God-man and mediator.
While Christ did not relinquish his divine nature or attributes, he willingly refrained from fully exercising them during his earthly ministry. Christ performed miracles, forgave sins, and exercised divine authority, but always in perfect unity with the Father and through the Spirit. He voluntarily submitted his divine will to the Father’s will (John 5:19, 30; Matthew 26:39). For example, he says, “The Son can do nothing by himself” (John 5:19), emphasizing his role in obedience and humility rather than autonomous display of divine power.
Before the Incarnation, Christ existed in the full glory (doxa) of the divine nature. During his earthly life, this glory (doxa) was veiled, as evidenced by the fact that he could be mistaken for an ordinary man (Isaiah 53:2-3; Philippians 2:7-8). The Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9) provides a glimpse of the glory Christ voluntarily concealed. Christ humbled himself by taking on the form of a servant. He, who deserved worship and honor as God, subjected himself to mockery, suffering, and death. This humility is the essence of his kenosis (Phil. 2:8).
The exaltation of Christ (Phil. 2:9-11) does not imply he was less than God during the Incarnation or that he somehow "became" God afterward. Instead the exaltation marks the point at which Christ, having completed his redemptive work, is vindicated before creation. His identity as YHWH is universally acknowledged (Isaiah 45:23 is alluded to here: “To me every knee will bow…”). Christ prayed in John 17:5, “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I HAD with you before the world began.” His exaltation restores him to the visible and unrestrained glory of his divine nature, shared with the Father and the Spirit.
You ask: “What Divine prerogatives did he supposedly give up if he retained so many?”
1. Retained: Christ retained his full divinity, his eternal identity as YHWH, and the essential attributes of God. He remained omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, though the exercise of these attributes was voluntarily limited in his humanity.
2. Relinquished (Veiled): He veiled his divine glory (doxa), submitted to the Father’s will, and refrained from independently exercising his divine prerogatives. He accepted the limitations of human nature (hunger, fatigue, mortality) to fully identify with humanity and accomplish redemption.
The kenosis of Philippians 2 demonstrates Christ’s incredible humility and love, not a loss of divinity. It underscores the self-giving nature of the triune God. The Incarnation is not about Christ ceasing to be God, but about God’s willingness to enter into his creation for the sake of redeeming it.
It’s important to distinguish between different emphases or frameworks for understanding the Trinity and mutually exclusive claims. While various theological traditions—Eastern Orthodox, Western Latin, or modern Protestant—may describe the Trinity with differing analogies, terminologies, or emphases, these variations are not necessarily contradictory. They represent attempts to articulate the same core truths within distinct philosophical or cultural contexts.
All orthodox Trinitarian frameworks affirm the Nicene Creed's central tenets: there is one God in three “persons” (hypostases, subsistentiae, supposita), who share one divine essence (ousia, substantia, essential, natura): μία οὺσία ἐν τρίσιν ὑποσπάσεσιν. The distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are real but do not divide the divine essence. Different traditions explore how these truths are expressed. For example, the Eastern Orthodox focus on the Father as the "source" (monarchia) of the Trinity, while the Western tradition emphasizes the consubstantiality of the persons. These perspectives are complementary, not contradictory. Genuine contradictions—where one position necessarily invalidates another—are theologically fringe. The debate is often a matter of linguistic and conceptual clarity, not doctrinal chaos.
Tuggy’s critiques imply that Trinitarianism lacks coherent logical grounding, which can lead some of his readers to infer that he finds it non-falsifiable because it resists direct empirical or philosophical refutation. Now let’s address the claim of non-falsifiability.
The doctrine is testable against Scripture and reason. Trinitarian theology arises from revealed truths in Scripture (e.g., Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, John 10:30, John 14:16-17). It is subjected to the same rigorous exegesis and logical consistency as other doctrines. If clear biblical evidence existed against the co-equality of the persons, the doctrine could indeed be falsified. Critics often conflate "mystery" with "irrationality." The Trinity is mysterious because it transcends human comprehension, not because it is illogical. It operates within the boundaries of logic but surpasses finite human analogies. Philosophers like Richard Swinburne and theologians like Thomas Aquinas have offered robust defenses of Trinitarian coherence. These show that the Trinity is logically defensible and not a mere unfalsifiable claim.
Here is something I've wreote in my book, Christology and the Trinity:
Some contemporary theologians insist that there are many disparate interpretations of the Trinity: the Trinity doctrine is not hermeneutically monolithic. For instance, systematic theologian Owen Thomas observes:
Our survey of the history of the [Trinity] doctrine in the text has indicated that there are several doctrines of the trinity: Eastern, Western, social analogy, modal, so forth. There is one doctrine in the sense of the threefold name of God of the rule of faith as found, for example, in the Apostle's Creed. This, however, is not yet a doctrine. It is ambiguous and can be interpreted in a number of ways. There is one doctrine in the sense of the Western formula of “three persons in one substance.” However, this formula is also ambiguous if not misleading and can be interpreted in a number of ways. A doctrine of the trinity would presumably be one interpretation of this formula . . . let us assume that the phrase “doctrine of the trinity” in the question refers to any of a number of widely accepted interpretations of the threefold name of God in the role of faith.
Thomas relates that there are numerous “widely accepted interpretations” of the Trinity doctrine. These construals viewed from a collective standpoint evidently constitute the doctrine of the Trinity. Despite some protests to the contrary, the Trinity doctrine is evidently not distinct from the many divergent, but acceptable (“non-heretical”) interpretations of it. Neither the Eastern Church nor the Western ecclesia has formulated a well-defined, unambiguous or universally accepted creedal statement regarding the triune being of God. It is therefore appropriate to consider any Trinitarian formula not proclaimed heretical, a delineation of the Trinity doctrine proper. Robert Jenson similarly remarks that this doctrine is “less a homogenous body of propositions than it is a task.” The ontological dogma of the Trinity (he contends) is actually “the church’s continuing effort to recognize and adhere to the biblical God’s hypostatic [personal] being.” Despite varying in outward form, there is a common thread that runs through every version (interpretation) of the Trinity doctrine. This common denominator is the notion that God is one substance (or subject) but three personae: “We must regard the nature of the Son as identical with that of the Father, since the Holy Spirit Who is both the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God is proved to be a Being of one nature” (Hilary of Poitiers).
Are there three personalities in God, an "I" of the Father and an "I" of the Son and an "I" of the Holy Spirit? * https://t.ly/txkgj
Are there two personalities in Christ, a human "I" and a divine "I"? * https://t.ly/HpHiA
Human logic cannot fully grasp the mystery of the Trinity, but this does not make the doctrine a contradiction. A paradox in theological terms often means an apparent contradiction that arises due to the limitations of human understanding, not an actual logical impossibility. The Athanasian Creed explicitly avoids logical contradiction by stating: "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance." This creed safeguards against both Modalism and Tritheism. Aquinas (I, Q31, A2) explains that the divine essence is not multiplied because the distinction between the Persons lies in relations, not essence. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine essence, and their distinctions come from relational oppositions (e.g., paternity and filiation).
You compare divine Persons to human persons (e.g., Peter, James, and John as separate beings). However, this analogy misapplies human limitations to God. The use of "person" (hypostasis in Greek, persona in Latin) in Trinitarian doctrine does not align with the modern anthropological sense of "person." It refers to distinct subsistences within one divine essence, not separate beings. The Trinity is better understood through relational subsistences: the Father generates, the Son is generated, and the Spirit proceeds. These relational distinctions do not multiply the divine essence, which remains undivided. I quote:
“The persons of the Trinity are relative (relational) persons. This means that each of the three persons must only be conceived in relation to the other two; the Father is a person only because He begets the Son and breathes forth the Spirit; the Son is a person only because He is begotten by the Father and breathes forth the Spirit; the Holy Spirit is a person only because He is breathed forth by the Father and the Son. If one were to attempt to stop at the Father or the Son in thought, it would give the impression that a single person of the Trinity could be thought of in isolation; this would only be possible by failing to situate Trinitarian personhood in the relational subsistence that defines it, which would lead to either Sabellianism or Tritheism.
From this it follows that, in defining a divine person, one must include, alongside incommunicable full independence, as an essential characteristic, otherness: the persons of the Trinity exist for one another. Even the independence of a created person does not imply isolation or reduction. Each human being is created by God to live in, from, and for community, thereby fundamentally enriching the content of their being; primarily, however, to live for God, thereby securing the only life content worthy of the person—the eternal truth. Yet this openness to others is rooted in finitude, and its realization in personal communion can at most extend to shared feelings, thoughts, and interests; within the natural order, it is not possible for even the closest of persons to fully transmit their own substance to another.
In the Trinity, the relationality of the persons signifies precisely this: the Father wholly imparts His substance to the eternal Word, and the Father and the Son wholly impart their entire being to the Holy Spirit. The life-communion within the Trinity is so profound that it surpasses all measure and gives a glimpse of why the Church so often utters this prayer: "O beata Trinitas!" and what is meant by the Christian hope, prefigured in sanctifying grace, of eternal participation in the life-communion of the Trinity.” (End quote.)
The eternal generation and procession are analogical expressions. Augustine uses the analogy of the mind: the Father is like the mind knowing itself, the Son is the Word (knowledge of itself), and the Spirit is love proceeding from the mind's knowledge of itself. These concepts reflect actions immanent within the divine nature. As Aquinas states (I, Q27, A2), such processions do not imply change or temporal succession but timeless relational realities.
You suggests confusion over whether the Trinity has one mind or three consciousnesses. Fr. Spitzer's exposition highlights that God's consciousness operates uniquely beyond human analogy. The "one divine mind" possesses self-awareness as Father, Son, and Spirit. Catholic theology typically avoids language that implies three separate centers of consciousness. Instead, the divine Persons are understood to fully possess the single divine intellect and will, with relational distinctions marking their "personalities."
Aquinas and other theologians consistently affirm that mysteries like the Trinity are not irrational. They are truths exceeding human reason, not opposing it. For example the "mystery" of the Trinity reflects God's infinite nature, which finite minds cannot fully comprehend (cf. Isaiah 55:8-9: "My thoughts are not your thoughts"). Analogies like the Lover, Beloved, and Love (used by Augustine and Spitzer) are intended to point toward divine realities while acknowledging their inadequacy to fully explain them.
The historical development of Trinitarian theology reflects the Church's effort to articulate the mystery of the Trinity within different philosophical, cultural, and linguistic frameworks. This diversity in expression does not imply doctrinal disunity but rather demonstrates the Church’s commitment to preserving the same truth while addressing specific contexts.
The Eastern Church emphasizes the monarchy of the Father (the source of the Trinity), while the Western Church focuses on the unity of the divine essence. These emphases are complementary, not contradictory. Augustine's psychological analogy (mind, memory, and will) and Cappadocian Fathers' social analogy (three persons in relational unity) are attempts to explain the same mystery from different perspectives. Both approaches affirm the same fundamental truths: God is one in essence and three in persons. They do not create separate "doctrines" of the Trinity but rather enrich our understanding. The councils of Nicaea (325 AD), Constantinople (381 AD), and subsequent ecumenical councils defined the Trinity precisely to eliminate ambiguity and protect orthodoxy. While theology remains an ongoing effort to deepen understanding, the core dogma of the Trinity is fixed and universally accepted by orthodox Christians.
Hilary of Poitiers’ statement cited in the argument reinforces the consistent core of Trinitarian doctrine: "We must regard the nature of the Son as identical with that of the Father, since the Holy Spirit... is proved to be a Being of one nature." This reiterates the central truth: The Son and Spirit share the same divine nature (ousia) as the Father. The distinction of Persons lies in their relations: the Father generates, the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds. This teaching is the cornerstone of all Trinitarian formulations, demonstrating coherence across varying theological articulations.
The claim that “any Trinitarian formula not proclaimed heretical” is just partly true. Only formulations aligned with the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are part of the unified doctrine. Heretical views—whether Arian, Sabellian, or Tritheistic—are excluded precisely because they deviate from this unified framework.
By the way, the Council of Florence did declare the denial of the "Filioque" as heresy:
“In the name of the Holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the approbation of this holy general Council of Florence we define that this truth of faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration; we declare that what the holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this meaning, that by this it is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also. And since all that the Father has, the Father himself, in begetting, has given to His only begotten Son, with the exception of Fatherhood, the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son himself has from the Father eternally, by whom He was begotten also eternally. We define in addition that the explanation of words "Filioque" for the sake of declaring the truth and also because imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed.”
Read also 703-710 here: https://patristica.net/denzinger/#n700 there is a definitive decleration of the Trinity.
Nincsnevem, if you'll notice, I did not say the Trinity is contradictory. I was responding to the claim that the Trinity is not said to be paradoxical, yet at least some Trinitarians have made the very claim themselves. The statement about Trinitarian formulae accepted which are non-heretical is based on Owen Thomas' discussion. That is how he seems to frame the issue. last thing I will emphasize is that my post was more about paradoxes as opposed to contradictions, but three persons normally indicates three distinct centers of consciousness or three intellects and wills, not one. I.e., Peter, James, and John.
Here's a bonus reflection. According to Aristotle, a father is the efficient cause of his child. However, for Trinitarian theology, the Father is not the efficient cause of the Son. That seems paradoxical to me or it certainly takes some explaining and the invocation of certain metaphysical theses.
A paradox can simply mean that something seems counterintuitive or difficult to grasp, not that it is inherently illogical or self-contradictory. Many Trinitarians, including Church Fathers and theologians, have acknowledged the mystery and profundity of the Trinity but consistently denied that it entails any true paradox in the sense of irreconcilable principles. As Augustine famously stated: “We are speaking of God; what wonder is it if you do not comprehend?” The paradox arises not because the doctrine is inherently contradictory, but because it transcends finite human experience and understanding.
The analogy of Peter, James, and John having three distinct centers of consciousness does not apply to the Trinity because divine personhood differs from human personhood. Human persons, as contingent beings, possess distinct centers of consciousness, wills, and intellects. However, divine "persons" are not separate beings but distinct relations within the one divine essence. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine intellect and will because they possess the same essence. This is why classical Trinitarian theology avoids any semblance of tritheism. The distinctions among the persons are relational, not substantial. For example, the Father generates the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The distinction among the persons lies in their relations of origin: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds. These distinctions do not introduce division within the divine essence but reflect the internal relationality of God as one unified being. Thus, while human personhood implies separate centers of consciousness, divine personhood reflects relational distinctions within a singular, undivided divine nature.
Owen Thomas’ observation about “several doctrines of the Trinity” does not negate the unity of Trinitarian theology. Rather, it acknowledges the historical development of language and articulation used to explain the Trinity within different contexts. The Church’s creeds—particularly those of Nicaea and Constantinople—set the boundaries of orthodoxy. Within these boundaries, there is room for legitimate theological exploration, but this diversity does not imply fragmentation or contradiction.
The Aristotelian concept of efficient causality does not fully apply to the Trinity because divine generation is not analogous to human or material causation. Aristotle’s framework is grounded in contingent, created realities, while the Trinity pertains to the eternal, unchanging divine essence. The Father generates the Son eternally, outside of time, without any change or succession. This is not “efficient causality” in the Aristotelian sense but a unique divine act that reflects the Father’s nature as unoriginated. Aquinas explains this using the analogy of intellectual generation: just as a human intellect generates a thought without division or material causation, the Father generates the Son without dividing the divine essence. The Father is the "principle" (not efficient cause) of the Son. This principle is intrinsic and immanent, unlike external causality in created things. Aquinas states that this relational distinction does not imply inferiority or dependency, as the Son possesses the same divine essence as the Father. Thus, while Aristotelian causality provides useful analogies for understanding aspects of the Trinity, it cannot fully encapsulate the unique nature of divine relations.
Nincsnevem, I feel like words or ideas are being attributed to me, which I never said or don't believe. Have some Trinitarians said the Trinity is a paradox? I've shown that they have, which you seemed to deny. I made it clear that I was talking about a paradox, not a contradiction.
From what you've said above and elsewhere, I don't see how you can state with 100% certainty that the tres personae, ex hypothesi, have one intellect/will rather than three. Even systematic theologians admit that's an open question. For how does the Father love the Son or the Son submit to the Father if there is only one intellect/will? One essence does not necessarily entail one will.
We've been through eternal generation before. Let's agree to disagree.
"The paradox arises not because the doctrine is inherently contradictory, but because it transcends finite human experience and understanding." - I could say that about literally anything if I wanted too - this is a way to get around explaining clearly and pointing to actaul scriptural foundation
Interesting subject on the original post - that I will add to my email Edgar
Did Jerome omit the divine name When it was part of another name when translating the Vulgate? (I cant read Latin)
Someone made the observation that even in the LXX if the divine name was part of another name it wasn't changed - because that would be stupid (I have not fact checked this yet)
You’re right to distinguish between paradox and contradiction, and I did not intend to misrepresent your position. While some Trinitarians have described aspects of the Trinity as paradoxical in the sense of being beyond full human comprehension, this does not mean the doctrine is inherently contradictory or logically incoherent. The key issue here is whether such paradoxes reflect the limits of human understanding or actual tensions within the doctrine itself. The term "paradox" often signifies truths that appear irreconcilable within finite frameworks but are resolved in a higher reality. For example, the Trinity’s unity of essence and distinction of persons is paradoxical to us because it transcends human categories of being and relation, but this is not equivalent to logical inconsistency. Trinitarians like Karl Rahner or others who acknowledge the Trinity as a “paradox” often do so in the context of exploring its mystery, not to suggest unresolved contradictions. They emphasize that God’s nature surpasses human comprehension, consistent with classical theological principles. Thus, while the Trinity may be described as paradoxical in its mystery, the doctrine itself avoids true paradox in the sense of irreconcilable ideas.
The divine intellect and will are attributes of the essence, not the persons. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same undivided essence, they necessarily share one intellect and one will. Aquinas explains this by distinguishing between the persons (distinguished by relations of origin) and the divine operations (which are inseparable because they flow from the one essence). For example, the Father’s act of love for the Son is not a separate “act of will” but the relational expression of the single divine will.
When Scripture speaks of the Father loving the Son or the Son submitting to the Father, it reflects the eternal relations of origin, not separate acts of will. The Son’s submission (e.g., John 5:19, Philippians 2:8) is understood in terms of His role in the divine economy (salvation history) and the relational order within the Trinity, not as evidence of distinct wills. In human terms, love and submission often imply distinct centers of will. However, in the divine reality, these relational terms reflect the eternal communion and harmony of the one divine will, expressed in distinct persons.
While there may be some discussion in contemporary theology about how to articulate the relationship between personhood and will in the Trinity, the classical position holds firm on the unity of the divine will. Divergences often stem from misunderstandings or efforts to explore the implications of relational distinctions, but they do not represent a rejection of the fundamental unity of God.
I respect your wish to leave the topic of eternal generation aside, but I want to briefly touch on how this relates to your point about love and submission. The relational language of Father, Son, and Spirit reflects the eternal processions within God: the Father begets the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque). These are not causal relationships in the human sense but eternal realities grounded in God’s undivided essence. The Father’s love for the Son is not a separate act of will but the eternal expression of His self-giving nature, perfectly mirrored in the Son and the Spirit. This is why Augustine famously described the Spirit as the “bond of love” between the Father and the Son.
If memory serves, Stephen Davis once expressed the hope that someday philosophers might come up with an interpretation of Trinity that isn't logically problematic in some way. I believe he said that, or something comparable, in Logic and the Nature of God, which was published in 1983. Regrettably, I sold that book when I downsized, so I can't verify the reference right now. Think about that! In 1983 -- and to this day -- centuries after the doctrine was promulgated by a confused church, they're still struggling to come up with a model that isn't problematic.
I haven't found the page, but I did find the quote from Logic and the Nature of God, by Stephen Davis:
"...some future theologian will be able to produce conceptual categories adequate to explain it [Trinity]. All I claim is that it is mysterious to us now."
The problem I see with Davis's statement is that there was a man who could have "produced conceptual categories adequate to explain it," and his name was Jesus Christ. Certainly if Trinity were really so important -- important enough that it is called the central doctrine of Christendom -- then God would have had his Son, or his Son's Apostles, explain it adequately under inspiration, and thereby save Christian philosophers nearly 2000 years of perplexity. Since Jesus and is Apostles did not provide such delineation, I conclude that he either did not feel the subject was very important, or the doctrine is not true. In this I side with the famous Unitarian, William Ellory Channing, who said that the "doctrine, were it true, must, from its difficulty, singularity, and importance, have been laid down with great clearness, guarded with great care, and stated with all possible precision." (William Ellory Channing, Selected Writings) p 79
Jerome, in his writings, provides clear testimony regarding his approach to translating the divine name. In his Epistola XXV (Letter to Marcella) Jerome explicitly identifies the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) as written with the Hebrew letters Yod, He, Vav, He and acknowledges its ineffable nature. He notes that some Greek manuscripts rendered it erroneously as PIPI due to the resemblance of the letters. However, Jerome does not state that he altered or omitted the divine name but rather that he followed the Hebrew text faithfully in his translations. In his prologue to the Pentateuch, Jerome asserts that he worked directly from the Hebrew text, aiming for precision and fidelity. He even criticizes earlier Latin translations for deviating from the Hebrew. Jerome’s own statements affirm his commitment to accurately translating the Hebrew Scriptures. His recognition of the Tetragrammaton as ineffable does not imply omission but reflects the Jewish tradition of substituting "Adonai" in oral readings, which the LXX rendered as κύριος. Jerome retained this tradition in the Vulgate.
Names containing the divine element (Yah or Yahu) were typically transliterated or adapted to the phonetic system of the target language. In the LXX compound names like Yehoshua were rendered as Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), following Greek transliteration practices. The divine element (YHWH) was not explicitly preserved but incorporated in the name’s meaning. In the Vulgate Jerome similarly transliterated compound names according to their Hebrew or Greek equivalents, not as a deliberate omission but as a translational convention. For example, "Yehoshua" became "Iesus" in Latin, aligning with the Greek Iēsous. Both the LXX and the Vulgate followed established translational norms for proper names. The omission of the Tetragrammaton in compound names reflects linguistic adaptation, not theological bias or a conspiracy to remove the divine name.
The claim that the LXX retained the divine name in compound names because "it would be stupid to remove it" misrepresents the historical and theological context. By the time of the LXX translation, Jewish tradition had already established the oral substitution of YHWH with "Adonai" or "Elohim" out of reverence. The translators of the LXX extended this practice by using κύριος for YHWH, reflecting Jewish liturgical norms. Jerome operated within the Christian tradition, which had inherited the LXX’s rendering of YHWH as κύριος. His decision to use "Dominus" (Lord) in the Vulgate aligns with this tradition and reflects theological continuity rather than omission. The substitution of YHWH with κύριος or "Dominus" reflects Jewish and Christian reverence for the divine name, not a lack of fidelity to the original text.
The suggestion that Jerome intentionally omitted the divine name lacks evidence and raises several questions. Who decided to remove the divine name? Correspondence between Pope Damasus and Jerome is available, and the pope did not instruct Jerome to "remove" the Tetragrammaton. The lack of historical records or transitional manuscripts suggesting a deliberate removal of the Tetragrammaton undermines conspiracy theories. The consistent use of κύριος in the New Testament and patristic writings indicates continuity rather than alteration. Why would Jerome omit it? Jerome’s commitment to Hebrew accuracy and his extensive commentaries on divine names argue against the idea of deliberate omission.
The quotation from Stephen Davis acknowledges the mystery surrounding the Trinity but does not imply that the doctrine is logically incoherent. Davis explicitly states that the Trinity is "mysterious to us now," indicating that it transcends current conceptual categories rather than violating logic. The acknowledgment of mystery in theology is common and does not equate to a confession of incoherence. A mystery is not the same as a contradiction. A mystery indicates something beyond human comprehension, while a contradiction entails logical impossibility. For example, the concept of infinity in mathematics is mysterious but not illogical. The doctrine of the Trinity falls into the former category. The development of theological understanding over time does not undermine the truth of the doctrine. Early Christians, faced with various heresies, articulated the Trinity using precise philosophical language to preserve biblical truths. This process mirrors how scientific understanding develops over centuries without invalidating earlier insights.
Christian theology recognizes that God's self-revelation is progressive. The Old Testament hinted at the plurality within God (e.g., Genesis 1:26; Isaiah 9:6; Psalm 110:1). The New Testament clarified this further, with Jesus identifying the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (e.g., Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26). The early Church councils merely formalized and protected these truths against heretical distortions. Jesus' primary mission was not to provide a systematic theology but to reveal the Father, accomplish salvation, and establish the Church. The Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, built upon His teachings (John 16:13). The Trinity was articulated by the Church Fathers to safeguard the unity of these scriptural teachings.
William Ellory Channing’s claim that the doctrine of the Trinity, if true, "must… have been laid down with great clearness" overlooks the nature of divine revelation and human understanding. Many profound truths require centuries of study and debate to articulate clearly. For example the relationship between faith and works (James 2:14-26 vs. Ephesians 2:8-9), or the hypostatic union (fully God and fully man in Christ). These doctrines were not immediately "clear" in the sense Channing demands, yet they are universally accepted by orthodox Christianity. Channing’s demand for "all possible precision" ignores the reality that Scripture often presents truths in ways that invite meditation and exploration (e.g., parables). The Trinity is implicit in Scripture but requires theological reflection to articulate.
The claim that the Trinity cannot be important because it was not "adequately explained" by Jesus or the Apostles is misguided. The Trinity directly impacts Christian worship, prayer, and understanding of salvation. Christians worship the Father through the Son in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:18). Without the Trinity, essential doctrines like the Incarnation and Atonement lose coherence. The Trinity is the framework that preserves the biblical revelation of God. Denying it leads to significant theological errors, such as Arianism (which diminishes Christ’s divinity) or Modalism (which denies the personal distinctions within God).
The suggestion that the Trinity arose from a "confused church" misrepresents historical and theological realities. Early Christians worshipped Jesus as Lord and God (e.g., Philippians 2:6-11, a pre-Pauline hymn). The Church articulated the Trinity in response to heresies, not out of confusion but to clarify and preserve biblical truth. The Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) did not “invent” the Trinity but defined it against heresies like Arianism. These councils formalized what the Church already believed and practiced.
The sentiment in the article by John Dougherty acknowledges the paradoxical nature of the doctrine of the Trinity but interprets it primarily as a human inability to fully comprehend divine truths. While this approach reflects an important dimension of faith—acknowledging mystery—it may inadvertently suggest that the Trinity is "nonsense," which could be misunderstood as irrationality rather than supra-rationality.
Dougherty's statement that the Trinity "doesn’t make any sense" risks conflating mystery with irrationality. Catholic theology maintains that the Trinity is above human reason (supra-rational), not contrary to it (irrational). The doctrine aligns with God's self-revelation and can be approached with analogies and reason, even if it cannot be fully comprehended. St. Augustine emphasizes that mysteries like the Trinity surpass human understanding but do not contradict logic. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 237) states: "The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the ‘mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God.’"
While Dougherty critiques common analogies like the shamrock, knot, or others, Catholic teaching uses such analogies cautiously. These are not definitions but tools to illuminate aspects of the mystery. For instance Augustine's analogy of the mind, knowledge, and love reflects the relational nature of the Trinity, where all three are distinct yet one essence. Analogies are not complete but help clarify specific dimensions without fully explaining the divine reality. They affirm that the mystery is rooted in truth, not "nonsense."
Dougherty’s dialogue introduces potential confusion between the Trinity and triads in other faiths, such as the Hindu trimurti or philosophical constructs like Hegel's dialectic. These comparisons fail to grasp the ontological distinctiveness of the Christian Trinity. The Trinity is not three aspects, roles, or phases of God (modalism), nor is it three separate gods (tritheism). It is one divine essence in three real and distinct persons. Pagan triads often stem from naturalistic or polytheistic frameworks. In contrast, the Trinity arises uniquely from divine self-revelation in Scripture, such as Matthew 28:19 and John 1:1-18, and reflects God's unity and relational nature.
Dougherty is correct to note that paradox fosters humility. However, Catholic teaching emphasizes that this humility drives us toward deeper theological and philosophical reflection rather than resignation to incomprehension. Thomas Aquinas, for example, acknowledges that human reason cannot exhaust the mystery of the Trinity but insists on the harmony between faith and reason (Summa Theologiae I, q. 32, a. 1). The Trinity challenges the human intellect to transcend its limitations and grow in the light of divine truth.
Far from being an abstract or nonsensical doctrine, the Trinity shapes Christian prayer, worship, and morality. The liturgy begins and ends with the Trinitarian formula ("In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"). The Eucharistic Prayer is directed to the Father, through the Son, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is the model of love and communion, inspiring Christians to live in self-giving relationships. The distinct roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are evident in creation, redemption, and sanctification.
Dougherty’s connection between mystery and life’s paradoxes is valid but incomplete. My impression is that Dougherty is a fideist. The paradoxes of the Trinity illuminate not just life's mysteries but God's plan of salvation. As the Athanasian Creed affirms, understanding the Trinity is essential for knowing God and entering into eternal life.
You should read: Credo quia absurdum? Is the Trinity unreasonable? https://justpaste.it/hkt5q
Thank you, Sean. I read Davis' book and still have it. See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2010/02/problematic-nature-of-trinity-doctrine.html
"Jerome operated within the Christian tradition, which had inherited the LXX’s rendering of YHWH as κύριος. His decision to use "Dominus" (Lord) in the Vulgate aligns with this tradition and reflects theological continuity rather than omission." - does he do this with names containing the tetragrammaton? Because yes, it would be stupid to replace the bits that contained the tetragrammaton with bits of kurios - that is very stupid.
Did Jerome omit "Halloujah" from the psalms?
Too my knowledge no he did not - Because the ancients had no issue with it, when it was part of another name. hence it was never removed from said names.
"The divine element (YHWH) was not explicitly preserved but incorporated in the name’s meaning. In the Vulgate Jerome similarly transliterated compound names according to their Hebrew or Greek equivalents" - exactly, so in a sense pre-served it... hence answering your question on why halloujah was never removed or altered from the NT.
your "evidence" is at odds with people who are way more trust worthy than you... I choose to believe people like Trobish and Shaw over you any day.. again you have made selective arguments to suit YOUR agenda, not Jeromes, not Origens not the Church Fathers - YOUR agenda. No one would have to instruct Jerome to remove the tetragrammaton... There are other options than what you are trying to make out (or make up, knowing you.)
55 comments:
Have been digging into this subject a bit more thoroughly, in light of Nincs assertion that the removal of the Tetragram was intentional in the NT and was a theological point the NT authors intended to make regarding Christ's LORDship. (namely, that now Jesus = YHWH).
Found this echoed in the LSB translation. See "Names of God" in its foreword.
https://lsbible.org/foreword/
Christ explicitly quotes the LXX of Isa 61:1 at Luke 4:18, 19.
Christ is "made Lord (kyrios)" by another; God, in Acts 2:36.
YHWH and Kyrios are distinguished in verse 34, quoting from Ps 110:1.
The NT does not preserve the Tetragrammaton in its MSS, and its consistent replacement with κύριος reflects continuity with the Septuagint tradition rather than a suppression or marginalization of the divine name. The Septuagint translators rendered YHWH as κύριος, reflecting Jewish oral tradition, where “Adonai” was substituted for YHWH to avoid pronouncing the divine name. This practice predated Christianity and was already standard among Greek-speaking Jews. All extant NT MSS use κύριος or θεός in place of YHWH. There is no textual evidence of a transitional phase where the Tetragrammaton appeared in the NT before being replaced. The NT's emphasis on Jesus as κύριος (e.g., Philippians 2:11, quoting Isaiah 45:23) demonstrates a deliberate identification of Jesus with the God of Israel. This usage affirms continuity with the LXX tradition and does not indicate a suppression of the Tetragrammaton. While the Tetragrammaton may have influenced the theological framework of NT writers indirectly, its direct importance in the text is limited, given the absence of YHWH in the MSS.
While certain phrases like "your name" (e.g., John 17:11-12) may echo OT language about God’s name, they do not definitively refer to the Tetragrammaton. These references are better understood as part of a broader theological discourse rather than specific allusions to YHWH. The NT’s use of “name” often reflects a theological focus on God’s character, authority, and revelation in Christ (e.g., Acts 4:12), rather than a direct reference to the Tetragrammaton. The Jewish avoidance of pronouncing YHWH naturally influenced early Christian scribes, who adopted κύριος as the standard rendering. This does not imply an “indirect” presence of YHWH but rather reflects the continuity of Jewish reverence for the divine name.
The idea of an “eclipse” of the divine name misrepresents early Christian theology and the textual tradition. Early Christians inherited the Septuagint with κύριος already established as the Greek equivalent for YHWH. There was no “loss of capacity” to detect allusions to the divine name; rather, Christians continued the Jewish tradition of reverence by using κύριος. The Christian scribal practice of abbreviating κύριος (e.g., ΚΣ) and other sacred names demonstrates reverence rather than ignorance or neglect of the divine name. Early Christian theology emphasized Jesus’ identification as κύριος, the Lord of the OT. This was not a result of neglecting the divine name but a theological affirmation of Jesus’ divine identity (e.g., Romans 10:13, quoting Joel 2:32).
The use of κύριος in place of YHWH reflects the Jewish oral substitution of Adonai. Christians, as heirs to the Jewish Scriptures, naturally continued this tradition. The consistent use of κύριος in NT MSS suggests that early Christians saw no need to reintroduce the Tetragrammaton, as its reverence was preserved in the established scribal practices. By using κύριος for both YHWH and Jesus, the NT affirms Jesus’ divine identity without undermining the significance of the Tetragrammaton. This theological choice reflects a continuity with Jewish reverence for God’s name, not a departure from it.
The LXX, with its consistent use of κύριος, was a Jewish work that predated Christianity. Christians adopted this tradition without alteration. The early Christian movement arose within a Jewish context, and its textual practices reflect this heritage. The absence of the Tetragrammaton in NT texts is not evidence of an “eclipse” but a continuation of Jewish reverence for God’s name. While the Tetragrammaton is significant in the OT, its absence in NT MSS reflects a deliberate theological choice to emphasize God’s revelation in Jesus as κύριος, not a neglect or suppression of the divine name. Wilkinson’s analysis underestimates the centrality of κύριος in early Christian Christology, where it serves as a bridge between Jewish monotheism and the Christian affirmation of Jesus’ deity.
Thanks for the reference! As is customary for Brill, it's expensive:
https://brill.com/display/title/26914?rskey=ws4zaY&result=4
Edgar, I don't want to sneak the previous conversation in here, and if you'd prefer to omit all but the link, I'll understand, but I didn't get a chance to address something from the previous conversation about the DN in the NT. I'm an old man, and I no longer typically have the energy to stay up until midnight to make sure I can comment before discussions are locked. I get up for work at 3:30AM!
I sensed from the back-and-forth that there may be an assumption that the JW argument includes the assertion that the pre-Christians LXX mss. that contain the divine name in Hebrew characters reflect the "original" method of representing the divine name in Greek writings. I also got the sense that some may assume that if it could be shown that those mss. reflect a later stage in the transmission of the LLX, then the JW view has been refuted. If that is an assumption that some have, then I think it misses the point.
The JW view that the divine name was included in the original NT writings doesn't hang or fall on whether the original LXX had the divine name in Hebrew characters. Indeed, I don't think it did, as I agree with Tov, Skehan, and others that the original form was Iaw, and that *both* the use of Hebrew characters and Kurios came later in the transmission of the LXX.
What the mss. that include the name in Hebrew characters demonstrate is the Jewish obsession -- a healthily obsession, in this case -- with preserving the divine name in the biblical texts, and the Apostles were all Jews.
I'll also say that I find it impossible to take most critics of the NWT's restoration of the divine name in the NT seriously, as most of them seem perfectly happy to tolerate the practice of replacing the divine name with surrogates in the OT. People who, when discussing the divine name in Scripture, focus on criticizing the WTS, yet don't give equal time to criticizing Christendom's translators for replacing the divine name with surrogates in the OT, are hypocrites. Anyone who thinks that JWs are wrong to use the divine name in the NT under the assumption that this constitutes a restoration, should also think that Christendom's translators are wrong to replace the divine name with surrogates in the OT. Indeed, IF both choices were wrong, then Christendom's translators would be wrong over 6,500 times, whereas the WTS would only be wrong by a fraction of that number.
Sean, that's so true about Brill. At least they're consistent ☺
I grant the possibility that some scribes might have revised practically all/all pre-Christian MSS but I need more evidence before I can accept Pietersma's hypothesis. I have more faith in the correctness of the Goldbach conjecture.
On the other hand, I agree that the JW position does not stand or fall on whether YHWH originally appeared in the LXX MSS.
"On the other hand, I agree that the JW position does not stand or fall on whether YHWH originally appeared in the LXX MSS."
I know you realize this, but to ensure that others don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that the divine name (YHWH) wasn't in the original LXX writings; rather, I'm saying that it was there, but in the Greek form of Iaw. Do I know this with certainty? Of course not, but Tov and Skehan convinced me that this is the best explanation of the available data.
Terence, thanks for posting that info and link.
Sean, thanks for clarifying. I highly respect Tov and live his books and I've read Frank Shaw's book about Iao, but I still have questions about how one arrives at that position in terms of the extant MSS. Don't know if you've read De Troyer, but she argues that the divine name was represented numerous ways in the LXX.
For the record, I'm not a skeptic, but I like material evidence for significant claims.
The presence of the Tetragrammaton in the original NT MSS actually depends heavily on the continuity of Jewish scribal practices from the LXX. If the LXX itself did not consistently include YHWH, the JW claim that NT authors would have followed such a tradition loses credibility. Many scholars argue that κύριος (Lord) was the primary translation of YHWH in the LXX from its inception, reflecting Jewish oral traditions of substituting "Adonai" for YHWH during readings. The claim that ΙΑΩ predates κύριος is speculative and not supported by sufficient MS evidence. While ΙΑΩ appears in isolated and fragmentary MSS like 4Q120, its use was not widespread or consistent. The inclusion of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew or Hebrew script in some later MSS (e.g., P. Fouad 266) reflects *later revisions* rather than original practices. If the LXX MSS did not universally include YHWH, it is unlikely that NT authors, many of whom directly quote the LXX, would have REintroduced the divine name. This undermines the JW argument that YHWH or ΙΑΩ was included in the NT.
All extant NT MSS uniformly use κύριος or θεός when quoting the OT. There is no evidence of YHWH or ΙΑΩ in the NT text. The NT authors frequently apply κύριος to both God the Father and Jesus, demonstrating their theological conviction that Jesus shares in the divine identity. This deliberate use of κύριος undermines the claim that the Tetragrammaton was integral to NT writings. The Jewish practice of orally substituting "Adonai" for YHWH naturally carried into Greek translations and the writings of the NT. The use of κύριος reflects a continuation of this tradition rather than a deviation from Jewish reverence for the divine name.
Critiquing the NWT does not require addressing the broader question of how the divine name is rendered in modern translations of the OT. The NWT inserts "Jehovah" into the NT text without any MS evidence to support this choice. This practice is not equivalent to the decision by translators to render YHWH as "LORD" in the OT, which is based on centuries of Jewish and Christian tradition. The JW practice constitutes a theological imposition on the text, whereas the use of "LORD" in the OT reflects continuity with Jewish scribal practices. The claim that "Christendom’s translators" are wrong 6,500 times in the OT versus the WTS being wrong only a fraction of that in the NT is irrelevant. The issue is not about numbers but textual fidelity. If there is no MS evidence for YHWH in the NT, any insertion constitutes textual corruption.
According to George Howard:
“What I tried to show was that there is evidence that the Septuagint Bibles used by the writers of the New Testament contained the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. I argued that it is reasonable to assume that the NT writers, when quoting from the Septuagint, retained the Tetragrammaton in the quotations. This does not support the JW’s insertion of "Jehovah" in every place they want. To do this is to remove the NT from its original "theological climate." My opinion of the New World Translation (based on limited exposure) is that it is odd. I suspect that it is a Translation designed to support JW theology. Finally, my theory about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues disagree with me (for example Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should not be used as a surety for belief.”
(1/2)
(2/2)
While scholars like Tov and Skehan suggest that ΙΑΩ *may* represent an early Greek transliteration of YHWH in the OT, this does not support the JW claim at all that YHWH or ΙΑΩ was present in the original NT texts. MSS like 4Q120 use ΙΑΩ, but these are isolated and fragmentary examples and not representative of a broader tradition. The use of ΙΑΩ appears sporadically in sectarian or regional texts, not as a universal standard. The dominant tradition, as evidenced by the majority of LXX MSS and NT quotations, is the use of κύριος. The Tetragrammaton was represented in various ways in the LXX, including ΙΑΩ, Hebrew script, and κύριος. However, the widespread adoption of κύριος in both Jewish and Christian contexts points to its primacy as the standard rendering.
The absence of transitional evidence for the replacement of YHWH with κύριος in NT MSS severely weakens the JW claim. All NT MSS from the 2nd century onward use κύριος or θεός. There are no known MSS or fragments showing YHWH or ΙΑΩ in NT quotations of the OT. If a systematic replacement had occurred, we would expect to find transitional MSS with mixed usage, but no such evidence exists. The claim that scribes systematically removed the divine name from NT MSS requires extraordinary evidence, which is entirely lacking. Such a conspiracy would also contradict the early Christian emphasis on textual fidelity.
The JW insistence on restoring the divine name in the NT reflects a theological agenda that misunderstands early Christology and textual practices. The NT authors’ use of κύριος for both the Father and Christ reflects their belief in Jesus’ divine identity (e.g., Philippians 2:11, Romans 10:13). This theological affirmation makes the JW distinction between YHWH and Jesus untenable. If YHWH had been preserved in the NT, it would create confusion in passages where κύριος is applied to Jesus, undermining the coherence of early Christian theology.
@Terence
The citation of Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4:18-19 does not undermine the interpretation of Jesus as YHWH but instead reinforces it when understood in its theological context. In this passage, Jesus applies the prophecy of Isaiah directly to Himself, inaugurating His ministry and claiming the fulfillment of the prophecy. The original Hebrew of Isaiah 61:1 contains Adonai YHWH ("Lord YHWH"), which the LXX renders as πνεῦμα κυρίου (Spirit of the Lord). In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus reads the passage and declares, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (Luke 4:21), explicitly identifying Himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. By using κύριος (Lord) as the Greek equivalent of YHWH, the NT continues the Septuagint's tradition and affirms that Jesus embodies the divine mission described in Isaiah. Jesus' self-application of this passage, with its reference to the Lord, does not distinguish Him from YHWH but integrates Him into the divine identity. This is consistent with the broader NT portrayal of Jesus as κύριος, the title used for YHWH in the LXX.
Acts 2:36 does not suggest that Jesus became Lord in a way that diminishes His divine identity but rather emphasizes His exaltation and recognition as Lord following His resurrection and ascension. The distinction between YHWH and κύριος in this passage does not contradict the NT's identification of Jesus with YHWH. Jesus Christ is fully God *and* fully man; and, that the doctrine of the Trinity also teaches that “the humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia). Acts 2:36 must be understood in light of Jesus' resurrection and exaltation. “Jesus Christ, forty days after His resurrection, ascended of Himself into heaven in the sight of His Apostles; and that while as God He was equal to His Father in glory, *as man* He has been raised above all the Angels and Saints, and constituted Lord of all things.” (Catechism of St. Pius X)
So it does not imply that Jesus was not Lord before (cf. Luke 1:43) but that His Lordship is now publicly declared and affirmed by His resurrection (cf. Romans 1:4). Peter quotes Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:34: "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand,'" demonstrating that the Messiah (Jesus) is invited to share in YHWH's authority. Although He received the title "The Lord" as man as well, but by this His human nature did not become God (because there can be no change in God), so it means sharing in the divine glory (doxa). So YHWH God can speak about the man Jesus from an aspect from which He is really not YHWH God, but a man as the Messianic King. The sharing of divine authority affirms, rather than diminishes, Jesus’ divine identity. The NT authors use the title κύριος to emphasize Jesus' divine authority and equality with YHWH. Acts 2:36 reflects the public acknowledgment of this truth following Jesus’ resurrection, not a creation of His Lordship.
The consistent use of κύριος in the NT, both for YHWH and for Jesus, reflects the NT authors’ deliberate theological choice to present Jesus as sharing in the divine identity. This does not involve confusion but rather highlights the continuity between the God of Israel and Jesus Christ. The NT applies κύριος to Jesus in contexts that explicitly identify Him with YHWH, such as Philippians 2:9-11, which declares that "every knee will bow" to Jesus, quoting Isaiah 45:23, a passage about YHWH. Passages like Romans 10:13 also equate Jesus with YHWH by applying Joel 2:32 to Jesus. The NT authors were aware of the theological implications of using κύριος for Jesus. If they did not intend to identify Jesus with YHWH, they would have clarified the distinction to avoid confusion, especially given the Jewish background of their audience.
One short point for now. Psalm 110:1-2 actually says YHWH/Jehovah said to my Lord, that is, David's Lord. Any ancient Jew reading this verse would not have concluded that the second lord was also YHWH. Nor is that the common Jewish way of reading the psalm.
Indeed, but Trinitarians do not interpret the Son here as being addressed as God in the NT application, but as the Davidic Messiah King, that is, as a man. And as a man, He is indeed not God.
This is what I have often argued with Muslim apologists, that Christian theology does not teach that once we have God, and then besides that there is also Jesus, who is also God, and that we pray to Jesus "instead of" God, etc. Anyone who does not understand Chalcedonian Christology will find it unnecessary to delve into Trinitarian theology, because he will be shooting himself in the face with it, cf. straw man. That is why there is a saying that the Theotokos is the refuter of all (Christological) heresies, since whoever understands it correctly, understands what hypostatic unity is, what communicatio idiomatum is. Although of course, if someone doesn't understand communicatio idiomatum, the question is how they can explain biblical passages like Luke 1:43, Acts 3:15, Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 2:8.
In fact, guided by Thomistic metaphysical logic, Chalcedonian Trinitarianism is the only pure monotheistic view of all religions.
Look at my arguments written to Muslim apologists about the Trinity vs. "Shirk":
https://justpaste.it/i4aj3
Nincsnevem, you often say that people misunderstand the Trinity or Catholic doctrine. Well, I understand it pretty good but disagree with the Trinity.
Some Trinitarians might pretend that it all makes sense and is logical as can be, but I would beg to differ. People disagree with my theology all the time, but I see no need to accuse them all of misunderstanding my beliefs. Some do misunderstand but most just disagree.
So the correct Trinity understanding "as a man Jesus is indeed not God"?
"you often say that people misunderstand the Trinity"
That assertion always inspires an expansive yawn, and it's ironic, because the one asserting it unwittingly reveals his own ignorance. As anyone who has followed the work of Dale Tuggy knows, there is no "the" Trinity, which is why he calls his podcast "Trinities" (plural). What we actually have is historical language that is ambiguous and paradoxical, and a variety of very different ways of attempting to parse that language.
In addition to his other writings on the subject, I highly recommend Tuggy's contribution to the recently published volume, "One God, Three Persons, Four Views," published by Cascade books.
@Nincs
Regarding Luke 4:16-21, you stated “ Jesus' self-application of this passage, with its reference to the Lord, does not distinguish Him from YHWH but integrates Him into the divine identity.”
Where?
Regarding Acts 2:36 you stated that this passage “emphasizes His exaltation and recognition as Lord following His resurrection and ascension”, something we can both agree on, but in one sentence or less, please answer this: according to that same verse, who “made” (ἐποίησεν -aor 3rd Pers sg) him Lord and Christ? What does the verse in question say? Feel free to include verse 34 if context helps. Keep it succinct please.
You also acknowledged that “He received the title "The Lord" as man as well.”, which you take to mean “sharing in the divine glory (doxa).” But this does not equate him to YHWH, as it refers to just his human nature in the Incarnation, am I right? How can he receive this title in his manhood after emptying himself of divine prerogatives as per his kenosis (Phil 2:5-11)?
He was “Lord” as a foetus before his birth as per “communicatio idiomatum” cf Luke 1:43.
In your view, how many uses of “Lord” are there? Does “Lord” = YHWH him all cases?
Just so we can keep it on topic, in OT YHWH texts quoted in the NT do you think it completely inappropriate to even mark these as having contained the divine name in the original Hebrew, say via italics or a footnote? Or should the translation just keep to “(the) Lord”? As there is no ambiguity in any case according to your view, as Christ is Lord(YHWH) in the NT in any case?
Finally, in your response, before any statements you make please buttress your replies with “in my opinion”, “my personal view is…” “I believe…” etc. it makes for much nicer reading in this setting, thanks.
Also, I enjoyed your “Shirk” article. Clarity of terminology is key.
@Edgar Foster
I am not claiming that you are ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity. I am perfectly sure that if I were to ask the question, such as:
"What does the doctrine of the Trinity teach?"
"What is hypostatic unity and communicatio idiomatum?"
you would know the correct answer. What I sometimes see, however, is that you do not always automatically combine these with the Trinitarian exegesis of the Scriptures.
For example, the Trinitarian understanding never claimed that Jesus is the Messiah (Davidic king, high priest, prophet, mediator) as God. This would contradict not only the principle of the immutability of God, but also specific biblical statements such as 1 Timothy 2:5, Acts 17:31, Hebrews 5:1. It follows of course that all messianic statements such as the Psalm 110:1-2 you quoted also do not address Jesus as God, but as man, and so it is entirely correct that YHWH here addressed Him as non-YHWH.
In fact, according to the Chalcedonian tenet "inconfusedly" (ἀσυγχύτως), there is no ontological-substantial connection between the man Jesus and God, and conceptually there cannot be. Therefore, the Islamic accusation of "Shirk" is not true. Eutychianism would indeed be "Shirk" and, following the principle of God's immutability, is also a metaphysical impossibility.
These must be interpreted correctly, and it must also be determined if at any time a "communicatio idiomatum" statement is involved. For example: "God was crucified". This is a "communicatio idiomatum" statement, by definition not God as such, who was killed, Trinitarians know exactly that God is immutable and immortal, so this does not state anything about the Godhead. This is understood to mean that the one ("person", suppositum) who was crucified as a man is also God. This is how biblical statements such as Acts 3:15, Acts 20:28, or 1 Corinthians 2:8 should be understood.
This follows from the fact that even in everyday speech, when we describe events, we are narrating as that happen to the person, to the subject. For example, we do not say "the mother of my body", but only "my mother", although ontologically it is obvious that I only received my body from my mother. Nor do we say "X's body died", although it is evident that we ontologically state the fact of death only about his body.
@Sean Kasabuske
Of course there are many different views, but if you want to argue with the Trinity, it would be fairer not to argue with what the Average Joe believes or knows about it, but rather with the Trinity as defined by the ecumenical councils and as explained in a more serious dogmatic book, such as this one: https://archive.org/details/the-trinity-and-god-the-creator-garrigou-lagrange-reginald
It's no great feat to "disprove" the Average Joe, who knows only that "three-something and something is one, Jesus is God and also His own Son, and the Fathersonholyspirit-somehing."
@Terence
First of all, thank you for reading my article.
You asked: "Where does Jesus integrate Himself into the divine identity?" - The integration is implied by Jesus' self-identification as the fulfillment of Isa. 61:1-2. In the original Hebrew, the passage references "Adonai YHWH." Jesus proclaims that He is the fulfillment of this prophecy, thereby identifying Himself as the agent of YHWH's mission. The audience’s reaction further supports this interpretation: their amazement quickly turns to outrage when they realize the implication—that Jesus claims to be the Messiah, the one anointed by God, which carries divine connotations within a Jewish context. The text suggests more than a mere prophet or servant; Jesus explicitly aligns Himself with the divine mission and authority foretold in Isaiah. This integration is consistent with NT theology, where κύριος (Lord) is used to reflect Jesus’ identity as YHWH (cf. Romans 10:13, Phil. 2:9-11).
Acts 2:36 states: "God has made Him both Lord and Christ" You emphasized the verb ἐποίησεν ("made"). This has two aspects:
A) Just as Phil. 2:9 also declares ("God ... gave him the name that is above every other name"), that is, that as a man he received the “name” “Lord”, not in the sense that he ontologically became God (would be a metaphysical impossibility, compromising God's immutability), but that as a man he also shares in the divine glory (doxa), which he renounced in the "kenosis".
B) The other aspect is that "making" here reflects the public recognition and enthronement of Jesus as Lord and Messiah following His resurrection and ascension. Peter explicitly quotes Ps. 110:1 (Acts 2:34): "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand.'" This enthronement language underscores Jesus' exaltation rather than a change in His inherent nature. The verse reflects His glorification in His humanity, not a denial of His preexistent Lordship as God the Son (cf. John 17:5: “Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began”).
So Jesus received the title "Lord" in His humanity, “the name” in Phil. 2:9 eventually refers to the divine name itself—YHWH (cf. Isa.45:23). This "bestowal" does not mean that Jesus became God; rather, it publicly declares His divine identity and authority in the context of His incarnate mission. Phil. 2:6-7 shows that Jesus did not cease to be divine during the kenosis; He set aside His divine prerogatives temporarily, but His divine nature remained intact. His exaltation reaffirms His divine authority and glory, now revealed through His human nature.
You asked: “how many uses of “Lord” are there?” - The title "Lord" (κύριος) in the NT is used in various contexts:
1. YHWH (Divine Name): Referring to God, as seen in OT citations like Romans 10:13 (Joel 2:32) and Philippians 2:10-11 (Isa. 45:23).
2. Messianic Title: Applied to Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecies (e.g., Psalm 110:1, Acts 2:34-36).
2. Honorific Title: Used in polite address or recognition of authority (e.g., John 4:11, where the Samaritan woman calls Jesus "Sir").
In many cases, "Lord" refers to Jesus as YHWH, particularly in contexts quoting OT texts about YHWH. The NT authors deliberately equate Jesus with YHWH in these instances, while also distinguishing His roles in the economy of salvation (e.g., as Messiah and Mediator).
It is not inappropriate to mark OT quotations in the NT where YHWH was used in the original Hebrew. Many translations include footnotes to clarify this. For example, I would support the idea that where the NT contains an OT quote referring to YHWH, the Lord should be written in capital letters (LORD). The NT writers consistently used κύριος to render YHWH, reflecting the LXX tradition and emphasizing Jesus’ divine identity. Retaining "Lord" in translations maintains continuity with the theological intent of the NT authors, who present Jesus as YHWH in passages like Romans 10:13 and Phil. 2:9-11. Including footnotes for clarity is helpful, but substituting "YHWH" for "Lord" in the NT text would disrupt this continuity.
@Philip Fletcher
You asked: “So the correct Trinity understanding "as a man Jesus is indeed not God"?”
It depends on how you understand the question. If it means that He ceased to be God (Him being non-God at all) as a result of the Incarnation, then this statement is incorrect. If it means that the human nature He assumed as a result of the Incarnation is not God, and that deity cannot be asserted in any way ontologically-substantially about His human nature, then it is correct.
So the answer depends on understanding the distinction made in Chalcedonian Christology between the two natures of Jesus Christ—divine and human—united in one person (hypostasis). The divine Logos and the man Christ are united and connected by only one thing: the person, the subject (hypostasis, suppositum). So there is no ontological-substantial connection between the two natures, but rather a very unique Creator-creature relation.
Jesus Christ is one Person (the eternal Logos), with two distinct natures: divine and human. As God, Jesus is fully divine, possessing the divine essence and all attributes of God: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc. As man, Jesus is fully human, with a created human nature, including a body and a rational soul.
The human nature of Jesus is not divine. It is created, finite, and distinct from His divine nature. This is in line with orthodox Christology, which emphasizes that Jesus’ humanity never becomes divine, and His divinity does not diminish or change to accommodate His humanity. The divine and human natures of Christ are united in one Person (the Logos), without confusion, change, division, or separation (inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter). This means that while Jesus’ human nature is not God, the Person of Jesus, who acts and speaks through both natures, is God. The Chalcedonian definition essentially excludes the interpretations that:
1) The human and divine natures are indistinguishable and a kind of peculiar "mix" has been created (Eutychianism). This violates the principle of the simplicity and immutability of God.
2) That the man Christ and the divine Logos can be separated into two separate subjects (Nestorianism). This would essentially claim that there are two different Christs, there is a divine Logos, and in addition there is the man Jesus (two pieces of "I"), and the relationship between these two is only some loose, moral connection, like a relationship of inner friendship, mutual affection.
Therefore, the orthodox view is that in Christ the human and divine natures are (ontologically) distinguishable AND inseparable.
When we say, "as a man, Jesus is not God," it means His humanity, considered on its own, is not divine. However the Person (hypostasis, suppositum) of Jesus (the Logos) remains fully God, even while taking on human nature. Jesus’ human actions (e.g., hunger, fatigue, suffering, death) pertain to His human nature, but they are still actions of the divine Person. For example, God died on the cross in His human nature, but not in His divine nature, which is impassible and eternal.
So yes, "as a man, Jesus is not God" in the sense that His humanity is created, finite, and distinct from His divine nature. However, "as a Person, Jesus is God," since the human nature is united to the divine Person of the Logos. This unity ensures that Christ’s divine identity is not compromised, even as He fully participates in human experience. This nuanced understanding preserves both the full humanity and full divinity of Christ within the framework of the Trinity.
Cool study:
https://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_4_Special_Issue_February_2013/9.pdf
When scholars discovered Greek OT MSS in the 20th century that contained the Tetragrammaton, this was not a shocking revelation. Early Christian writers like Origen and Jerome had already described the existence of such LXX MSS. This indirect evidence provided historical context for the eventual discovery of these MSS. If the NT originally included the Tetragrammaton, we should expect similar indirect evidence. Yet no early Christian source, including those who had access to the earliest NT MSS, ever mentions the presence of the Tetragrammaton in the NT. The silence of these sources is deafening. The Library of Caesarea Maritima, founded by Pamphilus and expanded by Origen, was the largest Christian library of antiquity. Many, such as Gregory Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Jerome studied there. If any MSS of the NT containing the Tetragrammaton existed, they would have been preserved in this library. Yet none of these ever mentions a Tetragrammaton in the NT, even though Jerome documented textual variants in the NT.
The early Christian period was marked by theological disputes, with different factions accusing one another of heresy and Scripture manipulation. If the proto-orthodox Christians had removed the Tetragrammaton from the NT, we would expect their theological opponents to use this as ammunition against them. Yet there is no record of any group accusing the proto-orthodox of such a tampering. Polycarp and other proto-orthodox figures faced accusations from theological opponents like the Gnostics or Marcionites, but no group ever accused them of removing the Tetragrammaton. This was not a point of contention, even during highly charged debates over Christology, Scripture, and ecclesial authority. If the Tetragrammaton was originally part of the NT, its removal would surely have been a significant theological issue.
The JW claim implies that someone had the authority and ability to systematically remove the Tetragrammaton from all NT MSS. However, this is historically implausible. When Caliph Uthman standardized the Qur'an, dissenting textual traditions still survived, and variant readings are documented. By contrast, no evidence exists of dissenting textual traditions in Christianity where the Tetragrammaton was retained in the NT. The process of replacing the Tetragrammaton would have required unprecedented coordination across the diverse and dispersed Christian communities of the Roman Empire, something no single authority in early Christianity could achieve. Christianity was highly decentralized, with regional leaders such as bishops overseeing local churches. There was no mechanism for universally enforcing such a change. The proto-orthodox Christians lacked the power to standardize all MSS, especially when many were in circulation and held by diverse groups, including theological opponents. The lack of both evidence and a plausible historical mechanism for such a widespread alteration further undermines the JW claim.
If early Christians regularly invoked the Tetragrammaton in their worship, we would expect external sources to comment on this. Yet external writers, such as Roman officials or pagan observers, consistently describe Christian worship as centered on Jesus. Pliny the Younger in his letter to Emperor Trajan describes Christian worship as follows: "They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god..." Pliny does not mention Christians invoking the Tetragrammaton, even though such a practice would have caused great scandal to Jews. The Alexamenos graffito (c. 2nd century) depicts a Christian figure, with the inscription: "Alexamenos worships [his] God" This graffiti mocks Christian worship but makes no mention that Christians worship some kind of “Yaho.” The absence of any reference to the Tetragrammaton suggests that it was not part of early Christian practice. The consistent testimony of external sources aligns with the internal evidence: early Christians invoked Christ and did not use the Tetragrammaton in their worship.
Again, I'm only going to allow rebuttals to Nincsnevem in this thread now. It will be open until Sunday night. Thank you.
@Nincs,
"Of course there are many different views, but if you want to argue with the Trinity, it would be fairer not to argue with what the Average Joe believes or knows about it, but rather with the Trinity as defined by the ecumenical councils"
I wasn't referring to the "average Joe"; I was referring to trinitarian philosophers, many of whom hold VERY different views about how the ambiguous and paradoxical language in the creeds should be interpreted.
You should have realized this by virtue of my mention of Dale Tuggy.
The academically informed should see:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html
I would recommend that lay folks start with this:
https://tinyurl.com/583dd82m
One of the reasons that many people misunderstand the doctrine is because Trinitarians themselves typically use standard methods of argumentation to support it. This tends to obscure the fact that the doctrine is ultimately both presuppositional in character, in a sort of Bahsen-ian sense, and non-falsifiable in the Popperian sense.
Even if Jesus had explicitly said, "I am not God," one can easily imagine the modern committed Trinitarian replying, "Well of course Jesus isn't the Father; that's perfectly compatible with Trinity." If that's not non-falsifiable, then nothing is.
While it is true that some Gnostic groups used ΙΑΩ, this evidence does not support the idea that mainstream Early Christian communities adopted it. As noted by Origen and Irenaeus, Gnostic groups often borrowed names and terms from both biblical and non-biblical sources. The use of ΙΑΩ by Gnostics reflects their syncretistic theology rather than the practice of orthodox Christians. There is no textual evidence from first-century Christian MSS that ΙΑΩ was used in place of κύριος. The examples cited by Hylton, such as references to ΙΑΩ in Gnostic baptismal formulas, reflect heterodox practices, not the mainstream Christian tradition. The use of κύριος in NT MSS and early Christian liturgy is consistent and widespread. The nomina sacra for κύριος (ΚΣ) and θεός (ΘΣ) in early Christian MSS highlight the reverence with which these terms were treated. The absence of ΙΑΩ in these MSS underscores its marginality. If ΙΑΩ had been widely used in early Christian communities, we would expect to see transitional MSS or debates about its replacement with κύριος. However, no such evidence exists.
Jewish tradition consistently substituted "Adonai" for YHWH in oral recitation. The use of κύριος in the LXX reflects this practice. As such, the adoption of κύριος in Christian texts aligns with Jewish norms. The appearance of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew or transliterations like ΙΑΩ in certain Greek MSS reflects a reversion to Hebrew forms, likely motivated by sectarian or liturgical concerns. These efforts are distinct from the original translation philosophy of the LXX.
The evidence for the use of ΙΑΩ comes primarily from Gnostic texts and practices, which diverged significantly from orthodox Christian theology and liturgy. For example, the baptismal formula cited by Hylton reflects a Gnostic reinterpretation of Christian rites. Hylton’s claim that Acts 2:21 originally used ΙΑΩ instead of κύριος lacks MS support. All extant NT MSS consistently use κύριος in citations of Joel 2:32, demonstrating the early Christian alignment with the LXX tradition.
Nincsnevem, I approved your last post. Any other posts to this thread are for rebuttals of your position only or responses about the subject matter.
@ Nincs
Thanks for your courteous reply.
I agree with you that Jesus explicitly declares the fulfilment of Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4. I also agree that he is the Agent of YHWH. But I still fail to see how that means “sharing the identity of YHWH”, unless you concede that all of his agents throughout centuries past could properly be referred to as “God” or “YHWH” cf Hebrews 1:1. Do you believe that fulfilling agency passages makes one ontologically YHWH?
Just to clarify, the LORD YHWH made Jesus Lord and Christ according to Acts 2:36 and it surrounding context, do you agree?
Thanks for your enumeration of the various meanings to Lord in the NT. I agree with all the instances, but also Sarah called Abraham Lord in her heart.
With so much ambiguity surrounding the term kyrios, is the insertion of Jehovah, Yahweh or Lord such a bad thing in OT quotations of the NY? How does it create more ambiguity, not less? In your view?
@ Nincsnevem
Finally from me, I am still struggling to see what the preincarnated Christ emptied himself of in his kenosis of Phil 2. By your estimations he retains the title Kyrios in all its connotations, including Master, “Sir” and even YHWH Kyrios. He “participates in the identity of YHWH” while on Earth (still not entirely sure what that means)but then goes on to receive an even higher name upon his exaltation, where he is given the name “LORD(YHWH)” again, when in fact he never gave it up in the first place, according to your view. Or have I misunderstood something? What Divine prerogatives did he supposedly give up if he retained so many?
First of all, you overestimate the differences between Trinitarian interpretations, and you're really implying, "oh, these guys are talking all kind of things, it's all pure chaos, so it's all nonsense."
The Trinity, as articulated by the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Councils, is not a paradox or contradiction but a profound mystery. Tuggy's critique hinges on claiming there are "many Trinities," which confuses the historical and dogmatic articulation of the Trinity with philosophical interpretations and speculative variations.
In Thomistic theology, the Trinity is understood with precise metaphysical distinctions: The divine essence (ousia) is numerically one, while the persons (hypostases) are distinct by their relations of origin (paternity, filiation, spiration). The doctrine does not assert that God is "three in the same sense He is one." God's oneness refers to His essence, while the threeness refers to the real relations within the Godhead. The councils affirm one divine nature subsisting in three distinct persons. Tuggy's focus on interpretive variance among philosophers does not refute the core dogma but highlights differences in philosophical articulation.
You claim the Trinity is presuppositional and non-falsifiable, suggesting it cannot be tested against Scripture. The doctrine is DEDUCED from biblical revelation, such as:
1) The Father is God (John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6).
2) The Son is God (John 1:1, John 20:28, Colossians 2:9).
3) The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3–4, 2 Corinthians 3:17–18).
4) The three are distinct persons (Matthew 28:19, John 14:16–17).
The relational and metaphysical distinctions emerge as a theological synthesis to reconcile these affirmations. Non-falsifiability is not unique to the Trinity. Any metaphysical doctrine (including the unitarian concept of God) operates within a framework of axiomatic acceptance of divine revelation. As Thomas Aquinas argues, revealed truths (e.g., the Trinity) are not subject to empirical verification but are consistent within their theological and philosophical system.
As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article confirms, early Christianity worshipped Christ alongside the Father, and the Nicene articulation clarified existing beliefs rather than inventing new ones. The development was not syncretistic but sought to define orthodox faith against heretical distortions like Arianism. Thomistic theology incorporates Aristotelian categories to explicate the Trinity, not to impose alien frameworks. This approach harmonizes faith and reason, avoiding the ambiguities Tuggy critiques.
Tuggy’s critique misrepresents the nature of theological discourse. Non-falsifiability applies equally to unitarians' interpretations of Scripture. For example, the unitarian rejection of Christ's divinity persists despite explicit biblical evidence (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9). The doctrine is not an empirical hypothesis but a revealed truth interpreted through Scripture and Tradition. It is evaluated within its epistemic domain, just as other metaphysical truths are.
By the way, Jesus Christ is indeed "not God" in three senses according to the doctrine of the Trinity, because He is:
1) not identical with the Father,
2) not identical with the entire Godhead,
3) as a man, He is not God.
@Ninc,
"First of all, you overestimate the differences between Trinitarian interpretations"
Baloney. There are interpretations of Trinity that are so different that if one is true then the other must necessarily be false. That's just a fact, whether you're comfortable admitting it or not.
Also, Tuggy didn't call Trinity non-falsifiable, I did. You shouldn't attribute things to Tuggy that he didn't argue.
@Terence
In discussions of Trinitarianism, the statements of "this refers to His human nature" is often misunderstood. I will give you a trivial analogy: imagine that you have a bunch of apples, some red and some green. You have two baskets, one for the green apples and the other for the red ones. Your job is to put each apple in the correct basket.
Similarly, one "basket" for the statements about Christ's humanity (Messiah, prophet, born, died, created, John 14:28, subordinate to God, etc.), and the other contains statements about Christ's deity (John 1:1, John 10:30, Philippians 2:6 etc.). Then all you have to do is take the "apples" and place them in the appropriate "basket".
After that, John 14:28 will no longer "jump out" of its "basket" and "bite" John 1:1, or John 10:30, or Philippians 2:6.
You state: “I still fail to see how that means ‘sharing the identity of YHWH,’ unless you concede that all of His agents throughout centuries past could properly be referred to as ‘God’ or ‘YHWH.’”
The distinction lies in the TYPE of agency Jesus fulfills compared to others. Hebrews 1:1-3 clarifies this distinction: Other agents (prophets, kings, etc.) were MESSENGERS who spoke on behalf of YHWH but were never identified with His essence. They were creatures, not divine in nature. Jesus, in contrast, is described in Hebrews 1:3 as "the radiance of God's glory and the exact imprint of His nature" (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ). This language explicitly identifies Jesus as sharing in the same divine essence (ὑπόστασις) as YHWH. This is not merely functional agency but an ontological reality. Thus, while agency might superficially seem to apply equally to all who represent God, Jesus’ agency is unique because it flows from His divine identity.
You asked: “The LORD YHWH made Jesus Lord and Christ according to Acts 2:36 and its surrounding context, do you agree?”
Yes, I agree that Acts 2:36 states, "God has made Him both Lord and Christ," but the interpretation of "made" (ἐποίησεν) must be nuanced. The context of Acts 2:34-36 shows Peter quoting Psalm 110:1: "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand.'" The exaltation language here is ENTHRONEMENT language, referring to Jesus’ public acknowledgment as Lord and Christ in His humanity after the resurrection.
This "making" does not imply a change in Jesus’ divine nature. As Philippians 2:6-11 demonstrates, Jesus already existed “in the form of God” (Phil. 2:6) but took on human nature, humbling Himself. The exaltation reflects His vindication and glorification in His humanity, not a transformation from non-divine to divine. The "making" is akin to an earthly king’s coronation. For example, a prince becomes publicly acknowledged as king upon coronation, but his royal identity as heir existed beforehand. So while the text emphasizes Jesus’ exaltation as Messiah (human role), it does not deny His preexistent divine Lordship.
(1/2)
(2/2)
You state: “With so much ambiguity surrounding the term kyrios, is the insertion of Jehovah, Yahweh, or Lord such a bad thing in OT quotations of the NT? How does it create more ambiguity, not less?”
I would argue that such insertions create more ambiguity for several reasons. The NT authors *deliberately* used κύριος to translate YHWH following the Jewish tradition and the example of the LXX. This was not arbitrary but reflected their belief that Jesus shares in YHWH’s identity. Substituting "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" risks breaking the theological continuity between the LXX and the NT. The NT uses κύριος to refer both to the Father and to Jesus, often applying YHWH texts to Jesus (e.g., Romans 10:13 citing Joel 2:32). Reintroducing YHWH or Jehovah could obscure the NT’s deliberate presentation of Jesus as Lord in the same sense as YHWH.
The NT was written for Greek-speaking audiences familiar with κύριος as the divine title from the LXX. Introducing a Hebrew name like YHWH into the Greek text would have been confusing and unnecessary for the audience. The use of κύριος allows the NT authors to emphasize Jesus’ identity without directly equating Him with the Father in every instance. For example, in Psalm 110:1 ("The LORD said to my Lord"), κύριος preserves the distinction between the Father (YHWH) and the Son (Messiah) while still affirming their shared authority.
Therefore, retaining "Lord" as the translation of κύριος maintains the theological and literary intent of the NT authors. Here we must understand, whose theological heirs are we, the living Christians, theologically?
Christ took the Pharisaic theology as a basis, and adjusted it - mainly in moral, less often in doctrinal matters (cf. Matthew 23:2-3). Among the apostles, it is the Pauline-Johannine Gentile Christianity where we must take the thread, in fact, the revelation ended there. That is why we must reject all Judaizing efforts aimed at restoring the theological climate that preceded the theological environment of Pauline-Johannine "Greek" Christianity.
What was the cultic use of the name Yahweh connected to, especially its everyday invocation? By the time of Christ, it was already a "fait accompli" in the case of the Aramaic-speaking Jews of Palestine. I see that this whole Tetragrammaton issue simply doesn't even come up in the apostolic letters, it's not a topic. So if the "apostate copyists" removed the Tetragrammaton, they should have taken out entire chapters, where, for example, it's about the invocation of the Tetragrammaton, that this Jewish tradition must be rejected, and that the pronunciation of the name Yahweh must be taught to gentile converts, etc.
You ask: “Do you believe that fulfilling agency passages makes one ontologically YHWH?”
No, agency passages alone do not make one ontologically YHWH. However, the NT goes beyond mere agency when it describes Jesus. Jesus is not merely ACTING for YHWH; He is identified as YHWH in passages like John 1:1 ("The Word was God") and John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I am"). Jesus performs actions that only YHWH can do: forgiving sins (Mark 2:5-7), commanding creation (Mark 4:39), and receiving worship (Matthew 28:9, Revelation 5:13-14). The NT authors do not present Jesus as a mere agent but as the full embodiment of God’s presence and authority, consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Nincsnevem, I disagree that the Trinity doctrine cannot be considered a paradox. Now I understand if you deny that it's an explicit contradiction, but numerous Trinitarians have pointed to the paradoxical nature of the doctrine. First, it's paradoxical to claim that a timeless God entered history at some point or assumed human nature. Second, to say there are three divine persons but one divine being is paradoxical too. After all, Peter, James, and John are three persons, yet they're also three beings. Furthermore, the eternal generation is paradoxical but we've discussed it before and I'm not going down that road again here. No posts will be approved that discuss the eternal generation.
Aquinas writes that human logic cannot fathom the Trinity, which implies that it's paradoxical. See also https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2011-12/20229/handouts/14%20Heaven,%20hell,%20and%20the%20Trinity.pdf
Especially see page 6ff, which explicitly calls the Trinity a "paradox".
@Terence
“Kenosis” does not mean Christ ceased to be God or relinquished his divine nature. Instead, it refers to a voluntary self-limitation. The "emptying" is not about SUBTRACTION but ADDITION—Christ "emptied himself" by *adding* to his divine nature the limitations of human nature. This is a key distinction. He retained his divine nature but veiled the exercise of some divine prerogatives during the Incarnation.
You mentioned that Christ retains the title "Kyrios" in all its connotations, including YHWH, yet receives "an even higher name" upon his exaltation. Even in the Incarnation, Christ remained fully divine. He participated in the "identity of YHWH" because he is YHWH. His essential divine nature and identity as the eternal Son of God did not change or diminish. The "higher name" in Phil. 2:9 ("God ... gave him THE NAME that is above every name") does not imply that Jesus GAINED divinity or the title "YHWH" upon exaltation. Rather, it signifies that his authority and identity as YHWH are fully revealed and vindicated in light of his redemptive work. The exaltation is the public declaration of who Christ is, made manifest through his obedience, death, and resurrection. In other words, the name "LORD" (Kyrios), while always true of Christ, is now explicitly acknowledged by creation as he assumes his place as the glorified God-man and mediator.
While Christ did not relinquish his divine nature or attributes, he willingly refrained from fully exercising them during his earthly ministry. Christ performed miracles, forgave sins, and exercised divine authority, but always in perfect unity with the Father and through the Spirit. He voluntarily submitted his divine will to the Father’s will (John 5:19, 30; Matthew 26:39). For example, he says, “The Son can do nothing by himself” (John 5:19), emphasizing his role in obedience and humility rather than autonomous display of divine power.
Before the Incarnation, Christ existed in the full glory (doxa) of the divine nature. During his earthly life, this glory (doxa) was veiled, as evidenced by the fact that he could be mistaken for an ordinary man (Isaiah 53:2-3; Philippians 2:7-8). The Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9) provides a glimpse of the glory Christ voluntarily concealed. Christ humbled himself by taking on the form of a servant. He, who deserved worship and honor as God, subjected himself to mockery, suffering, and death. This humility is the essence of his kenosis (Phil. 2:8).
The exaltation of Christ (Phil. 2:9-11) does not imply he was less than God during the Incarnation or that he somehow "became" God afterward. Instead the exaltation marks the point at which Christ, having completed his redemptive work, is vindicated before creation. His identity as YHWH is universally acknowledged (Isaiah 45:23 is alluded to here: “To me every knee will bow…”). Christ prayed in John 17:5, “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I HAD with you before the world began.” His exaltation restores him to the visible and unrestrained glory of his divine nature, shared with the Father and the Spirit.
You ask: “What Divine prerogatives did he supposedly give up if he retained so many?”
1. Retained: Christ retained his full divinity, his eternal identity as YHWH, and the essential attributes of God. He remained omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, though the exercise of these attributes was voluntarily limited in his humanity.
2. Relinquished (Veiled): He veiled his divine glory (doxa), submitted to the Father’s will, and refrained from independently exercising his divine prerogatives. He accepted the limitations of human nature (hunger, fatigue, mortality) to fully identify with humanity and accomplish redemption.
The kenosis of Philippians 2 demonstrates Christ’s incredible humility and love, not a loss of divinity. It underscores the self-giving nature of the triune God. The Incarnation is not about Christ ceasing to be God, but about God’s willingness to enter into his creation for the sake of redeeming it.
Problems associated with the Trinity: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/fr-robert-spitzer-s-j-explains-the-trinity-and-the-incarnation-or-does-he/
How many consciousnesses in the Trinity? One or three?
Karl Rahner wrote: “The Trinity is a mystery whose paradoxical character is preluded in the paradoxical character of man’s existence.”
@Sean Kasabuske
It’s important to distinguish between different emphases or frameworks for understanding the Trinity and mutually exclusive claims. While various theological traditions—Eastern Orthodox, Western Latin, or modern Protestant—may describe the Trinity with differing analogies, terminologies, or emphases, these variations are not necessarily contradictory. They represent attempts to articulate the same core truths within distinct philosophical or cultural contexts.
All orthodox Trinitarian frameworks affirm the Nicene Creed's central tenets: there is one God in three “persons” (hypostases, subsistentiae, supposita), who share one divine essence (ousia, substantia, essential, natura): μία οὺσία ἐν τρίσιν ὑποσπάσεσιν. The distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are real but do not divide the divine essence. Different traditions explore how these truths are expressed. For example, the Eastern Orthodox focus on the Father as the "source" (monarchia) of the Trinity, while the Western tradition emphasizes the consubstantiality of the persons. These perspectives are complementary, not contradictory. Genuine contradictions—where one position necessarily invalidates another—are theologically fringe. The debate is often a matter of linguistic and conceptual clarity, not doctrinal chaos.
Tuggy’s critiques imply that Trinitarianism lacks coherent logical grounding, which can lead some of his readers to infer that he finds it non-falsifiable because it resists direct empirical or philosophical refutation. Now let’s address the claim of non-falsifiability.
The doctrine is testable against Scripture and reason. Trinitarian theology arises from revealed truths in Scripture (e.g., Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, John 10:30, John 14:16-17). It is subjected to the same rigorous exegesis and logical consistency as other doctrines. If clear biblical evidence existed against the co-equality of the persons, the doctrine could indeed be falsified. Critics often conflate "mystery" with "irrationality." The Trinity is mysterious because it transcends human comprehension, not because it is illogical. It operates within the boundaries of logic but surpasses finite human analogies. Philosophers like Richard Swinburne and theologians like Thomas Aquinas have offered robust defenses of Trinitarian coherence. These show that the Trinity is logically defensible and not a mere unfalsifiable claim.
Here is something I've wreote in my book, Christology and the Trinity:
Some contemporary theologians insist that there are many disparate interpretations of the Trinity: the Trinity doctrine is not hermeneutically monolithic. For instance, systematic theologian Owen Thomas observes:
Our survey of the history of the [Trinity] doctrine in the text has indicated that there are several doctrines of the trinity: Eastern, Western, social analogy, modal, so forth. There is one doctrine in the sense of the threefold name of God of the rule of faith as found, for example, in the Apostle's Creed. This, however, is not yet a doctrine. It is ambiguous and can be interpreted in a number of ways. There is one doctrine in the sense of the Western formula of “three persons in one substance.” However, this formula is also ambiguous if not misleading and can be interpreted in a number of ways. A doctrine of the trinity would presumably be one interpretation of this formula . . . let us assume that the phrase “doctrine of the trinity” in the question refers to any of a number of widely accepted interpretations of the threefold name of God in the role of faith.
Thomas relates that there are numerous “widely accepted interpretations” of the Trinity doctrine. These construals viewed from a collective standpoint evidently constitute the doctrine of the Trinity. Despite some protests to the contrary, the Trinity doctrine is evidently not distinct from the many divergent, but acceptable (“non-heretical”) interpretations of it. Neither the Eastern Church nor the Western ecclesia has formulated a well-defined, unambiguous or universally accepted creedal statement regarding the triune being of God. It is therefore appropriate to consider any Trinitarian formula not proclaimed heretical, a delineation of the Trinity doctrine proper. Robert Jenson similarly remarks that this doctrine is “less a homogenous body of propositions than it is a task.” The ontological dogma of the Trinity (he contends) is actually “the church’s continuing effort to recognize and adhere to the biblical God’s hypostatic [personal] being.”
Despite varying in outward form, there is a common thread that runs through every version (interpretation) of the Trinity doctrine. This common denominator is the notion that God is one substance (or subject) but three personae: “We must regard the nature of the Son as identical with that of the Father, since the Holy Spirit Who is both the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God is proved to be a Being of one nature” (Hilary of Poitiers).
@Edgar Foster
Are there three personalities in God, an "I" of the Father and an "I" of the Son and an "I" of the Holy Spirit?
* https://t.ly/txkgj
Are there two personalities in Christ, a human "I" and a divine "I"?
* https://t.ly/HpHiA
Human logic cannot fully grasp the mystery of the Trinity, but this does not make the doctrine a contradiction. A paradox in theological terms often means an apparent contradiction that arises due to the limitations of human understanding, not an actual logical impossibility. The Athanasian Creed explicitly avoids logical contradiction by stating: "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance." This creed safeguards against both Modalism and Tritheism. Aquinas (I, Q31, A2) explains that the divine essence is not multiplied because the distinction between the Persons lies in relations, not essence. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine essence, and their distinctions come from relational oppositions (e.g., paternity and filiation).
You compare divine Persons to human persons (e.g., Peter, James, and John as separate beings). However, this analogy misapplies human limitations to God. The use of "person" (hypostasis in Greek, persona in Latin) in Trinitarian doctrine does not align with the modern anthropological sense of "person." It refers to distinct subsistences within one divine essence, not separate beings. The Trinity is better understood through relational subsistences: the Father generates, the Son is generated, and the Spirit proceeds. These relational distinctions do not multiply the divine essence, which remains undivided. I quote:
“The persons of the Trinity are relative (relational) persons. This means that each of the three persons must only be conceived in relation to the other two; the Father is a person only because He begets the Son and breathes forth the Spirit; the Son is a person only because He is begotten by the Father and breathes forth the Spirit; the Holy Spirit is a person only because He is breathed forth by the Father and the Son. If one were to attempt to stop at the Father or the Son in thought, it would give the impression that a single person of the Trinity could be thought of in isolation; this would only be possible by failing to situate Trinitarian personhood in the relational subsistence that defines it, which would lead to either Sabellianism or Tritheism.
From this it follows that, in defining a divine person, one must include, alongside incommunicable full independence, as an essential characteristic, otherness: the persons of the Trinity exist for one another. Even the independence of a created person does not imply isolation or reduction. Each human being is created by God to live in, from, and for community, thereby fundamentally enriching the content of their being; primarily, however, to live for God, thereby securing the only life content worthy of the person—the eternal truth. Yet this openness to others is rooted in finitude, and its realization in personal communion can at most extend to shared feelings, thoughts, and interests; within the natural order, it is not possible for even the closest of persons to fully transmit their own substance to another.
In the Trinity, the relationality of the persons signifies precisely this: the Father wholly imparts His substance to the eternal Word, and the Father and the Son wholly impart their entire being to the Holy Spirit. The life-communion within the Trinity is so profound that it surpasses all measure and gives a glimpse of why the Church so often utters this prayer: "O beata Trinitas!" and what is meant by the Christian hope, prefigured in sanctifying grace, of eternal participation in the life-communion of the Trinity.” (End quote.)
(1/3)
(2/3)
The eternal generation and procession are analogical expressions. Augustine uses the analogy of the mind: the Father is like the mind knowing itself, the Son is the Word (knowledge of itself), and the Spirit is love proceeding from the mind's knowledge of itself. These concepts reflect actions immanent within the divine nature. As Aquinas states (I, Q27, A2), such processions do not imply change or temporal succession but timeless relational realities.
You suggests confusion over whether the Trinity has one mind or three consciousnesses. Fr. Spitzer's exposition highlights that God's consciousness operates uniquely beyond human analogy. The "one divine mind" possesses self-awareness as Father, Son, and Spirit. Catholic theology typically avoids language that implies three separate centers of consciousness. Instead, the divine Persons are understood to fully possess the single divine intellect and will, with relational distinctions marking their "personalities."
Aquinas and other theologians consistently affirm that mysteries like the Trinity are not irrational. They are truths exceeding human reason, not opposing it. For example the "mystery" of the Trinity reflects God's infinite nature, which finite minds cannot fully comprehend (cf. Isaiah 55:8-9: "My thoughts are not your thoughts"). Analogies like the Lover, Beloved, and Love (used by Augustine and Spitzer) are intended to point toward divine realities while acknowledging their inadequacy to fully explain them.
The historical development of Trinitarian theology reflects the Church's effort to articulate the mystery of the Trinity within different philosophical, cultural, and linguistic frameworks. This diversity in expression does not imply doctrinal disunity but rather demonstrates the Church’s commitment to preserving the same truth while addressing specific contexts.
The Eastern Church emphasizes the monarchy of the Father (the source of the Trinity), while the Western Church focuses on the unity of the divine essence. These emphases are complementary, not contradictory. Augustine's psychological analogy (mind, memory, and will) and Cappadocian Fathers' social analogy (three persons in relational unity) are attempts to explain the same mystery from different perspectives. Both approaches affirm the same fundamental truths: God is one in essence and three in persons. They do not create separate "doctrines" of the Trinity but rather enrich our understanding. The councils of Nicaea (325 AD), Constantinople (381 AD), and subsequent ecumenical councils defined the Trinity precisely to eliminate ambiguity and protect orthodoxy. While theology remains an ongoing effort to deepen understanding, the core dogma of the Trinity is fixed and universally accepted by orthodox Christians.
Hilary of Poitiers’ statement cited in the argument reinforces the consistent core of Trinitarian doctrine: "We must regard the nature of the Son as identical with that of the Father, since the Holy Spirit... is proved to be a Being of one nature." This reiterates the central truth: The Son and Spirit share the same divine nature (ousia) as the Father. The distinction of Persons lies in their relations: the Father generates, the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds. This teaching is the cornerstone of all Trinitarian formulations, demonstrating coherence across varying theological articulations.
(2/3)
(3/3)
The claim that “any Trinitarian formula not proclaimed heretical” is just partly true. Only formulations aligned with the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are part of the unified doctrine. Heretical views—whether Arian, Sabellian, or Tritheistic—are excluded precisely because they deviate from this unified framework.
By the way, the Council of Florence did declare the denial of the "Filioque" as heresy:
“In the name of the Holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the approbation of this holy general Council of Florence we define that this truth of faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration; we declare that what the holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this meaning, that by this it is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also. And since all that the Father has, the Father himself, in begetting, has given to His only begotten Son, with the exception of Fatherhood, the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son himself has from the Father eternally, by whom He was begotten also eternally. We define in addition that the explanation of words "Filioque" for the sake of declaring the truth and also because imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed.”
Read also 703-710 here:
https://patristica.net/denzinger/#n700
there is a definitive decleration of the Trinity.
Nincsnevem, if you'll notice, I did not say the Trinity is contradictory. I was responding to the claim that the Trinity is not said to be paradoxical, yet at least some Trinitarians have made the very claim themselves. The statement about Trinitarian formulae accepted which are non-heretical is based on Owen Thomas' discussion. That is how he seems to frame the issue.
last thing I will emphasize is that my post was more about paradoxes as opposed to contradictions, but three persons normally indicates three distinct centers of consciousness or three intellects and wills, not one. I.e., Peter, James, and John.
Here's a bonus reflection. According to Aristotle, a father is the efficient cause of his child. However, for Trinitarian theology, the Father is not the efficient cause of the Son. That seems paradoxical to me or it certainly takes some explaining and the invocation of certain metaphysical theses.
@Edgar Foster
A paradox can simply mean that something seems counterintuitive or difficult to grasp, not that it is inherently illogical or self-contradictory. Many Trinitarians, including Church Fathers and theologians, have acknowledged the mystery and profundity of the Trinity but consistently denied that it entails any true paradox in the sense of irreconcilable principles. As Augustine famously stated: “We are speaking of God; what wonder is it if you do not comprehend?” The paradox arises not because the doctrine is inherently contradictory, but because it transcends finite human experience and understanding.
The analogy of Peter, James, and John having three distinct centers of consciousness does not apply to the Trinity because divine personhood differs from human personhood. Human persons, as contingent beings, possess distinct centers of consciousness, wills, and intellects. However, divine "persons" are not separate beings but distinct relations within the one divine essence. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine intellect and will because they possess the same essence. This is why classical Trinitarian theology avoids any semblance of tritheism. The distinctions among the persons are relational, not substantial. For example, the Father generates the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The distinction among the persons lies in their relations of origin: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds. These distinctions do not introduce division within the divine essence but reflect the internal relationality of God as one unified being. Thus, while human personhood implies separate centers of consciousness, divine personhood reflects relational distinctions within a singular, undivided divine nature.
Owen Thomas’ observation about “several doctrines of the Trinity” does not negate the unity of Trinitarian theology. Rather, it acknowledges the historical development of language and articulation used to explain the Trinity within different contexts. The Church’s creeds—particularly those of Nicaea and Constantinople—set the boundaries of orthodoxy. Within these boundaries, there is room for legitimate theological exploration, but this diversity does not imply fragmentation or contradiction.
The Aristotelian concept of efficient causality does not fully apply to the Trinity because divine generation is not analogous to human or material causation. Aristotle’s framework is grounded in contingent, created realities, while the Trinity pertains to the eternal, unchanging divine essence. The Father generates the Son eternally, outside of time, without any change or succession. This is not “efficient causality” in the Aristotelian sense but a unique divine act that reflects the Father’s nature as unoriginated. Aquinas explains this using the analogy of intellectual generation: just as a human intellect generates a thought without division or material causation, the Father generates the Son without dividing the divine essence. The Father is the "principle" (not efficient cause) of the Son. This principle is intrinsic and immanent, unlike external causality in created things. Aquinas states that this relational distinction does not imply inferiority or dependency, as the Son possesses the same divine essence as the Father. Thus, while Aristotelian causality provides useful analogies for understanding aspects of the Trinity, it cannot fully encapsulate the unique nature of divine relations.
Nincsnevem, I feel like words or ideas are being attributed to me, which I never said or don't believe. Have some Trinitarians said the Trinity is a paradox? I've shown that they have, which you seemed to deny. I made it clear that I was talking about a paradox, not a contradiction.
From what you've said above and elsewhere, I don't see how you can state with 100% certainty that the tres personae, ex hypothesi, have one intellect/will rather than three. Even systematic theologians admit that's an open question. For how does the Father love the Son or the Son submit to the Father if there is only one intellect/will? One essence does not necessarily entail one will.
We've been through eternal generation before. Let's agree to disagree.
"The paradox arises not because the doctrine is inherently contradictory, but because it transcends finite human experience and understanding." - I could say that about literally anything if I wanted too - this is a way to get around explaining clearly and pointing to actaul scriptural foundation
Interesting subject on the original post - that I will add to my email Edgar
Did Jerome omit the divine name When it was part of another name when translating the Vulgate?
(I cant read Latin)
Someone made the observation that even in the LXX if the divine name was part of another name it wasn't changed - because that would be stupid
(I have not fact checked this yet)
@Edgar Foster
You’re right to distinguish between paradox and contradiction, and I did not intend to misrepresent your position. While some Trinitarians have described aspects of the Trinity as paradoxical in the sense of being beyond full human comprehension, this does not mean the doctrine is inherently contradictory or logically incoherent. The key issue here is whether such paradoxes reflect the limits of human understanding or actual tensions within the doctrine itself. The term "paradox" often signifies truths that appear irreconcilable within finite frameworks but are resolved in a higher reality. For example, the Trinity’s unity of essence and distinction of persons is paradoxical to us because it transcends human categories of being and relation, but this is not equivalent to logical inconsistency. Trinitarians like Karl Rahner or others who acknowledge the Trinity as a “paradox” often do so in the context of exploring its mystery, not to suggest unresolved contradictions. They emphasize that God’s nature surpasses human comprehension, consistent with classical theological principles. Thus, while the Trinity may be described as paradoxical in its mystery, the doctrine itself avoids true paradox in the sense of irreconcilable ideas.
The divine intellect and will are attributes of the essence, not the persons. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same undivided essence, they necessarily share one intellect and one will. Aquinas explains this by distinguishing between the persons (distinguished by relations of origin) and the divine operations (which are inseparable because they flow from the one essence). For example, the Father’s act of love for the Son is not a separate “act of will” but the relational expression of the single divine will.
When Scripture speaks of the Father loving the Son or the Son submitting to the Father, it reflects the eternal relations of origin, not separate acts of will. The Son’s submission (e.g., John 5:19, Philippians 2:8) is understood in terms of His role in the divine economy (salvation history) and the relational order within the Trinity, not as evidence of distinct wills. In human terms, love and submission often imply distinct centers of will. However, in the divine reality, these relational terms reflect the eternal communion and harmony of the one divine will, expressed in distinct persons.
While there may be some discussion in contemporary theology about how to articulate the relationship between personhood and will in the Trinity, the classical position holds firm on the unity of the divine will. Divergences often stem from misunderstandings or efforts to explore the implications of relational distinctions, but they do not represent a rejection of the fundamental unity of God.
I respect your wish to leave the topic of eternal generation aside, but I want to briefly touch on how this relates to your point about love and submission. The relational language of Father, Son, and Spirit reflects the eternal processions within God: the Father begets the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque). These are not causal relationships in the human sense but eternal realities grounded in God’s undivided essence. The Father’s love for the Son is not a separate act of will but the eternal expression of His self-giving nature, perfectly mirrored in the Son and the Spirit. This is why Augustine famously described the Spirit as the “bond of love” between the Father and the Son.
Interesting article, especially the last part belongs to here:
https://www.csntm.org/2024/09/30/the-quran-textual-criticism-and-the-new-testament/amp/
@Edgar,
If memory serves, Stephen Davis once expressed the hope that someday philosophers might come up with an interpretation of Trinity that isn't logically problematic in some way. I believe he said that, or something comparable, in Logic and the Nature of God, which was published in 1983. Regrettably, I sold that book when I downsized, so I can't verify the reference right now. Think about that! In 1983 -- and to this day -- centuries after the doctrine was promulgated by a confused church, they're still struggling to come up with a model that isn't problematic.
I haven't found the page, but I did find the quote from Logic and the Nature of God, by Stephen Davis:
"...some future theologian will be able to produce conceptual categories adequate to explain it [Trinity]. All I claim is that it is mysterious to us
now."
The problem I see with Davis's statement is that there was a man who
could have "produced conceptual categories adequate to explain it," and his name was Jesus Christ. Certainly if Trinity were really so important -- important enough that it is called the central doctrine of Christendom -- then God would have had his Son, or his Son's Apostles, explain it adequately under inspiration, and thereby save Christian philosophers nearly 2000 years of perplexity. Since Jesus and is Apostles did not provide such delineation, I conclude that he either did not feel the subject was very important, or the doctrine is not true. In this I side with the famous Unitarian, William Ellory Channing, who said that the "doctrine, were it true, must, from its difficulty, singularity, and importance, have been laid down with great clearness, guarded with great care, and stated with all possible precision." (William Ellory Channing, Selected Writings) p 79
@Anonymous
Jerome, in his writings, provides clear testimony regarding his approach to translating the divine name. In his Epistola XXV (Letter to Marcella) Jerome explicitly identifies the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) as written with the Hebrew letters Yod, He, Vav, He and acknowledges its ineffable nature. He notes that some Greek manuscripts rendered it erroneously as PIPI due to the resemblance of the letters. However, Jerome does not state that he altered or omitted the divine name but rather that he followed the Hebrew text faithfully in his translations. In his prologue to the Pentateuch, Jerome asserts that he worked directly from the Hebrew text, aiming for precision and fidelity. He even criticizes earlier Latin translations for deviating from the Hebrew. Jerome’s own statements affirm his commitment to accurately translating the Hebrew Scriptures. His recognition of the Tetragrammaton as ineffable does not imply omission but reflects the Jewish tradition of substituting "Adonai" in oral readings, which the LXX rendered as κύριος. Jerome retained this tradition in the Vulgate.
Names containing the divine element (Yah or Yahu) were typically transliterated or adapted to the phonetic system of the target language. In the LXX compound names like Yehoshua were rendered as Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), following Greek transliteration practices. The divine element (YHWH) was not explicitly preserved but incorporated in the name’s meaning. In the Vulgate Jerome similarly transliterated compound names according to their Hebrew or Greek equivalents, not as a deliberate omission but as a translational convention. For example, "Yehoshua" became "Iesus" in Latin, aligning with the Greek Iēsous. Both the LXX and the Vulgate followed established translational norms for proper names. The omission of the Tetragrammaton in compound names reflects linguistic adaptation, not theological bias or a conspiracy to remove the divine name.
The claim that the LXX retained the divine name in compound names because "it would be stupid to remove it" misrepresents the historical and theological context. By the time of the LXX translation, Jewish tradition had already established the oral substitution of YHWH with "Adonai" or "Elohim" out of reverence. The translators of the LXX extended this practice by using κύριος for YHWH, reflecting Jewish liturgical norms. Jerome operated within the Christian tradition, which had inherited the LXX’s rendering of YHWH as κύριος. His decision to use "Dominus" (Lord) in the Vulgate aligns with this tradition and reflects theological continuity rather than omission. The substitution of YHWH with κύριος or "Dominus" reflects Jewish and Christian reverence for the divine name, not a lack of fidelity to the original text.
The suggestion that Jerome intentionally omitted the divine name lacks evidence and raises several questions. Who decided to remove the divine name? Correspondence between Pope Damasus and Jerome is available, and the pope did not instruct Jerome to "remove" the Tetragrammaton. The lack of historical records or transitional manuscripts suggesting a deliberate removal of the Tetragrammaton undermines conspiracy theories. The consistent use of κύριος in the New Testament and patristic writings indicates continuity rather than alteration. Why would Jerome omit it? Jerome’s commitment to Hebrew accuracy and his extensive commentaries on divine names argue against the idea of deliberate omission.
@Sean Kasabuske
The quotation from Stephen Davis acknowledges the mystery surrounding the Trinity but does not imply that the doctrine is logically incoherent. Davis explicitly states that the Trinity is "mysterious to us now," indicating that it transcends current conceptual categories rather than violating logic. The acknowledgment of mystery in theology is common and does not equate to a confession of incoherence. A mystery is not the same as a contradiction. A mystery indicates something beyond human comprehension, while a contradiction entails logical impossibility. For example, the concept of infinity in mathematics is mysterious but not illogical. The doctrine of the Trinity falls into the former category. The development of theological understanding over time does not undermine the truth of the doctrine. Early Christians, faced with various heresies, articulated the Trinity using precise philosophical language to preserve biblical truths. This process mirrors how scientific understanding develops over centuries without invalidating earlier insights.
Christian theology recognizes that God's self-revelation is progressive. The Old Testament hinted at the plurality within God (e.g., Genesis 1:26; Isaiah 9:6; Psalm 110:1). The New Testament clarified this further, with Jesus identifying the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (e.g., Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26). The early Church councils merely formalized and protected these truths against heretical distortions. Jesus' primary mission was not to provide a systematic theology but to reveal the Father, accomplish salvation, and establish the Church. The Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, built upon His teachings (John 16:13). The Trinity was articulated by the Church Fathers to safeguard the unity of these scriptural teachings.
William Ellory Channing’s claim that the doctrine of the Trinity, if true, "must… have been laid down with great clearness" overlooks the nature of divine revelation and human understanding. Many profound truths require centuries of study and debate to articulate clearly. For example the relationship between faith and works (James 2:14-26 vs. Ephesians 2:8-9), or the hypostatic union (fully God and fully man in Christ). These doctrines were not immediately "clear" in the sense Channing demands, yet they are universally accepted by orthodox Christianity. Channing’s demand for "all possible precision" ignores the reality that Scripture often presents truths in ways that invite meditation and exploration (e.g., parables). The Trinity is implicit in Scripture but requires theological reflection to articulate.
The claim that the Trinity cannot be important because it was not "adequately explained" by Jesus or the Apostles is misguided. The Trinity directly impacts Christian worship, prayer, and understanding of salvation. Christians worship the Father through the Son in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:18). Without the Trinity, essential doctrines like the Incarnation and Atonement lose coherence. The Trinity is the framework that preserves the biblical revelation of God. Denying it leads to significant theological errors, such as Arianism (which diminishes Christ’s divinity) or Modalism (which denies the personal distinctions within God).
The suggestion that the Trinity arose from a "confused church" misrepresents historical and theological realities. Early Christians worshipped Jesus as Lord and God (e.g., Philippians 2:6-11, a pre-Pauline hymn). The Church articulated the Trinity in response to heresies, not out of confusion but to clarify and preserve biblical truth. The Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) did not “invent” the Trinity but defined it against heresies like Arianism. These councils formalized what the Church already believed and practiced.
@Duncan
The sentiment in the article by John Dougherty acknowledges the paradoxical nature of the doctrine of the Trinity but interprets it primarily as a human inability to fully comprehend divine truths. While this approach reflects an important dimension of faith—acknowledging mystery—it may inadvertently suggest that the Trinity is "nonsense," which could be misunderstood as irrationality rather than supra-rationality.
Dougherty's statement that the Trinity "doesn’t make any sense" risks conflating mystery with irrationality. Catholic theology maintains that the Trinity is above human reason (supra-rational), not contrary to it (irrational). The doctrine aligns with God's self-revelation and can be approached with analogies and reason, even if it cannot be fully comprehended. St. Augustine emphasizes that mysteries like the Trinity surpass human understanding but do not contradict logic. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 237) states: "The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the ‘mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God.’"
While Dougherty critiques common analogies like the shamrock, knot, or others, Catholic teaching uses such analogies cautiously. These are not definitions but tools to illuminate aspects of the mystery. For instance Augustine's analogy of the mind, knowledge, and love reflects the relational nature of the Trinity, where all three are distinct yet one essence. Analogies are not complete but help clarify specific dimensions without fully explaining the divine reality. They affirm that the mystery is rooted in truth, not "nonsense."
Dougherty’s dialogue introduces potential confusion between the Trinity and triads in other faiths, such as the Hindu trimurti or philosophical constructs like Hegel's dialectic. These comparisons fail to grasp the ontological distinctiveness of the Christian Trinity. The Trinity is not three aspects, roles, or phases of God (modalism), nor is it three separate gods (tritheism). It is one divine essence in three real and distinct persons. Pagan triads often stem from naturalistic or polytheistic frameworks. In contrast, the Trinity arises uniquely from divine self-revelation in Scripture, such as Matthew 28:19 and John 1:1-18, and reflects God's unity and relational nature.
Dougherty is correct to note that paradox fosters humility. However, Catholic teaching emphasizes that this humility drives us toward deeper theological and philosophical reflection rather than resignation to incomprehension. Thomas Aquinas, for example, acknowledges that human reason cannot exhaust the mystery of the Trinity but insists on the harmony between faith and reason (Summa Theologiae I, q. 32, a. 1). The Trinity challenges the human intellect to transcend its limitations and grow in the light of divine truth.
Far from being an abstract or nonsensical doctrine, the Trinity shapes Christian prayer, worship, and morality. The liturgy begins and ends with the Trinitarian formula ("In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"). The Eucharistic Prayer is directed to the Father, through the Son, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is the model of love and communion, inspiring Christians to live in self-giving relationships. The distinct roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are evident in creation, redemption, and sanctification.
Dougherty’s connection between mystery and life’s paradoxes is valid but incomplete. My impression is that Dougherty is a fideist. The paradoxes of the Trinity illuminate not just life's mysteries but God's plan of salvation. As the Athanasian Creed affirms, understanding the Trinity is essential for knowing God and entering into eternal life.
You should read:
Credo quia absurdum? Is the Trinity unreasonable?
https://justpaste.it/hkt5q
Thank you, Sean. I read Davis' book and still have it. See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2010/02/problematic-nature-of-trinity-doctrine.html
"Jerome operated within the Christian tradition, which had inherited the LXX’s rendering of YHWH as κύριος. His decision to use "Dominus" (Lord) in the Vulgate aligns with this tradition and reflects theological continuity rather than omission." - does he do this with names containing the tetragrammaton?
Because yes, it would be stupid to replace the bits that contained the tetragrammaton with bits of kurios - that is very stupid.
Did Jerome omit "Halloujah" from the psalms?
Too my knowledge no he did not - Because the ancients had no issue with it, when it was part of another name.
hence it was never removed from said names.
"The divine element (YHWH) was not explicitly preserved but incorporated in the name’s meaning. In the Vulgate Jerome similarly transliterated compound names according to their Hebrew or Greek equivalents" - exactly, so in a sense pre-served it... hence answering your question on why halloujah was never removed or altered from the NT.
your "evidence" is at odds with people who are way more trust worthy than you... I choose to believe people like Trobish and Shaw over you any day..
again you have made selective arguments to suit YOUR agenda, not Jeromes, not Origens not the Church Fathers - YOUR agenda.
No one would have to instruct Jerome to remove the tetragrammaton... There are other options than what you are trying to make out (or make up, knowing you.)
you have once again put words in my mouth...
Thread is now closed.
Post a Comment