That’s anthropomorphizing God – always an error, because it makes GOd out as nothing more than an inflated man.
For starters go back to second-Temple Judaism, the context of the Apostles, and grasp that they understood that there was Yahweh in heaven yet also Yahweh Who walked on earth as a man and that there were thus in a sense “two Yahwehs”, but Yahweh by definition is “one”. Some rabbis also recognized that the Spirit is spoken of as being Yahweh, which gave them three Yahwehs Who were nevertheless One Yahweh.
That’s what the church inherited; it didn’t invent the trinity idea, it received it from centuries of wisdom.
The Nicene Creed is merely a summary of what they already had.
Or as I like to translate it to keep the force of the original, “God is what the Word was [being]”.
But that’s all that the trinity is – a summary of what the Bible says. The Hebrew scriptures show Yahweh in heaven is God, that Yahweh Who walks on earth as a man is God, and that the Spirit Who speaks through prophets is also Yahweh-God, yet there is just one Yahweh, not three.
That’s an assumption being brought to the text, not one drawn from the text. It’s the same thing as where second_Temple rabbis recognized “two powers in heaven” that were still just one YHWH-Elohim.
They rejected exactly what you have said on the grounds that it is ultimately polytheism: “a different entity” means more tha one god.
You’ve got that backwards: the “trinitarian framework” is the result of what the scriptures say; that’s why the Jews were practically there already with “two powers in heaven” and recognizing that the Hebrew scriptures speak of the Holy Spirit also as Yahweh – yet there is but one Yahweh.
Lord = Yahweh, not merely “Master, King”. You’re imposing pagan categories on Hebrew thought.
They didn’t have to; they knew that there is just one YHWH-Elohim, which means that one who is Yahweh cannot be subordinate to another who is Yahweh. That one could be lesser is not from the scriptures but is an intrusion from Greek thought (the source of every major heresy).
You’re making the same mistake countless others have made over the centuries: treating the scripture as though it has to speak in your worldview, rather than letting it speak in its own.
To treat that as Miekhie has been doing we have to accept that Christ is greater than the Father.
Of course this just demonstrates the problem with taking some texts and not all of them.
I did then when I learned Greek and then Hebrew. The Trinity emerges from the OT; the New isn’t even needed.
Then you aren’t paying attention to the scripture!
שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד
ἄκουε, ὦ Ἰσραήλ: ὁ Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ Κύριος εἷς ἐστίν.
Audi, Israel; Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est.
Listen, Israel!: Yahweh our God is one Yahweh!
There is no room in that for a separate God – there’s only room for a distinct God
The trinity is merely saying what can be found in the Torah, and moreso in the rest of the Tanakh: Yahweh Who walks on earth is the same Yahweh Who resides always in heaven, yet they are not two Yahwehs but are one, and the same goes for Yahweh the Spirit.
The trinity isn’t an attempt to solve an enigma, it’s merely a summary of that enigma.
That’s “y’all”, plural – the Apostles as a group. Assuming it extends to their successors, this promise was nullified in 1054 (if not already at Chalcedon, which was decided politically).
Paul wasn’t writing to satisfy the systematic wishes of a future generations, he was dealing with pastoral issues (yes, even in Romans).
Also:
As a second-Temple rabbi, Paul understood the “two powers in Heaven” idea and recognized that Jesus was nothing more yet nothing less that Yahweh Who walks on earth as a man – not just in human form, as angels could also do, but this time really being a man.
Which was a slap in the face to proto-Gnostics who held that divinity was a substance that could be divided up and distributed: Paul is saying that whatever there is that is divine is found completely in Jesus, not leaving a trace anywhere else.
It’s heavy-duty stuff in the Greek if you know about the terms Paul is using as they were used by rabbis (and philosophers) of the time.
Yes: this is the Old Testament’s “Lord God”, i.e. YHWH-Elohim, distributed. In the mind of any first-century rabbi, “Lord” = “Yahweh” = “God”, with no divisions or separations.
