Early Christians Rejected the Trinity

[Muffled]

One thing is for sure. It wasn't the Apostles. Show me where they taught 3 persons in the Godhead/deity. Show me just one place where trinity is mentioned, or a statement about there being 3 persons in the Godhead.

No, what they taught was God is a Spirit. John 4:24

He did manifest himself in the flesh. But it wasn't another person. It was YHWH himself dwelling in a fleshly body that he took on, in order to shed blood for man's sin.

I believe it is safe to say that Jesus having a body is personally different from the Father who does not have a body. And again one can say that the Paraclete having many bodies is different personally from the Father and Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

One thing is for sure. It wasn't the Apostles. Show me where they taught 3 persons in the Godhead/deity. Show me just one place where trinity is mentioned, or a statement about there being 3 persons in the Godhead.

No, what they taught was God is a Spirit. John 4:24

He did manifest himself in the flesh. But it wasn't another person. It was YHWH himself dwelling in a fleshly body that he took on, in order to shed blood for man's sin.

Seeing the Trinity in the Gospels

 

[TiggerII]

It's not clear in defining the Trinity, which is the subject under discussion here.
I'm not an expert in Greek, but as I understand it there is a difference in meaning between the two words Theon and Theos. It has been suggested that John 1:1 actually purports to say that the Logos which became flesh is theos but not theon, in other words, a lesser deity, which is quite contrary to the Trinity doctrine as defined in the Athanasian creed.

I just saw this - sorry it took so long,

Although you are correct that the grammar used by John shows that John 1:1c should be understood as saying the Word is a lesser divine being, it is not because of the difference between theos and theon.

Theos is merely the nominative case for 'God/god' and, as such, is used as either a subject or a predicate noun.

Theon is in the accusative case and is used for 'God/god' as an object (most often the direct object).

When "God" (theos) is intended by John (and the other Gospel writers) it will have the definite article with it. There are a very few exceptions, but none that are found in John 1:1c.

According to the grammar used by John, it should literally read in English translation: "a god was the word."

As for the writings of early Christians, we should be aware that none of the existing manuscripts are early. All were copied/recopied by trinitarian copyists many centuries after Nicaea.

In those days the copyist dared not insert a non-Trinitarian thought into the copy he was producing, however the opposite was not true. Anything that corroborated the 'orthodox' belief could be (and often was)inserted into the copy. After centuries of copies of copies, you can imagine how poor the existant copies are!

In other words, it is to be expected that Trinitarian changes and additions have been made, but any non-Trinitarian material that might still be found today is most likely to be original.

 

[eik]

I don't accept the supposed relationship with neighboring philosophies on this, but I do know that there's a compromise of sorts in the Nicene Creed with the intent of reigning in those in Arianism that actually was successful in doing as such. Therefore, if one reads the Creed carefully, they may note that inconsistency, but it is very subtle.

Arianism is a heresy derived from conflating biblical doctrine with Greek triadiam. It denies the co-eternality of different members of the triad. Take away the Greek philosophy and both Arianism and Sabellianism would have no reason to exist. All Trinitarian heresies are predicated on a Trinity itself derived from the corruption of biblical doctrine by Greek philosophy.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

The problem with your postilion is that you only pull those people who support your view but never offer the counter points. The reason for the Church Fathers to deal with the subject. That puts you in the "biased" category.

The following knew about the Trinity starting in the first century (not to mention the gospel of John).

Ignatius a.d. 30–107


Justin Martyr a.d. 110–165
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
The First Apology Chapter LXI

Ireneaus a.d. 120–202

Clement of Alexandria a.d. 153–217
O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, . . .
The Instructor. Book I Chapter VI

Tertullian a.d. 145–220

Origen a.d. 185–254

Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 200–265

Cyprian a.d. 200–258

Novatian a.d. 210–280

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 273–326

Augustine of Hippo a.d. 354–430

Quotes from the Early Church Fathers: on the Trinity - Apostles Creed

You have no idea what the trinity is if you believe those people believed in it

 

[VoidoftheSun]

I believe the Quran teaches that the Jewish, Christian and Islamic God is the same God. I believe God is God, despite the different religions, churches, sects and divisions of religions describe God differently from a cultural perspective.

The difference is they believe in God BUT associate things with God that aren't God. That is the Islamic subtlety.
On the Christian end, other Christians who reject the trinity are often considered total disbelievers in even God (atheists), which is a stark contrast, and they also have a strong age-old dissonance towards Jewish theology.

We would consider Christians to believe in the "same God", in the sense that they share the same rough outline as Jews, and Jews definitely believe in the "same God" as us, 100%.

 

[Kenny]

You have no idea what the trinity is if you believe those people believed in it

Thank you for such a deep and information filled post.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Thank you for such a deep and information filled post.

You've lost the plot if you think that the definition of the Trinity is merely simply mentioning "the father, son and holy spirit" (which are mentioned in various forms throughout the NT, nobody debates that). That literally cancels out none of the heresies, to which the Trinity is formulated to get rid of.
The doctrine of the Trinity is about the specific dogmatic assertion of what the relation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are to each other - being that all three are taken (in the trinity) to be 100% all equally God yet distinct, not 1/3 God but each 3/3 God at the same time. This assertion supposedly destroying all of the heresies that it was brought in to wipe out (like Arianism, Modalism and the rest).

None of the people you listed affirms the doctrine of the Trinity, they all strongly contradict it matter of fact.
The trinity wasn't even affirmed at the council of Nicaea, it was only a prototype of it. The formation of the Trinity doctrine as we know it started at the First Council of Constantinople, but took centuries later till the Second Council of Nicaea for it to finally be put to rest and for the Trinity to be completely finalized as the Christian dogma.
Before the 1st council of Constantinople, what was argued about was definitely not the Trinity, nobody believed in anything resembling the Trinity prior to that time.

 

[firedragon]

I’d just like to point out that even if you do not believe in the trinity there are other options than Islam.

I don’t believe in the trinity but I doubt I’ll ever be Muslim.

Very relevant to the topic. Bravo.

 

[Lance'o]

باسمك اللهم

Let me get right to the point: an early Church father and Christian theologian, Tertullian (d.220 CE), a staunch advocate of the Trinity doctrine, confessed in his writings that the majority of Christians in his time, whom he refers to as “Believers” not only rejected the Trinity, but held it in contempt as nothing more than thinly veiled tritheism: “The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own dispensation. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves preeminently the credit of being worshipers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God)

Source: Against Praxeas; ch. III


Based on this quote, I have some questions for trinitarian Christians:

1. Are those Christians who reject the Trinity still considered ‘Believers’? Tertullian apparently thought so

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, does that not indicate that belief in the Trinity is not a necessary doctrine for faith?

3. If the Trinity is so evident from Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles, why, according to Tertullian, was it rejected by the majority of Christians as late as the 3rd century CE?


In fact, if you study the development of this Trinity doctrine, you will see that the earliest mention of the word Trinity in Christian literature is in the late 2nd century CE by the theologian Theophilus of Antioch (d. 183 CE). But curiously, he defines the Trinity contrary to the so-called orthodox conception of ‘Father, Son, Holy Spirit’, instead claiming that the Trinity is “God, His Word [Logos], and His Wisdom [Sophia]”

Source: Apology to Autolycus


In summary, it is quite apparent to me the Trinity doctrine was developed by certain theologians and then made an essential part of the Christian dogma by powerful Bishops. It was certainly not taught by Jesus of Nazareth or his disciples and apostles. It is certainly not taught in the Hebrew Bible, which zealously affirms unitarian monotheism.

Well said, infact if you go to a Jewish synagogue and talk about the Trinity you will most likely be told to be quiet about it or you will be asked to leave as they do not believe in the Trinity and as Jesus himself was a Jew then how could he and his disciple believe in a trinity.

 

[eik]

Before the 1st council of Constantinople, what was argued about was definitely not the Trinity, nobody believed in anything resembling the Trinity prior to that time.

Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD) was the first writer in Latin known to use the term "trinity." Other Christian Greeks had sought to fuse biblical doctrine with Greek triadism before him, although not necessarily involving the Holy Spirit, but based on the Greek triad of Nous (mind of God), Logos and Wisdom ("sophia") (Theophilus of Antioch). Per Irenaeus of Lyon sophia was exchanged for the "pneuma, the sophia of God."

Greek triadic language and the concepts of philosophical Trinitarianism, specifically the use of "God the Son," and his emnation from the Father before the world began, were in established use by many including Justin Martyr (100–165 AD) and Ignatius (died c. 108/140 AD) long before Nicea. It was likely this encroachment of established Greek philosophical language into Christianity that inspired the development of the formal trinity doctrine, and in particular the importation of homoousios from the neoplatonists / gnostics at Nicea.

"God the Holy Spirit" was a much later development, perhaps not in common use until the Enchiridion of Augustine.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD) was the first writer in Latin known to use the term "trinity." Other Christian Greeks had sought to fuse biblical doctrine with Greek triadism before him, although not necessarily involving the Holy Spirit, but based on the Greek triad of Nous (mind of God), Logos and Wisdom ("sophia") (Theophilus of Antioch). Per Irenaeus of Lyon sophia was exchanged for the "pneuma, the sophia of God."

Greek triadic language and the concepts of philosophical Trinitarianism, specifically the use of "God the Son," and his emnation from the Father before the world began, were is established use by many including Justin Martyr (100–165 AD) and Ignatius (died c. 108/140 AD) long before Nicea. It was likely this encroachment of established Greek philosophical language into Christianity that inspired the development of the formal trinity doctrine, and in particular the importation of homoousios from the neoplatonists / gnostics iat Nicea.

"God the Holy Spirit" was a much later development, perhaps not in common use until the Enchiridion of Augustine.

Yes, I already know what you're saying.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Seeing the Trinity in the Gospels

So is God a Spirit as John said, or is he 3 persons as you say?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I believe it is safe to say that Jesus having a body is personally different from the Father who does not have a body. And again one can say that the Paraclete having many bodies is different personally from the Father and Jesus.

Hi Muffled,
The Father had a body once he took one on. And the Father is the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:18
God doesn't consist of two different Spirits. There is only one God. The one God is a Spirit as John told us (John 4:24) and the Spirit is holy.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD) was the first writer in Latin known to use the term "trinity." Other Christian Greeks had sought to fuse biblical doctrine with Greek triadism before him, although not necessarily involving the Holy Spirit, but based on the Greek triad of Nous (mind of God), Logos and Wisdom ("sophia") (Theophilus of Antioch). Per Irenaeus of Lyon sophia was exchanged for the "pneuma, the sophia of God."

Greek triadic language and the concepts of philosophical Trinitarianism, specifically the use of "God the Son," and his emnation from the Father before the world began, were in established use by many including Justin Martyr (100–165 AD) and Ignatius (died c. 108/140 AD) long before Nicea. It was likely this encroachment of established Greek philosophical language into Christianity that inspired the development of the formal trinity doctrine, and in particular the importation of homoousios from the neoplatonists / gnostics at Nicea.

"God the Holy Spirit" was a much later development, perhaps not in common use until the Enchiridion of Augustine.

Paul warned not to let any man spoil (ruin) you through philosophy or vain deceit after the tradition of men (which at that time was belief in multiple gods). Colossians 2:8-10 But Tertullian wanted to unite what he called "primitive christianity" with intelligence. Look at the mess they came up with. 1 + 1+ 1 = 1

They can say what they want, but the Trinity is belief in multiple Gods. ( 3 totally separate distinct persons that are each totally and completely God - yet supposedly only one God.)

 

[Kenny]

So is God a Spirit as John said, or is he 3 persons as you say?

Man is a spirit, a soul and a body. Are we three persons or three parts (not equal parts) of different materiality and purpose and yet still one? Does my spirit look like my body and yet still one person?

 

[Kenny]

You've lost the plot if you think that the definition of the Trinity is merely simply mentioning "the father, son and holy spirit" (which are mentioned in various forms throughout the NT, nobody debates that). That literally cancels out none of the heresies, to which the Trinity is formulated to get rid of.
The doctrine of the Trinity is about the specific dogmatic assertion of what the relation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are to each other - being that all three are taken (in the trinity) to be 100% all equally God yet distinct, not 1/3 God but each 3/3 God at the same time. This assertion supposedly destroying all of the heresies that it was brought in to wipe out (like Arianism, Modalism and the rest).

None of the people you listed affirms the doctrine of the Trinity, they all strongly contradict it matter of fact.
The trinity wasn't even affirmed at the council of Nicaea, it was only a prototype of it. The formation of the Trinity doctrine as we know it started at the First Council of Constantinople, but took centuries later till the Second Council of Nicaea for it to finally be put to rest and for the Trinity to be completely finalized as the Christian dogma.
Before the 1st council of Constantinople, what was argued about was definitely not the Trinity, nobody believed in anything resembling the Trinity prior to that time.

How you come to that conclusion is beyond me. To see it differently is to be biased IMO:

"For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence,—He who formed the world (for the world is of all),—He who fashioned man,—He [who] is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,—He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove.
Book I Chapter XXII" Iraneaus

 

[Terry Sampson]

infact if you go to a Jewish synagogue and talk about the Trinity

Who would be that "intentionally obnoxious" or that "unintentionally stupid" to do such a thing?

 

[Terry Sampson]

1. We would consider Christians to believe in the "same God"
2. in the sense that they share the same rough outline as Jews,
3. and Jews definitely believe in the "same God" as us, 100%.

#1. "We" who?
#2. That's also a very short outline.
#3. In your dreams.

 

[metis]

Arianism is a heresy derived from conflating biblical doctrine with Greek triadiam. It denies the co-eternality of different members of the triad. Take away the Greek philosophy and both Arianism and Sabellianism would have no reason to exist. All Trinitarian heresies are predicated on a Trinity itself derived from the corruption of biblical doctrine by Greek philosophy.

That really wasn't the main issue at all as they dealt with Jesus' relationship with God in a way that was quite contentious to most others within the Church, though not necessarily wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

And when one uses the word "heresy", they should always remember that what's a "heresy" will typically depend on which side one is on. On top of that, there was much debate in the 2nd century over this issue, which is largely absent in any of the 1st century sources. It seems that just the aura and martyrdom of Jesus was enough at first, but then the nit-picking got involved.

As for myself, I don't lose any sleep over it one way or the other.