History of the Trinity Doctrine

[fallingblood]

This is basically an extension of a previous thread I created, dealing with an explanation of the Trinity. It seemed as if those who had a problem with my explanation kept going into the history of the doctrine. So it I figured a thread (and I planned on doing this anyway) dealing with the history of the doctrine could be helpful.

Now, I will only be going as far back as Paul. One can find earlier ideas that did go back some time, that lent themselves to the Trinity doctrine, but simply are out of the scope of this current discussion. Just to be clear though, I am not arguing that Paul believed the Trinity idea. I'm arguing that it began forming at least as early as Paul.

I think the best place to start is with Tertullian. The reason for this is quite simple. Tertullian is the first to mention the term Trinity. This is somewhat significant as he is also our first Church Father to write in Latin. Before that, we are dealing with Greek. Tertullian really gave us the formula: one substance in three persons. So we are moving back to around the second century with this (early third century).

However, Tertullian wasn't operating in a vacuum. In fact Tertullian reaffirms two basic doctrines from the Apologists. First, the divinity is from the Father, not identical with the Father. Second, the Father's Word has a real and distinct existence (I'm paraphrasing Michel Rene Barnes work that appears in the Cambridge Companion to the Trinity (CCT)).

Moving back in time from Tertullian, we find Irenaeus, who is firmly in the second century. Irenaeus is particularly important not just for his advances in thought, but Origen was one of his later intellectual disciples. Side tracking for just a moment, Origen is important as really, for the next two centuries theologians were basically just developing the schema he had created. But with Irenaeus, we see him being clear on a point, and I will quote from John Anthony McGuckin here; "it is the same God exisiting in different modalities of relation. These three relations of Fatherhood (the one divine Being), sonship (the living Reason of the Father), and Spirit (the hypostatic Wisdom of the Father) exist from all eternity...." Basically, Irenaeus tells us that the Son and Spirit are other than the Father, but essentially one with the Father.

Moving back even further, we find Clement of Rome (around 96 C.E.) who wrote to the Corinthian Christians. He writes: "It is to the humble that Christ belongs not to those who exalt themselves about his flock. The Lord Jesus, who is the scepter of God's own majesty, did not come in a show of arrogance and pride, but in humility, as the Holy Spirit spoke of him saying: 'Lord, who has believe what we said....?" (Is 53:1-4) As well as: "For this is how Christ addresses us through his Holy Spirit: 'Come Children and hear me that I may teach you the fear of the Lord..." (Ps 34:11-14)

What is important is to realize that it is Christ (according to Clement here) who is speaking in Isaiah and Psalms. It is Jesus, who is Lord, that brings peace from the Father. And it is the Spirit that reveals what is Christ's pre-existent revelation. The three are quite intertwined here.

It is interesting that the earliest reference to the Trinity is completely made up of NT cloth. And if one looks closely, they can clearly see the influence Paul had here.

So we are seeing the formation of a Trinitarian idea beginning quite early. And seeing that Clement of Rome uses Paul quite a bit here, we can now move there. Now, I'm copying and pasting this next section from a different thread, but the words are still mine.

When Paul calls Jesus Lord, Paul is equating Jesus, to some extent, with God. We can see this by the way in which Paul associates Jesus with God. The best example here is Philippians 2:5-11. Specifically, what stands out is the statement "that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow...and every tongue confess.." This is a direct allusion to Isaiah 45:23, which uses the same statements for God. Basically, what Paul is doing here is using what was said about God, and applying it to Jesus. The reason is clear why, if we look at what precedes this. Paul states specifically that "he [Jesus] was in the form of God, did not regard his equality with God as something to be taken advantage of." Paul here clearly states that Jesus is equal (in some sense) to God, that he was in the form of God. The fact that he then uses statement regarding God and apply them to Jesus show that Paul equates Jesus with God in some manner.

What is important here is that from Paul's first letter, he is referring to Jesus as Lord. Really then, we are seeing the beginnings of the formation of the Trinity from the same generation in which Jesus died. It is in other words, a very early development. But Paul also brings the Spirit into the mix. According to J.D.G. Dunn, that there is no distinction (that can be detected at least) in the believers experience of Christ and the Spirit of God. And he is basing this statement off of reading Paul.

And it is with Paul that we see a Triadic Formula, such as in 2 Corinthians 13:13, where it states: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you." Now, Paul isn't equating the three here, but he is showing that they were associated with each other, and worked together.

Now, Paul is basically somewhat of a starting point. He doesn't relate the full blown Trinity doctrine, but we can see a starting point here with his Triadic formula, his equation (to some extent) of Jesus and God, as well as his use of Christ and Spirit of God to the point in which how a believer experiences them is nearly indistinguishable.

Now, of course this isn't a full blown historic survey, as I'm leaving out important figures such as Justin Martyr, as well as the Gospels and Hebrews, which help form this doctrine. But it does show that the formation of the doctrine does begin extremely early.

 

[outhouse]

Have you ever thought even early on that with the deification of jesus, the early authors were trying to solve the problem of two deities and monotheism being what made judaism so attractive to romans?

they had a serious need to keep the all powerful "ONE" god.

but this need in no way reflects the trinity concept that evolved from this need.

 

[fallingblood]

Have you ever thought even early on that with the deification of jesus, the early authors were trying to solve the problem of two deities and monotheism being what made judaism so attractive to romans?

they had a serious need to keep the all powerful "ONE" god.

but this need in no way reflects the trinity concept that evolved from this need.

Actually, it does reflect the beginning of the formation of the Trinity concept. That is all I said. And I don't think the early authors had a problem trying to solved anything. In Judaism, there was only one God. If Jesus was also divine like God, then he had to be equatable to God in some sense. That is what Paul tells us.

And really, if they were just trying to make things attractive to the Romans (which they weren't), they could have simply kept God as being the one God, and have Jesus be God's son, and only God's son. It would have been quite easy.

 

[outhouse]

In Judaism, there was only one God.

thats not true now is it. after 622 BC the governements position was that there was one god. But its stated strict yahwist belief wasnt fully established by 200 BC [by some accounts, im flexible with that date]

they were known polytheist

and with jesus before he was defined, there were two gods in judaism before the movement failed in judaism, and went to the romans/gentiles

jesus was deified, and then attributes defined afterwards to correct the second deity in monotheism. it didnt get corrected in a day, some claim its still not corrected today, allthough I believe with the trinity being official dogma around 400 it was solved as good as it was going to get.

 

[outhouse]

and have Jesus be God's son, and only God's son.

some of the movement [to a point] did take that aspect and fought with their lives at stake in 325

 

[fallingblood]

thats not true now is it. after 622 BC the governements position was that there was one god. But its stated strict yahwist belief wasnt fully established by 200 BC [by some accounts, im flexible with that date]

they were known polytheist

Is the first century C.E. after 200 B.C.E.? Of course it is. Thus, everything you said here is completely pointless, and really, has nothing to do with the subject.

You are detracting from my actual argument, and really, in context, it was clear that I was talking about first century Judaism, which was strictly monotheistic.

and with jesus before he was defined, there were two gods in judaism before the movement failed in judaism, and went to the romans/gentiles

No, there weren't two gods. There is no suggestion there were two gods. In fact, if you read Paul (and I posted the relevant verses above), there still is just one God. Paul makes the very clear. Paul also makes it clear that Jesus was equal (in a sense), to God. Now, it may be worth actually reading my OP, instead of detracting from the point of this thread.

jesus was deified, and then attributes defined afterwards to correct the second deity in monotheism. it didnt get corrected in a day, some claim its still not corrected today, allthough I believe with the trinity being official dogma around 400 it was solved as good as it was going to get.

Jesus was seen as equal to God (at least in some way). There wasn't two deities, and in fact, if you read Paul (again, I posted it above, in the OP), it is clear that Paul accepted just one God.

The earliest Jesus movement was strictly monotheistic. There was just one God. There never was two gods. To suggest such shows no familiarity with the subject.

And please, if you can't actually debate the OP, please don't post in this thread. I think that should be quite obvious. I have made an argument that shows that the formation of the Trinity began from the same generation in which Jesus died. I have shown that long before 400 C.E., the Trinity (in name) was already there. That we can actually trace the development quite a bit further back. If you can't debate any of this, and instead, just want to detract from the thread, please just leave.


Edit:

some of the movement [to a point] did take that aspect and fought with their lives at stake in 325

There lives were not at stake. In fact, if you look at those who were exiled, their exile did not stick. Not to mention, the debating never stopped between the two factions anyway, and Constantine himself switched sides after the Council. And everyone agreed that Jesus was divine, it was just working out how that was discussed. As in, no one thought that Jesus was just the Son of God. And really, none of this has any bearing on the topic at hand as we are dealing with events that were well before the Council of Nicaea.

 

[outhouse]

it was clear that I was talking about first century Judaism, which was strictly monotheistic.

Ok agreed, except for the jesus movement having a brief period of polytheism
before jesus divinity was fully defined by man.

Paul also makes it clear that Jesus was equal

not at all

he views jesus as a mediator with god, and people must go through jesus to get to god

he also views jesus as son of god.

you have not made a decent enough case for "lord" being the sameas god nor do I think you can

 

[outhouse]

just want to detract from the thread, please just leave.

you should have placed it in DIR if you didnt want your post debated



I came in here to discuss this as your hread was dead with no replies

I though much of the OP has merit and I agree for the most part less a few details im debating.

 

[outhouse]

The earliest Jesus movement was strictly monotheistic. There was just one God. There never was two gods. To suggest such shows no familiarity with the subject.

what came first, the added deity, or the dogma


and I dont think you want to play with the dogma coming first.


so it would then be factual there were two deities before the definition or dogma.

remember while pauls letters lived on, he was sort of a oddball who took the movement his own direction and applied his roman knowledge of religious organization to the movement.

he was not the only game in town, just the game that lasted. his views do not represent all views

 

[fallingblood]

Ok agreed, except for the jesus movement having a brief period of polytheism
before jesus divinity was fully defined by man.

There is no evidence of that. If there is, please show me your evidence. The fact that Paul was strictly monotheistic (he on number of occasions professes the Shema), that Judaism was strictly monotheistic (Paul was a Jew), and that he is our earliest writer (writing in the same generation that Jesus died), shows beyond a doubt they were never polytheistic.

Later on, some forms of Christianity, that had distanced themselves from the original movement, were polytheistic, but that is a different story.

not at all

he views jesus as a mediator with god, and people must go through jesus to get to god

he also views jesus as son of god.

you have not made a decent enough case for "lord" being the sameas god nor do I think you can

You have never argued against my case for Lord being the same as God. In fact, you have never dealt with what I said on the subject at all. For instance, you have consistently avoided the portion of my post on Paul. Specifically, I show a passage that states clearly that Paul thought that Jesus was equal to God. That Paul saw Jesus being in the form of God. And that Lord was a divine name.

you should have placed it in DIR if you didnt want your post debated
I came in here to discuss this as your hread was dead with no replies

I though much of the OP has merit and I agree for the most part less a few details im debating.

I shouldn't have to post this in a DIR just so I can get people to actually debate the subject matter, and not detract from the OP by bringing up ideas that have no basis in what I'm saying. I shouldn't have to post this in a DIR to expect that those debating would actually provide some evidence for their claims.

what came first, the added deity, or the dogma


and I dont think you want to play with the dogma coming first.


so it would then be factual there were two deities before the definition or dogma.

remember while pauls letters lived on, he was sort of a oddball who took the movement his own direction and applied his roman knowledge of religious organization to the movement.

he was not the only game in town, just the game that lasted. his views do not represent all views

Either or fallacies never work. That is what you're doing here.

And yes, the "dogma" of being monotheistic came before the time of Jesus. Paul was strictly a monotheist. He was never a polytheist, as there is no evidence for that. He was a pious Jew by all accounts. Yet, he also accepts that Jesus was equal (in some sense) to God. There was never a second deity. There was just God. If you dealt with the OP, you would see this.

So to answer your question, no, there was never two deities in the first place. And sure, Paul isn't the only game in town, but all of our sources regarding the early movement are written in a strictly monotheistic point of view. There is never any suggestion that they were adding another deity. There is no suggestion that there are two deities. All of our sources, Paul being our earliest, showcase a strictly monotheistic view point, and only one God.

So your argument here is more than ridiculous, as it seems that you're trying to imply that it was possible that some unwritten work that we have no suggestion of, may have suggested something else, but we could never know because there is no actual evidence. That is not a logical stance, and really shows nothing except intellectual dishonesty.

 

[outhouse]

So your argument here is more than ridiculous

not true

jesus was made a deity before any dogma was attached. early on people had different views

Paul worshipped jesus as lord, which doesnt always equal god. and he worshipped Yahweh. But while were on that subject, pauls judaism is up for debate with his roman herritage, knowing he did not adhere to mosaic law, and took his message to romans, not his brothers in judaism

as well, in that time there were groups of peole worshipping judaism that would not convert to judaism called god-fearers, paul ressembles these people to a T. My personal take is "we dont know"

early on jesus relationship was not defined at all, other then messiah, and gods messenger by paul. and the word lord could be translated to master in context used by paul. you have not shown it to be equal to god

 

[fallingblood]

not true

jesus was made a deity before any dogma was attached. early on people had different views

Paul worshipped jesus as lord, which doesnt always equal god. and he worshipped Yahweh. But while were on that subject, pauls judaism is up for debate with his roman herritage, knowing he did not adhere to mosaic law, and took his message to romans, not his brothers in judaism

as well, in that time there were groups of peole worshipping judaism that would not convert to judaism called god-fearers, paul ressembles these people to a T. My personal take is "we dont know"

early on jesus relationship was not defined at all, other then messiah, and gods messenger by paul. and the word lord could be translated to master in context used by paul. you have not shown it to be equal to god

If you're going to just make wild claims with out actually providing evidence, and ignore the OP, please just stop. It's wasting your time, and it's wasting mine.

 

[Shermana]

Paul isn't the only game in town, but all of our sources regarding the early movement are written in a strictly monotheistic point of view

So about this idea that 2 Cor 4:4 "The god of this world" who blinds the minds of men is referring to the Emperor, do you got a link on that or not? Because basically you're the only person in town saying that Paul meant the Roman emperor who is "blinding the minds of men", in a seemingly supernatural context.

The NLT says "Satan, the god of this world" for a reason, they didn't invent that concept. And it's well discussed in the commentaries. Whether it's right or not, the idea has circulation for a reason.

Otherwise, it's quite clear that Paul did in fact acknowledge the existence of other gods, but he was clear that the Israelites and the Church should only HAVE one god. To HAVE a god is not the same as acknowledging a god. God is the god of the gods, but is He the god of the Canaanites? Is the god OF Israel, the god OF the pagan Romans, even if he is the Supreme god?

Now if you don't have any sources that can outright disprove the NLT rendition using your translation that it refers to the Emperor (some translations try to imply it's referring to God Himself who deliberately blinds people away from the Truth), we can safely assume that Paul did in fact refer to Satan as not just 'a god" but "The god of this age", without any reason whatsoever for believing it's referring to the emperor.

 

[outhouse]

Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trinity—one God subsisting in three persons and one substance—to combat heretical tendencies of how the three are related and to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods

this states the trinity was created because they were in battle against people who were worshipping 2 or 3 gods


all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved.

 

[fallingblood]

Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trinity—one God subsisting in three persons and one substance—to combat heretical tendencies of how the three are related and to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods

this states the trinity was created because they were in battle against people who were worshipping 2 or 3 gods


all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved.

And that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. If you read the OP (which I'm thinking you didn't), you would see that I'm not stating that the Trinity was always firmly established.

Also, it doesn't state that the Trinity was created because people were worshipping 2 or 3 gods. Instead, it says that it was created to defend the church from charges of worshipping multiple gods. This implies that the charges were from outside of the religion, as they were attacking the church (as in Christianity). It also was meant to combat heretical tendencies within the church that dealt with how the three were related, which implies that it was accepted that they were related.

You are trying to detract from the actual OP. If you can't deal with it, please stop posting.

 

[outhouse]

And that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. If you read the OP (which I'm thinking you didn't), you would see that I'm not stating that the Trinity was always firmly established.

Also, it doesn't state that the Trinity was created because people were worshipping 2 or 3 gods. Instead, it says that it was created to defend the church from charges of worshipping multiple gods. This implies that the charges were from outside of the religion, as they were attacking the church (as in Christianity). It also was meant to combat heretical tendencies within the church that dealt with how the three were related, which implies that it was accepted that they were related.

You are trying to detract from the actual OP. If you can't deal with it, please stop posting.

becaus it flat states there were many groups fighting the trinity concepts, this is a fact.

and without the trinity you have henotheism and polytheism before the doctrine took hold.


we have a 400 year period of massive infighting and protection of dogma to protect monotheism. even then not everyone was onboard.



Not only that many claim the trinity is seated in the OT and they make a great case as to why the early authors wrote the way they did, influenced from such.

 

[fallingblood]

becaus it flat states there were many groups fighting the trinity concepts, this is a fact.

It did not state that. It stated that there was debate, but it doesn't tell us really anything about that. It does say that within the church, there were differences, and that from without the church, people attacked it. Never said they didn't.

and without the trinity you have henotheism and polytheism before the doctrine took hold.

Then why wasn't Paul either? You view here holds no water, as you can't provide any evidence that the early movement was polytheistic.

So unless you have something that constitutes some form of evidence, you might as well drop this.

we have a 400 year period of massive infighting and protection of dogma to protect monotheism. even then not everyone was onboard.

That isn't accurate in any sense. All you're showing is that you are clearly in over your head. The fact that you can't and haven't even tried to address the OP shows that. All you can do is make wild claims, without any evidence.

Yes, there was debating for quite some time. There still is. That doesn't mean anything accept that there was debating. And if you look at the OP, I clearly show that even from early on, the formation of the Trinity was quite clear, and that even before the concept of the Trinity, the early movement was already equating Jesus with God, and they were still strictly monotheistic. Unlike you, I have shown this to be true.

Not only that many claim the trinity is seated in the OT and they make a great case as to why the early authors wrote the way they did, influenced from such.

What scholars accept this? Just name one credible scholar who portray is this way. I doubt you can.

 

[Shermana]

Then why wasn't Paul either?

Going by the NLT translation of 2 Cor 4:4 (and not by yours, which no one else holds), Paul was most clearly a Henotheist.

Feel free to provide a single link showing a single source that agrees that it's referring to the Roman emperor.

 

[Pegg]

I think the best place to start is with Tertullian. The reason for this is quite simple. Tertullian is the first to mention the term Trinity. This is somewhat significant as he is also our first Church Father to write in Latin. Before that, we are dealing with Greek. Tertullian really gave us the formula: one substance in three persons. So we are moving back to around the second century with this (early third century).

But this doesnt mean he was teaching that Jesus God and the holy spirit were 3 in 1. The trinity doctrine took quite a few centuries to develop....it was a slow process and there is no way you can claim Paul taught anything that resembled the trinity.

Tertillian believed Jesus was a created being...he didnt believe he was equal with God as christendoms trinity states.
In Against Hermogenes Tertillian wrote:
“We should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. . . . How can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? . . . That [God] which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [the Son] which had an author to bring it into being.”

But with Irenaeus, we see him being clear on a point, and I will quote from John Anthony McGuckin here; "it is the same God exisiting in different modalities of relation. These three relations of Fatherhood (the one divine Being), sonship (the living Reason of the Father), and Spirit (the hypostatic Wisdom of the Father) exist from all eternity...." Basically, Irenaeus tells us that the Son and Spirit are other than the Father, but essentially one with the Father.

i think it is John Anthony McGuckin who is saying that above quote... Irenaeus did not present Jesus as being equal with God in the early 2nd century:

Irenaeus (c. 130-200 C.E.): “We may learn through Him [Christ] that the Father is above all things. For ‘the Father,’ says He, ‘is greater than I.’ The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge.”—Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 28.8.

Moving back even further, we find Clement of Rome (around 96 C.E.) who wrote to the Corinthian Christians...
What is important is to realize that it is Christ (according to Clement here) who is speaking in Isaiah and Psalms. It is Jesus, who is Lord, that brings peace from the Father. And it is the Spirit that reveals what is Christ's pre-existent revelation. The three are quite intertwined here.

In the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, he gives no indication at all that Christ is equal to God...here are some of his epressions:
“Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.”
“The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ.”
Clement does not say that Jesus or the holy spirit is equal to God. He presents Almighty God (not just “Father”) as distinct from the Son. God is spoken of as superior, since Christ is “sent forth” by God, and God “chose” Christ. Showing that God and Christ are two separate and unequal identities,
Clement also said:
“Let all the nations realize that you are the only God, that Jesus Christ is your Child.”7
“Since he reflects God’s splendor, he is as superior to the angels as his title is more distinguished than theirs.”
If you read all his writings you wont find any equality with God mentioned and nor does he give the holy spirit equality with God.

What is important here is that from Paul's first letter, he is referring to Jesus as Lord. Really then, we are seeing the beginnings of the formation of the Trinity

"lord' was a very common expression of respect and courtesy in those times. Peter said that Sarah used to call her husband 'lord'
1Peter 3:5 For so, too, formerly the holy women who were hoping in God used to adorn themselves, subjecting themselves to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah used to obey Abraham, calling him “lord.”
So calling someone 'lord' does not make them God.

And it is with Paul that we see a Triadic Formula, such as in 2 Corinthians 13:13, where it states: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you." Now, Paul isn't equating the three here, but he is showing that they were associated with each other, and worked together.

very true. Jesus is Gods son. The holy spirit is Gods power. God used both to accomplish his purposes and carry out his will. So they are all unified and this is what makes them 'one'.... but that doesnt mean they are all the same person.

And the fact is that John refers to the holy spirit as an 'it' in his gospel...so he doesnt even think the holy spirit is a 'person'.

 

[Shermana]

Well Pegg, as much as I may disagree with you about the Afterlife and Mosaic law, you know your stuff about Church Father writings on the Trinity.

which had an author to bring it into being.”

Now if that doesn't prove that the "Father of the Trinity" Tertullian believed Jesus was still a Created being, the "Firstborn of Creation" quite literally, I don't know what does. Sometimes I wonder if the original Trinitarians were mostly Arian and it was the Modalists who took their Arian-leaning ideas to become what was the Trinity.

And thank you for the 1 Peter 3:5 reference, that's a great place to show that "lord" is not necessarily always meant as LORD.

But I'm not too sure about your "it" thing, are you saying it's referred to in the definite neuter form?