History of the Trinity Doctrine

[fallingblood]

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.”

Actually, Tertillian tells us that it is one substance, three persons. Now, it may not be the nuanced doctrine that later evolved, but I didn't say it was either.

Tertillian gives us the term Trinity. Now, his idea is not the same as it later would evolve into, but that isn't necessary, as I am making it clear that it is an evolution. However, Tertillian does have the basics of the Trinity already set down. The specifics may be debated later (and still are), but that doesn't take away from what he said.

Also, I didn't say that Paul taught anything close to the Trinity doctrine, but that we can see the formation of such an idea beginning to develop at that time.

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.

McGuckin is saying this in regards to Irenaeus. Now, it isn't saying that they are equal, but that intertwined. That there are three distinct persons, but they compose God.

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.

And I didn't say that Clement stated that they were equal, but that they were intertwined. That they are distinct, but regardless of that, they are also intertwined with each other.

"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.

1 Peter wasn't written by Paul, so it isn't really a good example here, since I'm specifically talking about Paul. And even though there may be other definition for lord, we have to look at the context in which they are used. When Paul calls Jesus Lord, Paul does so in order to elevate Jesus. And looking at Philippians, there is a clear connection of Jesus with God.

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'.

I think the terminology of person (in it's present form) really is bad for this discussion. And in fact, it is something that is debated within churches that accept the Trinity. Some suggest that persona, or mode, being, entity, etc are better capturing what is being spoken about. So the terminology is poor here to say the least.

And I agree with you, they are not the same person. They are all distinct individuals. But I would go further to say that they make up one. The Father (and I would actually say God here, and most understand it as such) is not Jesus. And Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. But they work together and are "one."

 

[Pegg]

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.




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?

yes its refered to as neuter....and we are not the only ones who think this:

Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman says about this in The Triune God: “Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person.”

In the Scriptures it is not unusual for something to be personified. Wisdom is said to have children. (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are called kings. (Romans 5:14, 21) At Genesis 4:7 The New English Bible (NE) says: “Sin is a demon crouching at the door,” personifying sin as a wicked spirit crouching at Cain’s door. But, of course, sin is not a spirit person; nor does personifying the holy spirit make it a spirit person.
Similarly, at 1 John 5:6-8 (NE) not only the spirit but also “the water, and the blood” are said to be “witnesses.” But water and blood are obviously not persons, and neither is the holy spirit a person.

Even the Greek word for 'spirit' is neuter - pneu′ma

 

[Pegg]

And I agree with you, they are not the same person. They are all distinct individuals. But I would go further to say that they make up one. The Father (and I would actually say God here, and most understand it as such) is not Jesus. And Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. But they work together and are "one."

yes, they work together as 'one'

And that is exactly how Jesus wanted his apostles to become:

"...Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one.”—John 17:20-23.

being 'one' in this context means being in 'unity'

Jesus was in unity with God and he wanted his disciples to likewise become 'one' in unity.

Perhaps Tertulliun had this same unity in mind with regard to God, holy spirit and Jesus....the 3 (trinitus) working as one with the same unified goals.

 

[Shermana]

Again Pegg, I was recently thinking that the earliest Trinitarians like Tertullian and to a degree, Origen (if you can call him one) were mostly Arian-ish in their beliefs, and it was only later that Modalist-types changed these views into what became the Classical Trinity. We clearly see that Justin Martyr calls Jesus the "Angel of God", and there's absolutely no reason to regard "The Angel of God" and "God" as the same being, especially with a basic understanding that "Elohim" can in fact be translated as "Angel" in the old texts.

 

[crossfire]

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.

Hi fallingblood. Do you think that Hellenistic Buddhism might have influenced the formation of the Christian trinity doctrine? (See Trikaya)
I admit that I read the Christian scriptures through a Buddhist lens, and see a lot of Buddhist thought in them. I don't want to project something onto them that isn't there. Is the Holy Spirit as "The Spirit of Truth" the same thing as Dharmakaya, or Truth body? I can't say.

 

[Muffled]

I believe Paul had a Trinitarian concept but the first one to express that was Jesus. However I believe Trinitarian concepts didn't exist as a doctrine because The chrurch is not well enough organized to have doctrines at this point.

I believe even if doctrinal type treatises such as those of Irenaeus and Tertullian existed they were not doctrine until accepted by the whole church. I believe the doctrine didn't come into existence until accepted by a church body. I believe I can write a treatise on the Trinity today but it won't become church doctrine unless I establish my own church lol.

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

Some posts in this thread have diverted from the topic addressed in the OP. Please refrain from making off-topic posts and keep Rule 4 in mind while posting:

4. Spam and Advertising/Off Topic Posts
Usually described as unsolicited or undesired electronic messages. There are many types of electronic spam:
1)Posting advertisements, unsolicited e-mail or private messaging, promoting other sites or items for sale. These will be deleted on sight and the poster may be banned.
2)Advertising of sites and forums that might appear to be in competition to RF requires the permission of an administrator.
3)Signatures are allowed to contain links, but not to commercial sites unless there is administrator approval. This applies to home page links as well.
4)Posting your own material copied from other forums or anywhere else on the web may also be considered a form of spam if not done in an engaging manner that is aimed at generating discussion or debate. Length of copied material should be limited, but a bit more allowance of length is given to the original posts of threads compared to response posts.
5)Posts that are judged to deviate significantly from the thread topic, or that do not conform to the tone or intent of the thread, may be edited or deleted.

If you wish to debate or discuss a subject other than that of the OP of this thread, feel free to start a thread in the appropriate forum section.
​

 

[javajo]

I was reading in Luke the other day. It starts out by saying these are most surely believed by us who were eyewitnesses so you may know the certainty of them. ANYWAY, the passage that struck me was:

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1

Here we see how Christ is conceived by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, the power of the Highest so that he will be the Son of God. So we have God the Father or the Highest, God the Holy Ghost and God the Son, the Trinity. In John 6 Jesus said no one had seen the Father but the Son and that he came from Heaven. Up to that point people went to Hell or Paradise so he was the only one who came from God. Since the Power of the Highest produced him, hence he was called the Son of God which was considered being equal to God, we have God Incarnate, God made flesh. To me, this and other Bible teachings point to the Trinity, without fabrication from outside sources. Just my beliefs/insights. Thanks.

 

[kjw47]

I was reading in Luke the other day. It starts out by saying these are most surely believed by us who were eyewitnesses so you may know the certainty of them. ANYWAY, the passage that struck me was:

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1

Here we see how Christ is conceived by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, the power of the Highest so that he will be the Son of God. So we have God the Father or the Highest, God the Holy Ghost and God the Son, the Trinity. In John 6 Jesus said no one had seen the Father but the Son and that he came from Heaven. Up to that point people went to Hell or Paradise so he was the only one who came from God. Since the Power of the Highest produced him, hence he was called the Son of God which was considered being equal to God, we have God Incarnate, God made flesh. To me, this and other Bible teachings point to the Trinity, without fabrication from outside sources. Just my beliefs/insights. Thanks.

Jesus the son of God taught without a single doubt, that his Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD.( John 17:1-6) so if a religion teaches a trinity god --in reality they call Gods son a liar. trinity translations are corrupt.

 

[outhouse]

in reality they call Gods son a liar. trinity translations are corrupt

and I agree.


its simple math, the church was presented with a problem in which no logical answer could be found, so they did the best they could with circular reasoning to explain their problem away

 

[kjw47]

and I agree.


its simple math, the church was presented with a problem in which no logical answer could be found, so they did the best they could with circular reasoning to explain their problem away

Also the greeks were refusing to belong to a religion with a single God--they had many gods--they also wanted the holidays as well, so catholicism turned pagan holidays into supposed christian holidays, but in reality were trying to turn the table of demons into the table of God.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus the son of God taught without a single doubt, that his Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD.( John 17:1-6) so if a religion teaches a trinity god --in reality they call Gods son a liar. trinity translations are corrupt.

I prefer a translation that comes from a multitude of denominations to one that comes from one denomination and that one having a record of being in error.

 

[sojourner]

Too bad this has denigrated from a thread about the history of the Trinity doctrine to simple "Trinity-bashing."

 

[sojourner]

Also the greeks were refusing to belong to a religion with a single God--they had many gods--they also wanted the holidays as well, so catholicism turned pagan holidays into supposed christian holidays, but in reality were trying to turn the table of demons into the table of God.

There was no "Catholicism" when the holy days were established.

 

[javajo]

Too bad this has denigrated from a thread about the history of the Trinity doctrine to simple "Trinity-bashing."

Well, for religions that do not accept the Deity of Christ, that's all they can do.

 

[outhouse]

Well, for religions that do not accept the Deity of Christ, that's all they can do.

thats not it at all.

the trinity evolved and in the end redefined jesus by people who never knew him long after he was dead, all in a attempt to save monotheistic traditions


many christians have issues with this.

 

[sojourner]

thats not it at all.

the trinity evolved and in the end redefined jesus by people who never knew him long after he was dead, all in a attempt to save monotheistic traditions


many christians have issues with this.

I think FB has adequately shown that your statement is not true.

 

[javajo]

thats not it at all.

the trinity evolved and in the end redefined jesus by people who never knew him long after he was dead, all in a attempt to save monotheistic traditions


many christians have issues with this.

Not mainline, Bible-believing Christians who believe in the Deity of Christ. We get our beliefs purely from the Bible. One example from Luke 1:

The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Do you see it?

 

[millennium3000]

PEOPLE who believe the Trinity teaching say that God consists of three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these three persons is said to be equal to the others, almighty, and without beginning. According to the Trinity doctrine, therefore, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God.

Many who believe the Trinity admit that they are not able to explain this teaching. Still, they may feel that it is taught in the Bible. It is worth noting that the word “Trinity” never occurs in the Bible. But is the idea of a Trinity found there? To answer this question, let us look at a scripture that supporters often cite to uphold the Trinity.

“THE WORD WAS GOD”
John 1:1 states: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (King James Version) Later in the same chapter, the apostle John clearly shows that “the Word” is Jesus. (John 1:14) Since the Word is called God, however, some conclude that the Son and the Father must be part of the same God.

Bear in mind that this part of the Bible was originally written in Greek. Later, translators rendered the Greek text into other languages. A number of Bible translators, though, did not use the phrase “the Word was God.” Why not? Based on their knowledge of Biblical Greek, those translators concluded that the phrase “the Word was God” should be translated differently. How? Here are a few examples: “The Logos [Word] was divine.” (A New Translation of the Bible) “The Word was a god.” (The New Testament in an Improved Version) “The Word was with God and shared his nature.” (The Translator’s New Testament) According to these translations, the Word is not God himself.* Instead, because of his high position among Jehovah’s creatures, the Word is referred to as “a god.” Here the term “god” means “mighty one.”

GET MORE FACTS
Most people do not know Biblical Greek. So how can you know what the apostle John really meant? Think of this example: A schoolteacher explains a subject to his students. Afterward, the students differ on how to understand the explanation. How can the students resolve the matter? They could ask the teacher for more information. No doubt, learning additional facts would help them to understand the subject better. Similarly, to grasp the meaning of John 1:1, you can look in the Gospel of John for more information on Jesus’ position. Learning additional facts on this subject will help you to draw the right conclusion.

For instance, consider what John further writes in chapter 1, verse 18: “No man has seen [Almighty] God at any time.” However, humans have seen Jesus, the Son, for John says: “The Word [Jesus] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory.” (John 1:14, KJ) How, then, could the Son be part of Almighty God? John also states that the Word was “with God.” But how can an individual be with someone and at the same time be that person? Moreover, as recorded at John 17:3, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his heavenly Father. He calls his Father “the only true God.” And toward the end of his Gospel, John sums up matters by saying: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (John 20:31) Notice that Jesus is called, not God, but the Son of God. This additional information provided in the Gospel of John shows how John 1:1 should be understood. Jesus, the Word, is “a god” in the sense that he has a high position but is not the same as Almighty God.

CONFIRM THE FACTS
Think again about the example of the schoolteacher and the students. Imagine that some still have doubts, even after listening to the teacher’s additional explanation. What could they do? They could turn to another teacher for further information on the same subject. If the second teacher confirms the explanation of the first one, the doubts of most students may be put to rest. Similarly, if you are not sure what the Bible writer John was really saying about the relationship between Jesus and Almighty God, you could turn to another Bible writer for further information. Consider what was written by Matthew, for example. Regarding the end of this system of things, he quotes Jesus as saying: “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matthew 24:36) How do these words confirm that Jesus is not Almighty God?

Jesus says that the Father knows more than the Son does. If Jesus were part of Almighty God, however, he would know the same facts as his Father. So, then, the Son and the Father cannot be equal. Yet, some will say: ‘Jesus had two natures. Here he speaks as a man.’ But even if that were so, what about the holy spirit? If it is part of the same God as the Father, why does Jesus not say that it knows what the Father knows?

As you continue your Bible studies, you will become familiar with many more Bible passages that have a bearing on this subject. They confirm the truth about the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit.—Psalm 90:2; Acts 7:55; Colossians 1:15.

 

[outhouse]

I think FB has adequately shown that your statement is not true.

not with any credibility