Who Invented The Trinity ?

[spacemonkey]

This is God's word, preserved to us, 95% of all surviving greek manuscripts agree here. This is from the textus receptus, and directly from the King James Version of the Bible. This is the truth, you can count on it, you have God's word on it.

I wasn't aware that God wrote the KJV, as far as I know EVERY WORD in the Bible was written by a mortal man.

Besides that, not in one of those passages does it state that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the same being as suggested by the christian doctrine. Again I quote...

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is a single being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a communion of three Persons: the Father, the Son (the eternal Logos, incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit.

 

[joeboonda]

I wasn't aware that God wrote the KJV, as far as I know EVERY WORD in the Bible was written by a mortal man.

Besides that, not in one of those passages does it state that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the same being as suggested by the christian doctrine. Again I quote...

II Timothy 3:16 ALL scripture is given by INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for DOCTRINE...

II Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came NOT in old time by the WILL OF MAN; but HOLY MEN OF GOD SPAKE as they were MOVED by the HOLY GHOST.

I John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.

God inspired the Bible, and IT says these three are ONE.

 

[spacemonkey]

So if I write a book, and say that it was inspired by God in said book, does that make it so? Telling me the Bible is the WORD of God because the Bible says so is perhaps the most rediculous thing I've ever heard.

 

[Katzpur]

II Timothy 3:16 ALL scripture is given by INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for DOCTRINE...

II Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came NOT in old time by the WILL OF MAN; but HOLY MEN OF GOD SPAKE as they were MOVED by the HOLY GHOST.

I John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.

God inspired the Bible, and IT says these three are ONE.

Yes, they are "one," Joeboonda. Now, where in the Bible does it say how they are "one"? Does it say anywhere that they are "one in substance" or "one in essence"? I use the KJV, too, and I'm unaware that it contains any such terminology. What, by the way, is God's substance anyway?

The meaning of the word "one" is rather important to this discussion, don't you agree? Let's start by seeing if we can come to some kind of agreement as to what the word "one" really means in the context in which it is used.

 

[Katzpur]

Here are some links for you guys

http://www.apostolic.edu/apostolicpillar/articles/trinity.html
http://www.brysons.net/miltonweb/milton05.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

There are a ton more, but as you can see nearly EVERY scholar agrees that the Trinity is NOT mentioned in the Bible. Many christens of the 4th century and before believed that Jesus was CREATED BY and as a result INFERIOR TOO God. To them the Holy Spirit was CREATED BY and therefore INFERIOR too Jesus. This then implied a hierarchy, not the belief that all 3 were equal and the same.

You are absolutely correct. First century Christian did not believe in the co-equality of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There was a definite heirarchal relationship between them. Even the scriptures make this obvious to anyone except those who simply refuse to open their minds to anything not taught in the 4th and 5th century Creeds.

 

[James the Persian]

You are absolutely correct. First century Christian did not believe in the co-equality of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There was a definite heirarchal relationship between them. Even the scriptures make this obvious to anyone except those who simply refuse to open their minds to anything not taught in the 4th and 5th century Creeds.

There is a kind of heirarchy in the Trinity as expressed in the original Creed, with the Father being the source of the other two Hypostases. That doesn't mean that they aren't all equally God. But you know this as I have discussed it with you before. Many Trinitarians actually seem to have rather a vague (and sometimes downright wrong) idea of what the doctrine actually means, though, so I can't really expect a non-Trinitarian to be able to explain it correctly, can I?

You are right that Scripture doesn't explicitly state how the Trinity are one (though this brings to mind a favourite Patristic quote about prying into the mysteries of God), but it does say some quite specific things about the Son and the Holy Spirit. With respect to the Son, it says both that He existed in the beginning and that He was begotten by the Father. With respect to the Holy Spirit, it says that He proceeds from the Father. I'm interested to hear how Mormons understand these ideas, given what I would describe as your tritheist beliefs (I'm actually unclear on your theology here. To an outsider it looks as though you believe in three separate Gods, but do you consider yourselves to be monotheists? If so, how exactly? Please don't take this as an attack of any kind, I'm merely looking for clarification.)

James

 

[Bishka]

What I recall from World Religion class, the Trinity was thought up during the, oh what was in called, when they made the Nicene Creed. Dang, bad memory here.

 

[spacemonkey]

What I recall from World Religion class, the Trinity was thought up during the, oh what was in called, when they made the Nicene Creed. Dang, bad memory here.

The Council of Nicaea, I've brought it up several times on this thread.

 

[James the Persian]

What I recall from World Religion class, the Trinity was thought up during the, oh what was in called, when they made the Nicene Creed. Dang, bad memory here.

No, there are references to the Trinity in the Fathers that predate the Council of Nicea (and the Creed wasn't completed until the first Council of Constantinople). The teachings on the Trinity were clarified at Nicea but they weren't invented there. The Creed was an attempt to state pre-existing beliefs in clear language so as to better be able to defend them against the novel teachings of Arius and his followers. There was nothing new in it.

James

 

[michel]

No, there are references to the Trinity in the Fathers that predate the Council of Nicea (and the Creed wasn't completed until the first Council of Constantinople). The teachings on the Trinity were clarified at Nicea but they weren't invented there. The Creed was an attempt to state pre-existing beliefs in clear language so as to better be able to defend them against the novel teachings of Arius and his followers. There was nothing new in it.

James

Oh, dear, James, you will have to forgive me for having a quiet giggle............

The teachings on the Trinity were clarified at Nicea

Since the concept of the Trinity is so difficult to understand (although I think I have got my head around it), I dread to think what the concept would have been like pre "being Clarified at Nicea............" :biglaugh:

 

[spacemonkey]

The issue wasn't clarified so much as two different views were voted on and the winner (by a close margin) was made the official doctrain. Again, I never said the Council of Nicaea invented the CONCEPT of a trinity, the Hindus already had one almost identical to that of Arius, but it was at the Council that the specifics of the Christian Trinity doctrain were decided.

 

[Katzpur]

You are right that Scripture doesn't explicitly state how the Trinity are one (though this brings to mind a favourite Patristic quote about prying into the mysteries of God), but it does say some quite specific things about the Son and the Holy Spirit. With respect to the Son, it says both that He existed in the beginning and that He was begotten by the Father. With respect to the Holy Spirit, it says that He proceeds from the Father. I'm interested to hear how Mormons understand these ideas, given what I would describe as your tritheist beliefs (I'm actually unclear on your theology here. To an outsider it looks as though you believe in three separate Gods, but do you consider yourselves to be monotheists? If so, how exactly? Please don't take this as an attack of any kind, I'm merely looking for clarification.)

Hi, James.

I don't take it as an attack at all. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify our doctrine. I just hope I can do a decent job of it.

First of all, as you probably do know, we use the word "Godhead" to describe the unity of the three divine persons who, together, are "God." Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines the word "Godhead" as "God," and I am entirely comfortable with this definition. Since the two words are synonyms, they can be used interchangeably, at least in some contexts. One such context is when the scriptures describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as "one God." Substitute the collective noun, "Godhead" for "God" and the supposed contradiction goes away.

There are many instances in which the Bible describes things as being “one” which are not ontologically “one.”

For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:5-6)

And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do. (Exodus 24:3)

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. (Acts 4:32)

Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you. (2 Corinthians 2:11)

One flesh, one voice, one heart, one soul and one mind. We can understand each of these phrases as describing something other than a physical unity. But as soon as the Latter-day Saints use this phraseology to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, people describe us as polytheistic.

The three deities which comprise the Godhead are perfectly and absolutely “one God” just as my husband and I are “one flesh.” They think, act and function as “one” divine being. There is never any contention between them. We as mortals do not have the capacity to fully appreciate the degree to which they are “one," because such ultimate unity is outside of our realm of understanding. They are also "one" in that they all have the same divine attributes -- perfect love, mercy, power, glory and goodness.

Finally, they all three share the title of “God.” Each of them is “God,” and they are all simultaneously “God.” It is entirely possible to believe in a Godhead of three without being either polytheistic or Trinitarian.

I hope this has helped some.

Kathryn

 

[James the Persian]

The issue wasn't clarified so much as two different views were voted on and the winner (by a close margin) was made the official doctrain. Again, I never said the Council of Nicaea invented the CONCEPT of a trinity, the Hindus already had one almost identical to that of Arius, but it was at the Council that the specifics of the Christian Trinity doctrain were decided.

No, the margin wasn't close at all. The overwhelming majority of delegates at Nicea rejected the teaching of Arius which, importantly, was seen as a new set of teachings out of line with the pre-Nicene faith. The Trinity as expounded at Nicea can be seen in the works of pre-Nicene Fathers. You appear to be buying into the general Protestant idea of Nicea as a council that radically altered the Church which is, unfortunately, not supported by historical fact.

James

 

[nutshell]

No, the margin wasn't close at all. The overwhelming majority of delegates at Nicea rejected the teaching of Arius which, importantly, was seen as a new set of teachings out of line with the pre-Nicene faith. The Trinity as expounded at Nicea can be seen in the works of pre-Nicene Fathers. You appear to be buying into the general Protestant idea of Nicea as a council that radically altered the Church which is, unfortunately, not supported by historical fact.

James

That's right. They just confirmed and reiterated the already corrupt and disolving Truth.

 

[Quiddity]

That's right. They just confirmed and reiterated the already corrupt and disolving Truth.

Starting with Christ. Otherwise, it's just your opinion against most of history.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

Starting with Christ. Otherwise, it's just your opinion against most of history.

~Victor

The history of tradition - small correction, huge difference

 

[Quiddity]

The history of tradition - small correction, huge difference

Written and oral tradition - small correction, huge difference.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

Written and oral tradition - small correction, huge difference.

~Victor

No difference at all - it's still tradition.

 

[Quiddity]

No difference at all - it's still tradition.

True...as long as you understand.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

True...as long as you understand.

~Victor

Oh, I do. I know the value of tradition as a standard of truth.