How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?

[dougadam]

Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. That is not totally

correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as

God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the

Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of

a triune Godhead.

Should you believe in the Trinity?

To be continued...

Edited January 26, 2007 by dougadam

[sbradj]

just a shot by a False phophet

or roman catholic church justa thougt

[GoddessWhispers]

I appreciate the thought, I just wish I understood it. Would you kindly rephrase?! re; false prophet. I think I get the RCC bit. I appreciate any clarity so I can understand your thoughts.

[sbradj]

I appreciate the thought, I just wish I understood it. Would you kindly rephrase?! re; false prophet. I think I get the RCC bit. I appreciate any clarity so I can understand your thoughts.

a false prophet teachs false doctrine..trinty false doctirne by a false prophet..

[GoddessWhispers]

Ah, now I understand. Thank you.

I was thinking the trinity doctrine was evolved from the ancient pagan cultures rebirth myths and the cycles of life, unto that. Birth, life, death, back to rebirth. ALso the three phases of living. Maiden, mother, crone, from the ancient matriarchal era. Being a patriarchy, the christian myth augmented that to father, son, holy spirit.

But, if the father and the son are one, wouldn't that make the holy spirit that what created god?!

[sbradj]

Ah, now I understand. Thank you.

I was thinking the trinity doctrine was evolved from the ancient pagan cultures rebirth myths and the cycles of life, unto that. Birth, life, death, back to rebirth. ALso the three phases of living. Maiden, mother, crone, from the ancient matriarchal era. Being a patriarchy, the christian myth augmented that to father, son, holy spirit.

But, if the father and the son are one, wouldn't that make the holy spirit that what created god?!

no no......noooooo...these three are one..nothing created god.. he always was always is always will be..the holy spirit is his spirit dwelling in you..

[Something Like Laughter]

Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. That is not totally

correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as

God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the

Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of

a triune Godhead.

To be continued...

Trinitarian theology was around sometime before 180. Theophilus of Antioch mentions it his surviving works, book 2 chapter 25.

just a shot by a False phophet

or roman catholic church justa thougt

drop the word 'roman' and you are absolutely, if somewhat generally, correct.

[GoddessWhispers]

no no......noooooo...these three are one..nothing created god.. he always was always is always will be..the holy spirit is his spirit dwelling in you..

I don't accept that, but I believe you believe what you're telling me. So then, is that indwelling holy spirit/god, what could be called the source of our spiritual inspiration!?

Edited January 23, 2007 by GoddessWhispers

[Moondoggy]

There are two excellent works that I would recommend. 'Mystery Babylon Religion' by Woodrow, and 'The two Babylons' by Hislop. They reference many other works in their books as well. The WCC has tried to get these books off the market since their inception. So there may be something interesting worth your while.

[GoddessWhispers]

Thank you for the titles, I'll research those. I have a question regarding the Hislop. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159547960...d=2FSPP0CA81ZY1 When you suggest "The Two Babylons",to which of these two books would you be referring? (Is the first title (main link) but an expanded edition to the 1903?)

[dougadam]

Constantine's Role at Nicaea

For many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.

Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: "Constantine, like his father, worshiped the Unconquered Sun;... his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace ... It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in Battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians."

Should You believe in the Trinity?

To be continued...

Edited January 26, 2007 by dougadam

[Moondoggy]

Hislop's book was the older of the two. Early 1900's. Woodrow's is later but not as thorough. Mine are on loan to student's currently so do not an ISBN #.

[Moondoggy]

There are notions that what Constantine did was purely a political move. Also it is thought that he had to appease the masses, so many forms of Pagan worship were morphed into Christian theology. The trinity is one of those. Evidence of scriptural forgery surrounding verses that seem to support a trinity has been proved by textual comparision, matching earlier copies against older ones. The older texts win the argument. The forgeries came much later.

[Something Like Laughter]

A thread a day is just going to annoy me. So:

At this point you might ask: 'If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?' Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.

That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.

Constantine's Role at Nicaea

For many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.

Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians."

What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."

Hence, Constantine's role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. "Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology," says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.

None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?

Further Development

After Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.

That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom's Trinity began to come into focus.

Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: "The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology."

The Athanasian Creed

The Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: "We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God."

Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: "The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed's influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome."

So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: "The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics."

Apostasy Foretold

This disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ's return, when true worship would be restored before God's day of destruction of this system of things.

Regarding that "day," the apostle Paul said: "It will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed." (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7) Later, he foretold: "When I have gone fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them." (Acts 20:29, 30, JB) Other disciples of Jesus also wrote of this apostasy with its 'lawless' clergy class.—See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4.

Paul also wrote: "The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths."—2 Timothy 4:3, 4, JB.

Jesus himself explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sowed good seeds but that the enemy, Satan, would oversow the field with weeds. So along with the first blades of wheat, the weeds appeared also. Thus, a deviation from pure Christianity was to be expected until the harvest, when Christ would set matters right. (Matthew 13:24-43) The Encyclopedia Americana comments: "Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." Where, then, did this deviation originate?—1 Timothy 1:6.

What Influenced It

Throughout the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.

Historian Will Durant observed: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity." And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: "The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology."

Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers "Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity."

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith." And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: "The origin of the [Trinity]is entirely pagan."

That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: "In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality," which is "triadically represented." What does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity?

Platonism

Plato, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato's ideas of God and nature.

The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato's influence: "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: "The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied."

The Church of the First Three Centuries says: "The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."

By the end of the third century C.E., "Christianity" and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became "firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians."

The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: "In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship."

In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: "We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists."

Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing "man of lawlessness" clergy class.—2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7.

Why Did God's Prophets Not Teach It?

Why, for thousands of years, did none of God's prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the "central doctrine" of faith?

Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an "inscrutable mystery" "beyond the grasp of human reason," one that admittedly had a pagan background and was "largely a matter of church politics"?

The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.

The above article from which the OP has quoted from appeared in The Watchtower, a Jehovah's Witnesses magazine.

I found it here: http://www.blackelectorate.com/print_article.asp?ID=1500

I'll throw out an actual reply sometime later.

[sbradj]

I don't accept that, but I believe you believe what you're telling me. So then, is that indwelling holy spirit/god, what could be called the source of our spiritual inspiration!?

no not at all "our" but to whom believes mine yes yours no since you do not believe..not meaning to sound cross but one must first believe to recieve therefore if one doesnot believe one can not recieve knowledge wisdom nor understanding of the holy spirit .

[UniversalOverride]

Has to do with Numerology. Too complexe to get into here. It's much much older than most people think though.

[+Paranoid Android]

~Threads merged~

dougadam, there's no need to start a new thread for the same topic. Just add a new post to this one. Thanks.

[Nova Scotia]

I don't know where the trinity came from ,some pagan or mystic religion i imagine . Whats important I know it Never came from real men of God .

The gospel of John has alot of anti trinity verses . Never came to do his own will . Was thought what to Do what to Say . ect.

Also if you study what spirit is in a Christian , Its the Spirit of Christ , the Mind of Christ . leading a Christian . So WHAT WOULD BE THE HOLY SPIRITS JOB?

Babalon the Great the Mother of Harlots IS IN THE SEVEN HILLS .

Confusion the great = modern christianity they don't know who in the hell they are following !

[dougadam]

What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea?

The Encyclopedia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."

Hence, Constantine's role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. "Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology," says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.

None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?

Should You Believe in the Trinity? Edited January 26, 2007 by dougadam

[Something Like Laughter]

What are you doing? You're just posting parts of a Watchtower article I already posted in full in your last thread.

[+Paranoid Android]

~Threads merged. Again~

dougadam - it appears you missed my last comment when you started Part2 of your thred, I'm sending you a PM to remind you. Also, it has been brought up that your posts in this thread are not your own work, but cut-and-paste jobs from the Watchtower magazine. Let me familiarize you with the Site Rules on this matter:

11. No plagiarism

If you quote text from another web site then please properly credit the source. Copying and pasting entire articles and passing them off as your own work is plagiarism. Always include a source link where appropriate.

In future, you must provide reference material for all work that is not your own.

Regards, PA

[Atlantis Rises]

Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. That is not totally

correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as

God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the

Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of

a triune Godhead.

To be continued...

The idea of the trinity was established by the Romans. Three powerful senators formed a coliation to rule the council. By this method there was balance between state and nation. But when Julius Caesar became Emperor he pretty much did away with the Senate and almost ceased this partnership. Chrisitianity adopted this as the Father, The Son, and Holy Ghost.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Tower Of Babel

[kobie]

Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. That is not totally

correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as

God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the

Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of

a triune Godhead.

To be continued...

In my beliefs of my own understanding the word trinity describes the positive neutral/balance and negative virations or energys that conduct life!

[Nova Scotia]

Trinity is a Antichrist Doctrine . It Don't allow Jesus to be 100% in the Flesh

It dont Confess the FATHER and THe SON . So Islam is Anti Christ To , And oneness .

Jws are not much better , they got more truth then normal Christian churches . but still load you full of poison about the DAY of REST . Sabbath.

The Truth is GOD IS a FAMILY ,A FATHER ,A SON

Its clear in the bible if you accept bible instead of a man. Look in Romans 8 .

God the Father then Jesus is our Older Brother .

WE can BECOME ONE AS THEY ARE ONE (JOHN 17:11), we become part of their family . we don't become a trinity !!!!!! look at romans 8 and beleave it .

[Something Like Laughter]

It Don't allow Jesus to be 100% in the Flesh

Yes it does.

It dont Confess the FATHER and THe SON

Have you read the Nicene creed lately?