Where Did The Trinity Teaching Come From?

[Alter2Ego]

Although Trinity is the most important doctrine within most of Christendom's 41,000 denominations, Trinitarians ignore the following facts:

 

1.  There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible in support of the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, in which there are three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) that are co-equal and co-eternal.

2.  Neither Jesus Christ nor his disciples of the 1st century AD promoted the teaching that there are three persons within a godhead, all of whom are co-equal and co-eternal.

3.  Trinity did not become official Christian teaching until the 4th century AD, some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene and returned to heavenly life, and some 300 years after the last book of the Bible was written.

 

It would surprise some that there were trinity gods throughout the pagan world--for centuries before the idea of a 3-in-1 god was adopted by Christendom.  Below are four such examples:

A.  In the 2nd century BCE (two centuries before Jesus Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.

B.  In the 2nd century B.C.E., Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash.

C.  In the 1st century C.E., Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god.

D.  Even the Hindus in India have their own trinity of gods, as follows:  (1) Brahma, (2) Vishnu, and (3) Shiva.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1.  If the teaching of a Trinity god is essential to Christianity, how is it that the doctrine is nowhere to be found in scriptures within Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible?

2.  If Jesus Christ is part of a trinity in which he has the same power (co-equal) and the same eternity (co-eternal) as Jehovah the Father, how is it that the scriptures repeatedly inform us that Jesus Christ is subservient to Almighty God Jehovah (indicating inequality) and why is it that scripture tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is "begotten" (indicating he had a beginning)?

3.  Why did it take two Roman Emperors/politicians, neither of whom were Christians, to enforce the official Trinity dogma some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene?

[Dejarma]

from mad people

[Guyver]

Nice. JW’s back in the house.  They just came to my house not long ago, and I was literally in my pj’s, completely hung over, and when I went to the door and saw it was the JW’s, I just politely took the literature as raggity as I looked, and just said, thank you….but no thanks.  Not looking to debate God with JW’s on a hangover.

[Guyver]

Anyway, to answer the question of the OP, the Trinity doctrine came from the early Christians.  It was a heated debate in the days when the First Council of Nicaea came about.  The notion was so hotly contested among bishops of the Christian Church at the time that fist fights erupted among the holy men.

[Alter2Ego]

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

Anyway, to answer the question of the OP, the Trinity doctrine came from the early Christians.  It was a heated debate in the days when the First Council of Nicaea came about.  The notion was so hotly contested among bishops of the Christian Church at the time that fist fights erupted among the holy men.

Guyver:

In light of the fact the Trinity doctrine is not supported by scripture in the Judeo-Christian Bible, I'm curious as to which "early Christians" you are referring to.

[Guyver]

4 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

Guyver:

In light of the fact the Trinity doctrine is not supported by scripture in the Judeo-Christian Bible, I'm curious as to which "early Christians" you are referring to.

You’re talking crazy.  The doctrines of the trinity comes from the earliest of all the Bible’s.  Your version wasn’t written until the last century and it’s totally made up.  But, whatever…you are free to believe as you please.  And, I hope you’re right.  Some people with inherit kingdom Earth, others will be destroyed, but no one will suffer in the flames of torment for eternity….because……well, that is just insane psycho-killer BS, and there’s no way the real God Jehovah could be a psycho-killer….right?

[cormac mac airt]

5 minutes ago, Guyver said:

You’re talking crazy.  The doctrines of the trinity comes from the earliest of all the Bible’s.  Your version wasn’t written until the last century and it’s totally made up.  But, whatever…you are free to believe as you please.  And, I hope you’re right.  Some people with inherit kingdom Earth, others will be destroyed, but no one will suffer in the flames of torment for eternity….because……well, that is just insane psycho-killer BS, and there’s no way the real God Jehovah could be a psycho-killer….right?

Strictly speaking the above is not true as the Bible starts with the Old Testament which shows no concept of Trinity Doctrine whatsoever. And the New Testament books were written decades after Jesus’ death by people who never knew him and he left no evidence of his own that he ever mentioned the Trinity. Lastly, Yahweh of the OT was very much a psycho in a great many ways. 
 

cormac

[Alter2Ego]

11 hours ago, Guyver said:

You’re talking crazy.  The doctrines of the trinity comes from the earliest of all the Bible’s.  Your version wasn’t written until the last century and it’s totally made up.  But, whatever…you are free to believe as you please.  And, I hope you’re right.  Some people with inherit kingdom Earth, others will be destroyed, but no one will suffer in the flames of torment for eternity….because……well, that is just insane psycho-killer BS, and there’s no way the real God Jehovah could be a psycho-killer….right?

Guyver:

Really?  And how is it that neither Jesus nor his disciples taught such a doctrine.  For that matter, how is it that the idea of a 3-in-1 god did not show up in Christendom until the 4th Century AD, some 300 years after Jesus returned to heaven and 300 years after the last book of the Bible was written by inspiration of Jehovah? 

As stated in my OP, the idea of a 3-in-1 god came into Christendom after two Roman emperors ordered it to be so during the 4th century AD.  By then, Jesus was long gone (300 years prior) and by then, all of Jesus' early disciples were dead. (The last disciple who knew Jesus died in the 1st century AD).  Three hundred years later, the pagans in Rome who adopted their version of Christianity, specifically, the Roman Catholics, came up with the idea that Jesus (the son) and Jehovah (the father) are co-equal and co-eternal.

But, since you claim the doctrine of trinity  "comes from the earliest of all the Bible's" suppose you quote your first three verses of scripture--from the Bible of your choice--proving that the Trinity doctrine Bible-based. Your scriptures should prove that Jesus (the son) and Jehovah (the Father) are co-equal and co-eternal and should be supported by the context (surrounding words, verses, and chapters).

Edited August 4 by Alter2Ego

[Alter2Ego]

11 hours ago, Guyver said:

You’re talking crazy.  The doctrines of the trinity comes from the earliest of all the Bible’s.  Your version wasn’t written until the last century and it’s totally made up.  But, whatever…you are free to believe as you please.  And, I hope you’re right.  Some people with inherit kingdom Earth, others will be destroyed, but no one will suffer in the flames of torment for eternity….because……well, that is just insane psycho-killer BS, and there’s no way the real God Jehovah could be a psycho-killer….right?

Guyver:

You are confused.  A version is simply a translation of the same Bible, using the oldest written text from which other Bibles are translated.  One of the differences between the New World Translation used by Jehovah's Witnesses is that it has restored the Divine name, YHWH, whereas other Bibles have deliberated removed God's personal name and replaced it with the titles Lord and Lord God, often in all caps.  The New World Translation has also removed fabricated words that still appear in Trinitarian Bible translations, such as the word godhead.

[Alter2Ego]

11 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

11 hours ago, Guyver said:

You’re talking crazy.  The doctrines of the trinity comes from the earliest of all the Bible’s.  Your version wasn’t written until the last century and it’s totally made up.  But, whatever…you are free to believe as you please.  And, I hope you’re right.  Some people with inherit kingdom Earth, others will be destroyed, but no one will suffer in the flames of torment for eternity….because……well, that is just insane psycho-killer BS, and there’s no way the real God Jehovah could be a psycho-killer….right?

Strictly speaking the above is not true as the Bible starts with the Old Testament which shows no concept of Trinity Doctrine whatsoever. And the New Testament books were written decades after Jesus’ death by people who never knew him and he left no evidence of his own that he ever mentioned the Trinity. Lastly, Yahweh of the OT was very much a psycho in a great many ways. 
 

cormac

Cormac:

You are 100% correct.  Nothing in the Old Testament aka Hebrew Scriptures suggest a 3-in-1 god.

11 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Strictly speaking the above is not true as the Bible starts with the Old Testament which shows no concept of Trinity Doctrine whatsoever. And the New Testament books were written decades after Jesus’ death by people who never knew him and he left no evidence of his own that he ever mentioned the Trinity. Lastly, Yahweh of the OT was very much a psycho in a great many ways. 
 

cormac

You are right on point when you state that the New Testament ("NT") aka Greek Scriptures were written after Jesus died. However, those who wrote the NT portion of the Bible were Jesus close acquaintances and even one of his biological brothers.  The only person who didn't know Jesus personally, to my recollection, was the Apostle Paul. But even so, everything written in all 66 books of the Judeo-Christian Bible were written by inspiration of Jehovah God.

2 Timothy 3:16

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,"

 

[cormac mac airt]

3 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

Cormac:

You are 100% correct.  Nothing in the Old Testament aka Hebrew Scriptures suggest a 3-in-1 god.

You are right on point when you state that the New Testament ("NT") aka Greek Scriptures were written after Jesus died. However, those who wrote the NT portion of the Bible were Jesus close acquaintances and even one of his biological brothers.  The only person who didn't know Jesus personally, to my recollection, was the Apostle Paul. But even so, everything written in all 66 books of the Judeo-Christian Bible were written by inspiration of Jehovah God.

2 Timothy 3:16

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,"

 

Tradition doesn't make it fact and the fact is that Biblical Scholars have shown that the NT writers were NOT the people traditionally claimed as the various books writers. 

cormac

[Alter2Ego]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Tradition doesn't make it fact and the fact is that Biblical Scholars have shown that the NT writers were NOT the people traditionally claimed as the various books writers. 

cormac

Cormac:

It depends which Bible "scholars" you are relying on. 

The Bible books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, for example, are named after Jesus disciples who wrote those particular books.

The New Testament itself identifies two of Jesus' brothers, James and Jude, as persons who wrote books of the Bible.  Accordingly, those particular New Testament books are named after them.

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Alter2Ego said:

Cormac:

It depends which Bible "scholars" you are relying on. 

The Bible books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, for example, are named after Jesus disciples who wrote those particular books.

The New Testament itself identifies two of Jesus' brothers, James and Jude, as persons who wrote books of the Bible.  Accordingly, those particular New Testament books are named after them.

No they're actually not. They are given the names traditionally assigned to them well over a century after Jesus' death based on no verifiable evidence whatsoever. 

And I've said it a multitude of times, using the Bible to validate the Bible is about as meaningless as using the Harry Potter books to validate Hogwarts as a real place in Scotland. "Because it says so" is not an answer it's an excuse for not having one. 

cormac

[Piney]

11 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

Cormac:

It depends which Bible "scholars" you are relying on. 

The Bible books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, for example, are named after Jesus disciples who wrote those particular books.

The New Testament itself identifies two of Jesus' brothers, James and Jude, as persons who wrote books of the Bible.  Accordingly, those particular New Testament books are named after them.

Mark was written by a anonymous Roman long after Jesus and his disciples were dead and Matthew and Luke were written after that. 

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Alter2Ego said:

Cormac:

It depends which Bible "scholars" you are relying on. 

Which ones are you relying on? 

[eight bits]

4 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

As stated in my OP, the idea of a 3-in-1 god came into Christendom after two Roman emperors ordered it to be so during the 4th century AD.  By then, Jesus was long gone (300 years prior) and by then, all of Jesus' early disciples were dead. (The last disciple who knew Jesus died in the 1st century AD).  Three hundred years later, the pagans in Rome who adopted their version of Christianity, specifically, the Roman Catholics, came up with the idea that Jesus (the son) and Jehovah (the father) are co-equal and co-eternal.

Apart from the virulent anti-Catholicism among many Protestants in the United States during the 19th Century, where do JW's get the idea that the Roman Catholic Church was a dominant power within Christianity during the 4th Century?

 

 

[Guyver]

19 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Strictly speaking the above is not true as the Bible starts with the Old Testament which shows no concept of Trinity Doctrine whatsoever. And the New Testament books were written decades after Jesus’ death by people who never knew him and he left no evidence of his own that he ever mentioned the Trinity. Lastly, Yahweh of the OT was very much a psycho in a great many ways. 
 

cormac

Christians consider the doctrine of the Trinity as a “progressive revelation” and part of the NT which supersedes the OT.  And yes, many groups of Christians interpret the OT in ways that support the doctrine of the Trinity, such as Isaiah 9:6.  

“For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

See how the Son is called the Everlasting Father?

[Guyver]

23 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

1.  There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible in support of the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, in which there are three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) 

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1.  If the teaching of a Trinity god is essential to Christianity, how is it that the doctrine is nowhere to be found in scriptures within Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible?

2.  If Jesus Christ is part of a trinity in which he has the same power (co-equal) and the same eternity (co-eternal) as Jehovah the Father, how is it that the scriptures repeatedly inform us that Jesus Christ is subservient to Almighty God Jehovah (indicating inequality) and why is it that scripture tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is "begotten" (indicating he had a beginning)?

3.  Why did it take two Roman Emperors/politicians, neither of whom were Christians, to enforce the official Trinity dogma some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene?

The doctrine of the Trinity, like most all Christian doctrines comes from the interpretations of the Bible.  Those who believe in it are just as convinced that it is true as you are convinced that it is false.

Here is a link to some of those verses.

https://www.logos.com/grow/the-trinity-verses-triune-god/

[Guyver]

8 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

Guyver:

You are confused.  A version is simply a translation of the same Bible, using the oldest written text from which other Bibles are translated.  One of the differences between the New World Translation used by Jehovah's Witnesses is that it has restored the Divine name, YHWH, whereas other Bibles have deliberated removed God's personal name and replaced it with the titles Lord and Lord God, often in all caps.  The New World Translation has also removed fabricated words that still appear in Trinitarian Bible translations, such as the word godhead.

Ok.  You may believe as you like.  I don’t wish to argue about it because I no longer have skin in the game.  Peace be with you.

[cormac mac airt]

16 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Christians consider the doctrine of the Trinity as a “progressive revelation” and part of the NT which supersedes the OT.  And yes, many groups of Christians interpret the OT in ways that support the doctrine of the Trinity, such as Isaiah 9:6.  

“For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

See how the Son is called the Everlasting Father?

And from a strictly theological perspective Judaism considered it blasphemy as God is one being and it is, or at least was, punishable by death for a human to place himself as equal/co-equal to God. Biblical Jesus had to have known and understand that when he ran away and hid from others after claiming he was equal/co-equal to Yahweh. John 8:59.

cormac

Edited August 5 by cormac mac airt
Clarification

[Guyver]

25 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And from a strictly theological perspective Judaism considered it blasphemy as God is one being and it is, or at least was, punishable by death for a human to place himself as equal/co-equal to God. Biblical Jesus had to have known and understand that when he ran away and hid from others after claiming he was equal/co-equal to Yahweh. John 8:59.

cormac

Yes, this is demonstrated in the NT verse where Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I Am.”  The Jews wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy for having said that, according to the NT.

Edit: That’s probably the scripture you referenced.

Edited August 5 by Guyver
Add

[cormac mac airt]

10 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Yes, this is demonstrated in the NT verse where Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I Am.”  The Jews wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy for having said that, according to the NT.

Edit: That’s probably the scripture you referenced.

And yet the “progressive revelation” you’re talking about is the acceptance by his followers of Biblical Jesus’ blasphemy and not being held responsibility for his actions against the God of his ancestors. He essentially crapped on the religion of his people and was effectively patted on the back for his ingenuity by his followers. That’s not really something for Christianity to be proud of IMO. 
 

cormac

[Djedi]

16 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

But even so, everything written in all 66 books of the Judeo-Christian Bible were written by inspiration of Jehovah God.

2 Timothy 3:16

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,"

 

2 Timothy is one of the letters that probably wasn't written by Paul, so why believe that Scripture (the author means the OT, not the NT since some books weren't written yet and no compilation of texts was made yet) was written by inspiration of God? Just because someone (probably not Paul) says so? That seems very naive and uncritical imho. It's clearly a statement for propaganda purposes to bestow authority to those texts. Why on top of that believe that the NT is also written by inspiration of God because other people made that claim afterward? Seems again incredibly naive and uncritical, just accepting bold statements someone made as if they were true.

Edited August 5 by Djedi

[Piney]

8 hours ago, Guyver said:

The doctrine of the Trinity, like most all Christian doctrines comes from the interpretations of the Bible.  Those who believe in it are just as convinced that it is true as you are convinced that it is false.

Here is a link to some of those verses.

https://www.logos.com/grow/the-trinity-verses-triune-god/

William Penn debunks the Trinity in "No Cross, No Crown" and the Quakers don't accept it. Neither does the Unitarians. 

[Piney]

Just now, Djedi said:

2 Timothy is one of the letters that probably wasn't written by Paul, so why believe that Scripture (the author means the OT, not the NT since some books weren't written yet and no compilation was made for the NT) was written by inspiration of God? Just because someone (probably not Paul) says so? That seems very naive and uncritical imho. It's clearly a statement for propaganda purposes to bestow authority to those texts. Why on top of that believe that the NT is also written by inspiration of God because other people made that claim afterward? Seems again incredibly naive and uncritical, just accepting bold statements someone made as if they were true.

The Timothy Letters weren't written by Paul and Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria laid down the only accepted books of the New Testament which he apparently didn't read in detail.