bible verses changed to support trinity

[LisaStar]

Wasn't the "Trinity" something that was added later by the Catholic church? Aren't they the ones who started the God is three persons idea? Jesus is the Son of God being a person, but also being God. God himself is a Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is spirit. Where does the Holy Spirit have a body except when he dwells in a body?

 

[jessedance]

Wasn't the "Trinity" something that was added later by the Catholic church? Aren't they the ones who started the God is three persons idea?..........

the New American bible , saint Joseph edition,1970, a catholic bible says in a footnote to matthew 28:19, as I previously quoted,

...some regard these words as an interpretation of Jesus' final instructions in the light of the church's early change from a mission to the jews to one in behalf of the gentiles,......the baptismal formula reflects the church's gradual understanding of God as three Persons.......

Bold added by me. so you are correct in that it was a latter additon or development. And certainly , everyone agrees the word trinity isn't in the bible.
the predominate view that was held by the majority of christians even at the time of the council of nicea was 'Modalistic Monarchianism'.

Modalistic Monarchianism made its way to Rome <at the end of the first century> and in the first quarter of the second century Monarchianism
identified the father, son and holy spirit so completely that they were thought of only as different aspects of or different moments in the life of
one divine person, called now father, now son, now spirit, as his several activities came successively into view. This doctrine in the second, and third centuries almost succeeded in establishing itself as the doctrine of the church at large. [4]
(The term "Modalistic Monarchianism" refers to the "ism" {belief} of "mono" {one} "arch" {ruler} in various modes or manifestations.)



This was a fairly widespread popular trend of thought; and the driving force behind it was the two-fold conviction, passionately held, of the oneness of God and the full deity of Christ. <what forced it into the open> was the mounting suspicion that the <former truths> were being endangered by the new logos doctrine and by the efforts of theologians to represent the godhead as having revealed itself in the economy as <tri-personal>. As early as Justin's time, we read of objections to his teaching that the logos was something numerically other than the Father. [21]



Modalism was exceedingly difficult to overcome. It was shared by the majority of the common people and was in harmony with the dominant peity of the age. Modalism, in fact, was offensive only to the theologians, particularly to those who felt the influence of the platonic philosophy. [12] Nor is it surprising that these Monarchians should have had a strong following. God is one. For this monotheism the prophets had fought and prevailed. [/QUTOE] http://www.altupc.com/articles/PART03.HTMBold added by me
It is important to note, however; that we have no writings by modalists because they were all burned after and before the council of nicea. All we know about modalistic monarchianism is what their opponents wrote about it. Anyone describing a doctrine that he or she didn't believe in would word it differently than adherents to that belief would. I am repeatedly acccused of misrepreseenting trinity when i describe it. I'm quite sure if we could reserect a 1st century or 2nd century modalist and show him the above quote about what modalists believed, that that person would object to its wording and word it differently. But i think the general idea is conveyed.

 

[jessedance]

der alter;

there is no manuscript extant which contains matthew 28:19 written prior to the council of nicea. nothing, no papyri or anything all we have, on matthew 28:19 prior to the council are the writings of eusebius,and others.

to which you responded

Back this up with proof!

ok, here is some proof,

The fact that we have no copies of the scriptures that date any earlier than the fourth century naturally begs the question, "What happened to the earliest manuscripts?" The following quotes serve in no small way to answer that question:

"Diocletian, in 303 a.d., ordered all of the sacred books to be burnt, though enough survived to transmit the text." -Swete in Variorum "Aids to the Student."

One reason why no early manuscripts have been discovered is that they were, when found, burned by the persecutors of the early church before Christianity became a "state" religion in the time of Constantine. Eusebius, who tended the great library at Caesarea, wrote:

"I saw with my own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razed to their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the open market place."

Dr. Wescott, in his "General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, wrote (pg. 383):

"Among such scenes he could not fail to learn what books men held to be more precious than their lives."

Indeed, even the great library at Caesarea suffered from this time of persecution. According to Jerome, quoted in "The Principle Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament" by Hatch:

"About a.d. 350, two priests, Acacius and Euzoius, undertook the task of restoring the damaged library of Pamphilus at Caesarea, and replaced the old papyrus books with vellum copies." -Jerome Ep. xxxiv.

http://www.focus-search.com/shc/matt2819.html#Early%20Manuscripts

earliest versions don't have matthew 28:19 it was torn out.

Concerning Early Versions:

"Next in importance to manuscripts as channels for the transmission of the text of the Greek Testament must be placed the ancient Versions, which were made from Greek manuscripts, in most cases older than any which we now possess. The Old Latin and Syriac Versions belong to the second century, and carry us back to the lifetime of some of the immediate successors of the Apostles."............

However, it must be remembered that we have no extant (currently known to exist) manuscripts that were written in the first, second or even third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years between the actual writing of Matthew and our earliest manuscript copies.

It must also be remembered that no single manuscript is free from textual error. Some have errors peculiar to themselves, and some whole families of manuscripts have the same errors. The textual critic aims to reproduce from an examination of all the evidence what was probably the original words.......

The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings."..........

We quote again from the ERE (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics):

"In all extant versions the text is found in the traditional form ...though it must be remembered that the best manuscripts, both of the African Old Latin and of the Old Syriac Versions are defective at this point."

F.C. Conybeare further elaborates:

"In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew."

So then, though all early Versions contain the traditional name-phrase of Matthew 28:19, the earliest of these Versions do not contain the verse at all. And curiously, not because of omission, but because of removal!

http://www.focus-search.com/shc/matt2819.html#Early%20Manuscripts

 

[Der Alte]

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says : " Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

http://www.lightbearer.org/archives/000385.html

I said earlier;

”the entire quote above is a pack of lies. It does not exist in the source cited.”​

Assuming that something quoted is a lie because one can't find it is not the first assumption I would jump to. i think usually its we can't find it in the source or its an earlier encylopedia that was refered to, or perhaps they misquoted their source. Lieing would be my last assumption because it would be too easily discovered on the internet. and i never assume that trinitarian sources that i read are lieing , even though i disagree with them. i strongly feel they misinterpret their facts of course.likewise i never assume oneness sources or jw sources are lieing because I may disagree with some of their conclusions. its in vol. 4 , page 2637 under the heading of sacrements 3. instituted of christ.

I stand by my earlier statement, in this regard. The quote was not from the ISBE article on Baptism, as your post states, but as you have shown from the ISBE article on Sacraments. I wonder why lightbearer.org cited the wrong article? Shall we read the article and see?

As I said, and will continue to say, and prove, you are not interested in the truth. You dig through anti-Trinitarian garbage heaps, for anything, written by anybody, printed or posted anywhere, desperately, frantically, trying to prove your presuppositions about the Trinity. Yes, the words quoted, above, are in the article, when the correct article is identified. But, you will note, the author of the article is not affirming that statement, but mentioning it as one of many heretical views held by modern critics.

This is the worst kind of dishonest unreasoning polemic. For those who are interested in the truth I posted the link to the ISBE earlier. Here is the paragraph from which that one sentence was chopped in half and misquoted. You will note that the author, of the article, decribes that reference to Mt 28:19 as, “anti-supernatural pre-suppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting.”

3 . Institution by Christ:​

The assumption made above, that both Baptism and the Lord's Supper owe their origin as sacraments of the church to their definite appointment by Christ Himself, has been strongly challenged by some modern critics.

(1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as Mar_16:15 f occurs in a passage (Mar_16:9-20) which textual criticism has shown to have formed no part of the original Gospel, Mat_28:19, standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more especially as its statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narratives of the Forty Days are legendary, that Mat_28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula “foreign to the mouth of Jesus” (see Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the references there given). It is evident, however, that some of these objections rest upon anti-supernatural pre-suppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting. Over against them all we have to set the positive and weighty fact that from the earliest days of Christianity Baptism appears as the rite of initiation into the fellowship of the church (Act_2:38, Act_2:41, et passim), and that even Paul, with all his freedom of thought and spiritual interpretation of the gospel, never questioned its necessity (compare Rom_6:3 ff; 1Co_12:13; Eph_4:5). On any other supposition than that of its appointment by our Lord Himself it is difficult to conceive how within the brief space of years between the death of Jesus and the apostle's earliest references to the subject, the ordinance should not only have originated but have established itself in so absolute a manner for Jewish and Gentile Christians alike.​

​

this in my opinion is faulty reasoning. saying that jesus didnot give the trinity order of baptism after his resurection and saying paul didn't know of the trinity order of baptism and concluding therefore it is in the original text says to me that they are confussed as to what the facts they have mean. also, there only support for the trinity order of baptism is saying that

Sorry Charlie, you don’t have the option of chopping sentences in half, quoting bits and pieces of a source, out-of-context, picking and choosing which parts of a writing is valid and which are false, based on your unsupported opinion. Your opinion means diddly. Your logic appears to be, if it agrees with your presuppositions, then it is OK. If not, then it is contradictory and faulty reasoning. I don’t see you making the same objections about the parts, which seem to support you. If it is contradictory and faulty reasoning, etc. then it is not a valid source for your argument.

Here is another quote from your lightbearer.org., shown in red. Only I have placed it in context. The quote does not support a Jesus only baptismal formula, as you are trying to imply, but, in fact, is saying that the Arians had not changed the Trinitarian formula, at the time of the Nicaean council, while other heretical groups had. I will say once again every thing you have quoted from lightbear.org is garbage. Keep it up, true followers of the Lord Jesus do not have to resort to deceit and dishonesty to present the gospel.

The mind of the Church as to the necessity of serving the trinitarian formula in this sacrament has been clearly shown by her treatment of baptism conferred by heretics. Any ceremony that did not observe this form has been declared invalid. The Montanists baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and Montanus and Priscilla (St. Basil, Ep. i, Ad Amphil.). As a consequence, the Council of Laodicea ordered their rebaptism. The Arians at the time of the Council of Nicæa do not seem to have tampered with the [Trinitarian] baptismal formula, for that Council does not order their rebaptism. When, then, St. Athanasius (Or. ii, Contr. Ar.) and St. Jerome (Contra Lucif.) declare the Arians to have baptized in the name of the Creator and creatures, they must either refer to their doctrine or to a later changing of the sacramental form. It is well known that the latter was the case with the Spanish Arians and that consequently converts from the sect were rebaptized.

http://www.lightbearer.org/archives/000385.html
​

​

New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19 : "Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."

New Revised Standard Version
Bible, 1990. Bruce M. Metzger et al., The New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

This is a revision of the Revised Standard Version on the basis of the UBS third edition (see Aland Black Metzger Wikren Martini 1975). It modernizes and simplifies the language of the RSV, and also revises it in the interest of "gender-inclusiveness." In general, the translation is less literal than the RSV, but more literal than the New International Version.

The deliberately non-Christian interpretation of the Old Testament which made the RSV unacceptable to conservatives is continued in this revision. In fact the most notorious verse of the RSV, Isaiah 7:14, in the NRSV is moved even further away from its connection with the New Testament. The RSV had rendered it "a young woman shall conceive" (future); but the NRSV has "the young woman is with child" (present), which effectively prevents the Christological interpretation (and there is no footnote to inform the reader that the RSV's "shall conceive" is a possibility).

The inclusive language alterations are very thorough, involving thousands of alterations designed to completely erase the Bible's generic masculine pronouns and other usages offensive to feminists. An attempt has been made to downplay the extent to which this policy was imposed upon the committee by the National Council of Churches (the copyright holder, which in 1980 also commissioned the Inclusive Language Lectionary as another revision of the RSV), but it is evident that it did not arise spontaneously from a consensus of the translators themselves. Barry Hoberman, writing in the Atlantic Monthly [1] near to the end of the work on the NRSV, reported the following comments from members of the committee:

Despite such hard feelings and complaints of the translators themselves, the NRSV was quickly adopted as a replacement of the RSV in the liberal denominations associated with the National Council of Churches. It has also been favored by liberal university professors, for use as a text in "religion" courses. Two study editions have appeared: The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1991), edited by Bruce Metzger and Roland Murphy; and the HarperCollins Study Bible (1993) edited by Wayne Meeks and others. In both of these editions, the introductions and annotations are decidedly liberal.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nrsv.html
​

​

​

 

[Starcrystal]

You know something? There seems to be some historical quotes showing modalism is what was beleived, and trinitarianism was adapted later. On the other hand there appears to be some historical quotes stating that Oneness or modalism is a heresy that came along in the second or third century, depending on what you're reading!

Looking at scripture we can pull out some verses that appear to support the trinitarian concept, and even push it so far as to make a "God in 3 persons" teaching, although you'll be hard pressed to find any direct reference to 3 "persons" because that is never once said in scripture. We can also pull out some verses to support modalism or oneness, but again, you'll be hard pressed to find anything confirming that the 3 manifestations of God cannot exist simultaneously, because at least 2 portions of scripture say otherwise. (Jesus baptism, & the mount of transfiguration)

Bottom line is, BOTH teachings have support, yet BOTH teachings have what appear to be irreconcilable pitfalls. Who can deny this if we look at both sides of the argument objectively?

It was over 10 years ago that I realized both had merit, but both were also a little off. Thats why I beleive something that is a balance between the 2, right in the middle. Its not comprimise, but rather I think it clears away the pitfalls found by going either extremely Trinitarian, or extreme Oneness (Modalism.)

The bottom line is, do we beleive Jesus is God manifest in the flesh? I know some don't beleive that, but I do, and I've explained that here and on other threads. Do we beleive there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved? (Acts 4:12) And that there is not salvation in any other? Do we beleive John 3:16 and take it to heart? Do we beleive Christ died for our sins, confess this with our mouth, and beleive in our heart God raised him from the dead? Do we beleive Christ calls us out from the ways of the world to live set apart unto him? If we can answer "yes" to these questions, we are saved. I beleive there will be Trinitarian beleivers, Oneness beleivers, and those who beleive a balance inbetween the 2 that are saved when we all stand before the LORD. Amen!

 

[Der Alte]

The fact that we have no copies of the scriptures that date any earlier than the fourth century naturally begs the question, "What happened to the earliest manuscripts?" The following quotes serve in no small way to answer that question:

Just a little lesson in grammar here. “Begs the question” means to make a statement and proceed as if the statement is true, without having been proven. Then a lesson in honesty and integrity. Quote your source. You don’t own or have access to most of the sources you are referring to. You are quoting second hand from another source, and you are not acknowledging that source. If you have “Swetein Valiorum” Aids to the Student”, who is the publisher, what is publication date, and what is the page number? The same for every one of these second or third hand quotes. Do not quote from web sites and pretend it is your own research.

"Diocletian, in 303 a.d., ordered all of the sacred books to be burnt, though enough survived to transmit the text." -Swete in Variorum "Aids to the Student."

One reason why no early manuscripts have been discovered is that they were, when found, burned by the persecutors of the early church before Christianity became a "state" religion in the time of Constantine. Eusebius, who tended the great library at Caesarea, wrote:

"I saw with my own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razed to their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the open market place."

Both, Diocletian and Eusebius could explain why there are no early manuscripts with Mt 28:19. They do not prove that anything was "torn out" or added

Dr. Wescott, in his "General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, wrote (pg. 383):

"Among such scenes he could not fail to learn what books men held to be more precious than their lives."

Indeed, even the great library at Caesarea suffered from this time of persecution. According to Jerome, quoted in "The Principle Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament" by Hatch:

"About a.d. 350, two priests, Acacius and Euzoius, undertook the task of restoring the damaged library of Pamphilus at Caesarea, and replaced the old papyrus books with vellum copies." -Jerome Ep. xxxiv.

I’m still looking for proof that the Triadic, Mt 28:19 was added to the scripture to support the Trinity. This would explain why there are no early manuscripts of Mt 28:19 with the Triadic formula. This only shows that manuscripts were destroyed it doesn’t prove anything was added.

earliest versions don't have matthew 28:19 it was torn out.

There is no evidence anywhere in your post that proves any specific chapters or verses were torn out of anything, for any reason.

Concerning Early Versions:

"Next in importance to manuscripts as channels for the transmission of the text of the Greek Testament must be placed the ancient Versions, which were made from Greek manuscripts, in most cases older than any which we now possess. The Old Latin and Syriac Versions belong to the second century, and carry us back to the lifetime of some of the immediate successors of the Apostles."............

However, it must be remembered that we have no extant (currently known to exist) manuscripts that were written in the first, second or even third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years between the actual writing of Matthew and our earliest manuscript copies.

So what?This does not prove that anything was torn out of or added to any scriptures. And OBTW what is the source of these quotes, the original work and where you copied them from?

It must also be remembered that no single manuscript is free from textual error. Some have errors peculiar to themselves, and some whole families of manuscripts have the same errors. The textual critic aims to reproduce from an examination of all the evidence what was probably the original words.......

Now this is begging the question! There has been no evidence “that no single manuscript is free from textual error.” Also a general reference to manuscript errors proves absolutely nothing about any specific manuscript. You are supposed to be proving that scriptures were changed to support the Trinity.

The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings."..........

Begs the question, no evidence that “scribes . . .put into them [manuscripts] the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings.” This is the unidentified author’s opinion not supported with any evidence, whatsoever.

We quote again from the ERE (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics):

"In all extant versions the text is found in the traditional form ...though it must be remembered that the best manuscripts, both of the African Old Latin and of the Old Syriac Versions are defective at this point."

The ERE is probably dated to the 19th century. Where is their proof that, “the best manuscripts. . .are defective at this point.?” Do they have manuscripts that are not defective or a time machine that they can travel back in time and see the original manuscripts? Remember you blowing off the sources I quoted because they appeared to be making these same kinds of unsupported statements. Although my sources referred to other sources, which you did not bother to investigate.

You were too busy digging through another anti-Trinitarian garbage heap searching for more out-of-context bits and pieces to support your argument. If you happen to have a copy of the ERE please tell us their sources? But you can’t do that because this is an uncited 2d or 3d hand cut and paste from an anti-Trinitarian website, lighthouse ministries.

F.C. Conybeare further elaborates:

"In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew."

So then, though all early Versions contain the traditional name-phrase of Matthew 28:19, the earliest of these Versions do not contain the verse at all. And curiously, not because of omission, but because of removal!

Conybeare does not support your presupposition that the ending of Matthew was deliberately removed. All Conybeare proves is that they are gone, and that could very well be explained by the destruction of scriptures referenced by Diocletian and Eusebius, which you quoted earlier.

I am still waiting for evidence that any scriptures were changed to support the Trinity. So far you have not produced one single bit of clear, irrefutable evidence. All you and your sources are capable of is misquoting, quoting out-of-context, bits and pieces of sources desperately trying to prop up your faulty argument.

 

[Der Alte]

You know something? There seems to be some historical quotes showing modalism is what was beleived, and trinitarianism was adapted later. On the other hand there appears to be some historical quotes stating that Oneness or modalism is a heresy that came along in the second or third century, depending on what you're reading!

Looking at scripture we can pull out some verses that appear to support the trinitarian concept, and even push it so far as to make a "God in 3 persons" teaching, although you'll be hard pressed to find any direct reference to 3 "persons" because that is never once said in scripture. We can also pull out some verses to support modalism or oneness, but again, you'll be hard pressed to find anything confirming that the 3 manifestations of God cannot exist simultaneously, because at least 2 portions of scripture say otherwise. (Jesus baptism, & the mount of transfiguration)

Where are the "historical quotes historical quotes showing modalism is what was beleived [sic], and trinitarianism was adapted later." You have not posted or referred to any. For anyone interested in the truth, the writings of the early church fathers are available online at several websites. I would be most interested in any proof you can provide for this argument.

You are still confusing the word "person" with the term "huan being." They are not synonymous.

You are also still basing your argument on a false premise. Where was anyone ever referred to as a person in the scriptures? Is there a verse which calls Paul, Peter, or John a person? I have already posted the definitions for the Latin word for person which was first applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the definition from an English dictionary. Also I quoted and referenced a scripture in which Jesus describes the Father as a man. But you have ignored my posts, evidently because they prove you wrong and you have no counter argument.

Is the word "Trinity" wrong because it is not found in the Bible? Then the word "Bible" is also wrong because it is not found in the scripture. Everybody who uses this argument also use many words which are not in the scriptures, to explain the scriptures. For example, where is the word "manifest" used to refer to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit?

 

[Der Alte]

Wasn't the "Trinity" something that was added later by the Catholic church? Aren't they the ones who started the God is three persons idea?

No!

 

[Starcrystal]

Der Alter,
Where was anyone ever referred to as a person in the scriptures? Is there a verse which calls Paul, Peter, or John a person? I have already posted the definitions for the Latin word for person which was first applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the definition from an English dictionary. Also I quoted and referenced a scripture in which Jesus describes the Father as a man. But you have ignored my posts, evidently because they prove you wrong and you have no counter argument.

No, I didn't ignore your post. I read that. I am not confusing "person" with "human being" ~ I am saying that person by definition has a physical body, and by implication can be perceived as a human being. Even people who beleive in ghosts of the dead call it a ghost or a spirit, not a person, even though it was (supposedly) a person while alive in the body. Jesus even made a distinction here, as I posted before, that a spirit does not have flesh and bone. Jesus said "Fear not, it is I." In other words he was still with them physically, he was NOT a spirit (in the sense of a ghost as the disciples wondered he might be when walking on the water.)
Furthermore, usage of that one word "persons" has been a major hangup for Jehovas Witnesses and is one thing that keeps them from receiving Christ as Lord and beleiving him as God. I know they misinterpret the trinitarian teaching too, but the persons issue is a big one. Its a stumblingblock. I know at least one JW who began to at least question some of the Watchtowers teachings when I shared with him about the nature of God as I have on this thread. He even told me he would have been a lot more closed off to listening to me if I claimed God was in 3 persons. And again, it was the PERSONS issue at hand.

 

[Starcrystal]

This may have been posted here already, but here's historical account of the trinity doctrine not being presented until the 2nd century AD, long after all the New Testement writers had gone on to be with their Lord:

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1977 Edition, Vol. 13, p. 1021 The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.) He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context.

Now, was I there to prove its true? No. But if it is, then Tertullian introduced a plurality of "persons" into the godhead.

 

[Starcrystal]

Der Alter,
No!

(In response to my wifes post.)

Well, maybe not EXACTLY, but pretty close....

"TERTULLIAN
It was in this Age that the first man to coin the word "Trinity" came along, named Tertullian (150 - 225 AD) and the first who said that God was Three persons in one substance about the year 200. Never before Tertullian had anyone heard of the word "Trinity". This man was originally "Binitarian" - having believed in two persons. He believed that the Holy Ghost was more of a "thing" and not God, Himself. But the "Montanists" taught him to believe in the Paraclete as being more personal than what he formerly felt. Thus the Holy Spirit became the third eternal person in his later thinking.

In his book Against Hermogenes, Tertullian believed God was originally alone and not yet, therefore, a Father. The Son was created at a certain point, making God into a Father. He wrote, "The Trinity, flowing down from the Father, does not at all disturb the Monarchy [one sovereign God], whilst at the same time guards the state of the Economy [three persons]," in his book Against Praxeas, a book which taught against Modalism or Oneness. He said that the Father and the Son are like the Sun and its light rays.

The light rays and the Sun are one, but yet they are two different things. He taught a new concept saying that the Son is merely "a portion of the whole Godhead".

He did not believe the three persons were eternal, as do the Trinitarians today.


ORIGEN
After Tertullian, came Origen (185 AD - 254 AD). This man derived much of his thoughts from pagan philosophy of the Greeks. He believed that souls pre-existed conception and that even Satan would eventually be saved. He believed Jesus was born of the Father before all other creatures, and that "the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. But in His case it is not clearly distinguished whether He is to be regarded as born or innate, or also as a Son of God or not," according to his book, On the Principles.

Origen was the first who clearly taught that there were three persons who were eternal. He taught that the Son eternally was being generated from the Father. (1:2:2; 1:2:4).

Towards the end of this Age, more and more writers began expressing their beliefs about God in trinitarian terms. Yet they still saw the Son and the Spirit as inferior to the Father. Only two men seemed to write in what is agreeable to the modern trinitarian doctrine. These men were Gregory Thaumaturgus and Dionysius of Rome.

Most of the Fourth Century passed before the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine was created. Please note that Trinitarianism was originated by people who did not believe in the absolute deity of Jesus Christ. Modern day Trinitarians do not even agree with what the originators of the Trinity believed!

By the end of the fourth century there was a great controversy between those who believed that Jesus was another being separate from God and inferior to God, and those who believed that Jesus was a coeternal person beside the Father making up one God. Athanasius led the group who believed in three persons while Arius led the other group.

In 325 AD, Athanasius' view won the day at the Nicean council. But the idea of a Trinity was not completely declared until the Council at Constantinople in 381 where they declared God to be three eternal persons. At this latter council they declared the Holy Spirit was a third eternal person. The Athanasian Creed is the declaration held by Roman Catholics and most Protestants today. It was created in the fifth century. Modern orthodox trinitarianism stands on this creed.

In order to accept the doctrine of the Trinity one must believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches in their doctrine of Tradition and Magisterium. This doctrine declares that the Apostles did not have all the truths of God and that the "Church" formulated doctrines AFTER the Bible was written which are to be reckoned to be as important as the truths explicitly taught in the Bible. Since Trinity was not taught in the Bible, but formulated in the fourth century, it nevertheless must be believed since the "Church" said it was true."

Quote from: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/origin.htm

 

[Ben johnson]

Is theHoly Trinity biblical?If so where can it be found?Thank you,Emmy.

TRINITY isn't biblcial it is baised on two verses of scripturethat are both spurious (not in the original manuscirpt) matthew 28:19 and 1 john 5:7 are both verses tampered with to have verses to base trinity on.

Nice try, Jessedance. The entire NT asserts the deity of Jesus; and the entire Bible asserts the singleness of ONE GOD ---- see especially Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 45:5. "There IS NO GOD besides ME." Period.

Jesus, though BORN, had no beginning (Heb6:19-7:4). In Rev1 JEHOVAH is the "Alpha-Omega-beginning-end", in Rev22 JESUS is the "Alpha-Omega-beginning-end".

God calls Jesus "GOD" in Heb1; yet there is ONLY ONE GOD.

Col2:9, Philip2:5-11 (understand that verse 7 really says "thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD") --- assert Jesus = God.

Jesus identifies Himself with Jehovah in Jn14:9ff ("He who has SEEN ME, has SEEN the Father!") Jesus calls Himself "THE Almighty God" in Jn8:58. Don't take MY word for it --- just ask the JEWS in Jn10:33!!!

"Trinity" is an expression for us trying to understand how ONE GOD, can exist in THREE PERSONS. Clearly, the SPIRIT is fiully God; but He is NOT the Father. Nor is the Father the Son, nor can the Son be Father or Spirit.

Three persons, one Being.

Tri-unity.

Trinity.

 

[Der Alte]

This may have been posted here already, but here's historical account of the trinity doctrine not being presented until the 2nd century AD, long after all the New Testement writers had gone on to be with their Lord:

Now, was I there to prove its true? No. But if it is, then Tertullian introduced a plurality of "persons" into the godhead.

Wrong! There was one other church father before Tertullian, who used the word "Trias," "Trinity" to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Also in Justin in "Dialogue with Trypho" about 100 years before Tertullian, although he did not use the word Trinity, speaks of the person of the Holy Spirit, the person of God, and the person of Jesus Christ.

And even if you could prove the first person to ever use the word or concept of Trinity, it is still not the Catholic church. What we know as the Catholic Church with a Pope as its head did not exist until about 1100 AD.

 

[Der Alte]

(In response to my wifes post.)

Well, maybe not EXACTLY, but pretty close....

"TERTULLIAN
It was in this Age that the first man to coin the word "Trinity" came along, named Tertullian (150 - 225 AD) and the first who said that God was Three persons in one substance about the year 200. Never before Tertullian had anyone heard of the word "Trinity".. . .

I have omitted the remainder of the comments about Tertullian. The problem with this entire post, is the same problem I have been addressing with others presenting false teachings here. You are just cutting and pasting stuff from some raging anti-Trinitarian website without bothering to do any real reading or research yourself. If you want to discuss Tertullian then read what he actually wrote, for yourself, and list the book and chapter where a quote may be found. I am not interested in 2d and 3d hand misquotes and quotes out-of-context from rabid anti-Trinitarian websites.

As I said in the other post, Justin [a.d. 110-165], about 100 years before Tertullian, did not use the word Trinity but in his, (Link to: Dialogue with Trypho), Justin, wrote;

1. The Word is Not an Inanimate Power
2. The Word is a Person.
3. The Word is Begotten of the Father's Substance.
4. He (Jesus) was God,
5. He (Jesus) was Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.
6. He (Jesus) was God, indivisible from the Father.
7. He (Jesus) was God, inseparable from the Father.
8. (Jesus) was Begotten from the Father but not by abscission.[cutting off]

Justin wrote, Jesus was God, “indivisible”, not capable of being divided, from the Father. Jesus was God, “inseparable”, not capable of being separated, from the Father. The Word, Jesus, God, The Son of God, is Begotten of the Father's Substance but is not divided from the Father, is not separated from the Father, and is not cut off from the Father.

Chapter CXXVIII.-The Word is Sent Not as an Inanimate Power, But as a Person Begotten of the Father's Substance.

Chapter XXXVI.-He Proves that Christ is Called Lord of Hosts.

'And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, `The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.'

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325
​

ORIGEN
After Tertullian, came Origen (185 AD - 254 AD). This man derived much of his thoughts from pagan philosophy of the Greeks. Blah, blah, blah and more blah, blah blah.

I have heard this lie so much I want to puke. Go read Origen then get back to me on what he really said. Here is a link to the early church fathers. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ If you want me to believe something about Origen, or any other early church father, go read what they actually wrote and quote it for me, here, and a link would be most helpful.

I am not interested in what some raging, frothing at the mouth, anti-Trinitarian website said about anything. As you can see virtually everything they post is either an out and out lie, or a misquote or quoted out-of-context.

In 325 AD, Athanasius' view won the day at the Nicean council. . .Blah, blah, blah and more Blah, blah, blah.

More garbage that makes me want to puke. Is there any historical evidence to back this up? There should be, there were at least two prominent church historians alive at the time of the Nicaean council, Eusebius and Lactantius. What did they writer concerning this?

In order to accept the doctrine of the Trinity one must believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches in their doctrine of Tradition and Magisterium. This doctrine declares that the Apostles did not have all the truths of God and that the "Church" formulated doctrines AFTER the Bible was written which are to be reckoned to be as important as the truths explicitly taught in the Bible. Since Trinity was not taught in the Bible, but formulated in the fourth century, it nevertheless must be believed since the "Church" said it was true."

Garbage! Have you actually read either one of these documents? Do you even know if they exist? This entire statement it totally false! As long as somebody, anybody, writes something and posts it online then it must be true and all the anti-Trinitarians lock step and march behind whatever the latest fad attack on the historic church.

 

[Der Alte]

the New American bible , saint Joseph edition,1970, a catholic bible says in a footnote to matthew 28:19, as I previously quoted,
Bold added by me. so you are correct in that it was a latter additon or development. And certainly , everyone agrees the word trinity isn't in the bible.

Irrelevant! Neither is the word Bible in the Bible.

the predominate view that was held by the majority of christians even at the time of the council of nicea was 'Modalistic Monarchianism'.

Modalistic Monarchianism made its way to Rome <at the end of the first century> and in the first quarter of the second century Monarchianism identified the father, son and holy spirit so completely that they were thought of only as different aspects of or different moments in the life of one divine person, called now father, now son, now spirit, as his several activities came successively into view. This doctrine in the second, and third centuries almost succeeded in establishing itself as the doctrine of the church at large. [4] (The term "Modalistic Monarchianism" refers to the "ism" {belief} of "mono" {one} "arch" {ruler} in various modes or manifestations.)

This was a fairly widespread popular trend of thought; and the driving force behind it was the two-fold conviction, passionately held, of the oneness of God and the full deity of Christ. <what forced it into the open> was the mounting suspicion that the <former truths> were being endangered by the new logos doctrine and by the efforts of theologians to represent the godhead as having revealed itself in the economy as <tri-personal>. As early as Justin's time, we read of objections to his teaching that the logos was something numerically other than the Father. [21]

Modalism was exceedingly difficult to overcome. It was shared by the majority of the common people and was in harmony with the dominant peity of the age. Modalism, in fact, was offensive only to the theologians, particularly to those who felt the influence of the platonic philosophy. [12] Nor is it surprising that these Monarchians should have had a strong following. God is one. For this monotheism the prophets had fought and prevailed.

http://www.altupc.com/articles/PART03.HTMBold added by me

It is important to note, however; that we have no writings by modalists because they were all burned after and before the council of nicea. All we know about modalistic monarchianism is what their opponents wrote about it. Anyone describing a doctrine that he or she didn't believe in would word it differently than adherents to that belief would. I am repeatedly acccused of misrepreseenting trinity when i describe it. I'm quite sure if we could reserect a 1st century or 2nd century modalist and show him the above quote about what modalists believed, that that person would object to its wording and word it differently. But i think the general idea is conveyed.

I don&#8217;t care what you think or what your opinion is. The fact is you have not produced any conclusive evidence of anything. If you will look thorough this piece of anti-Trinitarian nonsense you will see numbers enclosed in square brackets, e.g. [12]. These are footnote numbers referring to footnotes somewhere. I wasn&#8217;t able to find them.

This entire piece of twaddle is based on the information in those footnotes. But there is nothing absolutely nothing in this quote to inform us who wrote the footnotes or what they prove, if anything. For example this assertion &#8220;It is important to note, however; that we have no writings by modalists because they were all burned after and before the council of nicea.&#8221; Where is the proof of this? This article does not provide any proof, it does not say what evidence the writers of the footnotes found. That is Jessedance&#8217;s requirement for proof, see the response below to one of my posts. But as we see you have a double standard, you require everything to be handed to you, but as with all false beliefs you have a double standard, if you did your own research and reading and provided the kind of evidence you demand, your argument would fall like a house of cards. All you can do is scrabble around in the garbage heaps and copy and paste the misquotes, out-of-context quotes, and a out and out lies of raging anti-Trinitarians. If your quotes from whatever anti-Trinitarian site you dig up next doesn&#8217;t meet these requirements don&#8217;t post it. Your standard, your requirement. I want to see historical proof for everything.

There is no proof, they don't say what riggenbach found that proves the trinity order of baptism is the original . what did riggenbach come up with that proves the trinity reading is the original? they don't say. again they seem very confussed with their information. they seem to be trying to say both that the trinity formula for baptism is both in the original and isnt.

 

[jessedance]

Nice try, Jessedance. The entire NT asserts the deity of Jesus; and the entire Bible asserts the singleness of ONE GOD ---- see especially Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 45:5. "There IS NO GOD besides ME." Period.

Jesus, though BORN, had no beginning (Heb6:19-7:4). In Rev1 JEHOVAH is the "Alpha-Omega-beginning-end", in Rev22 JESUS is the "Alpha-Omega-beginning-end".

God calls Jesus "GOD" in Heb1; yet there is ONLY ONE GOD.

Col2:9, Philip2:5-11 (understand that verse 7 really says "thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD") --- assert Jesus = God.

Jesus identifies Himself with Jehovah in Jn14:9ff ("He who has SEEN ME, has SEEN the Father!") Jesus calls Himself "THE Almighty God" in Jn8:58. Don't take MY word for it --- just ask the JEWS in Jn10:33!!!

"Trinity" is an expression for us trying to understand how ONE GOD, can exist in THREE PERSONS. Clearly, the SPIRIT is fiully God; but He is NOT the Father. Nor is the Father the Son, nor can the Son be Father or Spirit.

Three persons, one Being.

Tri-unity.

Trinity.

My point was that the doctrine is based on two spruious scriptures, matthew 28:19 and 1 john 5:7,8. there aren't any other scriptures in the bible to base trinity on. there are a great number of other scriptures that are interpreted to support trinity. In other words, without these two scriptures there is nothing to base trinity on.
I was not dealing with the subject of the divinity or non divinity of god or the holy spirit or god the father. I feel i know what those scritpures you quoted mean but that would involve a long conversation between us.

 

[Der Alte]

My point was that the doctrine is based on two spruious scriptures, matthew 28:19 and 1 john 5:7,8. there aren't any other scriptures in the bible to base trinity on. there are a great number of other scriptures that are interpreted to support trinity. In other words, without these two scriptures there is nothing to base trinity on.

The last statement is totally false. Another misconception of anti-Trinitarians who don&#8217;t know what they are talking about. And you have not proved that either verse is spurious and you certainly have not proved that these or any other verses were changed, added to, or removed from, the Bible to support the Trinity. Saying &#8220;spurious&#8221; over and over again doesn&#8217;t make it true.

 

[jessedance]

der alter;

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says : " Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

To which you replied.

I stand by my earlier statement, in this regard. The quote was not from the ISBE article on Baptism, as your post states, but as you have shown from the ISBE article on Sacraments. I wonder why lightbearer.org cited the wrong article?

Ok , I missed that, the quote erroniously states that he got his information from baptism when he got it from sacrements, but i see this as an honest mistake not a lie. lies are deliberate and this doesnt appear as an act of deception to me. I mean I was able to find it because it is in vol. 4 page 2637. i have this bible enclyopedia here at home in print and was able to find it that way. but i can see how one might interpret his motives as you do. I just don't.

You will note that the author, of the article, decribes that reference to Mt 28:19 as, "anti-supernatural pre-suppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting."

I believe the conclusions for which real premises are wanting is refering to math. 28:19. and the anti-supernatural pre-suppositions is refeing to mark 16:9-20.

harnack, the author of the article ,believes mark 16:9-20 to be spurious, I don't. He also believes matthew 28:19 to be spurious , to which i concur. I know the baises of the belief that mark;16,9-20 is spurious but i also know why those same manuscripts have proof that their ommision was in one deliberate and the other a blank page was left , and it is the only blank page in the entire manuscript suggesting that the copiest was unsure of whether vs. 9-20 were authentic or not. i forget which manuscripts they are A and ALEPH or B probably.

also, you claim that eusebius was an arian. I find no evidence to this fact. except that he wrote some letters in support of retaining arias in his office prior to the council of nicea, which other non arian church leaders did also. eusebius sat right next to the emporer constantine, and i beleive presided over the meeting. He also signed the nicean creed document. according to some sources he signed under duress, according to others he just had some trouble with the word 'consubstantial.' and that when it's meaning was explained to him he was in full accord and wrote letters supporting it. I don't know why you think he was an arian.

I’m still looking for proof that the Triadic, Mt 28:19 was added to the scripture to support the Trinity. This would explain why there are no early manuscripts of Mt 28:19 with the Triadic formula. This only shows that manuscripts were destroyed it doesn’t prove anything was added.

As I stated, i offered some proof not all. i showed some reasons , not all, why their are no manuscripts prior to the council of nicea that contain matthew 28:19. takes time to search for information. I don't have bibliography of everything I've learned imprented on my brain. there are other proofs at the internet site I got this information from,

1. Eusebius quoting matthew 28:19 many times without the triatic formula and usually this way, 'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.’ a few times he abridged the scritpure and left out the latter part. we all do that.

2."The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century so understood them, and dwells at length on ‘the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon a man by Baptism’". From Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, page 352.

3."In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’, struck out." - Conybeare

4."In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows:

‘And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’"- Excerta cap. 76, ed. Sylb. page 287, quote from Conybeare

5.Justin Martyr

"Justin...quotes a saying of Christ...as a proof of the necessity or regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19." - Ency. of Religion and Ethics

"In Justin Martyr, who wrote between a.d. 130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew 28:19 by various scholars, e.g. Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen, who sees in it an abridgement of the ordinary text. The passage is in Justin’s dialogue with Trypho 39, p. 258:

‘God hath not afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by the name of this Christ.’

6. Macedonius

"We may infer that the text was not quite fixed when Tertullian was writing, early in the third century. In the middle of that century Cyprian could insist on the use of the triple formula as essential in the baptism even of the orthodox. The pope Stephen answered him that the baptisms even of the heretics were valid, if the name of Jesus alone was invoked. (However, this decision did not prevent the popes of the seventh century from excommunicating the entire Celtic Church for its adhesion to the old use of invoking in one name).

7. Eunomius

"Exceptions are found which perhaps point to an old practice dying out. Cyprian (Ep. 73) and the ‘Apostolic Canons’ (no. 50) combat the shorter formula, thereby attesting to its use in certain quarters. The ordinance of the Apostolic Canon therefore runs:

‘If any bishop or presbyter fulfill not three baptisms of one initiation, but one baptism which is given (as) into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed.’

8.Aphraates

"There is one other witness whose testimony we must consider. He is Aphraates...who wrote between 337 and 345. He cites our text in a formal manner, as follows:

‘Make disciples of all the nations, and they shall believe in me’.

"The last words appear to be a gloss on the Eusebian reading ‘in my name’. But in any case, they preclude the textus receptus with its injunction to baptize in the triune name. Were the writing of Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation, but in the presence of the Eusebian and Justinian texts this is impossible." - Conybeare

all this info is quoted from the same web site. all this info strongly suggests to me that matthew 28:19s triatic formula is a latter addition. not to mention the other evidence i have posted.

There is no evidence anywhere in your post that proves any specific chapters or verses were torn out of anything, for any reason.

Ok, my mistake, my source said 'removal' . something that is torn out is removed but things that are removed aren't always torn out. torn out is a specific type of removal , there are other ways of removing something but the result is the same . namely, it's not there anymore.

Although my sources referred to other sources, which you did not bother to investigate.

I don't have access to them and couldn't find them on the internet. I'm not a scholar. and don't have a vast library at my disposal, nor the funds to aquire one, I probably don't even have the ability to become a scholar, although ;through christ I can do all things' and if he called me to be a scholar i certainly could be one. you will notice that this room is for 'all members' . I defend my beliefs as best I can. perhaps not as well as you defend yours, but thats not for me to say. I have presented the information I could find to support what I believe. surely I or anyone could have done better. You want for example proof that scribes tampered with manuscripts, I can't produce here several early manuscripts written in greek and point out each variant reading that they have and the different alternate readings that were put in the margin or notes put in the margin and show how that those notes that were in the marigin in earlier manuscripts made their way into latter manuscripts as authentic scripture. I have to rely on what other scholars say, they said, both pros and cons, and decide for myself who is right.

additionally, it is not possible in this forum to go into great detail as many of your requests would require. look at how long this post is.

 

[jessedance]

The last statement is totally false. Another misconception of anti-Trinitarians who don’t know what they are talking about. And you have not proved that either verse is spurious and you certainly have not proved that these or any other verses were changed, added to, or removed from, the Bible to support the Trinity. Saying “spurious” over and over again doesn’t make it true.

I have presented in here much information in support of these two verses being supported. they proove to me that the verses are spurious, and I am speaking from my perspective not someone elses. they also proove to me that matthew 28:19 , as currently recorded in our bibles, is spurious. I have weighted the evidence for and against matthew 28:19 being spurious with the tiratic fomrula and my conclusion is that it is spurious.

 

[Starcrystal]

Ben Johnson,
The entire NT asserts the deity of Jesus; and the entire Bible asserts the singleness of ONE GOD ---- see especially Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 45:5. "There IS NO GOD besides ME." Period.

Jesus, though BORN, had no beginning (Heb6:19-7:4). In Rev1 JEHOVAH is the "Alpha-Omega-beginning-end", in Rev22 JESUS is the "Alpha-Omega-beginning-end".

God calls Jesus "GOD" in Heb1; yet there is ONLY ONE GOD.

Col2:9, Philip2:5-11 (understand that verse 7 really says "thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD") --- assert Jesus = God.

Jesus identifies Himself with Jehovah in Jn14:9ff ("He who has SEEN ME, has SEEN the Father!")

I agree with all this, no matter how many, such as Jehovahs Witnesses try to twist Heb.1 and other verses to say something else. I am not including the "I am" verse here, and explained it before. I don't beleive he was saying he is the "I AM" but is just stating he existed prior to Abraham. I just said "I am" at the opening of that sentence.
Anyways, these verses & many others do certainly assert the deity of Christ, absolutely.

Der Alter, if we can't trust the sources that explain early church history, then none of us can present it as solid evidence. You say someone else prior to Tertullian used a word like "trinity" but at least 3 sources I've read, covering Catholic, traditional protestant, and even Oneness, have said historically Tertullian was the first. Now you find a text saying there was another before him. I can find text saying the origins of the Roman Catholic church began in 325 AD and evolved over time. There WERE popes prior to 1,100 AD. So how can we absolutely trust these sources. We weren't there! Lets just trust the WORD OF GOD!