Trinity found in Bible or not?

[Secundulus]

Who is Maccabees? And what was his relation to Jesus?

The definition that was posted, is not found in the Bible. It was written down by some dude, because apparently, scripture was not clear enough. Hence: the need for a definition.

Yes it is a book in the Old Testament. You will have to look in a complete Bible to find it and not in an abridged Protestant version.

Apostolic authority? How was that determined?

The same way authorship is determined on any written work.

 

[DerSchweik]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has been moved from Non-Christian Religion to Exploring Christianity and reopened for discussion.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Secundulus]

The next verse mentioned in this thread as support for the trinity was John 1:1, a very commonly referred to verse.

John 1:1



I have actually started another thread in another sub-forum regarding the English translation of this verse. It appears I put that thread in the wrong forum, since I have only received a single reply in the course of nearly two days!

Just for total reference here is my thread:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7328348

The main point being that the Greek word used for "God" in the later part of this verse is the same Greek word used for "god" as a title for satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4. So the verse appears to have been purposely mistranslated to support the belief in the trinity. There appears to be no clear justification why one is capitalized, while the other is not.

Another interesting fact to point out here is that the verse does not mention the Holy Spirit. If the author was truly trying to reveal the trinity nature of God, then why would the author only mention the Father and the Son/Word?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men." (John 1:1-4, NASB95)

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1, NASB95)

In the original Greek, Septuagint for the OT, the word for God is identical, θεὸς/theos.

The word theos is a generic word for God that means literally “a supernatural being”. It can be used to indicate the one true God or an impostor that people mistakenly take for God, such as Satan. To know which is indicated, the verse must be read in context.

It is clear, because of the words, “In the beginning”, which John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 both, not coincidentally, start with that the word theos here refers to the creator, the one true God, YHWY. In both cases the action occurs in the beginning and in both cases the action is creation. There is absolutely no possibility here that the word theos is mistranslated.

The text is equally clear that the λογος/Word is one in the same as the theos. και θεος ην ο λογος = and God was the Word.

Moving forward to verse 14:

"και ο λογος σαρξ εγενετο και εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν" (John 1:14, Elzevir)

" And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us," (John 1:14, NASB95)

We see that the term for the Word is the same in John 1:1 and John 1:14

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that between John 1:1 and John 1:14 that the author is defining the Word as one thing up front and then as something else later. The entire chapter of John 1 is expressing a single idea so it follows that the Word means the same thing throughout.

The Word is God (John 1:1)
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14)
From John 1:15 we see that John says the Word is Jesus.
Therefore Jesus=the Word=God (the creator).

 

[heymikey80]

I noticed this source, although supporting the trinity, openly admits the trinity was a controversial topic even in the early church. The people who denied Jesus as being divine were ultimately marked as heretics. Although labeling someone does not discredit their position. Notice the teaching was not condemned until 325 AD, a significant time after Jesus had delivered his revelation.

Well, the text does not state that the teaching was uncondemned until 325 AD. The text states that the teaching was condemned by a convened council in 325 AD. It is at this point in time -- the very first point in time since the Jerusalem Council -- that the Church with a unified voice at one place & time condemned fundamental deviations from original Christianity.

And denying the deity of Christ was one of those fundamental deviations.

A couple of citations for background

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/deityofx.html

http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm

 

[Apodictic]

I am adding something new to my post so people can be more aware of what post I am responding to and which posts I am yet to respond to, a line. Some posts make more than one argument or state more than one verse. For each argument and verse given I will write a separate post.


Line Status
Post #7 (Current Response)
Post #9
Post #14
Post #19
Post #23
Post #24


The next verse mentioned was Matthew 28:19.

Matthew 28:19

Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

There really is not much for me to say here other than to refer to a few sources. Once again this decisive proclamation of the trinity nature has creditability issues. It is claimed the verse was later added while the concept of the trinity was being accepted/discussed by Christians. More importantly it is claimed that if this verse is accepted, it contradicts Acts 2:38.

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

There is a verse in Matthew that very seldom is mentioned in spite of evidence that has been brought against it. There is a wealth of support in the manuscripts for it. The only problem is there are no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript in any language that contains it prior to the Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak in the language of this period, (4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing to weigh the evidence against this passage because of the weight it carries in Church tradition. The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula!

Matthew 28:19 is the only verse in the entire Bible with the Trinity formula for baptism. This is the Trinity baptism formula the majority of "Christianity" adheres to. In spite of the numerous direct commands to baptize in Jesus Name (Acts 10:48; 2:38), what seem to be direct accounts of baptism services in Jesus Name (Acts 8:16; 19:5; 22:16), and other "types" (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:13) that all point to baptism being performed in the Name of Jesus by the Apostolic Church. When one examines some of the content of other disputed verses that have proven to be spurious one finds the Trinity mentioned in 1 John 5:7, as well as alluded to in the doxology from Matthew 6:13b. Such additions to Scripture can only make one wonder how such a doctrine was contrived after 4,000 years of God being viewed as absolutely One by the Jews! We will take a look at some of the facts relating to the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula and the evidence that has been brought against it for you to consider.

Source of quotations:
http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm


>- Sources -<
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm
http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm
http://www.focus-search.com/shc/matt2819.html
http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #7 (Current Response)
Post #9
Post #14
Post #19
Post #23
Post #24

The next verse mentioned was 2 Corinthians 13:14:

2 Corinthians 13:14

2 Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

There is a problem with this Scripture being used to prove the trinity belief. It stems from the lack of divine association. The three, although mentioned together, are not all given a divine title. Not surprisingly there are also some that argue against the authenticity of this Scripture as well.

Further reading on this verse can be found below.

http://www.godglorified.com/2_corinthians_13.14.htm

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #7 (Current Response)
Post #9
Post #14
Post #19
Post #23
Post #24

The next argument presented stated the following.

The Trinitarian nature of God has always been implied in Scripture, even though it wasn't named as "trinity" until the time of the early CHurch and the Christological debates. The church in her fight against heresy had to think through what the Bible says about how God exists. The result was the doctrine of the Trinity. But please keep in mind that the development of this doctrine was based on a careful study of Scripture.

The argument states the implication of a trinity godhead has always been there. I personally do not have a concern of whether the word trinity is mentioned or not, although for such an important belief for the Christian faith it does strike me as odd that the NT authors would not have used some word to describe this new revealed godhead, had it been so important. The church around the 4th of 5th centuries labeled all opposing views as heresy. Labeling people does not defeat their stance.

Something else to add here is that the early church not only was battling with religious beliefs viewed as heresies, they were also attempting to weed out gospels and texts that did not agree with their views. The resulting NT contained all the texts they found agreeable. I find it shocking that even though the church essentially hand-picked the books for their Holy Scripture, their conviction for the trinity is not expressed plainly in any of the texts. Even the strongest evidence, in terms of Scripture, merely has an implication of the trinity, not a clear statement.

Some else that I find rather strange is the emphasis on Jesus being God, yet many of trinity support verses leave out the Holy Spirit.

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #9 (Current Response)
Post #14
Post #19
Post #23
Post #24

The next argument presented stated the following.

There are Christian Fathers refer to the verse before the alleged "introduction" time.

The argument here may seem favorable to trinity believers, but there are also documented beliefs against the trinity, even the deity of Christ, during the early years of Christianity. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) was when the doctrine of the trinity was officially accepted. The doctrine was being contemplated some time before the official acceptance.

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #9 (Current Response)
Post #14
Post #19
Post #23
Post #24

The next argument presented stated the following.

Further there are 8 IDENTIFIED manuscripts that CONTAIN the VERSE, only 1 of them being from 14th century.

It is true that 8 manuscripts have the comma, a welcome correction of my first misstatement. But let it be clarified that of those 8, half of them have the comma as a marginal note that could have been easily added a time after the Scripture was written. Considering this verse's importance, it should be troubling to anyone that it is only found in 8 manuscripts, 4 of which have it as a note. Additional concern comes into play with the earliest of these manuscripts being from the 10th century, and as a marginal note no less...

The longer reading is found only in eight late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 1500&#8217;s

Source of quotations:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #9 (Current Response)
Post #14
Post #19
Post #23
Post #24

The next argument presented stated the following.

Also we must look to Athenagorus, a 2nd-century Greek writer (177 AD, which is a date that refutes your Council of Constantinople claim). In his Plea for the Christians, Athenagorus addresses two Roman Emperors, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, seeking from them toleration for Christians within the Empire. As part of his effort, he lays out for them several key points of doctrine, one of which is view of God as a Trinity consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. While not directly quoting the Comma, Athenagorus' language certainly seems to reflect a knowledge and use of the verse as part of his explanation on the Trinity.

Hence, Athenagorus connects the Father, the Son (whom he had previously referred to as "the Logos", the Word), and the Holy Spirit, stating both their union and their distinction in order. The only portion of Scripture where these two points are juxtaposed in such a manner is I John 5:7.

The concept of the trinity predates the Council in which it was officially accepted as church doctrine. It is not beyond possibility that Athenagorus interpreted other Scripture to formulate his views. I do not see any apparent requirement for this belief to have a derivation from 1 John 5:7. Trinity believers cite numerous verses, all of which Athenagorus could have possibly derived his views from.

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #14 (Current Response)
Post #19
Post #23
Post #24

The next argument presented stated the following.

[...] that just doesn't explain the usage/reference of 1 John 5:7 by Patristic Authors.

Could you clarify on which authors and what usage? Did they quote the Scripture? Or simply state a belief that could have been derived from it?


Another interesting read concerning whether the trinity belief existed during the time of the apostles follows.

. . . the unbelieving Jews, in the time of the Apostles, opposed Christianity with the utmost bitterness and passion. They sought on every side for objections to it. There was much in its character to which the believing Jews could hardly be reconciled. The Epistles are full of statements, explanations, and controversy, relating to questions having their origin in Jewish prejudices and passions. With regard however to this doctrine [the Trinity], which if it had ever been taught, the believing Jews must have received with the utmost difficulty, and to which the unbelieving Jews would have manifested the most determined opposition,-with regard to this doctrine, there is not trace of any controversy. But, if it had ever been taught, it must have been the main point of attack and defense between those who assailed, and those who supported Christianity. There is nothing ever said in its explanation. But it must have required, far more than any other doctrine, to be explained, illustrated, and enforced; for it appears, not only irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Unity of God, but equally so with that of the humanity of our Saviour; and yet both these doctrines, it seems, were to be maintained in connexion with it. It must have been necessary, therefore, to state it as clearly as possible, to exhibit it in its relations, and carefully to guard against the misapprehensions to which it is so liable on every side. Especially must care have been taken to prevent the gross mistakes into which the Gentile converts from polytheism were likely to fall. Yet so far from any such clearness of statement and fulness of explanation, the whole language of the New Testament in relation to this subject is . . . a series of enigmas, upon the supposition of its truth. The doctrine, then, is never defended in the New Testament, though unquestionably it would have been the main object of attack, and the main difficulty in the Christian system. It is never explained, though no doctrine could have been so much in need of explanation. On the contrary, upon the supposition of its truth, the Apostles express themselves in such a manner, that it had been their purpose to darken and perplex the subject, they could not have done it more effectually. And still more, this doctrine is never insisted upon as a necessary article of faith; though it is now represented by its defenders as lying at the foundation of Christianity.

Are there any recorded instances of Jews from the time of Jesus mentioning the claimed deity of Jesus or a trinity belief?

Source of Quotation:
[FONT=&quot]http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/did-the-early-christians-teachbelieve-a-%E2%80%9Ctrinity%E2%80%9D-doctrine/[/FONT]

 

[Secundulus]

Tertullian stated the term Trinity in c. 160AD.

But in our desire to show the divine benefits bestowed upon us by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.ii.iv.html?highlight=trinity#highlightTrinity is the fountain of all holiness,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.ii.iv.html?highlight=trinity#highlight

I have already demonstrated that Jesus = God in the scripture. I have not even yet touched upon the Holy Spirit.

Nicea simply restated what was already believed and which was stated plainly by Tertullian 160 years earlier and which is stated, without the specific word "trinity", in scripture.

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #19 (Current Response)
Post #23
Post #24
Post #32

The next argument presented stated the following.

Interpretation is made through the Holy Spirit, using the entire context of Scriptures. The verse doesn't say a thing about who was a soul, no body etc. That is admittedly your interpretation

The entire context of Scriptures should be read and embraced. However, due to the volume of reading required to achieve this end, this must be an individual effort. On this forum we can only effectively argue selected Scriptures that support the idea of the trinity. There would be nothing wrong with quoting other Scripture to support one&#8217;s interpretation. I offered my interpretation as an alternative to the trinity way of thought, not an absolute truth.

Also, you mention the Holy Spirit. I take it you are implying that my interpretation of Scripture is not inspired by the Holy Spirit? I would like to think the Holy Spirit guides me. This might confuse you since I have listed my religion as "Other" and not Christian. I did so because this website defines Christians in a way I do not agree with. I do not accept the church doctrine of the trinity as an example.

 

[heymikey80]

It seems to me you're really focusing more closely on the deity of Christ than on the trinitarian theology of the Godhead. Making arguments against the trinitarian formula, then promoting them into opposition to Christ's deity, that doesn't work. Christ's Deity is much better established than the exact view of trinity. The trinitarian view was finally settled-on as the only early view embracing all Scripture says about Father, Son, and Spirit. The view developed as other views went astray from Scripture.

But Deity of Christ is simply better-attested in Scripture. Thomas answered to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" Jn 20:28 at a time when this wasn't a formulaic exclamation. And that verse is exceedingly well-attested. A physical copy reaches back to ca. 200 AD.

One of the passages I normally use to show how closely Jesus Christ can be traced to the One Deity:

if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? Rom 10:9-14
​

The confession that Jesus is Lord and that we're to call on Him for salvation, that's the clear point Paul's making. Yet if you go to the OT Scriptures Paul is citing, the pronouns point to YHWH. The term "Lord" is actually even a substitute for YHWH.

And Paul is saying it plainly: "Jesus is Lord."

 

[Apodictic]

Clarified in later post (Removed to prevent confusion).

 

[Apodictic]

Clarified in later post (Removed to prevent confusion).

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #24 (Current Response)
Post #32
Post #34

The next argument presented stated the following.

Well, the text does not state that the teaching was uncondemned until 325 AD. The text states that the teaching was condemned by a convened council in 325 AD. It is at this point in time -- the very first point in time since the Jerusalem Council -- that the Church with a unified voice at one place & time condemned fundamental deviations from original Christianity.

I can agree that people were disagreeing on these matters of faith before the council. I do not agree that the church was unified in voice nor that the concept of trinity godhead was at all part of the original Christianity preached by Jesus the Christ.

The people who disagreed with the Councils were deemed heretics and the church has historically mistreated heretics. Am I to believe that these holy men inspired by God would persecute others on matters of faith? Does the NT teach that we should hunt down and murder people who we disagree with? Or does it teach to love thy neighbor as oneself? The commandment is not exclusive to believers. Your neighbor could be an atheist, a hindu, an agnostic, a jew, a muslim, a christian, or something else. The actions of the early supporters of the trinity are a testament to their false nature.

I'll read through the links when I get some time.

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #32 (Current Response)
Post #34

The next argument presented stated the following.

Tertullian stated the term Trinity in c. 160AD.

I have already demonstrated that Jesus = God in the scripture. I have not even yet touched upon the Holy Spirit.

Nicea simply restated what was already believed and which was stated plainly by Tertullian 160 years earlier and which is stated, without the specific word "trinity", in scripture.

If 160 AD was the first time the trinity was mentioned by that name, I wonder how long before this name was formulated the disagreement started.

So far no Scripture presented has survived the test of authenticity that can speak of Jesus as being divine without a preconceived notion of his divinity. There are several places in the Scripture where one can misunderstand what is being said due to mistranslations and a pre-acceptance of the trinity.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Line Status
Post #32 (Current Response)
Post #34

What is this nonsense?

If 160 AD was the first time the trinity was mentioned by that name, I wonder how long before this name was formulated the disagreement started.

Do you certainly know, do you certainly have EVIDENCE that it WAS the first time? No. So as usual you are assuming again!

So far no Scripture presented has survived the test of authenticity that can speak of Jesus as being divine without a preconceived notion of his divinity. There are several places in the Scripture where one can misunderstand what is being said due to mistranslations and a pre-acceptance of the trinity.

And you somehow are not affected by any misunderstanding, you certainly can't misunderstand and can single out "mistranslations" Excuse us but what are your credentials for such argument? This test of authenticity you have put these Scripture parts upon are, as we have seen, from the links of OTHERS' opinions on the matter. You have not even completely and satisfactorily dismissed 1 John 5:7 yet although you are arrogantly playing a make-believe game that no Scripture has survived your tests. Please, save us the hot air.

 

[heymikey80]

The next piece of the argument emphasizes the generic meaning of the Greek word theos being used. I agree the meaning is generic, but I do not agree with your exact wording.

* * *

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
​

The words highlighted in red are the words I feel have been mistranslated with a pre-accepted trinity mindset. My guidance leads me to believe it should be more correctly translated as follows.

John 1:1 (Corrected)
In the beginning was the plan/idea, and the plan/idea was with God, and the plan/idea was divine.
​

The verse, when translated properly, is taking about God's divine plan for all existence. Jesus was part of that plan. Let us not stop here, the entire context can contain without problem. The word "&#952;&#949;&#959;&#962;" is in the nominative case.

* * *
The word for God used in this verse is again "&#952;&#949;&#959;&#957;". Every time this word appears in John it is used to describe God Almighty the Father.

Um, this represents a misused promotion of grammar to convert "God" into "Divine".

The idea of using a word in the nominative case is simply to identify it as the predicate of a sentence. Nothing more. Greek endings change. "The boy threw the ball" has "ball" with a different ending than in the sentence, "The ball flew through the air."

The reason why you're seeing "&#952;&#949;&#959;&#957;" is simply because it's proper grammar to put the word "God" in the accusative case in these instances. The words the object of a preposition or in the predicate of a sentence.

"God" is not an adjective. "Divine" is. This is the case both in Greek and in English. The most that Greek could be saying is, "the Word was a god."

Your guidance may need to learn Greek.

The word for God used in this verse is again "&#952;&#949;&#959;&#957;". Every time this word appears in John it is used to describe God Almighty the Father.

Following show "&#952;&#949;&#959;&#962;" referring to God the Father: John 3:2,16,17,33, 4:24