Where Did the Trinity Teaching Come From?

First you have to believe, we can start this discussion right now ..

Roman's 10:9

 

First you have to believe, then I will answer questions

 

I am not going to waste my time a non believer atheist who's mind is made up just to take the bible out of context.



Step one believe in jesus/god holy spirit and mother Mary

Then we can have a rational conversation about the bible

 

Three become one for the sole purpose of my salvation, If we could only define God through the dictionary then we will never know what he is actually, therefore the present fundamentals which is faith alone is our only basis.

Answer No. 3
I don't see God as Superior to me but my eternal source of protection, love, and guidance for my spiritual salvation.

 

It's a she..

God is a Female in my opinion its Mother Mary.

 

Very venerated, devoted , and blessed Mother of Jesus Christ,
which is placed in a very special place within the hearts of the Catholics.

 

Evangelicals miss that part of the bible.

For some reason

 

Strong contender for the worse argument ever offered on PF.

 

Yup for me, we have different ways to glorify God,
the same as how we court a very attractive gal, someone would bring chocolates, some would bring flowers, some would promise a brand new car, money etc., but do have the same common goal to get her nod.

 

Agree, after 54 years on this planet I think it has to do more with you keeping your mind sharp and beliefs in something

Your brain releases chemicals if it was drugs or beliefs

 

Agree as well.

 

Assumes facts not in evidence. The trinity concept appearing in other belief systems earlier than the Bible in no way implies that it was copied by Christianity.

 

afaik there are substantial differences between tritheism and trinitarianism.

 

garyd:

Who cares how many man-made creeds were dreamed up! They were all written more than 200 years AFTER the last book of the Bible was written by inspiration of God. Man-made creeds are not inspired of God. What is it about that don't you get?

If you cannot support your argument for a 3-in-1 god by using scripture from God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, you might as well move on, as you are wasting my valuable time by repeatedly telling me about pagan creeds that do not appear in the Bible.

Present your first three "Trinity" scriptures from the Judeo-Christian Bible, and we can proceed with this discussion.

The ball is now in your court.

Alter2Ego

 

Wrong unless you thinK the Apostles lived for two hundred years. It is widely accepted that The Apostles Creed was the product of the disciples. Now again according to John 1. The word was with God and the word was God and had a coequal roll in the creation of all that is and was incarnate of the Virgin Mary. Jesus was in the Gospels addressed as God and the son of God By Peter and Thomas and neither was corrected. There were three came down to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, in Isaiah it states that only God can forgive sins but also that the Messiah will be able to forgive sins as well.

 

garyd:

You are conveniently forgetting that the Apostles Creed is found nowhere in God's inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. The Greek Scriptures aka New Testament was written by Jesus disciples; remember? So your telling me that is "widely accepted" that Jesus' early disciples wrote a creed that appears nowhere in the NT proves absolutely nothing. Christendom's 3-in-1 god is similarly widely accepted among Christendom's 40,000+ denominations. And guess what? There no scriptures in the Bible to support the idea of a 3-in-1 god. Likewise, there are no scriptures in support of the idea that the disciples who followed Jesus around wrote the Apostles Creed.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Apostles Creed was invented by the Roman Catholic Church--the very same Roman Catholic Church that borrowed the idea of a 3-in-1 god from paganism. Notice what the Encyclopedia Britannica says regarding the Apostles Creed that you fallaciously claim is a product of Jesus' early disciples. Focus on the words that I have bolded in blue within the quotation:

"Apostles' Creed
CHRISTIANITY

WRITTEN BY:

• The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

LAST UPDATED: Dec 26, 2019 See Article History
Alternative Title: Apostolicum
Apostles’ Creed, also called Apostolicum, a statement of faith used in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and many Protestant churches. It is not officially recognized in the Eastern Orthodox churches. According to tradition, it was composed by the 12 Apostles, but it actually developed from early interrogations of catechumens (persons receiving instructions in order to be baptized) by the bishop. An example of such interrogations used in Rome about 200 has been preserved in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. The bishop would ask, “Dost thou believe in God the Father almighty?” and so forth through the major Christian beliefs. Stated affirmatively, these statements became a creed; such creeds were known as baptismal creeds."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Apostles-Creed
​

Now, run that by me again about the Apostles Creed being a product of Jesus' first century disciples.

Alter2Ego

 

All I can tell is what the church teaches and the traditions go back much further than the encycipaedias.

 

And of course, the scripture would 'go back' to the original.

 

I agree that that term is "fabricated", to say it defines a false teaching, I see as a non sequitur.

1. Do you deny the Divinity of God?
2. Do you deny the Divinity of Jesus?
3. do you deny the Divinity of the Holy Spirit?
4. Do you disapprove of one fabricating a 'nutshellization' (my fabrication) for a descriptive term?
5. do you disapprove of this having been done by the RCC?

Isn't it presumptuous to state that the RCC 'defines' anything for all of Christendom?

​

 

I am not Catholic. I am a Believer. I'll agree with you no where in the Bible is the word "trinity". I have studied the Bible for myself and you will not convince me the "concept" of the trinity is incorrect. God the Father sends His spirit as a "teacher" to those that are called according to His purpose. Jesus "who in the very nature of God, humbled Himself, became a man and dwelt among us". Jesus is God's representation of Himself to us. They are all one in the same. Different attributes of the same Person. Jesus said "I and my Father are One." I must admit the words trinity and godhead have an association of a "religion" of which I am not a part.....but the concept, I believe, must be understood to understand the nature of God and His purpose. If you deny the divinity of Jesus Christ......that is a whole different discussion that I really don't care to discuss.

 

Jesus in the very nature of God, humbled himself and became a man. ....it's in Philippians 3. Jesus took on a lot of limitations. He felt hunger, he felt pain, He did all that so we could see that God identifies with our struggles. Within those limitations he put on Himself, he had to rely on prayer. It was an example for us as He told us how to pray. The Father is omni present. Can be in many places at once. That is how it was done. No man can see the Father and live, but men have seen Jesus and that is how He represents Himself to those that are called and believe....we will see Him soon.

 

Agreed, the concept is scripturally sound.

I'm not even willing to go so far as to use the word "person".

Acts 2 states God said he would send some of his spirit.

Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man.

But a "person"?

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

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

So far what I know about God is that
1. he can project some of his Spirit,
2. he can even turn his Word into flesh and send it to man.

Isn't anything I add to this anthropomorphizing God?

 

Good points all. Note the entire first chapter of The Gospel of John supports the teaching of the Trinity, as does the fact that thatneither peter or Thomas both of whom addressed Jesus as my lord and my God were corrected by Jesus.

If Jesus the Word is not both God and man there is no salvation. Logically the Messiah must be Man that he might pay for man's sins, and God that he might be perfect and not sin. else he could only make atonement for his own sins by his death. There must be atonement for sins or righteousness is without meaning.as well as justice.

 

I don't have a problem with anything there... I just feel "the Word" is the representation of God and Jesus is that as well. I think you would agree.

 

There have been many theologies and forms of godhead taught by various men since the early centuries of Christianity until now.

The burden is therefore on men to get theology exactly perfect on the complex and difficult theology test administered at the pearly gates. If you can get it exactly right you get a pass into heaven. If you fail the theology test you gonna cook.
\
/
\
/
\
/
Just kidding