Data On The Trinity

[Peterlag]

Something that is openly admitted by theologians that is not known by many Christians is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible, but is actually “built” by piecing together statements that are said to support it. Since most Christians believe the Trinity is a mystery and not to be understood is a huge reason why doctrinal discussions about it are often avoided or brushed aside and ignored. Worse, the teaching that the Trinity is a “mystery” has been used as a club to beat down doubters and dissenters, and those people are often branded as “heretics” and their role in Christianity minimized.

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, and that is supporting evidence that the doctrine is unbiblical, which may be why Trinitarians differ, sometimes greatly in their definitions of the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church differs from the Western Church on the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Trinitarians who hold to the “classic” definition of the Trinity say Jesus was 100% God and 100% man while on the earth believe differently from Kenotic Trinitarians who believe Jesus set aside his godhood while he was a man on the earth. Oneness Pentecostals say the classic formula of the Trinity is completely wrong, and yet all these claim that Christ is God and that the Bible supports their position.

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Speak Light]

piecing together statements ?

yes, I agree - but what if the ORIGINAL statements that are contained in the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are not sufficient enough to piece together - and puzzle together statements - to " BUILD " the doctrine of the trinity.

what if the translators had to modify and change a few words and alter and " tweak " a few statements in order to insert the doctrine of the trinity - I have found after many, many years of discussion that - Trinitarians feel that this is completely justified.

in other words, the trinity concept system is so important, so essential - it is so necessary that the original message be destroyed and the Trinity installed that changing the original message is completely warranted.

in fact God would want the Trinity to be inserted into the Bible

because the original authors did not explain and detail this more clearly.

 

[theMadJW]

piecing together statements ?

yes, I agree - but what if the ORIGINAL statements that are contained in the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are not sufficient enough to piece together - and puzzle together statements - to " BUILD " the doctrine of the trinity.

what if the translators had to modify and change a few words and alter and " tweak " a few statements in order to insert the doctrine of the trinity - I have found after many, many years of discussion that - Trinitarians feel that this is completely justified.

in other words, the trinity concept system is so important, so essential - it is so necessary that the original message be destroyed and the Trinity installed that changing the original message is completely warranted.

in fact God would want the Trinity to be inserted into the Bible

because the original authors did not explain and detail this more clearly.

Just a many of their Fallacies...

 

[Matthias]

Something that is openly admitted by theologians that is not known by many Christians is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible, but is actually “built” by piecing together statements that are said to support it. Since most Christians believe the Trinity is a mystery and not to be understood is a huge reason why doctrinal discussions about it are often avoided or brushed aside and ignored. Worse, the teaching that the Trinity is a “mystery” has been used as a club to beat down doubters and dissenters, and those people are often branded as “heretics” and their role in Christianity minimized.

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, and that is supporting evidence that the doctrine is unbiblical, which may be why Trinitarians differ, sometimes greatly in their definitions of the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church differs from the Western Church on the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Trinitarians who hold to the “classic” definition of the Trinity say Jesus was 100% God and 100% man while on the earth believe differently from Kenotic Trinitarians who believe Jesus set aside his godhood while he was a man on the earth. Oneness Pentecostals say the classic formula of the Trinity is completely wrong, and yet all these claim that Christ is God and that the Bible supports their position.

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity.

Jesus should be the gold standard. Was Jesus a trinitarian?

If he was, why aren’t you?

If he wasn’t, why are they?

 

[Matthias]

piecing together statements ?

yes, I agree - but what if the ORIGINAL statements that are contained in the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are not sufficient enough to piece together - and puzzle together statements - to " BUILD " the doctrine of the trinity.

what if the translators had to modify and change a few words and alter and " tweak " a few statements in order to insert the doctrine of the trinity - I have found after many, many years of discussion that - Trinitarians feel that this is completely justified.

in other words, the trinity concept system is so important, so essential - it is so necessary that the original message be destroyed and the Trinity installed that changing the original message is completely warranted.

in fact God would want the Trinity to be inserted into the Bible

because the original authors did not explain and detail this more clearly.

Are you familiar with the term “elemental trinitarianism”?

I first became aware of it in a book written by Edmund J. Fortman (a Roman Catholic scholar), titled The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Excerpt from the Introduction, pp. xv-xvi (bold is mine):

”If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation judgment. Sometimes they call him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated.”