How and when did the Trinity become Christian dogma?

[polonius]

(1) Mark 12:28-30
One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, “Which is the first of all the commandments?�29Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!30You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’j

(2) However, while Jesus remained a man (“Son of God, or Son of Man) and was raised from the dead by God, about 85 AD, Jesus began to be considered divine himself. His can be seen in John’s gospel written about 95 AD.
This broke with the traditional Old Testament teaching that the Lord was one, resulted in the Christians being excluded from the Hebrew synagogues, and the Christians labeled as heretics (“minim�).

(3) … According to Berakhot 28b, Samuel ha Katan (fl. c. 80-110), at the invitation of Gamaliel II of Jabneh, composed the "benediction against the minim," included in the Amidah as the twelfth benediction (see E. J. Bickerman, in HTR, 55 (1962), 171, n. 35). This was directed primarily against Judeo-Christians (specifically mentioned in one old text—see Schechter, JQR 10 (1897 / 98)), either to keep them out of the synagogue or to proclaim a definite breach between the two religions." 3
[See article Genizah Specimens / Liturgy, by Solomon Schechter, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, Volume 10, 1898, pages 654 - 659.]

(4) Arianism was a counter movement which claimed that Jesus was not divine himself and a large group of Christians reverted to this view.

(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binitarianism#History

After the 325 Council of Nicaea defeated Arianism, the Council of Constantinople was called in 381 in order to attempt to deal with the binitarians, who were referred to as "Semi-Arians". However, as the Trinity was finalized at this time as official Christian doctrine, the offended Semi-Arians walked out. "They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was 'of one substance (homoousios) with the Father'. Semi-Arians taught that Christ was similar (homoios) to the Father, or of like substance (homoiousios), but still subordinate"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Cr ... itan_Creed

(6) “What is known as the "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed" or the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed"[21] received this name because of a belief that it was adopted at the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 381 as a modification of the original Nicene Creed of 325…

“It differs in a number of respects, both by addition and omission, from the creed adopted at the First Council of Nicaea. The most notable difference is the additional section "And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets….�

[polonius]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

RESPONSE: Your answer is a perfect example of circular (but fallacious) reasoning.

LOL! This is what nonbelievers/atheists always say. My answer reiterates that ANY belief in God is a matter of faith. Duh! The same faith required to believe in God is the same faith required to believe Scripture as the Word of God is the same faith required to believe the Church had the authority to decide what compiles the Bible, etc. If you allow one, for the sake of argument, then there is no difference in allowing the other. That was my point. Good grief this entire forum allows for the assumption for God’s existence in a majority of its threads. Are you new here?

RESPONSE: Actually, I've been posting on a regular basis since 2015. Where have you been?

Lets review the evidence.

Wikipedia:
Broadly speaking, there are two categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality:

1. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.
2. Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.

Here is a famous example of what the Church “had the authority to decide�

“… in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture

“This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:
“The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

“The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.�

And do you believe the Church’s interpretation or the inerrancy of scripture on this point?

Today many people have the common sense to be guided by reason rather than “faith� in everything the Church teaches.

I can present other examples if you like.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 18 by polonius.advice]

Uuh huh . . . and here is all the Scripture showing Jesus is God . . . .

************************************************

John 1:1, 14 (RSV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . [14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

This is one of the most well-known “proof texts�. Jesus is eternal (here, “beginning� means “eternity past�). He was with God the Father, and is God the Son. To make sure that the reader has no misunderstanding, John (v. 14) reiterates that the “Word� referred to is the Son, and notes that He “became flesh� (the incarnation). Only the Son has a body. The Word = Jesus = God.


John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!�

Colossians 1:19 For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell

Colossians 2:9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily,

2 Peter 1:1 . . . our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.�
This is a remarkable passage, in which God the Father calls His Son “God.� It is a reference to the Old Testament passage, Psalms 45:6-7.

In Hebrews 1:6, God the Father also says that all the angels should worship God the Son. Worship can only be rightly applied to God, as we know from Exodus 34:14 and Deuteronomy 8:19. Yet Jesus accepted worship of Himself on many occasions (e.g., Mt 14:33; 28:9) and stated that He should be honored equally with the Father (Jn 5:23). In Revelation 5:8, 12-13 and Colossians 2:6-7, we find that Jesus is worshiped in every way that the Bible specifically describes worship of God the Father, with all the same words used (see: Rev 4:9-11, 5:13; 7:11-12, and Rom 11:33).

Philippians 3:20-21 . . . the Lord Jesus Christ, [21] who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself.

Colossians 2:2-3 . . . Christ, [3] in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Ephesians 1:22-23 the church, [23] which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all. (cf. Col 3:11)

God the Father stated, “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear� (Is 45:23). The same exact description is also applied to Jesus (Phil 2:10-11).

The Bible teaches that “God� is judge (1 Sam 2:10; Ps 50:6; Ecc 12:14; many others). But so is Jesus (Jn 5:22, 27; 9:39; Acts 10:42; 2 Tim 4:1). Therefore He is God.

God the Father sits on His throne in heaven (1 Ki 22:19; Ps 11:4; 47:8). Jesus is on the same throne, too (Rev 7:17; 22:1, 3).

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstro ... sus-is-god


So, to Baptize in Christ’s name, is to Baptize in God’s. Also, as shown above you pick one passage to critique instead of looking at all the passages in Scripture giving proof to the Trinity. Also, there is a reason all the writings of the early Church Fathers aren’t part of Sacred Scripture – THEY WEREN’T INTENDED TO BE!

QUESTION: Do you believe everything in scripture is true (see my post 21 above)

and Do you believe that a "son of God" is always a divine person?


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semitesto signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero, a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc. The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).�

Summary: “Son of God� does not establish divinity.

QUESTION: Isn't the National Catholic Register an EWTN publication?

[RightReason]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

RESPONSE: Actually, I've been posting on a regular basis since 2015. Where have you been?

My comments were sarcastic – I had a feeling you weren’t new around here.

And my comments were intended to show I found it amusing to be accused of circular reasoning. The definition of faith is firm belief in something which cannot necessarily be scientifically proven. I admit belief in God or specific religious doctrines requires faith. I’ve never said otherwise.

Here is a famous example of what the Church “had the authority to decide�

Wrong. And really? This conversation again? The Bible is not a scientific treatise and should not be considered as such, even if or when some within the Church mistakenly do so. The Church has the authority to speak on matters pertaining to the faith.

And do you believe the Church’s interpretation or the inerrancy of scripture on this point?

The Church’s interpretation? Yes, please tell me if you can find the Church’s interpretation. The Church does not have an interpretation on scientific matters, other than to acknowledge them.

And Scripture has nothing to do with scientific interpretation.

Today many people have the common sense to be guided by reason rather than “faith� in everything the Church teaches.

I don’t even know what this means. My beliefs are based on faith and reason. The only way to go, IMO.

I can present other examples if you like.

Other examples of what? I’m not even sure what this was an example of? Do you think you showed something Scripture got wrong? You didn’t, but if you think you can, yes, I challenge you to show one thing Scripture gets wrong.

QUESTION: Do you believe everything in scripture is true (see my post 21 above)

I have not been made aware of anything showing otherwise.

and Do you believe that a "son of God" is always a divine person?

I don’t know any other “sons of God� then Jesus Christ, so yeah, so far, I guess always.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semitesto signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero, a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc. The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).�

Summary: “Son of God� does not establish divinity.

Great. Good thing I posted all the Scripture that shows why/how we know Jesus was divine. Also, good thing I mentioned we know Christ is divine because Christ’s Church tells us so – whom we were commanded to listen to, “He who hears you, hears me�. But we’ve been through all this. It is a matter of faith to believe God sent His son, Jesus, who died on the cross. It is also a matter of faith to believe Jesus is divine. One does not require more faith than the other.

QUESTION: Isn't the National Catholic Register an EWTN publication?

Could be. Should that be of interest to me?

[polonius]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

RESPONSE: Actually, I've been posting on a regular basis since 2015. Where have you been?

My comments were sarcastic – I had a feeling you weren’t new around here.

And my comments were intended to show I found it amusing to be accused of circular reasoning. The definition of faith is firm belief in something which cannot necessarily be scientifically proven. I admit belief in God or specific religious doctrines requires faith. I’ve never said otherwise.

Here is a famous example of what the Church “had the authority to decide�

Wrong. And really? This conversation again? The Bible is not a scientific treatise and should not be considered as such, even if or when some within the Church mistakenly do so. The Church has the authority to speak on matters pertaining to the faith.

And do you believe the Church’s interpretation or the inerrancy of scripture on this point?

The Church’s interpretation? Yes, please tell me if you can find the Church’s interpretation. The Church does not have an interpretation on scientific matters, other than to acknowledge them.

And Scripture has nothing to do with scientific interpretation.

Today many people have the common sense to be guided by reason rather than “faith� in everything the Church teaches.

I don’t even know what this means. My beliefs are based on faith and reason. The only way to go, IMO.

I can present other examples if you like.

Other examples of what? I’m not even sure what this was an example of? Do you think you showed something Scripture got wrong? You didn’t, but if you think you can, yes, I challenge you to show one thing Scripture gets wrong.

QUESTION: Do you believe everything in scripture is true (see my post 21 above)

I have not been made aware of anything showing otherwise.

and Do you believe that a "son of God" is always a divine person?

I don’t know any other “sons of God� then Jesus Christ, so yeah, so far, I guess always.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semitesto signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero, a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc. The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).�

Summary: “Son of God� does not establish divinity.

Great. Good thing I posted all the Scripture that shows why/how we know Jesus was divine. Also, good thing I mentioned we know Christ is divine because Christ’s Church tells us so – whom we were commanded to listen to, “He who hears you, hears me�. But we’ve been through all this. It is a matter of faith to believe God sent His son, Jesus, who died on the cross. It is also a matter of faith to believe Jesus is divine. One does not require more faith than the other.

QUESTION: Isn't the National Catholic Register an EWTN publication?

Could be. Should that be of interest to me?

RESPONSE: It should be if you quote it as a reference.

[polonius]

Right Reason posted:

The Church’s interpretation? Yes, please tell me if you can find the Church’s interpretation. The Church does not have an interpretation on scientific matters, other than to acknowledge them.

And Scripture has nothing to do with scientific interpretation.

RESPONSE:

The evidence proves otherwise. Two examples (one old, one new) would be:

1. (OLD) Until about 1700, scripture was interpreted by the Church as saying that the truth was that the sun revolved around the earth. Ref: The Galileo condemnation for believing that the earth revolves around the sun (a contradiction of Ps 104.5)

2.(NEW) The morality (or lack thereof) of sexual preference.

Religion: People choose to be gay. They are making an immoral choice.
or
Science: Sexual preference is biologically determined.

"PET and MRI studies performed in 2008 have shown that the two halves of the brain are more symmetrical in homosexual men and heterosexual women than in heterosexual men and homosexual women. "

"These studies have also revealed that connections in the amygdalas of gay men resemble those of straight women; in gay women, connections in the amygdala resemble those of straight men. The amygdala has many receptors for sex hormones and is associated with the processing of emotions."

"It’s important to point out that the regions of the brain that have been shown to change because of training and experience are not the parts of the brain that have been associated with sexual preference."

Ref: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... -a-choice/



Today many people have the common sense to be guided by reason rather than “faith� in everything the Church teaches.


Right Reason posted:

I don’t even know what this means. My beliefs are based on faith and reason. The only way to go, IMO.

RESPONSE: It means what the words say. What do you do when your “faith� and your “reason� conflict?

…..

The Church has the authority to speak on matters pertaining to the faith.
Christ is divine because Christ’s Church tells us so – whom we were commanded to listen to

QUESTION: Who gave the Church such authority or do you just presume it because that is what the Church says? (That would be circular reasoning).

What evidence can you present to support your statements?

[RightReason]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

RESPONSE: It should be if you quote it as a reference.

Sorry, still don’t follow. I often refer to Catholic teaching, so why would it matter if I reference NCR or EWTN?

The evidence proves otherwise. Two examples (one old, one new)

Actually, it really doesn’t. We’ve been thru this. It was never a teaching of the Church that the sun revolved around the earth. Some within the Church believed this as EVERYONE believed it until it was proven otherwise – including Galileo himself.

Like I said, Scripture is not a scientific treatise and the Church does not see it as such.

The Galileo condemnation for believing that the earth revolves around the sun

Wrong. Galileo, even though it was wrong, was imprisoned for attempting to speak on theological matters – which he had no right to. It wasn’t about his scientific findings. Also, because he had personal beefs with some, was arrogant, and ticked a lot of people off.

2.(NEW) The morality (or lack thereof) of sexual preference.

Religion: People choose to be gay. They are making an immoral choice.
or
Science: Sexual preference is biologically determined.

Woah! Strawman. Of course, this entire post of yours is a strawman. I really hate it when people criticize Church teaching and don’t even know what the Church teaches! The Church makes no scientific assessment regarding same sex attraction. And whether someone is born that way or not does not make something right/wrong. Are the brains of pedophiles different? Are they born that way? Can they help their sexual attraction? If not, does that mean pedophilia is moral?

The immorality of homosexual acts can be argued from a natural law stand point. Scripture says homosexual acts are immoral because they are immoral.

What do you do when your “faith� and your “reason� conflict?

There is no contradiction between faith and reason. There is no contradiction between faith and science. It’s a non issue.

Who gave the Church such authority or do you just presume it because that is what the Church says? (That would be circular reasoning).

Christ gave the Church authority.

What evidence can you present to support your statements?

Eye witness accounts and testimony of my fellow man. What has been recorded and passed down in Scripture. “Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I build my church�, the Church is referred to in Scripture as, “the pillar and foundation of truth�, “He who hears you, hears me�, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�.

Again, it is a matter of faith to believe Scripture is the Word of God. But if you do believe Scripture is the Word of God, then you cannot deny Scripture shows Christ establishing His Church and giving her authority.

[polonius]

Right Reason posted:

Eye witness accounts and testimony of my fellow man. What has been recorded and passed down in Scripture. “Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I build my church�, the Church is referred to in Scripture as, “the pillar and foundation of truth�, “He who hears you, hears me�, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�.

Again, it is a matter of faith to believe Scripture is the Word of God. But if you do believe Scripture is the Word of God, then you cannot deny Scripture shows Christ establishing His Church and giving her authority.

Definition of religious faith = strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Questions:

How long after the death of Jesus were the four gospels and Paul’s epistles written?
Ans. 25 to 60 years.


Which writers were eye-witnesses to what they described?
Ans. Apparently none.


Mark 8:27-30New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) [Written in 70 AD]

27 Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?� 28 And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.� 29 He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?� Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.�[a] 30 And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.

So reports Mark. Or do we have to believe Matthew's version was dictated by God?

Matthew 16New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) [written in 80 AD

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?� 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.� 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?� 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,[c] the Son of the living God.� 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.� 20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was[f] the Messiah.[g]

Matthew, an non-eye witness, copied part verbatim from Mark, another non-eyewitness. Both wrote more than 40 years after the fact. Note Matthew's addition to Mark.


In addition, Matthew made the following errors:

(1) According to John’s gospel (John 1) Andrew, not God, first told Simon Jesus was the Messiah, and Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter before Peter became an Apostle.

(2) “I will build my church�

The word “Church� didn’t exist in the first century when Matthew wrote.

The word Church Origin:
Old English cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce, related to Dutch kerk and German Kirche, based on medieval Greek kurikon, from Greek kuriakon (d�ma ) ‘Lord's (house),’ from kurios ‘master or lord.’

Still RightReason posted:

Eye witness accounts and testimony of my fellow man. What has been recorded and passed down in Scripture. “Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I build my church�, the Church is referred to in Scripture as, “the pillar and foundation of truth�, “He who hears you, hears me�, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�.

Comment: Are we seriously to believe that all scripture is “the Word of God�? If so, God makes some serious contradictions as in the case described above.

[polonius]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

RESPONSE: It should be if you quote it as a reference.

Sorry, still don’t follow. I often refer to Catholic teaching, so why would it matter if I reference NCR or EWTN?

RESPONSE: First you should determine which is reliable, not just that they deal with Catholic teaching.

[polonius]

Posted on line:

Abortion, Contraception and the Church Fathers | ncregister.com
www.ncregister.com/daily-news/abortion- ... ch-fathers

Feb 16, 2012 - "The earliest reference to contraception and abortion is in the Didache, a document from the second half of the first century or early second ..".

Actually, there is no reference to contraception in the Didache. It condemns abortion, a different matter than birth control.


Chapter 2. "The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life."


Who coined the term “birth control� and when?

February 22, 2012 by Pamela Landy · Filed Under: American History Margaret Sanger (1883-1966) coined the term “birth control� in 1914

RESPONSE: Rather obviously the NCRegister article misquotes the Didache. Perhaps, observing this obvious error, you might want to switch to a more reliable Catholic newspaper than EWTN’s publication.

In my view the National Catholic Register is more reliable.

CAUTION: Not every website or publication that calls itself "Catholic" is entirely accurate (as the above illustrates).

Please correct me if you have evidence to the contrary.

If you are interested in following this up, the Register Editor can be reached at 5817 Old Leeds Road, Ironsdale AL 35210-3164

[onewithhim]

This thread had already discussed when and how the Trinity Doctrine came to be. It was, plainly, not a part of the earliest teaching of the new congregation formed by Christ.

Polonius.advice and tigger have provided some excellent research.