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….�

[RightReason]

[Replying to 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.

I completely disagree, as does the overwhelming majority of Christendom. The doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea. It wasn't until errors started to creep in that councils began to meet to discuss the Trinity as well as other doctrines that came under fire – no need to clarify something everyone already understood and accepted. Plenty of evidence from early Church writings regarding the Trinity . . .

Ignatius a.d. 30–107
Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism;
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter IV

But the Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, and that not from himself, but from the Lord; even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He, “the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father’s, who sent Me.� And says He of the Holy Spirit, “He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever things He shall hear from Me.� And He says of Himself to the Father, “I have,� says He, “glorified Thee upon the earth; I have finished the work which, Thou gavest Me; I have manifested Thy name to men.� And of the Holy Ghost, “He shall glorify Me, for He receives of Mine.�

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Chapter IX
For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, “of whom are all things;� and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], “by whom are all things;� and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles;
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians Chapter I

Justin Martyr a.d. 110–165
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
The First Apology Chapter LXI

Ireneaus a.d. 120–202
The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,� . . .
Against Heresies Book I Chapter X

The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth.� And again, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.� There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternal things He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennœa.

For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence,—He who formed the world (for the world is of all),—He who fashioned man,—He [who] is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,—He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove.

Book I Chapter XXII
Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.� Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord.
Against Heresies Book III Chapter VI

For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;� He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world.
Against Heresies Book IV Chapter XX

Clement of Alexandria a.d. 153–217
O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, . . .
The Instructor. Book I Chapter VI

Tertullian a.d. 145–220
In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία , as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.

But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.
Against Praxeas Chapter II

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία . The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth.
Against Praxeas Chapter III

But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father, and (represent Him) as doing nothing without the Father’s will, and as having received all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? The same remark (I wish also to be formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in the Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son.
Against Praxeas Chapter IV

Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit.. . . Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete (Holy Spirit), so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,� thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they are and ever will be, that will they be called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not at all admit of any confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate. “Yes is yes, and no is no; for what is more than these, cometh of evil.�
Against Praxeas Chapter IX

Origen a.d. 185–254
From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit.
. . .
Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit.
Origen De Principiis. Book I Chapter III

Cyprian a.d. 200–258
Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.� How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?
Epistle LXXII.5.18

Augustine of Hippo a.d. 354–430
Those holy angels come to the knowledge of God not by audible words, but by the presence to their souls of immutable truth, i.e., of the only-begotten Word of God; and they know this Word Himself, and the Father, and their Holy Spirit, and that this Trinity is indivisible, and that the three persons of it are one substance, and that there are not three Gods but one God; and this they so know that it is better understood by them than we are by ourselves.
Augustine The City of God Book 11 Chapter 29

http://apostles-creed.org/confessional- ... s-trinity/

[Overcomer]

tigger2 quoted this:

.... "The [trinity] doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies .... It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.� - The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985, Micropaedia, vol. 11, p. 928.

I looked up that quotation to read it in context. Here's what else the article said:

Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord� (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit� (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all� (2 Corinthians 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

I don't think anything could be more clear. It says that "the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity." This flies in the face of those who say that the Trinity has pagan origins.

Also from the New Encyclopedia Britannica on the topic of the Trinity, we read:

The central Christian affirmations about God are condensed and focused in the classic doctrine of the Trinity, which has its ultimate foundation in the special religious experience of the Christians in the first communities. This basis of experience is older than the doctrine of the Trinity. It consisted of the fact that God came to meet Christians in a threefold figure.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christ ... #ref301070

Note that the article states that the first communities recognized the existence of the Trinity. Therefore, we know that the Trinity was accepted by the apostolic church of the first century.

In the succeeding centuries, early church fathers tried to find an explanation of just how God could be one essence existing in three persons. That's when the word "trinity" came to be used and the doctrine was made official. But the doctrine was NOT created at the Council of Nicea. It was only affirmed and that is what tigger2's quotation acknowledges.

Therefore, the quotation from the Encyclopedia Britannica does not say what the anti-Trinitarian would like it to say, that is, that the concept of the Trinity was created in the fourth century. It wasn't. The concept of the Trinity was present in the New Testament books and in the first-century church which revered those books.

tigger2 offered this quotation:

“Speculative thought began to analyze the divine nature until in the 4th century an elaborate theory of a threefoldness in God appears. In this Nicene or Athanasian form of thought God is said to consist of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all equally eternal, powerful and glorious.� - Encyclopedia Americana, 1944, v. 6, p. 619, “Christianity�.

That citation does NOT say that the early church didn't understand Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be divine in the same way that Yahweh is divine. It just says that everybody tried to come to grips with what the fact that all three were co-equal, co-eternal, co-omnipotent, co-omniscient, etc. meant -- and they finally put down their understanding of it at the Council of Nicea.

Here is another quotation from the Encyclopedia Americana:

At the same time, the Christian church insists that God is One in "sub- stance" (Latin substantia, existence or inner essence), and thus combines in it "mystery" (a formula or conception which really transcends human understanding) the truths set forth in the Holy Scriptures. It is probably a mistake to assume that the doctrine resulted from the intrusion of Greek metaphysics or philosophy into Christian thought; for the data upon which the doctrine rests, and also its earliest attempts at formulation, are much older than the church's encounter with Greek philosophy. The earliest development of the doctrine may in fact be viewed its an attempt to preserve the balance between the various statements of Scripture, or their implications, without yielding to views which, though logical enough, would have destroyed or abandoned important areas of Christian belief. The simplest affirmation is that God is "Three in One, and One in Three," without making use of such technical terms, derived from law or philosophy, as "substance" or "person." God is Father, and the Father is God; God is Son, and the Son is God; God is Spirit, and the Spirit is God. (Encyclopedia Americana, Trinity, p116)

Again, it seems clear from this that the Trinity did not arise out of Greek pagan thought. The concept comes out of Scripture.

I will have to address some of the other quotations later as I have no more time right now. Until then . . . .

[2timothy316]

tigger2 quoted this:

.... "The [trinity] doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies .... It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.� - The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985, Micropaedia, vol. 11, p. 928.

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all� (2 Corinthians 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

And the Sun was the basis for countless religions to a Sun god. Does that make it true that there is a Sun god? Nope. Anyone can claim a basis for anything from the Bible. I recently had a person tell me that they found justification for getting a tattoo by quoting Isaiah 49:16. People still use the Bible to justify slavery.

So don't think that because someone claims the basis for the trinity is in the Bible that doesn't make it true. Also what you added doesn't change the fact of what was quoted, that the trinity doctrine was inserted in the the church 300 years after the death of John. Indeed it so called "Christian church insists that God is One". Jesus and none of the apostles insisted on a trinity.

The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?

Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.

The trinity is an example of eisegesis. This is why when someone tries to use the Bible to support we only see these few scriptures. Cherry picked if you will. A sign of eisegesis.

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

So don't think that because someone claims the basis for the trinity is in the Bible that doesn't make it true. Also what you added doesn't change the fact of what was quoted, that the trinity doctrine was inserted in the the church 300 years after the death of John.

I think you missed his point. He is not saying it must be true because people say it comes from the Bible. He is debunking the charge that it has pagan origin and no Scriptural support. The fact remains there is Scriptural evidence for the Trinity.

Also, you are playing semantics and want to suggest since the term trinity was not used by Christ Himself, it can’t be true. That doesn’t logically follow. I already posted historical evidence from early church writing that show in fact the doctrine of the Trinity existed prior to the Church making an official declaration/clarification of the doctrine. The first Church taught and believed in the Trinity which is why it remains today, despite fringe groups like Jehovah Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints (Mormon), and Christian Scientists deny the Trinity because it doesn’t fit their invented theology.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

So don't think that because someone claims the basis for the trinity is in the Bible that doesn't make it true. Also what you added doesn't change the fact of what was quoted, that the trinity doctrine was inserted in the the church 300 years after the death of John.

I think you missed his point. He is not saying it must be true because people say it comes from the Bible. He is debunking the charge that it has pagan origin and no Scriptural support. The fact remains there is Scriptural evidence for the Trinity.

Does the fact remain that there is support for keeping slaves and everyone only marrying in their race? Some say that both doctrines to have scripture support. I didn't miss the point but I think mine was missed. In particular the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. A person can think up anything and then go find a scripture that sounds something close to what they imagined. Then shout 'it has Biblical support'.

Note: Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.

Eisegesis is not the way to teach from the Word of God. In fact, in eisegesis its not teaching anything, its being used as a prop. While people say the trinity has Biblical support what it doesn't have is a Biblical basis. When on tries to fit the trinity in with the whole Bible, it falls apart. The scriptures used in the eisegesis interpretation can't hold the weight and the prop fails.

[Overcomer]

2timothy316 wrote:

Anyone can claim a basis for anything from the Bible.

I agree.

2timothy316 wrote:

So don't think that because someone claims the basis for the trinity is in the Bible that doesn't make it true

.

I don't. The evidence for the Trinity is in the Bible. That's where I get my understanding of it.

What I was trying to show was that tigger2 was selective about what he chose to share from the New Encyclopedia Britiannica. He is using it in an attempt to prove what he believes about the Trinity. If he thinks it is a good source for that, then what does he think of the statements from it that contradict what he believes about the Trinity? That was my purpose in quoting the source that he is using to make his case.

2timothy316 wrote:

Also what you added doesn't change the fact of what was quoted, that the trinity doctrine was inserted in the church 300 years after the death of John. Indeed it so called "Christian church insists that God is One". Jesus and none of the apostles insisted on a trinity.

Please re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that the word "trinity" was used in the Bible. Tertullian was the first to use the term. I said that the concept was there and that, for several centuries, Christians worked through just what it meant when the Bible stated that Yahweh was God, Christ was God and the Holy Spirit was God. I have argued these things elsewhere.

My discussion of the JW understanding of the Holy Spirit and the Biblical evidence that He is God is here:

viewtopic.php?t=33882

Here is my discussion of the JW understanding of Jesus Christ and the Biblical evidence that he is God:

viewtopic.php?t=33882

And, lastly, my discussion of what JW.org says about the Trinity is here with evidence from the Bible to indicate the reality of the Triune Godhead:

viewtopic.php?t=33943

RightReason has ably presented information from early church fathers about the Trinity so I will not repeat them here.

2timothy316 wrote:

The trinity is an example of eisegesis. This is why when someone tries to use the Bible to support we only see these few scriptures. Cherry picked if you will. A sign of eisegesis.

I studied hermeneutics at seminary and I can tell you that those of us who adhere to Christian orthodoxy beieve that Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones guilty of eisegesis. That's why they have their own bible. They did not go to the Greek text for their translation. Indeed, the translators didn't know Greek. They took the English Bible and re-wrote passages that indicated the Trinity to fit their beliefs.

See here:

http://www.ukapologetics.net/newworld.html

Proper exegesis can only be done with a good Bible, one that honestly attempts to translate from the Greek manuscripts that we have. The New World Translation is not a good Bible.

As for there only being a "few scriptures" to support the Trinity, there are actually more like a thousand. See here:

http://irr.org/biblical-basis-of-doctrine-of-trinity

[2timothy316]

Proper exegesis can only be done with a good Bible, one that honestly attempts to translate from the Greek manuscripts that we have. .

Eisegesis, can be done with any Bible. The trinity has as much support as slavery, marrying only your own race and starting a holy war. Cherry picked scripture for a makeshift prop. Yet if the whole Bible is used, the trinity doctrine is crushed by the weight of the whole Bible.

The Bible is only a prop for the trinity doctrine it doesn't teach it. Just like it's a prop for other false doctrines. Even Satan used the Bible to try to get Jesus to jump off an tower in Jerusalem. Satan claims his temptation was 'supported by the Bible'. Using the Bible to teach whatever you want doesn't mean it's true.

As for there only being a "few scriptures" to support the Trinity, there are actually more like a thousand. See here:

Perfect example of cheery picking and eisegesis. You're proving my point. You make a claim then go find scripture to prop up the claim.

[Overcomer]

2timothy316 wrote:

Eisegesis, can be done with any Bible. The trinity has as much support as slavery, marrying only your own race and starting a holy war.

I didn't say it couldn't be. I said that if one wanted to do proper exegesis, one had to start with a good Bible, one based on the Greek manuscripts that we have. And the New World Translation is not based on them because the translators didn't know the language.

2timothy316 wrote:

The Bible is only a prop for the trinity doctrine it doesn't teach it.

Prove it.

You can start with the 1,000 Biblical references to the Trinity found here:

http://irr.org/biblical-basis-of-doctrine-of-trinity

One thousand references is a lot of cherries!

2timothy316 wrote:

Using the Bible to teach whatever you want doesn't mean it's true.

I agree. But please look in the mirror when you say that!

[2timothy316]

The Bible is only a prop for the trinity doctrine it doesn't teach it.

Prove it.

It has been proven in this thread by many. Simply re-read any thread on this forum about the trinity and there will be dozens of post with proof. I'm going to rehash it.

[Overcomer]

2timothy316 wrote:

It has been proven in this thread by many. Simply re-read any thread on this forum about the trinity and there will be dozens of post with proof. I'm going to rehash it.

It has been argued. It has yet to be proven.