When did belief in a Trinity begin and why?

[polonius]

This thread is a follow-on to a previous post, but one which clearly should be treated as a separate subject.

The traditional Jewish Shema taught “Hear of Israel. The Lord is One.� And this belief was held by the early Christian-Jews (in a sect called “The Way�) which remained united with conventual Judaism.

About 85 AD, the Christians began to assert that their Messiah was divine himself. This was the parting of the ways with Judaism. The Christians wre labeled as “minim� (or apostates) and a condemnation included in the 18 Benedictions a prayer said daily by the Jews.Christians, of course, were banned from Jewish synagogues.

What the Christians developed is the belief that there were really two persons in the Messiah, or Binitarianism. Claims of a third person were added later.

“Binitarianism is the belief that the one true God exists as two Persons (the Father and the Son). Binitarianism is distinguished from Trinitarianism (God exists as three Persons) and Unitarianism (God exists as only one Person). It is also distinguished from bitheism (the belief in two gods). Binitarianism has never been a popular view of God and is held by a small number of groups today.�

[polonius]

By the way, if the trinity is true, I have no issue with it. I just seek the truth.

St Paul observed that we should test everything, hold fast to that which is true, but put aside childish things.

[polonius]

By the way, if the trinity is true, I have no issue with it. I just seek the truth.

St Paul observed that we should test everything, hold fast to that which is true, but put aside childish things.

1 Timothy 2:5 " For there is one God: there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, (NRSV)

(But Paul actually wrote only 7 of the 14 epistles that are claimed to have been written by him).

[polonius]

You are fooling yourself to believe a trinity doctrine existed before Nicea. There are 3. Father, son of Man, and Holy Ghost. They appear to be quite different characters by the bible accounts. And by the Son of man.

We have direct talk about the trinity from Tertullian (155 – 240 AD).

In Adversus Praxean he wrote, “We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

Almost a century before Nicea we see explicit statements about the trinity. Tertullian didn't just use Trinitarian formulas like Irenaeus did. He actually said that God is a trinity and described the God who is one in substance but three in form. Does this at least convince you that the doctrine of the trinity existed long before Nicea?

RESPONSE: Wasn't that written long after 85 AD and the Christians' exclusion from the Temple for apostasy for claiming Jesus was divine?

Didn't Tertullian give up the Christian faith?

[polonius]

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tertullian

“Knowledge of the life of Tertullian is based almost wholly on documents written by men living more than a century after him and from obscure references in his own works. On this basis a general outline of his life has been constructed, but most of the details have been continually disputed by modern scholars.�

“Sometime before 210 Tertullian left the orthodox church to join a new prophetic sectarian movement known as Montanism (founded by the 2nd-century Phrygian prophet Montanus), which had spread from Asia Minor to Africa. His own dissatisfaction with the laxity of contemporary Christians was congenial with the Montanist message of the imminent end of the world combined with a stringent and demanding moralism.�

Jesus not being divine and hence not having divine knowledge had also claimed the imminent end to the world. But it didn't happen. But we have to cut him a break. He was only human.

[bjs]

Instead, the overwhelming majority of early Christians accepted the trinity from the first century on (though again the modern language wasn’t used).

RESPONSE: Then why did the Jewish authorities allow the Christians who held such a view contrary to the basic teaching of Judaism "Hear O Israel, the Lord is One" remain a sect "The Way" within Judaism until about 85 AD.

Note the early theologians you quoted as believing in the Trinity all wrote long after 85 AD.

It is also notable that many early writings were later interpolated (added to) by later Christian copyists. We might do a post on this subject

As I wrote before, if the book of Acts is correct then the split came almost 50 years earlier than your claim. Chapter seven of Acts describes the followers of the Way being forced out of Jerusalem entirely, and those events probably took place in 36 AD.

[bjs]

[Replying to Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 5 by steveb1]

In Acts 2:39, during Pentecost, Peter spoke of the promise “for all whom the Lord our God will call.� Earlier in that same speech Peter directly state that Jesus is “Lord and Christ� (Acts 2:36). Then Peter said that the Lord is our God.

Peter returned to the same theme in Acts 3:15 and called Jesus the “author of life.�

QUESTION: Please cite your precise reference within Acts of Apostles.

I have.

And I assume you know that the use of the title "Lord" does not establish divinity.

I do. This is why I did not say that calling Jesus "Lord" established that he is divine. Rather, I pointed out that in Acts 2:39 Peter called Jesus “the Lord our God.�

It is not the fact that he called Jesus our “Lord� that means Jesus is divine. What matters for this issues is that Peter said that the Lord Jesus is “our God.�

[polonius]

bis tells us that:

As I wrote before, if the book of Acts is correct then the split came almost 50 years earlier than your claim. Chapter seven of Acts describes the followers of the Way being forced out of Jerusalem entirely, and those events probably took place in 36 AD.

RESPONSE: When you try to reference a scripture, please cite the book, chapter , and verse correctly and quote it if possible. Also it would be helpful if you add the date of the writing.

How can the claim that chapter 7 says the early Christians were forced out of Jerusalem "probably in 36 AD" when a much later chapter reports the Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD being held in Jerusalem?

Perhaps you might use the following approximate dates. Paul's epistles were written between 55 and 64 AD when he was executed. The Gospel of Mark was written about 70 AD and the Gospel of Matthew and Luke (both of which copied from Mark) were written about 80 AD. John's gospel was written in 95 AD after the the Christians had been declared apostates ("Minim") and excluded from the Jewish synagogues in about 85 AD.

"probably took place" isn't acceptable for dating.

[bjs]

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tertullian

“Knowledge of the life of Tertullian is based almost wholly on documents written by men living more than a century after him and from obscure references in his own works. On this basis a general outline of his life has been constructed, but most of the details have been continually disputed by modern scholars.�

“Sometime before 210 Tertullian left the orthodox church to join a new prophetic sectarian movement known as Montanism (founded by the 2nd-century Phrygian prophet Montanus), which had spread from Asia Minor to Africa. His own dissatisfaction with the laxity of contemporary Christians was congenial with the Montanist message of the imminent end of the world combined with a stringent and demanding moralism.�

Jesus not being divine and hence not having divine knowledge had also claimed the imminent end to the world. But it didn't happen. But we have to cut him a break. He was only human.

I do not see the significance of this post. The events of Tertullian’s life are contested; the importance of his works is not. As the source you cited points out, “As a historical personage Tertullian is known less for what he did than for what he wrote.�

The same source also says, “Tertullian has been widely read and studied and is considered one of the formative figures in the development of Christian life and thought in the West.�

Regardless of his move to Montanism (a complicated issue to be sure), Tertullian’s writing still demonstrate unequivocally that doctrine of the trinity was thoroughly flushed out at least a century before Nicea.

[bjs]

RESPONSE: When you try to reference a scripture, please cite the book, chapter , and verse correctly and quote it if possible. Also it would be helpful if you add the date of the writing.

Acts 7:1-8:2

Acts was probably written in the early 70’s or 80’s, though it records events which took place much earlier.

How can the claim that chapter 7 says the early Christians were forced out of Jerusalem "probably in 36 AD" when a much later chapter reports the Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD being held in Jerusalem?

At no point were Christians ever completely removed from Jerusalem. However, breaking from the synagogue and the subsequent persecution began in the 30’s. There were many ups and downs between the Jews and early Christians over the next several decades.

Perhaps you might use the following approximate dates. Paul's epistles were written between 55 and 64 AD when he was executed. The Gospel of Mark was written about 70 AD and the Gospel of Matthew and Luke (both of which copied from Mark) were written about 80 AD. John's gospel was written in 95 AD after the the Christians had been declared apostates ("Minim") and excluded from the Jewish synagogues in about 85 AD.

"probably took place" isn't acceptable for dating.

In reality “probably took place� is the only acceptable form of dating. We don’t have definite dates for much of ancient history. The best we can do is estimate and recognize that we may be a little off.

[polonius]

And I assume you know that the use of the title "Lord" does not establish divinity.

I do. This is why I did not say that calling Jesus "Lord" established that he is divine. Rather, I pointed out that in Acts 2:39 Peter called Jesus “the Lord our God.�

It is not the fact that he called Jesus our “Lord� that means Jesus is divine. What matters for this issues is that Peter said that the Lord Jesus is “our God.�[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Bjs posted

This is why I did not say that calling Jesus "Lord" established that he is divine. Rather, I pointed out that in Acts 2:39 Peter called Jesus “the Lord our God.�

It is not the fact that he called Jesus our “Lord� that means Jesus is divine. What matters for this issues is that Peter said that the Lord Jesus is “our God.�

Acts 2:39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.�

From the dictionary for the term “lord�:
: one having power and authority over others:
a : a ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due
b : one of whom a fee or estate is held in feudal tenure
c : an owner of land or other real (see 1REAL 1) property
d obsolete : the male head of a household

In the passage “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him� the “him� is referring to whom God, not Jesus, is calling. It refers to God the Father.

Also note that elsewhere in thei chapter Jesus is referred to a Lord and Messiah. If you check out your Old Testament, you will find that the Messiah is clearly not divine, but a lesser agent of God. Even in the New Testament we find Jesus tells us that � For the Father is greater than I.�

Thus, Jesus is not coequal with the Father.

in Acts 2:39 Peter called Jesus “the Lord our God.

No. Perhaps you will want to reread this passage in its entirety.