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 post 60 by 2timothy316]

You have not answered in scripture. You interpret the Bible using eisegesis, a practice I do not accept as a valid way to interpret the Bible. I do not want to hear your argument, I want to read where the apostles were debating the trinity.

I’m sorry but what you are asking is actually unscriptural! No where in the Bible does it say the Bible alone is our authority. No where does it say the Bible speaks for itself. In fact, the Bible itself says the opposite . . .

Christ Himself said to Peter, “Though art Peter and upon this rock I build my church� “He who hears you, hears me�

St. Paul tell us to listen to what we say whether written or by word of mouth!

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.� -2 Thessalonians 2:15

“Now I commend you for remembering me in everything and for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you� -1 Corinthians 11:2

St. Paul had no Bible to pass on to them. The first Christians were always expected to listen to the Church.

I do not want to hear about those that argued 300 years after the Bible was completed.

Cool. Because many of the writings of the early Church which demonstrate belief in the Trinity were written 100’s of years prior to the Bible.

Their arguments are not in the Bible.

Nor do they need to be. The word Bible is not in the Bible either. Of course, as I and many others continue to point out to you Scripture is full of evidence of the Trinity.

Again, show us all the scripture where Paul, Peter, John etc argued about the a trinity.

Why would they have argued about something they all agreed with and accepted? What they did do was insist they had much more to say . . .

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.� –John 16:12

So again, your entire approach makes no sense – it doesn’t hold up Scripturally, historically, or logically!

[tigger2]

RightReason wrote:

Cool. Because many of the writings of the early Church which demonstrate belief in the Trinity were written 100’s of years prior to the Bible.

Please give quotes and references for some of these.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 61 by RightReason]

Paul and Peter couldn't even share the same boat. So, I would like to see these pre 100 and 0 ideas on a triune God.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 60 by 2timothy316]

You have not answered in scripture. You interpret the Bible using eisegesis, a practice I do not accept as a valid way to interpret the Bible. I do not want to hear your argument, I want to read where the apostles were debating the trinity.

I’m sorry but what you are asking is actually unscriptural!

That is correct. There is nothing about the trinity in the Bible. Argued about or agreed upon. It was not an issue for another 300 years and it was not put into the Bible because it was not God breathed. If it was inspired by God then the decrees like all the other decrees by the apostles would be in the Bible. Yet it is not. The trinity is a man-made doctrine.

[Overcomer]

2timothy316 quoted this verse:

John:14:28 "The Father is greater than I"

He said that while on earth, meaning that his role was one of subservience to God the Father when he lived as God Incarnate. But he is not talking ontologically, that is, about his very being.

And you quoted this verse:

Philippians 2:5, 6 "Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God."

Equal? No.

Again, that verse refers to Christ's role on earth. It is not talking about who he is ontologically. In fact, if you look at the word "form", also translated as "nature", it DOES refer to him ontologically and it's saying that he is, in his very being, God.


I quoted Gen. 1:26 about God saying, "Let us make man in our image" and you replied:

But it doesn't say 'us' is God. The eiesgesis interpretation practice you use makes it a prop for your doctrine. While it is likely that the us is Jehovah and Jesus there is nothing that directly say they are both God.

Who is the "us" then? We are made in the image of God. We are not made in the image of anybody else.

I wrote this in a previous post:

I provided links where I explain why Jesus and the Holy Spirit are deity along with Yahweh. You are welcome to check them out and you are welcome to debate them. If I'm guilty of eisegesis as you keep suggesting, then please offer some evidence to back up that opinion.

You replied:

I am not interested. I have seen all of them before and they do not teach the trinity. They are being use as props in eiesgesis. An interpretation practice I do not accept

That's your choice, but it suggests that you don't have any answers for what I wrote in those three threads and that you aren't prepared to address 1,000 verses that, combined, prove the reality of the Triune Godhead.

I took a look at the link you provided here:

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html#_1_17

The entire thing is a strawman fallacy because the author begins with a false definition of the Trinity. He writes:

"Most Christians in the world today believe in the Trinity which is the union of the three divine persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- into one Godhead."

That is not what the Trinity is. The proper definition is this: There is one God who exists in three persons, meaning that all are ontologically one. It is NOT the union of three separate divine persons.

Bottom line: The author makes up a definition that he can knock down. That's a strawman argument. It's fallacious.

2timothy316 wrote:

There is nothing about the trinity in the Bible.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, there are 1,000 verses in the Bible that speak to it. But you're not interested in reading them. I don't think that just repeating what you believe, without any willingness to investigate what we're saying, is a legitimate approach to discussion.

[2timothy316]

As I have pointed out repeatedly, there are 1,000 verses in the Bible that speak to it. But you're not interested in reading them. I don't think that just repeating what you believe, without any willingness to investigate what we're saying, is a legitimate approach to discussion.

I have read all of those scriptures and I have investigated. Those scriptures in context don't teach the trinity. You use the wrong interpretation methods and I don't accept them as a valid way to read the Bible. I will not say this again. The trinity is an imagined thought and then scriptures are searched out of context to attempt proof.

This interpretive tool is called eisegesis and it's a flawed way to interpret the Bible and you have not addressed this flawed interpretive process at all. You just keep regurgitating the same stuff over and over but never addressing why you think eisegesis is the way to interpret the Bible. Saying there are a 1000 scriptures that support the trinity is no answer for the flawed eisegesis interpretation method.

[Overcomer]

2timothy316 wrote:

I have read all of those scriptures and I have investigated. Those scriptures in context don't teach the trinity. You use the wrong interpretation methods and I don't accept them as a valid way to read the Bible. I will not say this again

I asked you to give me a specific example of how I am misinterpreting Scripture. You haven't given me one. You just keep repeating that I'm wrong and you're right. If you can't be bothered to discuss what you believe, what are you doing on a discussion forum? And if you really believe it and you believe I'm wrong, why aren't you willing to convince me, especially since you believe that only JWs are in good with God?

2timothy316 wrote:

This interpretive tool is called eisegesis and it's a flawed way to interpret the Bible and you have not addressed this flawed interpretive process at all. You just keep regurgitating the same stuff over and over but never addressing why you think eisegesis is the way to interpret the Bible. Saying there are a 1000 scriptures that support the trinity is no answer for the flawed eisegesis interpretation method.

I know what eisegesis is. I studied Greek and proper exegesis at Seminary. I have NEVER said eisegesis is the appropriate approach to the Bible. In fact, I have stated that it is NOT. You have NOT given me an example to address to prove that I practice eisegesis even though I have repeatedly asked for one. I have responded to the few verses you offered. I provided links to the arguments for the Trinity that I posted here on this forum and you refuse to read them. I don't feel I'm the stumbling block here.

I'm sorry, but I'm just feeling very frustrated. It's difficult having a discussion with someone who won't discuss! And when you do say something, you twist what I said to suit yourself. So very frustrating! There are plenty of other threads on this forum. I'll devote my time and energy to them.

[2timothy316]

2timothy316 wrote:

I have read all of those scriptures and I have investigated. Those scriptures in context don't teach the trinity. You use the wrong interpretation methods and I don't accept them as a valid way to read the Bible. I will not say this again

I asked you to give me a specific example of how I am misinterpreting Scripture.

All of them. Every single one. They are all one-liners that in context are not talking about a trinity at all. What you do is declare there is a trinity and the seek proof text out of context. I'm not the only one that sees this.

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospe ... gesis.html

Yet those that love the trinity doctrine put on blinders to this flawed interpretive practice. You have not presented evidence that you don't do this practice. Just saying 'I don't do it' is not enough.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 62 by tigger2]

Quote:
Cool. Because many of the writings of the early Church which demonstrate belief in the Trinity were written 100’s of years prior to the Bible.


Please give quotes and references for some of these.

Have you been following this thread? I already posted early Church writings that date to the first century and yet the Bible, containing all the books as we know it today, did not exist until the 4th century. This means the first Christians did not turn to their Bibles to know their faith – they turned to the Church. And as I demonstrated there are historical records showing the early Church taught and believed the Trinity.

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

the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.

By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/didnt-the-c ... -the-bible

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 64 by 2timothy316]

That is correct. There is nothing about the trinity in the Bible. Argued about or agreed upon. It was not an issue for another 300 years

Absolutely false and I already posted some evidence proving so. You are correct after the Church had been established for awhile some throughout the years attempted to teach something contrary to the Trinity. But heretical attempts are nothing new and exactly why Christ left ONE, HOLY, Catholic, and Apostolic Church – to correct attacks on His teachings.

and it was not put into the Bible because it was not God breathed.

au contraire mon frère . I already posted support for the Trinity in the Bible. Also, and very important that you keep ignoring – do you know what else was God breathed? The Disciples (the first Church) were breathed on and we were told to listen to them.

I have read all of those scriptures and I have investigated. Those scriptures in context don't teach the trinity. You use the wrong interpretation methods and I don't accept them as a valid way to read the Bible.

LOL! How do you know you aren’t using the wrong interpretation method? Why do you think Christ established ONE Church and said, “He who hears you, hears me�? to prevent people from coming on the scene late -- like in the 1870’s when JW’s were founded -- and attempting to suggest all of Christendom got it wrong until they came along. We five guys, with no Biblical expertise and no guidance from God, have taken it upon ourselves to re translate Sacred Scripture and we don’t find the evidence for the Trinity compelling – LOL!

I will not say this again. The trinity is an imagined thought and then scriptures are searched out of context to attempt proof.

Oh sweetie . . . pot meet kettle. You have just described the modus operandi for the JW religion.