When was the Trinity concept invented?

[polonius]

“Regarding the New Testament, trinitarian scholar William Rusch has admitted:
“The binitarian formulas are found in Rom. 8:11, 2 Cor. 4:14, Gal. 1:1, Eph. 1:20, 1 Tim 1:2, 1 Pet. 1:21, and 2 John 1:13...No doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament...

“There is no doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense in the Apostolic Fathers...(Rusch W.G. The Trinitarian Controversy. Fortress Press, Phil., 1980, pp. 2-3).

“So, a trinitarian scholar admits that the New Testament uses what he calls binitarian formulas and no doctrine of the trinity was found in early post-apostolic times from those known as "Apostolic Fathers." This would include people such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna."

http://www.cogwriter.com/binitarian.htm#scholars

[bjs]

[Replying to post 15 by 2timothy316]

Once again, if we research these religious pantheons on their own, instead of reading propaganda searching for connections to Christianity, we don’t find anything like this.

If we want to know about deities like Tammuz, then research Tammuz. We will find nothing similar to the Christian trinity. The only time connections between the Christian trinity are Babylonian religions are found is when someone makes it a conscious goal to find such connections. These connections are drawn at the expense of accuracy.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tammuz ... tamian-god

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiramis

The way I see it, it's not me under the influence of propaganda. The similarities are clear as day. Britannica is just a book of facts. It doesn't piece it all together for you. Even an early Catholic scholar St. Jerome said "All the ancient nations believed in the Trinity". Why do you deny your own fellow trinitarian's observations?

BTW, here is what Britannica says about your trinity.

"Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. 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)."

I am sure your propaganda is going to win out over the statement above. Let's see if you turn your back on and attack your own reference source.

Yes, Britannica is a book of facts, and the facts show that the Babylonian pantheon did not include anything like the Christian trinity.

I think at least some context is reasonable for the quote from Jerome. Where did he write this?

I agree with everything in the quote you have provided from Britannica and I have said the same things before, most of them in this very thread!

[polonius]

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trini ... tian_texts

It was several hundred years after the life of Jesus before many Christians accepted the idea that God was a Trinity. It was a difficult idea, because the Hebrew scriptures talk about God being One. The Greeks and the Romans could only understand Christ as a person who was bringing God’s Word. It was not until the 4th century that the three were recognized as being the three parts of one whole God. This was decided by the Council of Nicaea in 325. By the end of the century many Christians had been swayed to believe in God as a Trinity.

http://catholic-resources.org/John/Patr ... inity.html

The late fourth century was a time of great Trinitarian controversy. Early in the fourth century, in 325 AD, the Catholic Church dogmatically defined that the Son of God, Who is the Person of Jesus Christ, is consubstantial with God the Father and is therefore Divine. This definition was directed chiefly against the Arians who denied the divinity of the Son of God and therefore of Christ. By the end of the fourth century, however, there was a group of heretics known as the Macedonians who challenged not the divinity of God the Son, but rather the divinity of God the Holy Spirit. In response to this and other challenges to the Faith, the Church convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. One of the chief purposes of this Ecumenical Council was to define dogmatically the Divinity of God the Holy Spirit so as to make clear, once and for all, the Church's official Trinitarian doctrine.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/ ... itarianism

Binitarianism ultimately sees theology, soteriology, eschatology, etc., of the new testament taking shape around two distinct persons, God and Jesus. The holy spirit is understood as the singular spirit of God and Jesus (e.g. Romans 8.9) but not a distinct person, analogous to how a human's spirit is not a distinct person.
However, depending on some contexts, the term 'holy spirit' is not understood by binitarians to have a systematic definition. In some contexts the term is understood as referring to God's spirit (e.g. the parallelism between Matthew 10.20 and Luke 12.12), but in other contexts it may be understood as something more general (e.g. Psalm 51.11 as a poetic parallel to God's 'presence', or Luke 1.35 as a parallel to 'the power of the Most High').

Question: How can the Trinity not be mentioned or described in the New and Old Testament, yet become a concept necessary for faith yet not described until the 3rd or 4th century?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 15 by 2timothy316]

Once again, if we research these religious pantheons on their own, instead of reading propaganda searching for connections to Christianity, we don’t find anything like this.

If we want to know about deities like Tammuz, then research Tammuz. We will find nothing similar to the Christian trinity. The only time connections between the Christian trinity are Babylonian religions are found is when someone makes it a conscious goal to find such connections. These connections are drawn at the expense of accuracy.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tammuz ... tamian-god

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiramis

The way I see it, it's not me under the influence of propaganda. The similarities are clear as day. Britannica is just a book of facts. It doesn't piece it all together for you. Even an early Catholic scholar St. Jerome said "All the ancient nations believed in the Trinity". Why do you deny your own fellow trinitarian's observations?

BTW, here is what Britannica says about your trinity.

"Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. 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)."

I am sure your propaganda is going to win out over the statement above. Let's see if you turn your back on and attack your own reference source.

Yes, Britannica is a book of facts, and the facts show that the Babylonian pantheon did not include anything like the Christian trinity.

It's not a book of doctrine though. Here is a book of doctrine.
The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol II
https://books.google.com/books?id=m8xJA ... ty&f=false

Starting reading from the paragraph that starts off "Religion - The Babylonian Pantheon..."

You read a part that says, "when the citizens of one city entered into a political relations with the citizens of another, popular imagination soon created the relation of father and son, brother and sister or man and wife between their respective gods. The Babylonian Trinity of Anu, Bel, and Ea is the result of later speculation..."

The very people that brought you the trinity again supporting a Babylonian trinity.

Here is a study by Penn State on Anu.
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/list ... index.html
"An/Anu belongs to the oldest generation of Mesopotamian gods and was originally the supreme deity of the Babylonian pantheon."

And yes your friend Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anu
"Mesopotamian sky god and a member of the triad of deities completed by Enlil and Ea (Enki)."

Did you know that Anu was known as 'the father of gods'? That sounds oddly familiar.

It's not propaganda, it's fact. We might not know when the trinity concept began but we know the where.

[brianbbs67]

Seems to me that the Holy Spirit is God's alone. And Christ is His son of man. So, there are 3. Is Christ the same as God? Christ says no. He encourages prayer to the Father and is seated at the right hand Of God.

They can be One without being One in the same.

I and my wife are one. We are not the same person.

Could Christ and God be truly the same, sure. But, claiming they are without more evidence than a few verses in John, which are contradicted by a few other verses in John, prove nothing.

And, really., if you boil it down, does it matter? Christ is human sent by God to save us. Christ is God sent to save us. either way, we can be redeemed. If we choose.

[2timothy316]

And, really., if you boil it down, does it matter? Christ is human sent by God to save us. Christ is God sent to save us. either way, we can be redeemed. If we choose.

When you ask, 'does it matter', who are you asking? People or God? To people it might not matter yet the Almighty has a whole book to detail who He is and what matters to Him.

"Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength. These words that I am commanding you today must be on your heart, and you must inculcate them in your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road and when you lie down and when you get up." Deut 6:4-7

Because of the muilti-gods that surrounded the Hebrews Moses had to remind them of their God and who He was and how many of Him there is. The message is the same today.

“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’​—Matt. 7:21-23

So does it matter to know who the difference between Jehovah and Jesus? According to the Bible, it most certainly does. Furthermore the Bible says we must be doing the will of Jesus' Father. If a person is confused as to who that is, how can they know what to do? Just knowing where salvation comes from isn't enough.

"Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it? If any brothers or sisters are lacking clothing and enough food for the day, yet one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,� but you do not give them what they need for their body, of what benefit is it? So, too, faith by itself, without works, is dead. Nevertheless, someone will say: “You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.� You believe that there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder." James 2:14-19

"Now in the synagogue there was a man with a spirit, an unclean demon, and he shouted with a loud voice: Ah! What have we to do with you, Jesus the Naz·a·reneʹ? Did you come to destroy us? I know exactly who you are, the Holy One of God.� Luke 4:33, 34

So what if a person knows were salvation comes from, if they are simply saying, 'I know God' as a way of showing their faith. God's Word says such a person is no different from a demon that knows the same thing. Mankind doesn't choose to save their life by what they know, just like a demon can't gain salvation because they know Jesus is the 'Holy One of God'.

[polonius]

http://biserica.org/Publicatii/Catechism/catsome.htm

Some Attributes Of The Holy Trinity

“Is it possible that the three Persons are really the same Person and that Person presents Himself, appropriately to the situation, as the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit?

No. The Holy Trinity is one in essence and inseparable, one undivided Being. It is of one substance. The three Persons are undivided, but distinct.

Can the human mind grasp this? No. That is why we previously said that there are things "beyond logic," above our own logic. However, just because it is beyond logic and above our own mental capacities does not mean that what has been revealed to us by God is not true.

Two questions follow from these claims.

When did God first reveal the Trinity (or did He?)

Are all three persons in the Trinity coequal?

[bjs]

[Replying to post 15 by 2timothy316]

Once again, if we research these religious pantheons on their own, instead of reading propaganda searching for connections to Christianity, we don’t find anything like this.

If we want to know about deities like Tammuz, then research Tammuz. We will find nothing similar to the Christian trinity. The only time connections between the Christian trinity are Babylonian religions are found is when someone makes it a conscious goal to find such connections. These connections are drawn at the expense of accuracy.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tammuz ... tamian-god

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiramis

The way I see it, it's not me under the influence of propaganda. The similarities are clear as day. Britannica is just a book of facts. It doesn't piece it all together for you. Even an early Catholic scholar St. Jerome said "All the ancient nations believed in the Trinity". Why do you deny your own fellow trinitarian's observations?

BTW, here is what Britannica says about your trinity.

"Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. 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)."

I am sure your propaganda is going to win out over the statement above. Let's see if you turn your back on and attack your own reference source.

Yes, Britannica is a book of facts, and the facts show that the Babylonian pantheon did not include anything like the Christian trinity.

It's not a book of doctrine though. Here is a book of doctrine.
The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol II
https://books.google.com/books?id=m8xJA ... ty&f=false

Starting reading from the paragraph that starts off "Religion - The Babylonian Pantheon..."

You read a part that says, "when the citizens of one city entered into a political relations with the citizens of another, popular imagination soon created the relation of father and son, brother and sister or man and wife between their respective gods. The Babylonian Trinity of Anu, Bel, and Ea is the result of later speculation..."

The very people that brought you the trinity again supporting a Babylonian trinity.

Here is a study by Penn State on Anu.
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/list ... index.html
"An/Anu belongs to the oldest generation of Mesopotamian gods and was originally the supreme deity of the Babylonian pantheon."

And yes your friend Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anu
"Mesopotamian sky god and a member of the triad of deities completed by Enlil and Ea (Enki)."

Did you know that Anu was known as 'the father of gods'? That sounds oddly familiar.

It's not propaganda, it's fact. We might not know when the trinity concept began but we know the where.

I have looked at the articles you sited.

I have no idea why you sited any of them. None of them talk about a Mesopotamian or Babylonian trinity.

Britanica did mention a triad. As I said back in post five, if you want to change the meaning of “trinity� to refer to any group of three, then the concept originated in Hinduism prior to the existence of written languages. The Hindus also came up with the idea of God’s having family relationship long before the Babylonians.

However, if we are we considering something more along the lines of a Christian doctrine of the trinity, none of these articles suggest such a thing existed prior to Christianity.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 15 by 2timothy316]

Once again, if we research these religious pantheons on their own, instead of reading propaganda searching for connections to Christianity, we don’t find anything like this.

If we want to know about deities like Tammuz, then research Tammuz. We will find nothing similar to the Christian trinity. The only time connections between the Christian trinity are Babylonian religions are found is when someone makes it a conscious goal to find such connections. These connections are drawn at the expense of accuracy.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tammuz ... tamian-god

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiramis

The way I see it, it's not me under the influence of propaganda. The similarities are clear as day. Britannica is just a book of facts. It doesn't piece it all together for you. Even an early Catholic scholar St. Jerome said "All the ancient nations believed in the Trinity". Why do you deny your own fellow trinitarian's observations?

BTW, here is what Britannica says about your trinity.

"Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. 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)."

I am sure your propaganda is going to win out over the statement above. Let's see if you turn your back on and attack your own reference source.

Yes, Britannica is a book of facts, and the facts show that the Babylonian pantheon did not include anything like the Christian trinity.

It's not a book of doctrine though. Here is a book of doctrine.
The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol II
https://books.google.com/books?id=m8xJA ... ty&f=false

Starting reading from the paragraph that starts off "Religion - The Babylonian Pantheon..."

You read a part that says, "when the citizens of one city entered into a political relations with the citizens of another, popular imagination soon created the relation of father and son, brother and sister or man and wife between their respective gods. The Babylonian Trinity of Anu, Bel, and Ea is the result of later speculation..."

The very people that brought you the trinity again supporting a Babylonian trinity.

Here is a study by Penn State on Anu.
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/list ... index.html
"An/Anu belongs to the oldest generation of Mesopotamian gods and was originally the supreme deity of the Babylonian pantheon."

And yes your friend Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anu
"Mesopotamian sky god and a member of the triad of deities completed by Enlil and Ea (Enki)."

Did you know that Anu was known as 'the father of gods'? That sounds oddly familiar.

It's not propaganda, it's fact. We might not know when the trinity concept began but we know the where.

I have looked at the articles you sited.

I have no idea why you sited any of them. None of them talk about a Mesopotamian or Babylonian trinity.

Britanica did mention a triad.

Um....certainly you see the error in here. And you must not have read the Catholic Encyclopedia that said and I quote, "The Babylonian Trinity of Anu, Bel, and Ea is the result of later speculation". I mean if the Catholics can't spot a trinity then who can? You say none of them talk about a Babylonian trinity but then acknowledge that Anu was part of of one. The OP is about when was the trinity concept invented. Certainly you don't think that the Catholic church holds a monopoly or invented three deities being associated with worship. It was invented in Babylon. It has evolved into what it is today. Same theme since. So sad that some don't see the pattern and cry, 'but mine is different'.

Click the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity and scroll down. I'm sure all of those believing in these trinities thought the same thing crying, 'but my 3 are not the same as those three'. The only difference is that the three got turned into impossible to understand and head scratching one. The fact that a triad that got manipulated into the the early Christian congregation was Satan who is always taunting the One and only God, Jehovah. Some don't see it because I think pride keeps them from it. No one likes to look back and realize they have been played. It takes courage to stand up to pagan invented concepts. It takes a discerning eye and not even much brain power to see that as the triad gods of Roman are being left behind suddenly a religion that has held a monolithic faith suddenly has a trinity too? I mean...come on, really?

[bjs]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

This is the third time I have said basically the same thing, so I will probably leave it at this: If you want to define “trinity� as any group of three (such as Anu, Bel, and Ea; or Zeus, Poseidon and Hades; or Ford, Chrysler, and GM) then there have been many trinities throughout history. The oldest one came from Hinduism.

The Christian doctrine of the trinity is fundamentally different from these. It was formulated during the first and second century AD.

Even if someone use the word “trinity� to describe a group of three that does not make it the same as the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity.

Go well.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

This is the third time I have said basically the same thing, so I will probably leave it at this: If you want to define “trinity� as any group of three (such as Anu, Bel, and Ea; or Zeus, Poseidon and Hades; or Ford, Chrysler, and GM) then there have been many trinities throughout history. The oldest one came from Hinduism.

The Christian doctrine of the trinity is fundamentally different from these. It was formulated during the first and second century AD.

Even if someone use the word “trinity� to describe a group of three that does not make it the same as the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity.

Go well.

As I said before, it's just different lipstick on the same pig as it were. The cosmetic changes still doesn't cover the origin. So what if your trinity is only slightly different from all the others. All the other three gods grouped together were slightly different from each other too. They all thought there's was special, something different. It saddens me to see the old triad gods reborn over and over and over and people falling for it over and over, saying 'ah but this is something new and different'. No, it's not. The current day trinity is just a continuation. The person that decreed god is a trinity didn't even profess to be a christian until he was on his death bed. He served triad gods. This should alarm people. But it doesn't