were did the doctrine of the trinity REALLY come form?

[peter d roman]

it did NOT come from Our Christ-

it did NOT come from peter the rock-

were did it come form and what is it going to take for "triaterains " to see this most grave ERROR and REPENT!?!

peace and good and tons o'love

>o

[Cathar1950]

Concerning Genesis 1:26, the verb "make" certainly is in the singular, which can be viewed like you mentioned above. However, it can also be viewed as support for the idea of a trinity, where one God consists of three separate beings. Also, the new testament does directly state that at least God as the father and as the son are one. I believe the same is done for the holy ghost, but I can't recall any reference at the moment. John 10:30 simply states, "I and my Father are one." This seems to end the question as to whether or not the bible considers at least the father and the son to be one. As to the holy ghost, that will take some looking into.

Except of course, we have examples of a singular verb following a plural in the 'Royal we' in the bible where the frame of reference to the plural is not a divinity. For example, we have Moses being referred to as an Elohim followed by a single verb when he was made Lord over Aaron.

Now, John 10:30 is interpreted by many to say that Jesus was saying his purpose was the same as God's, which doesn't mean he is the same as God. Having a similar purpose doesn't mean they are the same.

John makes much more sense if you view it through the eyes of the Gnostic Christians of the time, or through the philosophy of Philo of Alexander.

Would you happen to know the location of the passage where Moses is made Lord over Aaron?

You're right, if that verse is interpreted that way then that certainly does not mean that Jesus and God are the same. However, verse 33 goes on to say, "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." Whether Jesus is God or not, it certainly seems that the Jews believed he thought himself to be both God and Jesus.

That would be the gospel of John and I doubt any historical Jesus would have said such a thing and it is the invention of the unknown author.

[peter d roman]

sorry about the tone of my reply-

it is just we that look to Our Christ as Our Redeemer, Our Savior - Friend , and Our very best Way to The Life will lean best of Him when we learn FORM Him directly.

if you can tell me of a GOSPEL scripture that might support the notion of the trinity- i am very interested to hear of it-

but to me THAT- the gospels- are the only ENDURING and fully Truthful font of and for His Teachings- at least until we can read our hearts better.

peace and good ad tons o'love

>o

yes - its good to split hairs and stay distracted and off topic-

least a truth is found and right be made from a long standing but accepted and carefully followed spiritual wrong!

peace and good and tons o'love

>o

Off topic? I'm just asking for the biblical evidence against the idea of a trinity. You said that the bible doesn't support the idea of a trinity so I'm trying to find out what scriptures disprove the trinity.

[Student]

The Trinity is not found to be found explicitly in the NT. If it were then there would have been no Arian controversy, and no Nicaea. The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5.7-8) is most certainly a forgery; if it were genuine it would surely have been employed by Athanasius and his followers. (It does not appear in any of manuscript of the Vulgate prior to the 8th century or any Greek manuscript before the 10th century.)

The Trinity was developed over time as the Logos theology of Justin Martyr gained hold. Whilst the Synoptic Gospels/Acts can present an adoptionist Christology (Acts in particular has a strong ‘subordinationist’ element), the Gospel of John clearly cannot. Obviously there was the Father God, but Jesus (in John as the Logos) is also presented as God. If Christianity was to maintain its claim of being a monotheistic religion whilst also claiming that Jesus was God, (and somewhat later, the Holly Spirit) some construct was required to reconcile the apparent contradiction.

The winning doctrine, after many years of bitter infighting was the Trinity.

[Cathar1950]

The Trinity is not found to be found explicitly in the NT. If it were then there would have been no Arian controversy, and no Nicaea. The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5.7-8) is most certainly a forgery; if it were genuine it would surely have been employed by Athanasius and his followers. (It does not appear in any of manuscript of the Vulgate prior to the 8th century or any Greek manuscript before the 10th century.)

The Trinity was developed over time as the Logos theology of Justin Martyr gained hold. Whilst the Synoptic Gospels/Acts can present an adoptionist Christology (Acts in particular has a strong ‘subordinationist’ element), the Gospel of John clearly cannot. Obviously there was the Father God, but Jesus (in John as the Logos) is also presented as God. If Christianity was to maintain its claim of being a monotheistic religion whilst also claiming that Jesus was God, (and somewhat later, the Holly Spirit) some construct was required to reconcile the apparent contradiction.

The winning doctrine, after many years of bitter infighting was the Trinity.

That battle went on for centuries and when Constantine was forcing a united position he vacillated back and forth and even reversed his exile of one of the leaders to the opposition and proto-Trinitarians. The default position before Constantine was a ‘subordinate’ position held by the Eastern and Greek Church.

[Student]

That battle went on for centuries and when Constantine was forcing a united position he vacillated back and forth and even reversed his exile of one of the leaders to the opposition and proto-Trinitarians. The default position before Constantine was a ‘subordinate’ position held by the Eastern and Greek Church.

Even after Constantine and Nicaea the controversy continued. It was not until Theodosius convened the council of Constantinople in 381 was Arianism effectively ended in the Roman Empire. Even so that wasn’t the end of Arianism. It long continued among the Goths who had been converted by Arian missionaries.

Other heterodox doctrines such as Apollinarianism and Macedonianism, which challenged aspects of Trinitarian orthodoxy continued after Constantinople. No sooner had one controversy ended than another arose. Christological controversies such as Monophysitism continue to this day.

It is apparent that even “orthodox� Christians do not understand, or accept the basic tenets of their doctrine. This is evidenced by their attempts to describe the Trinity in terms analogous to various natural phenomena. The Trinity is, by its very nature, a unique supernatural construct. It has no equivalent in the natural world.

Three different persons sharing one essence isn’t logical; but then when was the supernatural logical?

[CalvinismIsHeresy]

it did NOT come from Our Christ-

it did NOT come from peter the rock-

were did it come form and what is it going to take for "triaterains " to see this most grave ERROR and REPENT!?!

peace and good and tons o'love

>o

Came from the UMPTEEN Scriptures that teach it such as 1 John 5:7. Romans 1:20 talks about the Godhead. God also said in Genesis when He created man, "Let US make Man in OUR image." God is Father Son and Holy Ghost. Basic Bible. And yeah back to Peter. Ha...Peter is petros not petra. He's a stone just like all of us. Jesus is the Rock. Stop calling Peter the Christ.