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.�

[shnarkle]

Tertullian wrote that God is one in substance but three in form. Today we say that God is one in substance but exists in three persons. The change in wording is minor and the concepts are identical.

This leaves me to ask: Is there anything that anyone could have written prior to Nicea which would convince you that they already accepted the doctrine of the trinity?

There are a number of issues here that have been brought up by atheists and skeptics which I find quite legitimate. The first thing they point out is that God is a creation of our own imagination. When Tertullian says "three in form", he has just blundered into a logical fallacy. How can God be a form? A form is a type. It can be subjected to a system of classification, and God cannot be subjected to any system of classification as he is the creator of that system.

Other than the person of Christ, the Spirit and the Father cannot be persons. Ultimately Christ transcends his persona, and instructs us to as well, e.g. "Deny youself".

When you speak of identical "concepts" or the "doctrine", it should be pointed out that God is not a concept or doctrine. While this may seem obvious, it shouldn't be overlooked because if we're honest, our only alternative is the transcendent, and the concept of God has no referent. Moreover, existence is not transcendent therefore God cannot exist. What cannot exist, cannot be thought or articulated so whatever one is talking about, it isn't God, but a god of their own imagination; at least insofar as transcendence goes.

I point this out, not to negate what the biblical texts state; but to point out that the reality of Christ in relation to the Father in the power of his holy Spirit is in itself a logical trinitarian confession. It seems to me that as time goes on people fail to grasp the reality and instead simply acknowledge or voice their assent to a doctrine or concept that isn't a part of their reality or awareness.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

My "take" on it is:

1 Some early Jewish Christians viewed Jesus not as God, but still as "divine"

RESPONSE

This is a contradiction in terms. Divine involves a deity. A deity is eternal.

I'm intrigued with the way you say that the divine "involves" a deity. This seems to be how the biblical texts present it as well. God creates man in God's image so if we want to see God we can look right into the eyes of anyone we meet or right into a mirror and see the image of God. Of course the image of God is not God; just God's image, but God is definitely involved, and as long as that image is there it is an eternal image. God is eternal so that image is eternal as well. It's an image of the divine, an image of divinity, no? So it really isn't a contradiction to point out that the image of God is not God; just a divine image of God.

[shnarkle]

[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.

It seems to me this argument hinges on whether there is any way to establish if the word "Lord" is conclusively referring to God. (e.g."39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.")

This might work: "here is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

If there's only one lord, perhaps that might prove it. However, there's another passage from Paul that seems appropriate here as well.

" But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one LORD Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." 1. Cor. 8:6

This looks remarkably like an expansion of the Shema which states: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God..." Deut. 6:4