Thread: The Origin of the Trinity Doctrine

The New Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Neither the Word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord'(Duet. 6:4)... The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies... By the end of the 4th century... the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."-(1976), Micropaedia, Vol. X, p.126

The New Catholic Encyclopedia : "The formulation 'one God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christain life and its professions of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among, the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."-(1967), Vol. XIV, P. 299.

The Encyclopedia Americana we read: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian[believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."-(1956), Vol. XXVVII, p. 294L.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: "Trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The Trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians"-(New York, 1965), p.899.

Acts 7:55-56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw "Jesus standing at God's right hand." But made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. This is also indicated in (Revelation 7:10;22: 1-3).

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God". (1967,Vol.XXIII,p. 575) It also reports: "The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally."-Vol.XIV, p.296.

Matt. 26:39, RS(revised standard version bible) "He[Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, 'My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt."(If Father and Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father's will).

John 8:17, 18 RS: [Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me." (So Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being and individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

Col. 1:15-16 RS: "He[Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth." In what sense is Jesus Christ "the first-born of all creations"? (1) Trinitarians say that "first-born" here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creatin, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of "firstborn." it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah's family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression "the firstborn of" occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies-the firstborn is part of a group. "The firstborn of Isael" is one of Pharaoh's family, "the firstborn of beast" are themselves animals. Does Colossians 1:16,17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says "in him all things were created...all things were created through him and for him"? The Greek word here rendered "all things" is pan'ta, an inflected form of pas.

Rev.1:1; 3:14, RS: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him... 'And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: "The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar-khe'] of God's creation.""(KJ)-King James (Dy)Douay Version, (NW)New World, as well as others read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is mean is that the Son was 'the beginner of God's creation,' that he was his ultimate source.' But Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon lists "beginning" as its first meaning of ar-khe' (Oxford, 1968 p.252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God's creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, -Bibles the one there speaking is said to be "created")

Prophetically, with the reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ)king james, says his "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (DY) douay version reads: "his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity." Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying "days of eternity."RS renders the Hebrew as "acient days"; JB, "days of old"; NW."days of time indefinite". Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.

Matt. 12:31-32 RS: "Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were Godthis text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the "Spirit" belonged, is greater than Jesus the Son of man.)