How did the Trinity doctrine develop in the early church?

[ElieG12]

You're giving me too much credit - there are no original thoughts from me there. That answer was the product of studying.

The clear answer is that would mean that Christians have the fulness of God in them. I believe that statement to be true...

Thanks.

So now you know that "fullness" doesn't mean what you thought before.

 

[Wick Stick]

You guys are arguing about what you THINK the Trinity doctrine says instead of what it really asserts. But that's okay; its actual statement is quite cumbersome.

F2F quoted a creed on page 1... but I think all it proved was that word-salad has been around a looooong time.

I suspect that we would have about as much agreement on what the official formulation means as we do on what the Bible means.

 

[Wick Stick]

So now you know that "fullness" doesn't mean what you thought before.

Uh... no? πλήρωμα still means "all the contents."

The context in Colossians still dictates that what is in view is refuting some philosophical idea from the 1st century:

Colossians 2: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

A little reading makes it pretty clear that Paul is refuting some flavor of Gnosticism similar to Valentinianism... proto-Valentinianism. That may not mean much to you.

Perhaps I should clarify my own position... the Trinity is not an important theological point IMO. That idea isn't really in the Bible... or even logically coherent. But I find the idea there that, in Jesus, we have an exact replication or articulation of the contents of the Mind of God. And that point IS important.

 

[ElieG12]

Uh... no...

Uh, yes. It means that, but not in the sense you thought before.
Otherwise: would be Christians "totally God" for being filled with the fullness of Jesus, who is filled with the fullness of God?
Logical transference, my friend, is a natural process of thinking rationally.

 

[face2face]

Who is the "him" in John 1:3 ?
- He was with God in the beginning. vs 2
- In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. vs 4
- There was a man sent from God whose name was John.
He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. vs 6-7
- He himself (john) was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. vs 8
- He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. vs 10
- He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 11

The Logos here is personified no different to the HS which as we know is God's Power but personified for us to identify with its origins. It would do you well to study how Logos is used in the Bible and how it applied to the Lord Jesus Christ

F2F

 

[Wick Stick]

Uh, yes. It means that, but not in the sense you thought before.
Otherwise: would be Christians "totally God" for being filled with the fullness of Jesus, who is filled with the fullness of God?
Logical transference, my friend, is a natural process of thinking rationally.

I guess I didn't do a good enough job of explaining. Christians (individually) are a different thing from Christians (corporately). One of them DOES contain all the fulness of the Godhead, while the other does not.

 

[Brakelite]

He has given of Himself, His Son, and His Holy Spirit

The doctrine of the "Trinity" is not found in Scripture.

Why is it that you acknowledge above the Father the Son, and thy holy Spirit yet deny the trinity, but acknowledge my acceptance of the Father, Son and holy Spirit, yet accuse me of being Trinitarian?

the idea of pre-existence without any evidence or supporting context.

“29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. ”
John 6:29-35 KJV
Unfeigned Bible
Here is all the evidence one needs to support belief in Christ's existence before Bethlehem. Read it carefully without prejudice.

 

[RLT63]

"For there is ONE GOD and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus" - 1 Tim. 2:5

The history of religion has consistently shown a decline from the originally revealed pure monotheism to various forms of polytheism. "Christianity," as it is popularly understood, has followed this same pattern. Both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are clear and emphatic about the absolute oneness of God. When asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus responded in Mark 12:29, saying, "The first of all the commandments is: Hear, O Israel, THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD." This was a direct reference to the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 6:4. This message of monotheism runs consistently throughout the Bible, with no mention of three gods from start to finish. However, modern "Christendom" has evolved into a belief in four gods—three good and one evil. In some parts of Christendom, such as the Roman Catholic Church, the belief system includes a "Mother of God" as a supreme deity, along with numerous demi-gods—one for each day of the year and more—all of which are mythical, man-made deities worshipped and prayed to.

I felt it was important to present this truth at the outset before exploring the historical development of the Trinity.

F2F

Copied and pasted without crediting the source. Your rebuttals are plagiarism. How embarrassing

The History of The Doctrine of the Trinity The True Scriptural Picture 1

 

[face2face]

Why is it that you acknowledge above the Father the Son, and thy holy Spirit yet deny the trinity, but acknowledge my acceptance of the Father, Son and holy Spirit, yet accuse me of being Trinitarian?

That's right you don't fit the Trinitarian mold I do recall you saying that a very long time ago, yet you believe Jesus is God from memory.

“29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. ”
John 6:29-35 KJV
Unfeigned Bible
Here is all the evidence one needs to support belief in Christ's existence before Bethlehem. Read it carefully without prejudice.

The manner that came down from Heaven is merely a shadow of the Word (Logos) that descended from Heaven and through the Holy Spirit, gave life to Jesus.

Do you believe that Jesus was already in Heaven and then came down in the form of sperm to conceive in Mary? Sounds crude, but I need to ascertain exactly what notions exist in your mind and if this is what you believe there may well be no convincing you of anything in this discussion.

Out of interest do you also believe the manna was manufactured in Heaven and sent through space to earth? Or was it made by the Holy Spirit locally?

You might see this as foolish questions and they are but I cannot assume what it is you believe without asking them.

Just to be clear on where I stand - Christ came down from Heaven though not literally since it was the Holy Spirit that descended upon the Virgin Mary to bring about the conception (you know Luke 1:35 well!). "From Heaven" highlights His divine origin as a person (i.e., His Father was God) and the divine nature of His teachings. Unlike the manna, which provided only temporary benefit, His words were "spirit" and "life" (verse 63).

Is it possible you have formed certain unscriptural notions over time and havnt realized how ridiculous they seem?

As usual I'm happy for you to correct me if I'm way off on reading into your beliefs incorrectly.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Perhaps I should clarify my own position... the Trinity is not an important theological point IMO. That idea isn't really in the Bible... or even logically coherent. But I find the idea there that, in Jesus, we have an exact replication or articulation of the contents of the Mind of God. And that point IS important.

Thanks Wick for the small text! You have added to a short list of T believers who at least acknowledge the concept is not evident in the Bible.

Your quote:

Colossians 2: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Can you speak to this fullness and how he came to be in possession of such?

Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead. Col 2:11–12.

Would this context have any bearing?

F2F

 

[Guestman]

Let's discuss "Trinitarianism as the outgrowth of the early Church’s effort to understand and explain its own experience of the risen Christ in philosophical terms." - @RedFan

Open discussion on the development of the Trinitarian doctrine.

[

The triads or "trinity" of gods has a long history, such as ancient Egypt some 3,500 years ago as the first world power of Bible prophecy (Isa 52:4a), that had its triad of Osiris (father), Isis (Osiris wife, mother) and Horus (their son).

Assyria as the second world power of Bible prophecy (Isa 52:4b, from about 9th to the 7th centuries B.C.E.), though having its national god of Asshur (that is seen with three heads discovered on a seal in the ruins of an Assyrian palace by English archaeologist A. H. Layard from 1845-51 C.E.), had its triad of gods, such as Aner (representing heaven where birds fly), Bel (representing the earth where man and the animals live), and Ea (representing the watera where fish and other aquatic animals live).

Another triad was that Sin (the moon-god), Shamash (the sun-god), and Rammah (the god of storm, that was often replaced with the fertility goddess Ishtar, a Babylonian goddess, as queen of the stars or "heavens", being absorbed from ancient Babylon, for ancient Babylon was "a land of graven images", Jer 50:1, 38), that had infiltrated the Israelites worship of Jehovah (God's name, see Ex 6:3, KJV) God, as can be seen at 2 Kings 23:5, 11.

By the time Jesus arrived on the earth as the promised Messiah in 29 C.E., ancient Rome was rife with pagan worship. With Augustus Caesar being proclaimed the first "Pontifex Maximus" or "chief priest" of the Roman Empire in 12 B.C.E., this pushed paganism to greater heights.

It saw the observance of Saturnalia, a festival that ran from December 17-24, whereby slaves were temporarily freed and gifts were given and then on December 25, it celebrated "the birthday of the invincible sun", of the Persian god of light, Mithra, that was absorbed by the newly created Catholic (meaning "1. all-inclusive: 2. useful to all: 3. all-embracing:", Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005, embracing pagan religious ideologies and "Christianizing" them) church, that has been "Christianized" as Christmas.

Ancient Rome also had it own triad of gods, such as Jupiter (ruler of the gods, the son of the god Saturn), Juno, and Minerva, so that "with the goddesses Juno and Minerva, Jupiter formed the triad whose worship was the central cult of the Roman state."(Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005)

By the 4th century C.E., the subject of who God and Jesus is, was a "hot topic" and was causing "fractures" within Roman society, so that Roman Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E to "settle" the issue (which it did not).

By 451 C.E., at the Council of Chalcedon, the "Holy Trinity" was now complete when the holy spirit was added "in the mix" as the "third person of the Holy Trinity", in which so-called "Christianity" (or the beginning of Christendom as "the antichrists", that means "against (or instead of) Christ", at 1 John 2:18-23, that was developing while the apostle John was alive, replacing true Christianity with their false Christianity, the "weeds" at Matthew 13:24-30, counterfeit Christians), absorbed (or reflected) it from pagan Rome's trinity.

So, "the Holy Trinity" was a culmination of counterfeit Christians, creating their own form of worship that tries to give the impression that it is genuine, when, in fact, it is counterfeit, just as counterfeit money can fool the vast majority of people, unless they are trained to distinguish counterfeit money from genuine money.

Thus, the realm of Christendom has been fooled with its counterfeit "theology", with its "Holy Trinity", for John 1:1, 2 reads of Jesus, according to the Codex Vaticanus of about 350 C.E., that predates the King James Bible by some 1,261 years: "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God. And a god was the Word. This was in a beginning with the God."(Emphatic Diaglott, pub in 1864 C.E.)

 

[face2face]

Thank @Guestman - Place this here to support your History lesson thankyou

Osiris oh-si’ruhs. One of the principal gods of ancient Egypt. According to Egyptian mythology, Osiris’s brother Seth cut up his body and scattered the pieces. Isis, wife of Osiris, assembled his body and restored him to life. Their son Herus avenged his father by defeating Seth in single combat (Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 12–20). Osiris was connected with vegetation and the life-giving water of the Nile. His annual festival celebrated the sprouting of the grain. Osiris was also king of the dead. He judged each person after death according to truth and moral laws. Acting as judge, he often is represented as a seated mummy, holding a flail and shepherd’s crook and wearing a conical crown flanked by two feathers. The chief center of his worship was Abydos in Upper Egypt. Later the worship of Osiris became popular outside of Egypt as a mystery religion that mourned his death and celebrated his revival. In Ptolemaic times he was combined with the bull-god Apis as Serapis (Osiris + Apis), who was widely worshiped. Isis also was a popular goddess throughout the Greco-Roman world, and many shrines and statues in her honor have been preserved. (See further E. A. W. Budge, Osiris and the Egyptian Religion of Resurrection [1911]; S. A. B. Mercer, The Religion of Ancient Egypt [1949]; H. Bonnet, “Osiris,” Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte [1952], 568–76; J. G. Griffiths, The Origins of Osiris and His Cult [1980]; J. Cott, Isis and Osiris [1994]; R. E. Witt, Isis in the Ancient World [1997, orig. 1971]; J. Ray, Reflections of Osiris: Lives from Ancient Egypt [2002]; M. D. Donaldson, The Cult of Isis in the Roman Empire: Isis Invicta [2003]; B. Mojsov, Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God [2005]; DDD, 456–58 and 649–51.)

Moisés Silva and Merrill Chapin Tenney, in The Zondervan Encylopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation, 2009) 614–615.

 

[St. SteVen]

So, "the Holy Trinity" was a culmination of counterfeit Christians, creating their own form of worship that tries to give the impression that it is genuine, when, in fact, it is counterfeit, just as counterfeit money can fool the vast majority of people, unless they are trained to distinguish counterfeit money from genuine money.

Your sidebar says that you are Christian. Perhaps you are a JW?
Where does all this pagan history leave you?
You have rejected Christianity and the Bible. Are you a Unitarian?

Thus, the realm of Christendom has been fooled with its counterfeit "theology", with its "Holy Trinity", for John 1:1, 2 reads of Jesus, according to the Codex Vaticanus of about 350 C.E., that predates the King James Bible by some 1,261 years: "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God. And a god was the Word. This was in a beginning with the God."(Emphatic Diaglott, pub in 1864 C.E.)

You claim a reading from the Codex Vaticanus of about 350 C.E., but your actual citation is from the Emphatic Diaglott, pub in 1864 C.E.
The King James Bible is from 1611.

Not sure you can justify this reading against the NT Greek either.



[

 

[St. SteVen]

Osiris oh-si’ruhs. One of the principal gods of ancient Egypt. According to Egyptian mythology, Osiris’s brother Seth cut up his body and scattered the pieces. Isis, wife of Osiris, assembled his body and restored him to life. Their son Herus avenged his father by defeating Seth in single combat (Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 12–20). Osiris was connected with vegetation and the life-giving water of the Nile. His annual festival celebrated the sprouting of the grain. Osiris was also king of the dead. He judged each person after death according to truth and moral laws. Acting as judge, he often is represented as a seated mummy, holding a flail and shepherd’s crook and wearing a conical crown flanked by two feathers. The chief center of his worship was Abydos in Upper Egypt. Later the worship of Osiris became popular outside of Egypt as a mystery religion that mourned his death and celebrated his revival. In Ptolemaic times he was combined with the bull-god Apis as Serapis (Osiris + Apis), who was widely worshiped. Isis also was a popular goddess throughout the Greco-Roman world, and many shrines and statues in her honor have been preserved. (See further E. A. W. Budge, Osiris and the Egyptian Religion of Resurrection [1911]; S. A. B. Mercer, The Religion of Ancient Egypt [1949]; H. Bonnet, “Osiris,” Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte [1952], 568–76; J. G. Griffiths, The Origins of Osiris and His Cult [1980]; J. Cott, Isis and Osiris [1994]; R. E. Witt, Isis in the Ancient World [1997, orig. 1971]; J. Ray, Reflections of Osiris: Lives from Ancient Egypt [2002]; M. D. Donaldson, The Cult of Isis in the Roman Empire: Isis Invicta [2003]; B. Mojsov, Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God [2005]; DDD, 456–58 and 649–51.)

So, are you claiming that the resurrection of Christ is a fabrication of Christianity counterfeited from pagan idolatry?

1 Corinthians 15:14 NIV
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

[

 

[Wick Stick]

Thanks Wick for the small text! You have added to a short list of T believers who at least acknowledge the concept is not evident in the Bible.

I'm not sure most Trinitarians would count me among them. On the hand, I do believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit, and the Word. Wait... that's 4? But really it's two sets of two:

Father and Son makes one coherent metaphor
Spirit and Word makes another coherent metaphor

Somehow we mixed our metaphors and ended up with 3...

Your quote:

Colossians 2: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Can you speak to this fullness and how he came to be in possession of such?

It's Incarnation.

The gnostics believed in a single highest God, but also that emanations of that God - individual facets of His character - might be incarnated (e.g. love, wisdom, jealousy). Paul says no to the idea that Jesus was the incarnation of such an emanation, and insists that He is the incarnation of ALL of God.

Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead. Col 2:11–12.

Would this context have any bearing?

F2F

It's in the context, so probably.

Incarnation is a complicated topic on its own. There are (by my reckoning) 3 different ideas of Jesus' incarnation in the Bible. (A) The clearest seems to teach that God was incarnated at Jesus' birth. (B) Another shows that God came to fully inhabit Jesus at His baptism. (C) The final teaching of incarnation is that Jesus fully took hold of Godhood only upon his resurrection.

The verses you quoted suggest the latter.

 

[face2face]

So, are you claiming that the resurrection of Christ is a fabrication of Christianity counterfeited from pagan idolatry?

1 Corinthians 15:14 NIV
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

[

The Trinitarian version of Christ, yes.

 

[face2face]

I'm not sure most Trinitarians would count me among them. On the hand, I do believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit, and the Word. Wait... that's 4? But really it's two sets of two:

Father and Son makes one coherent metaphor
Spirit and Word makes another coherent metaphor

Somehow we mixed our metaphors and ended up with 3...


It's Incarnation.

The gnostics believed in a single highest God, but also that emanations of that God - individual facets of His character - might be incarnated (e.g. love, wisdom, jealousy). Paul says no to the idea that Jesus was the incarnation of such an emanation, and insists that He is the incarnation of ALL of God.


It's in the context, so probably.

Incarnation is a complicated topic on its own. There are (by my reckoning) 3 different ideas of Jesus' incarnation in the Bible. (A) The clearest seems to teach that God was incarnated at Jesus' birth. (B) Another shows that God came to fully inhabit Jesus at His baptism. (C) The final teaching of incarnation is that Jesus fully took hold of Godhood only upon his resurrection.

The verses you quoted suggest the latter.

I dont believe in incarnation but God manifestation which is Biblically based.

that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Not in Nature or Substance but in the same way Jesus and Paul taught us

Phil 2:5 -11 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

Logos is thought and reason which by obedience Christ became - He took into himself the Word of God and lived it perfectly, how ever not easily!

Incarnation is nowhere found in the Bible and leads to a confusion of natures where as the Bible is clear Christ was only fully man - second Adam and so

F2F

 

[RLT63]

What is the meaning of the Incarnation of Christ? | GotQuestions.org

What is the meaning of the Incarnation of Christ? What does it mean that Jesus is God incarnate?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Wick Stick]

I dont believe in incarnation but God manifestation which is Biblically based.

Explain manifestation. Do you mean φανερόω? (the word usually translated as manifest) Or can you put your own definition on that word?

Not in Nature or Substance but in the same way Jesus and Paul taught us

Nature and Substance are both poor words to describe God. Nature in the Bible pretty much always describes the worst attributes of man. Substance requires one to be here-in-the-earth-below.

I mean... God IS present here-below, but the word substance evokes something more like the Buddhist concept of an Avatar - it's God, but taking a temporary body for the purpose of interacting with man... actually maybe that's not such a bad description?

Phil 2:5 -11 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

Logos is thought and reason which by obedience Christ became - He took into himself the Word of God and lived it perfectly, how ever not easily!

I don't find myself disagreeing with anything here.

Incarnation is nowhere found in the Bible and leads to a confusion of natures where as the Bible is clear Christ was only fully man - second Adam and so

Uh... John 1:14... Word made flesh? Romans 1:3, 1John 4:2-3... there's certainly an argument for it at least. Not to mention the story of Jesus baptism, and Luke's allusion to it in Acts. There's a myriad of places where Jesus' death and/or resurrection are portrayed as His ascension to Godhood.

Like I said before, it isn't really straighforward doctrine. I wonder if your view would coincide at all with one of the theories that I had labeled as incarnation?

 

[face2face]

What is the meaning of the Incarnation of Christ? | GotQuestions.org

What is the meaning of the Incarnation of Christ? What does it mean that Jesus is God incarnate?

www.gotquestions.org

The first line:

Incarnation is a term used by theologians to indicate that Jesus, the Son of God, took on human flesh.

Not sure where this idea of "took on" came from. Scripture is super clear the HS caused conception in the womb and Jesus was born no different to any new born.

It's not surprising to see error from the outset.

F2F