Who invented the trinity?

[eesa the kiwi]

How the concept of the Trinity was introduced into the Christian doctrine.




The three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – all purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as “tawhid” in Islam, this concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical passage known as the “Shema”, or the Jewish creed of faith:


“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)


It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus, when he said:


“...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.” (Mark 12:29)


Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again:


“And your God is One God: there is no God but He...” (Quran 2:163)


Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and outside the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – in one divine being.


If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter:


“...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity...” (excerpts from the Athanasian Creed)


Let’s put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father, plus one person, God the Son, plus one person, God the Holy Ghost, equals one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?


It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.


How did such a confusing doctrine get its start?


Trinity in the Bible
References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.


In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. While this “Great Commission” does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase “...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text – that is, not the actual words of Jesus – as can be seen by two factors:


1) baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and


2) the “Great Commission” was found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost – see Mark 16:15.


The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of 1 John 5:7. Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase:


“...there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”


…is definitely a “later addition” to Biblical text, and it is not found in any of today’s versions of the Bible.


It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.


The Doctrine Takes Shape
While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a “divine Son”. After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God’s revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.


Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third-century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word “Trinity” when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.


A Formal Doctrine is Drawn Up
When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria – Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop – Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.


Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.


Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.


The Church Puts its Foot Down
The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; “Arianism” became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who didn’t hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.


It wasn’t until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.


Debate Continues
Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.


The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than “I believe it because I was told to do so.” It is explained away as “mystery” – yet the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that:


“... God is not the author of confusion ...”


The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the preachings of Jesus:


“... Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” (Luke 4:8)


Islam and the Matter of the Trinity
While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam:


“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God” (Quran 5:73)


It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name “Allah” as the name of God.


Suzanne Haneef, in her book What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says:


“But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in.”[1]


Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.


Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity – God being Three-in-One – is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don’t revere just One God, they revere three.


This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Quran sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title “Mother of God” by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verses in the Quran most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Quran as a “member” of the Trinity, is simply not true.


While the Quran does condemn both Trinitarianism (the Quran 4:171; 5:73)[2] and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary (the Quran 5:116)[3], nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Quran is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.


In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Quran, God’s Final Revelation to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:


“... your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner.” (Quran 18:110)


“... take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected.” (Quran 17:39)


– because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout ALL His Revealed Scriptures:


“... I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other) ...” (Quran 21:92)


http://www.islamreligion.com/article...rinity-part-2/

[Born_Believer]

The trinity was invented around 200-300 years after Jesus PBUH. It was essentially a method of reconciling the Roman Catholic Church and their Gods with Christianity. As the christian population across the Roman empire grew in size, it was obvious the power structure would have to adopt it to a certain extent so a compromise was reached. Look at the Christian calendar and how it is actually the roman pagan calendar as further proof of combining these two religions.

A really good brief history is provided by Yusuf Estes, a former Christian in a video on youtube. I will try and find it later.

[goodwill]

How the concept of the Trinity was introduced into the Christian doctrine.




The three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – all purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as “tawhid” in Islam, this concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical passage known as the “Shema”, or the Jewish creed of faith:


“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)


It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus, when he said:


“...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.” (Mark 12:29)


Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again:


“And your God is One God: there is no God but He...” (Quran 2:163)


Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and outside the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – in one divine being.


If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter:


“...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity...” (excerpts from the Athanasian Creed)


Let’s put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father, plus one person, God the Son, plus one person, God the Holy Ghost, equals one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?


It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.


How did such a confusing doctrine get its start?


Trinity in the Bible
References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.


In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. While this “Great Commission” does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase “...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text – that is, not the actual words of Jesus – as can be seen by two factors:


1) baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and


2) the “Great Commission” was found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost – see Mark 16:15.


The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of 1 John 5:7. Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase:


“...there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”


…is definitely a “later addition” to Biblical text, and it is not found in any of today’s versions of the Bible.


It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.


The Doctrine Takes Shape
While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a “divine Son”. After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God’s revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.


Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third-century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word “Trinity” when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.


A Formal Doctrine is Drawn Up
When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria – Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop – Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.


Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.


Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.


The Church Puts its Foot Down
The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; “Arianism” became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who didn’t hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.


It wasn’t until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.


Debate Continues
Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.


The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than “I believe it because I was told to do so.” It is explained away as “mystery” – yet the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that:


“... God is not the author of confusion ...”


The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the preachings of Jesus:


“... Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” (Luke 4:8)


Islam and the Matter of the Trinity
While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam:


“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God” (Quran 5:73)


It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name “Allah” as the name of God.


Suzanne Haneef, in her book What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says:


“But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in.”[1]


Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.


Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity – God being Three-in-One – is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don’t revere just One God, they revere three.


This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Quran sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title “Mother of God” by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verses in the Quran most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Quran as a “member” of the Trinity, is simply not true.


While the Quran does condemn both Trinitarianism (the Quran 4:171; 5:73)[2] and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary (the Quran 5:116)[3], nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Quran is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.


In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Quran, God’s Final Revelation to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:


“... your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner.” (Quran 18:110)


“... take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected.” (Quran 17:39)


– because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout ALL His Revealed Scriptures:


“... I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other) ...” (Quran 21:92)

Before a person presumes to criticize someone else’s belief, that person should try to understand what is actually believed and taught. Otherwise, the critic merely attacks a straw man. Christians do not teach that three persons equal one person, nor that God has three essences, nor that God is a composite of three separate beings. Rather, Christian theology chooses its words very carefully in regard to the Trinity so as to exclude misconceptions. This is why the language of our historic Creeds is so precise. Overall, the article seems to confuse the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity with its origin and gets both formulation and origin wrong. The Trinity, rightly understood, is simply what the Bible teaches and what the Church has confessed since before Muhammad came and taught that Christians should judge Islam by the Gospel (Sura 5:47).

[eesa the kiwi]

Before a person presumes to criticize someone else’s belief, that person should try to understand what is actually believed and taught. Otherwise, the critic merely attacks a straw man. Christians do not teach that three persons equal one person, nor that God has three essences, nor that God is a composite of three separate beings. Rather, Christian theology chooses its words very carefully in regard to the Trinity so as to exclude misconceptions. This is why the language of our historic Creeds is so precise. Overall, the article seems to confuse the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity with its origin and gets both formulation and origin wrong. The Trinity, rightly understood, is simply what the Bible teaches and what the Church has confessed since before Muhammad came and taught that Christians should judge Islam by the Gospel (Sura 5:47).

How can you accuse me of not understandingthe trinity when even Christians don't understand it
In this universe that had been created with such precise laws how can you expect God to make mankind's salvation dependant on a concept that makes no sense whatsoever

Oh and fyi I used to be Christian and my sister is a Christian minister I know the concept of the trinity better than most and if you really discuss it deeply with a learned Christian eventually you get to the point where " it's a divine mystery " and "you just have to have faith"

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[LaSorcia]

Judaism, Christianity, Islam. That's a trinity, no?

[keiv]

Before a person presumes to criticize someone else’s belief, that person should try to understand what is actually believed and taught. Otherwise, the critic merely attacks a straw man. Christians do not teach that three persons equal one person, nor that God has three essences, nor that God is a composite of three separate beings. Rather, Christian theology chooses its words very carefully in regard to the Trinity so as to exclude misconceptions. This is why the language of our historic Creeds is so precise. Overall, the article seems to confuse the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity with its origin and gets both formulation and origin wrong. The Trinity, rightly understood, is simply what the Bible teaches and what the Church has confessed since before Muhammad came and taught that Christians should judge Islam by the Gospel (Sura 5:47).

If that is the case, why is there so much confusion surrounding it? As the OP stated, it's not just confusion within the Christian faith, but also with those outside the faith who are trying to understand it. See LaSorcia's post for proof of this

Judaism, Christianity, Islam. That's a trinity, no?

:facepalm:

[ardianto]

Whatever the conception of trinity, it does not affect non-Christian like me. That's why I never want to waste my time only to be fussy about trinity.

[goodwill]

If that is the case, why is there so much confusion surrounding it? As the OP stated, it's not just confusion within the Christian faith, but also with those outside the faith who are trying to understand it. See LaSorcia's post for proof of this



:facepalm:

That’s a fair question. Would you agree that the knowledge of many created things needs a bit of effort to acquire? If so, why should it be surprising that acquiring a deeper knowledge of God also requires effort, especially when we are dealing with the God whose ways and thoughts are above our ways and thoughts? As Solomon wrote, “Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.” (Proverbs 2:3-5)

[goodwill]

How can you accuse me of not understandingthe trinity when even Christians don't understand it
In this universe that had been created with such precise laws how can you expect God to make mankind's salvation dependant on a concept that makes no sense whatsoever

Oh and fyi I used to be Christian and my sister is a Christian minister I know the concept of the trinity better than most and if you really discuss it deeply with a learned Christian eventually you get to the point where " it's a divine mystery " and "you just have to have faith"

I don’t accuse you of anything, I just found your post inaccurate. Being a former Christian or having a Christian sister would not give you an automatic mastery of Christian doctrine, any more than being a medical school drop-out or having a sister who is a physician would qualify you to give expert medical advice. Besides, I don’t recall if I have ever read an accurate description of the Trinity by someone antagonistic to the doctrine. That would be a rare feat. Anyway, there in no logical contradiction in the doctrine of the Trinity, so Christians are rational to affirm both the doctrine and its mystery. Anyone who says otherwise misunderstands the doctrine. And why should anyone complain that there is mystery in God? If you, a finite human being, claimed to understand the infinite God completely, your claim would be ludicrous. Meanwhile, God is pleased with what faith we have in Him, whether or not we are advanced theologians or have memorized the creeds. Practical piety counts most. Precise theological formulas are crafted as a means to that end.

[Scimitar]

I don’t accuse you of anything, I just found your post inaccurate. Being a former Christian or having a Christian sister would not give you an automatic mastery of Christian doctrine, any more than being a medical school drop-out or having a sister who is a physician would qualify you to give expert medical advice. Besides, I don’t recall if I have ever read an accurate description of the Trinity by someone antagonistic to the doctrine...

..so

what would it take then? a revert Muslim who used to be a Christian Priest?

I can source a few dozen easily for you to peruse at your leisure.

Would you like that?

Scimi

[Olivia J]

thanks for the great information brother

[Abu Fauzi]

As-Salaam alaikum,
The central theme of Trinity in Christianity in NOT Biblical... It was forced into Christianity by Emperor Constantine in 325 C.E How, what do I mean by this? Open the brief but concise file hereby attached, from Jalal Abualrub, who addresses this question and see for yourself.

[goodwill]

As-Salaam alaikum,
The central theme of Trinity in Christianity in NOT Biblical... It was forced into Christianity by Emperor Constantine in 325 C.E How, what do I mean by this? Open the brief but concise file hereby attached, from Jalal Abualrub, who addresses this question and see for yourself.

This seems to touch on the same confusion, already pointed out above, between the formulation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and its origin. Its formulation was a work of development, just as the formulation of other Christian doctrines has been. But the origin of all true development is found in the Holy Scriptures. The question therefore is not, Was there development? But, Was the development valid? Ardianto stated above that the doctrine of the Trinity did not concern him, but as Muslims the contents of the Bible concern you all, if you take seriously the Quran’s witness to the inspiration, authority, and preservation of the Bible.


Also, you give too much credit to Constantine. Ten years after the Nicene Council, Constantine exiled the orthodox, Trinitarian Athanasius while the heretic Arius regained the emperor’s favor. Moreover, Constantine’s successors, emperors Constantius and Valens, favored the Arians over the orthodox Trinitarians. Actual history is messy and should not be oversimplified, whatever your bias is.

[Scimitar]

If you are relying on I john 5:7 and timothy 3:16 as your crutch, then I have to inform you, Goodwill, that those two verses which are integral to the Trinitarian form of Christianity, are proven to be interpolations - and accepted as such by over 50 cooperating denominations within Christianity.

It came as a surprise to me when I learned that In 1690, Sir Isaac Newton wrote a manuscript on the corruption of the text of the New Testament concerning I John 5:7 and Timothy 3:16. It was entitled, "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture." Due to the prevailing environment against criticism, he felt it unwise to profess his beliefs openly and felt that printing it in England would be too dangerous.

Newton sent a copy of this manuscript to John Locke requesting him to have it translated into French for publication in France. Two years later, Newton was informed of an attempt to publish a Latin translation of it anonymously. However, Newton did not approve of its availability in Latin and persuaded Locke to take steps to prevent this publication. Below are excerpts from "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture."

Newton on I John 5:7

Sir Isaac Newton states that this verse appeared for the first time in the third edition of Erasmus's New Testament. When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed.

In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books. "Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part, I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is Scripture what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious art of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best." Newton on 3:16

In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy it never came into play . . . they that read "God manifested in the flesh" think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business. "The word Deity imports exercise of dominion over subordinate beings and the word God most frequently signifies Lord. Every lord is not God. The exercise of dominion in a spiritual being constitutes a God. If that dominion be real that being is the real God; if it be fictitious, a false God; if it be supreme, a supreme God." Newton also wrote a discussion on two other texts that Athanasius had attempted to corrupt. This work has not been preserved. He believed that not all the books of the Scriptures have the same authority. You can reference all of the above in A. Wallace, "Anti-Trinitarian Biographies," Vol. III, 1850.

Further, countless Christian scholars from across over 50 cooperating denominations of Christianity have now unanimously agreed that John 5:7 and 3:16 are interpolated and hence, throw the trinitarian premise into deep waters, in this - the modern age.

To hold onto this Trinitarian theme in the modern age of information and investigation, is very silly in my honest opinion.

Have you ever read a "red letter" bible? You'll find that Jesus pbuh was wholly monotheist, and in no way pushing for a trinity.

The problem with unilingual speakers is that they do not know how language is nuanced - and so when they read verses such as what Jesus pbuh spoke: "I and my father are one", they seem to think that this means they are the same entity LOL... in context it actually means that Jesus pbuh cannot be wavered from his mission because God gave it to him, and so, his determination is to do as God tells him to do, and speak as God tells him to speak. "I and my father are one"... now tell me, which Prophet or Messenger of God did not do God's work on earth?

See bro? Cotext, and context are key.

Back to Trinity... it is practically universally accepted that the Comma Johanneum is a corruption of the Latin texts and a forgery. It didn't appear in any of the Greek manuscripts prior to the 1500s and Jerome's original Latin Vulgate didn't contain it. Some Bible editor literally added it in because he wasn't happy that one of their most important tenets wasn't directly mentioned in the Bible. Jeremiah 8 comes to mind... "the lying pen of the scribes" verse in particular.

Scimi

[Serinity]

No matter how you look at it - Christianity is polytheistic. Whether they believe that God is in 'flesh' or 3 gods in 1. It is all polytheistic.

The only pure monotheistic belief, that makes sense, is the Islamic belief - that Allah is One, indivisible, nothing is like Him, and worship is Only for Him.

Whenever you try to describe Allah as 'worldly', you have gone into shirk & polytheism. Allahu alam.

[Scimitar]

I was at a Christian friends house a few years ago on a Saturday morning, we planned to go to the National Gallery (rembrandts Belshazzar's Feast was a mutual subject of interest stemming from the OT). He was cooking himself some breakfast. And we were talking about Trinity.

He used an egg to show me how the Trinity was 3 and 1 at the same time, explaining it as "the egg has a shell, a white and a yolk, but it is still an egg".

Then he cracked the egg open... and two yolks came out :D not one, two.

Scimi

[goodwill]

If you are relying on I john 5:7 and timothy 3:16 as your crutch, then I have to inform you, Goodwill, that those two verses which are integral to the Trinitarian form of Christianity, are proven to be interpolations - and accepted as such by over 50 cooperating denominations within Christianity.

It came as a surprise to me when I learned that In 1690, Sir Isaac Newton wrote a manuscript on the corruption of the text of the New Testament concerning I John 5:7 and Timothy 3:16. It was entitled, "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture." Due to the prevailing environment against criticism, he felt it unwise to profess his beliefs openly and felt that printing it in England would be too dangerous.

Newton sent a copy of this manuscript to John Locke requesting him to have it translated into French for publication in France. Two years later, Newton was informed of an attempt to publish a Latin translation of it anonymously. However, Newton did not approve of its availability in Latin and persuaded Locke to take steps to prevent this publication. Below are excerpts from "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture."

Newton on I John 5:7

Sir Isaac Newton states that this verse appeared for the first time in the third edition of Erasmus's New Testament. When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed.

In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books. "Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part, I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is Scripture what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious art of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best." Newton on 3:16

In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy it never came into play . . . they that read "God manifested in the flesh" think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business. "The word Deity imports exercise of dominion over subordinate beings and the word God most frequently signifies Lord. Every lord is not God. The exercise of dominion in a spiritual being constitutes a God. If that dominion be real that being is the real God; if it be fictitious, a false God; if it be supreme, a supreme God." Newton also wrote a discussion on two other texts that Athanasius had attempted to corrupt. This work has not been preserved. He believed that not all the books of the Scriptures have the same authority. You can reference all of the above in A. Wallace, "Anti-Trinitarian Biographies," Vol. III, 1850.

Further, countless Christian scholars from across over 50 cooperating denominations of Christianity have now unanimously agreed that John 5:7 and 3:16 are interpolated and hence, throw the trinitarian premise into deep waters, in this - the modern age.

To hold onto this Trinitarian theme in the modern age of information and investigation, is very silly in my honest opinion.

Have you ever read a "red letter" bible? You'll find that Jesus pbuh was wholly monotheist, and in no way pushing for a trinity.

The problem with unilingual speakers is that they do not know how language is nuanced - and so when they read verses such as what Jesus pbuh spoke: "I and my father are one", they seem to think that this means they are the same entity LOL... in context it actually means that Jesus pbuh cannot be wavered from his mission because God gave it to him, and so, his determination is to do as God tells him to do, and speak as God tells him to speak. "I and my father are one"... now tell me, which Prophet or Messenger of God did not do God's work on earth?

See bro? Cotext, and context are key.

Back to Trinity... it is practically universally accepted that the Comma Johanneum is a corruption of the Latin texts and a forgery. It didn't appear in any of the Greek manuscripts prior to the 1500s and Jerome's original Latin Vulgate didn't contain it. Some Bible editor literally added it in because he wasn't happy that one of their most important tenets wasn't directly mentioned in the Bible. Jeremiah 8 comes to mind... "the lying pen of the scribes" verse in particular.

Scimi

1 John 5:7 has long been recognized as an interpolation by the fact that it is not found in many manuscripts. Newer Bible translations for well over 100 years have either omitted it or relegated it to a footnote. The situation with 1 Timothy 3:16 is different. Unlike 1 John 5:7, the traditional reading, “God manifested in the flesh,” is found in many manuscripts. It also has the advantage of making sense, whereas "A man manifested in the flesh" is rather tautologous. Incidentally, the reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 that Newton apparently favored is not the preferred reading in either of my critical Greek New Testaments. At any rate, the case for the Trinity does not stand or fall with those two verses.

Are you as familiar with Quranic textual variants as you are with Biblical?

[Scimitar]

1 John 5:7 has long been recognized as an interpolation by the fact that it is not found in many manuscripts. Newer Bible translations for well over 100 years have either omitted it or relegated it to a footnote. The situation with 1 Timothy 3:16 is different. Unlike 1 John 5:7, the traditional reading, “God manifested in the flesh,” is found in many manuscripts. It also has the advantage of making sense, whereas "A man manifested in the flesh" is rather tautologous. Incidentally, the reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 that Newton apparently favored is not the preferred reading in either of my critical Greek New Testaments. At any rate, the case for the Trinity does not stand or fall with those two verses.

You recognize that these two verses are central to the trinity doctrine, but are interpolations. Good.

Now tell me which verses support the trinity in your opinion, which are not recognized as interpolated.

Are you as familiar with Quranic textual variants as you are with Biblical?

Quranic textual variants? Do you mean translations?

There is only 1 unanimously agreed upon, Qur'an. I have no idea what you are referring to, do share your find.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

The situation with 1 Timothy 3:16 is different.

Trinity doctrine doesn't have basis in either NT nor in OT. The trinity depends entirely on human interpretation to form up this doctrine. It is totally pagan. In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism."

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and engrafted on the Christian faith." And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan."

The Encyclopedia Americana comments: "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."

Many of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity which have been for many centuries taken on blind faith (those which differ from the beliefs of Muslims) are now beginning to be challenged by some of the foremost scholars and religious leaders of Christianity today.

An example of this can be found in the British newspaper the "Daily News" 25/6/84 under the heading "Shock survey of Anglican Bishops" We read that a British television pole of 31 of the 39 Anglican Bishops in England found 19 to believe that it is not necessary for Christians to believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is God, but only "His supreme agent" (his messenger) as taught by Muslims for 1400 years now and testified to by John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you hast sent."

At this stage of our investigation, we need to ask, is the Bible truly the word of God?

No credible Biblical scholar on this earth will claim that the Bible was written by Jesus himself. They all agree that the Bible was written after the departure of Jesus peace be upon him by his followers. So, if the authors of the Bible were people other than Jesus, then did they have Jesus or the Holy Spirit in them guiding their hands and dictating to them word for word what to write? As it happens, once again the answer is no. Who says so? The majority of today's credible Christian scholars do. For example:

Dr. W Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, a prestigious Christian evangelical mission, says:

"..Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men...."

Another Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says:

"...Not so the New testament...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history..."- The Call of the Minaret, Kenneth Cragg, p 277

For example, we read in the Bible the words of the author of "Luke":

"It seemed good to me (Luke) also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)"

If you consider the Bible the word of GOD, well, it is quite obvious that Luke decided to write his Gospel because he wanted to please the president or the leader at that time Theophilus. This however has several problems:

Firstly, It compromises GOD because there is a biger purpose than GOD to write the Gospel,
Secondly, It shows that Luke wouldn't have written his Gospel if it wasn't for that leader, and
And lastly, this proves that Luke was not inspired when he wrote his Gospel because he said that he decided to write it after he had full understanding of it, which means that he wrote it with his own human interpretation, words and thoughts; not God's

The bible cannot therefore be - a divine work - but an human one. Plenty of more examples abound to prove this and i'm sure in the course of this thread, they will be exploited and exposed for the vigilant to know how erroneous a text the NT Bible really has become over the ages.

Well then, in spite of these facts are the records found in the New Testament known to be 100% completely and fully authentic such that no intentional nor unintentional changes have ever been made by the church to the text of the NT? Well, since our opinion in this matter might be biased, let's see what the Christian scholastic circle have commented on this:

"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors" - Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 633

"Yet, as a matter of fact, every book of the New Testament with the exception of the four great Epistles of St. Paul is at present more or less the subject of controversy, and interpolations are asserted even in these." -Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Vol. 3, p. 643

You're probably thinking - what do they know, they aren't trinitarian Christians, right? Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, one of the most adamant conservative Christian defenders of the Trinity and one of the Church's foremost scholars of the Bible was himself driven to admit that:

"[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written" - Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117

After listing many examples of contradictory statements in the Bible, Dr. Frederic Kenyon says:

"Besides the larger discrepancies, such as these, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some variation of phrase in some copies [of the ancient manuscripts from which the Bible has been collected]. No one can say that these additions or omissions or alterations are matters of mere indifference" - Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, p. 3

The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE" Magazine dated 8th September 1957 published the following headline: "50,000 Errors in the Bible" wherein they say "..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible...errors which have crept into the Bible text...50,000 such serious errors..." After all of this, however, they go on to say: "...as a whole the Bible is accurate."

Amazing.

Paul who spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 had rediculously contradicted himself, because he himself admitted before that he wasn't always inspired by GOD Almighty himself (1 Corinthians 7:25-35). Verses 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 are today permanantly preserved in the "Bible". If GOD Almighty indeed spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 through Paul, then He wouldn't have contradicted Himself in the Verse about the entire Bible being His Words, while permanatly preserving Paul's personal words and suggestions in the "Bible". This should be one solid proof that Paul was not truthful. Anyway, many famous Historians and Theologians before came to conclusions that Paul was not truthful. Rather, a pragmatic spy who was sent by the Romans to infiltrate the Christians faith and turn it somewhat - into a parody for the trinity of the old pagan Roman faith.

In relation to 3:16 - Paul obviously didn't know much about the Old Testament for claiming that it is all "God-breathed" - GOD Almighty said: "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)" See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Prophet Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death by their own hands.

You have to accept here that most of the New Testament is nothing but conversations between people, which are clearly not inspirations from GOD Almighty. For instance, Paul fought with Saint Peter and accused him of being "clearly in the wrong" (Galatians: 2:11-12), and had a huge argument with Saint Barnabas (Acts 15:36-39). Now one must ask, did GOD for instance favor Paul over Barnabas and Peter and inspired him the words while he was fighting with them? If so, since Peter was "clearly in the wrong", then how about his Gospels? Wasn't every word that Peter spoke supposedly inpired by GOD? How then could he be "clearly in the wrong"? One of them must be in the wrong, which in either case, would also produce another contradiction to 2 Timothy 3:16. Is Paul GOD Himself? No Christian believes in that. So why then take everything he says including 2 Timothy 3:16 as the Words of GOD Almighty when they contain clear contradictions in them?

To claim it is a divine work is kinda stretching it real far bro. To claim Jesus is the begotten son of God is clear blasphemy.

Scimi

[goodwill]

No matter how you look at it - Christianity is polytheistic. Whether they believe that God is in 'flesh' or 3 gods in 1. It is all polytheistic.

The only pure monotheistic belief, that makes sense, is the Islamic belief - that Allah is One, indivisible, nothing is like Him, and worship is Only for Him.

Whenever you try to describe Allah as 'worldly', you have gone into shirk & polytheism. Allahu alam.

If nothing is like God, then that would explain why there are no adequate “worldly” analogies for the Holy Trinity, not even double-yolked eggs :)


The Trinity is not only necessary to affirm on the basis of Divine revelation, but also philosophically or ethically necessary. Unless there is a Divine community of loving Persons in the Godhead, God is dependent on His creation for the expression of the highest virtue, namely, love directed toward others. By denying the Son and the Holy Spirit along with the Divine Fatherhood, Islam leaves God a lonely monad.

[Scimitar]

1 John 5:7

Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and God's people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion (interpolated) and thus, discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "Trinity" therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God chose to inspire someone to insert this verse in order to clarify the true nature of God as being a "Trinity." Notice how mankind was being inspired as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever.

And further: check this out - biblical experts discussing 1 John 5:7



Like other doctrines that became central to the faith, belief in the Trinity was a historical development, not a “given” from the early years of the faith.

1) The basic notion of the Trinity is that there are three persons in the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are all equally God and of the same substance, but despite the fact there are three persons, together, they compromise only one God, indivisible in nature.

2) This doctrine does not appear to be a doctrine pronounced by the historical Jesus, Paul, or any other Christian writer during the first hundred years or so of Christianity.

3) It cannot be found explicitly stated in the earliest Christian writings. The only passage of the New Testament that declares the doctrine (1 John 5:7-8) was not originally part of the text but was added by doctrinally astute scribes at a later date (it is not found in any Greek manuscripts until the 11th century) (Ehrman B. From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, Part 2. The Teaching Company, Chantilly (VA), 2004, p. 43).

According to the above, the trinity was not an original Christian belief and that only passage in the New Testament that declares that doctrine (1 John 5:7-8) was added at a later date.

Here is the version of 1 John 5:7-8 as improperly shown in the NKJV and the modern Douay Rheims:

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. (1 John 5:7-8, NKJV)

7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. 8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7-8, Douay-Rheims)

But much of what is shown above was ADDED to the original biblical texts.

Here is what the original text supports according to Dr. Daniel Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary (a trinitarian institution) wrote:

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8:

“5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.” –NET Bible

Notice that this is much shorter than what most Protestant or Catholic translators now show. Even certain trinitarian scholars realize that instead of teaching the trinity, the above has to do with Jesus and baptism (see Nelson Study Bible, p. 2147 which is also quoted in the article Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?). It was only after someone scribbled a side note well after the Bible was written that the trinitarian view was added.

How late was the addition that makes it longer?

Here is more from Dr. Daniel Wallace on the longer addition:

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin)…

The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it…

In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? (Wallace DB. The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8. http://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8)

Although the NIV gets I John 5:7-8 right, in the KJV, Douay-Rheims, NKJV and many other translators of I John 5:7-8 include words not in the original text. On page 1918, The Ryrie Study Bible reminds everyone, related to the NKJV:

“Verse 7 should end with the word witness. The remainder of v. 7 and part of v. 8 are not in any ancient Greek manuscript…”.

In other words the words "in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth" are not inspired and are not supposed to be in the Bible.[/b]

Now lest any Catholics have a different view, although the CHANGED version of the Latin Vulgate contains a version of this, the Codex Amiatinus (Codex Amiatinus. Novum Testamentum Latine interpreter Hieronymo.

Epistula Iohannis I V:6-8. Constantinus Tischendorf, Lipsiae. 1854 http://books.google.com/books?hl=pl&id=x...NE&f=false, which is believed to be the closest to the original document that Jerome originally translated into Latin, also does not have this as The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Codex Amiatinus The most celebrated manuscript of the Latin Vulgate Bible, remarkable as the best witness to the true text of St. Jerome…(Fenlon, John Francis. “Codex Amiatinus.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 21 Apr. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04081a.htm>)

Note: Yes, I personally read the Latin in the Codex Amiatinus and compared it to the changed version and more modern version of the Latin Vulgate which differs from the early version in that the modern version adds “in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus. Et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra:” (Latin Vulgate . com is provided by Mental Systems, Inc. )

In other words, Catholic scholars realize that the texts that Jerome used to originally put together the Latin Vulgate Bible (the basic Bible for Catholics) did not have the late addition (which, of course, it could not originally have had as that addition came about many centuries after Jerome did his translation).

Basically, what happened is that a monk put a personal note related to his interpretation of the ‘three’ mentioned in the first part of 1 John 5:7. One or more scribal monks after him, inserted his note actually in the text. It was NOT inspired by God.

The Protestant and Catholic Bibles that have the added words are relying on very late documents that were not considered to be original. Some, of course, have ignored the truth about the origin of 1 John 5:7-8 and wish to believe that because early heretics seem to have possibly referred to it (one popular online source falsely claims that Tertullian, who followed the heretic Montanus, quoted the omitted words in Against Praxeas–this is not true as I have read that writing and it is not in there–but even if it was, Tertullian was a heretic follower who did not seem to have the proper canon), that it must be true–but that of course is a lie.

I would like to mention here that BECAUSE most Bibles contain the false long addition to 1 John 5:7-8, that Muslims often cite this as absolute proof that the Bible has been tampered with and cannot be trusted like they claim the Koran can. The belief and use of 1 John 5:7-8 causes the name of Christ (through the term ‘Christianity’) to be blasphemed among the Gentiles (Romans 2:24; Isaiah 52:5). No honest translator should have ever included it in the Bible as anything other than a footnote that it was improperly added in later centuries as a pretended addition to the text.



The Cathecism of the Catholic Church itself admits that the Church (not the Bible) had to come up with terms of “philosophical” (pagan/Greek) origin to explain the trinity:

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance,” “person,” or “hypostasis,” “relation” and so on (Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995, p. 74).

According to a Catholic bishop named Marcellus of Ancyra wrote, around the middle of the fourth century, certain aspects of trinitarianism came from paganism and the term “hypostases” entered the professing Christian world from a heretic named Valentinus:

Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God…These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him ‘On the Three Natures’. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato (Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), ‘On the Holy Church’: Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).

So, it was a heretic that introduced the trinitarian term hypostasis.

The term “substance” basically comes from a Greek term that was introduced to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches by the pagan sun-worshiping Emperor Constantine.

Protestant scholar H. Brown noted:

Although Constantine is usually remembered for the steps he took toward making Christianity the established religion of the Roman Empire, it would not be wrong to consider him the one who inaugurated the centuries of trinitarian orthodoxy. It was he who proposed and perhaps even imposed the expression homoousis at the Council of Nicea in 325, and it was he who provided government aid to the orthodox and exerted government pressure against nonconformists. ( Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988)

It should be noted that it is understood, even by some Catholic scholars, like Priest Bellarmino Bagatti, that those considered to be Judeao-Christians did not accept the Emperor’s non-biblical term:

The point of view of the Judaeo-Christians, devoid of Greek philosophical formation, was that of keeping steadfast to the Testimonia, and therefore not to admit any word foreign to the Bible, including Homoousion. ( Bagatti, Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene Hoade. The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine. Nihil obstat: Ignatius Mancini, 1 Februari 1970. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari, 26 Februari 1970. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 28 Februarii 1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, 1971, pp. 47-48)

AND HERE IS WHERE IT GETS STUPID ALL OVER AGAIN

Regarding the New Testament, even a trinitarian scholar has admitted that the Bible promotes a binitarian view, and does not teach what is now considered to be the trinity:

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).

Binitarian

I mean, really? we prove trinity wrong and they go with a dualistic version after?

you serious? RCC is a joke.

The terms trinity, threeness, or trinitarian are not found in the Bible. The Protestant reformer Martin Luther himself taught:

It is indeed true that the name “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man. (Luther Martin. The Sermons of Martin Luther, Church Postil, 1522; III:406-421, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

According to Roman Catholic sources, the term trinity, in relation to the Godhead, did not come until the late second/early third century. Yet, the idea of the trinity was apparently voiced by the heretic Montanus and as well as developed by a famous Gnostic heretic named Valentinus in the mid-2nd Century. One of the so-called Montanist Oracles, spoken by Montanus was:

“I am the Father and the Son and the Paraclete.” (Didymus, De trinitate iii. 41. 1.) (Assembled in P. de Labriolle,
La crise montaniste (1913), 34-105, by Bates College, Lewston (Maine) http://abacus.bates.edu/Faculty/Philosop...anism.html 01/31/06).

This is one of the first references to a trinitarian view of the Godhead (the other earliest one was from the heretic Valentinus–it is unclear which was first). The paraclete is a term used to signify the Holy Spirit (it is from the Greek term parakletos). Eusebius records (Eusebius. Church History, Book V, Chapters 18-19) that church leaders in Asia Minor and Antioch, such as Apollonius of Ephesus, that Serapion of Antioch, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Thraseas of Eumenia opposed the Montantist heresies (Apollinaris of Hierapolis and Thraseas of Eumenia were Quartodecimans, and Apollonius likely was as well). And Irenaeus recorded that Polycarp denounced Valentinus.

The reality is that the longer addition of 1 John 5:7-8 was unknown to early Christians as it was not part of the Bible. And shockingly to some, the early faithful clearly held what has been called a binitarian or semi-Arian view of the Godhead. This defies any sense whatsoever, since the OT is jealously Monotheistic, hence the idea of a dualistic theology has no basis in the OT, and thus, should not be a consideration for the NT origins. And we find it was not, so this trinity is a mystery...

...BUT NOT SO MUCH IF YOU STUDY WHAT CONSTANTINES PERSONAL BELIEFS ABOUT GOD(S) WAS BEFORE HE PRAGMATICALLY CHOSE CHRISTIANITY AS HIS CHOSEN FAITH... TO MANIPULATE.

Scimi

[Serinity]

If nothing is like God, then that would explain why there are no adequate “worldly” analogies for the Holy Trinity, not even double-yolked eggs :)


The Trinity is not only necessary to affirm on the basis of Divine revelation, but also philosophically or ethically necessary. Unless there is a Divine community of loving Persons in the Godhead, God is dependent on His creation for the expression of the highest virtue, namely, love directed toward others. By denying the Son and the Holy Spirit along with the Divine Fatherhood, Islam leaves God a lonely monad.

The trinity is polytheistic, and makes no sense. The fact most dont understand it, proves it.

Allah is not like anyone or anything. He has no partners, what does that mean? That means Whatever is exclusive to Him, He shares with none.

Allah has no equal.
And your assumption that Allah is lonely, is false. You seem to judge Allah by your emotions.

Allah has no need of anyone - the free of need.

I dont buy "divine mystery"

[goodwill]

Trinity doctrine doesn't have basis in either NT nor in OT. The trinity depends entirely on human interpretation to form up this doctrine. It is totally pagan. In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism."

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and engrafted on the Christian faith." And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan."

The Encyclopedia Americana comments: "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."

Many of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity which have been for many centuries taken on blind faith (those which differ from the beliefs of Muslims) are now beginning to be challenged by some of the foremost scholars and religious leaders of Christianity today.

An example of this can be found in the British newspaper the "Daily News" 25/6/84 under the heading "Shock survey of Anglican Bishops" We read that a British television pole of 31 of the 39 Anglican Bishops in England found 19 to believe that it is not necessary for Christians to believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is God, but only "His supreme agent" (his messenger) as taught by Muslims for 1400 years now and testified to by John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you hast sent."

At this stage of our investigation, we need to ask, is the Bible truly the word of God?

No credible Biblical scholar on this earth will claim that the Bible was written by Jesus himself. They all agree that the Bible was written after the departure of Jesus peace be upon him by his followers. So, if the authors of the Bible were people other than Jesus, then did they have Jesus or the Holy Spirit in them guiding their hands and dictating to them word for word what to write? As it happens, once again the answer is no. Who says so? The majority of today's credible Christian scholars do. For example:

Dr. W Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, a prestigious Christian evangelical mission, says:

"..Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men...."

Another Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says:

"...Not so the New testament...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history..."- The Call of the Minaret, Kenneth Cragg, p 277

For example, we read in the Bible the words of the author of "Luke":

"It seemed good to me (Luke) also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)"

If you consider the Bible the word of GOD, well, it is quite obvious that Luke decided to write his Gospel because he wanted to please the president or the leader at that time Theophilus. This however has several problems:

Firstly, It compromises GOD because there is a biger purpose than GOD to write the Gospel,
Secondly, It shows that Luke wouldn't have written his Gospel if it wasn't for that leader, and
And lastly, this proves that Luke was not inspired when he wrote his Gospel because he said that he decided to write it after he had full understanding of it, which means that he wrote it with his own human interpretation, words and thoughts; not God's

The bible cannot therefore be - a divine work - but an human one. Plenty of more examples abound to prove this and i'm sure in the course of this thread, they will be exploited and exposed for the vigilant to know how erroneous a text the NT Bible really has become over the ages.

Well then, in spite of these facts are the records found in the New Testament known to be 100% completely and fully authentic such that no intentional nor unintentional changes have ever been made by the church to the text of the NT? Well, since our opinion in this matter might be biased, let's see what the Christian scholastic circle have commented on this:

"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors" - Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 633

"Yet, as a matter of fact, every book of the New Testament with the exception of the four great Epistles of St. Paul is at present more or less the subject of controversy, and interpolations are asserted even in these." -Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Vol. 3, p. 643

You're probably thinking - what do they know, they aren't trinitarian Christians, right? Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, one of the most adamant conservative Christian defenders of the Trinity and one of the Church's foremost scholars of the Bible was himself driven to admit that:

"[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written" - Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117

After listing many examples of contradictory statements in the Bible, Dr. Frederic Kenyon says:

"Besides the larger discrepancies, such as these, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some variation of phrase in some copies [of the ancient manuscripts from which the Bible has been collected]. No one can say that these additions or omissions or alterations are matters of mere indifference" - Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, p. 3

The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE" Magazine dated 8th September 1957 published the following headline: "50,000 Errors in the Bible" wherein they say "..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible...errors which have crept into the Bible text...50,000 such serious errors..." After all of this, however, they go on to say: "...as a whole the Bible is accurate."

Amazing.

Paul who spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 had rediculously contradicted himself, because he himself admitted before that he wasn't always inspired by GOD Almighty himself (1 Corinthians 7:25-35). Verses 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 are today permanantly preserved in the "Bible". If GOD Almighty indeed spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 through Paul, then He wouldn't have contradicted Himself in the Verse about the entire Bible being His Words, while permanatly preserving Paul's personal words and suggestions in the "Bible". This should be one solid proof that Paul was not truthful. Anyway, many famous Historians and Theologians before came to conclusions that Paul was not truthful. Rather, a pragmatic spy who was sent by the Romans to infiltrate the Christians faith and turn it somewhat - into a parody for the trinity of the old pagan Roman faith.

In relation to 3:16 - Paul obviously didn't know much about the Old Testament for claiming that it is all "God-breathed" - GOD Almighty said: "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)" See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Prophet Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death by their own hands.

You have to accept here that most of the New Testament is nothing but conversations between people, which are clearly not inspirations from GOD Almighty. For instance, Paul fought with Saint Peter and accused him of being "clearly in the wrong" (Galatians: 2:11-12), and had a huge argument with Saint Barnabas (Acts 15:36-39). Now one must ask, did GOD for instance favor Paul over Barnabas and Peter and inspired him the words while he was fighting with them? If so, since Peter was "clearly in the wrong", then how about his Gospels? Wasn't every word that Peter spoke supposedly inpired by GOD? How then could he be "clearly in the wrong"? One of them must be in the wrong, which in either case, would also produce another contradiction to 2 Timothy 3:16. Is Paul GOD Himself? No Christian believes in that. So why then take everything he says including 2 Timothy 3:16 as the Words of GOD Almighty when they contain clear contradictions in them?

To claim it is a divine work is kinda stretching it real far bro. To claim Jesus is the begotten son of God is clear blasphemy.

Scimi

You are mistaken about my view of the two verses. You should have read my reply more carefully. I did not say that 1 John 5:7 or 1 Timothy 3:16 were central to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The case for the Trinity is taught in other verses. But no one, scholar or educated layman, considers 1 Timothy 3:16 an interpolation. The textual debate does not concern the verse as a whole, only a single word therein. You seem to have made use of material that you do not fully understand.


50,000 errors? And yet the Quran teaches that the Bible is reliable! Can you provide one or two of the JW’s 50,000 examples so we can discuss them? I appreciate your desire to avoid blasphemy, bro, but it is blasphemous to disparage God’s word. And for you there are two kinds of blasphemy: 1. because the Bible really is true. And 2. because the Quran itself confirms the Bible is true. But, for sake of argument, what if the JWs really did find 50,000 errors? Error is only recognized by its disagreement with the truth. So in order to find a reading corrupted, you must have some idea of the original reading. Presumably the JWs think they have identified and possess the correct, original readings. Meanwhile, scholars, even anti-theist ones like Bart Ehrman, affirm that the Bible has been preserved. Where is your faith? God is faithful, right? He has always provided His Word to mankind. Even the Quran says man cannot change God’s words.


You asked to be shown the Trinity from the Bible. If you were open to accepting the doctrine of the Trinity as well as finding it in the Bible, then you could just start reading the Bible for yourself. We could discuss questions as they came up. You would notice that even in the very first chapter of the first book, God (Hebrew, Elohim, grammatically a plural noun) sometimes refers to Himself with a plural pronoun.


Textual criticism of the Quran is a field of study nowadays. Some scholars have been able to examine the earliest available Quranic manuscripts, and variations have been found. Even among the 26 available modern Quranic versions, the most common one, the Hafs, was standardized in Egypt only in 1924. It differs from other versions of the Quran, perhaps the best known of which is the Warsh version, which is used in Yemen and North Africa. In sura 1:4, e.g., the Hafs Quran refers to God as “مالك” (with an alif) while the Warsh Quran refers to God as “ملك” (no alif). This spelling variation also changes the meaning, which you know if you are familiar with Arabic.


Historically, as you may be aware, Uthman tried to standardize text of the Quran in his day. But standardization would not have been deemed necessary if there had been only a single, uniform version of the Quran unchanged from the beginning. Clearly there was no single, uniform version of the Quran even in the early days of Islam. Now that many early Muslim sources, the ahadith included, have been translated, one can see more easily that even they teach that the Quran was not perfectly preserved. I discussed this previously in another thread here, Did Jesus Predict Muhammad? See posts #18, #20, and #36, which discusses how a sheep or goat ate a page of the original Quran that has been lost ever since.

[goodwill]

The trinity is polytheistic, and makes no sense. The fact most dont understand it, proves it.

Allah is not like anyone or anything. He has no partners, what does that mean? That means Whatever is exclusive to Him, He shares with none.

Allah has no equal.
And your assumption that Allah is lonely, is false. You seem to judge Allah by your emotions.

Allah has no need of anyone - the free of need.

I dont buy "divine mystery"

A non-Trinitarian, unitarian theology leaves God a “lonely” monad in the sense of “without community” apart from His creation. Reverse shirk.


But according to the Bible, God is so self-sufficient that He does not need even the creation for His loving nature to find expression.

[Serinity]

A non-Trinitarian, unitarian theology leaves God a “lonely” monad in the sense of “without community” apart from His creation. Reverse shirk.


But according to the Bible, God is so self-sufficient that He does not need even the creation for His loving nature to find expression.

There is no God besides Allah. And Allah is self-sufficient, so I don't see what you are trying to say. Allah does not need anyone or anything, nor is He lonely, because the implications of being "lonely" is that one needs something. Since Allah is free of need, it'd be a paradox to say Allah is lonely. And shirk.

Allahu alam.

[goodwill]

There is no God besides Allah. And Allah is self-sufficient, so I don't see what you are trying to say. Allah does not need anyone or anything, nor is He lonely, because the implications of being "lonely" is that one needs something. Since Allah is free of need, it'd be a paradox to say Allah is lonely. And shirk.

Allahu alam.

What you have affirmed is God’s self-sufficiency in a metaphysical sense. Truly He needs nothing. The perfection of God demands that this be the case. There is no dispute between us on this point. But the doctrine of the Holy Trinity provides for another kind of self-sufficiency, namely, a moral or ethical self-sufficiency. Is God a loving God prior to and independently of His creation? A moral life implies community and has no meaning for the absolutely single and alone. A solitary monad, whether feeling lonely or not, cannot engage in a moral life by itself. The moral life requires an object or community for expression. Love must be directed towards an object. Justice is between persons. Benevolence or goodwill is impossible without plurality and community. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity means that there is a community of love within the Divine unity. Thus mutual love, a perfect moral life, is grounded in God Himself, prior to His creation and independently of His creation.