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/articles/601/who-invented-trinity-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"

 

[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 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.