Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[Alter2Ego]

Although Trinity is the most important doctrine within most of Christendom's 41,000 denominations, Trinitarians ignore the following facts:

1. There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible in support of the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, in which there are three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) that are co-equal and co-eternal.

2. Neither Jesus Christ nor his disciples of the 1st century AD promoted the teaching that there are three persons within a godhead, all of whom are co-equal and co-eternal.

3. Trinity did not become official Christian teaching until the 4th century AD, some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene and returned to heavenly life, and some 300 years after the last book of the Bible was written.

It would surprise some that there were trinity gods throughout the pagan world--for centuries before the idea of a 3-in-1 god was adopted by Christendom. Below are four such examples:

A. In the 2nd century BCE (two centuries before Jesus Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.


B. In the 2nd century B.C.E., Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash.


C. In the 1st century C.E., Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god.


D. Even the Hindus in India have their own trinity of gods, as follows: (1) Brahma, (2) Vishnu, and (3) Shiva.



QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. If the teaching of a Trinity god is essential to Christianity, how is it that the doctrine is nowhere to be found in scriptures within Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible?


2. If Jesus Christ is part of a trinity in which he has the same power (co-equal) and the same eternity (co-eternal) as Jehovah the Father, how is it that the scriptures repeatedly inform us that Jesus Christ is subservient to Almighty God Jehovah (indicating inequality) and why is it that scripture tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is "begotten" (indicating he had a beginning)?


3. Why did it take two Roman Emperors/politicians, neither of whom were Christians, to enforce the official Trinity dogma some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene?

 

[mikesw]

Although Trinity is the most important doctrine within most of Christendom's 41,000 denominations, Trinitarians ignore the following facts:

1. There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible in support of the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, in which there are three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) that are co-equal and co-eternal.

2. Neither Jesus Christ nor his disciples of the 1st century AD promoted the teaching that there are three persons within a godhead, all of whom are co-equal and co-eternal.

3. Trinity did not become official Christian teaching until the 4th century AD, some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene and returned to heavenly life, and some 300 years after the last book of the Bible was written.

It would surprise some that there were trinity gods throughout the pagan world--for centuries before the idea of a 3-in-1 god was adopted by Christendom. Below are four such examples:

A. In the 2nd century BCE (two centuries before Jesus Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.


B. In the 2nd century B.C.E., Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash.


C. In the 1st century C.E., Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god.


D. Even the Hindus in India have their own trinity of gods, as follows: (1) Brahma, (2) Vishnu, and (3) Shiva.



QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. If the teaching of a Trinity god is essential to Christianity, how is it that the doctrine is nowhere to be found in scriptures within Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible?

alter_ego has to simply deny the Son as deity and the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus. This invalidates alter_egos doctrine from the start. Uh oh. Maybe I saw this before but alter_ego is apparently of the JW cult. I'm not always remembering what these newbies beliefs are.
I have shared that in recognition of these three ones in scripture who all are God that honest, intelligent Christians resolve this with the Shema of Deut 6:4.

2. If Jesus Christ is part of a trinity in which he has the same power (co-equal) and the same eternity (co-eternal) as Jehovah the Father, how is it that the scriptures repeatedly inform us that Jesus Christ is subservient to Almighty God Jehovah (indicating inequality) and why is it that scripture tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is "begotten" (indicating he had a beginning)?

One option is that the Word who was with God and was God was born as a son among humans. But really "begotten" is a mistranslation and should just say "only" or "one and only." But that is beyond comprehension of the JW heresy and Unitarian heresy.

3. Why did it take two Roman Emperors/politicians, neither of whom were Christians, to enforce the official Trinity dogma some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene?

Too bad alter_ego is scared to watch the video i posted by the premodernist youtube channel. The councils were nothingburgers to Christians -- no new doctrine. The only thing the Roman rulers wanted was a quiet, unified body of people.

 

[Runningman]

alter_ego has to simply deny the Son as deity and the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus. This invalidates alter_egos doctrine from the start. Uh oh. Maybe I saw this before but alter_ego is apparently of the JW cult. I'm not always remembering what these newbies beliefs are.
I have shared that in recognition of these three ones in scripture who all are God that honest, intelligent Christians resolve this with the Shema of Deut 6:4.

One option is that the Word who was with God and was God was born as a son among humans. But really "begotten" is a mistranslation and should just say "only" or "one and only." But that is beyond comprehension of the JW heresy and Unitarian heresy.

Too bad alter_ego is scared to watch the video i posted by the premodernist youtube channel. The councils were nothingburgers to Christians -- no new doctrine. The only thing the Roman rulers wanted was a quiet, unified body of people.

Care to explain how agreeing with the Bible is denying the Son? I think you are conflating your beliefs with Scripture when they are actually miles apart. There is no "God the Son" in the Bible. You're in a different religion than Christianity. In the Bible there is the Son who is the Messiah and Son of God, but it doesn't extend to deity. So when you talk like this, you actually make people think you're manipulative, trying to gaslight the conversation, hurl false accusations, and poison the well. That's all it does. If you had a goal to convert anyone, you have only repulsed others to your cause completely. Why would anyone want to be a part of your religion if it would make them foul too?

 

[mikesw]

Care to explain how agreeing with the Bible is denying the Son? I think you are conflating your beliefs with Scripture when they are actually miles apart. There is no "God the Son" in the Bible. You're in a different religion than Christianity. In the Bible there is the Son who is the Messiah and Son of God, but it doesn't extend to deity. So when you talk like this, you actually make people think you're manipulative, trying to gaslight the conversation, hurl false accusations, and poison the well. That's all it does. If you had a goal to convert anyone, you have only repulsed others to your cause completely. Why would anyone want to be a part of your religion if it would make them foul too?

You are agreeing with your confused ideas about the bible. You are claiming a new doctrine as if everyone before you was deceived. That is quite arrogant and demands that you have evidence to convince theologians and scholars. Prepare the physical gathering place to make your argument

 

[Runningman]

You are agreeing with your confused ideas about the bible. You are claiming a new doctrine as if everyone before you was deceived. That is quite arrogant and demands that you have evidence to convince theologians and scholars. Prepare the physical gathering place to make your argument

Well, here we are again. We have John 17:3 that explicitly states the Father is the only true God. Take a break and read it as many times as you need to until it sinks in because it's not going anywhere. So here we are with the Bible explicitly stating that the only true God is the Father. Just in case that isn't enough, there is still 1 Corinthians 8:6 where Paul explicitly said the Father is the one God for us. If you can't be honest about what these things say, how you can expect anyone to take you seriously when you disregard them and keep droning on about your trinity?

There is also the matter of the entire Bible referring to God as a singular person, i,e., He, Him, His, I, but never a they or a them. The trinity is a they, therefore it should follow that God is called a "they" or "them" if that's what people in the Bible believed about God, but they don't because they don't agree with your religion. The writers of the Bible are monotheistic Jews. That's why Jesus didn't talk about more than one person who is God, but rather only the Father.