Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[Runningman]

Jesus received His pronouncement as worship

Verse?

 

[JesusFan]

Verse?

When did he rebuke him?

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, they did believe Jesus is the Son of God, but no indicator that they thought it had a reference to deity.

They knew that he controlled the storm, did miracles and healings, and was sinless, and was more than a human

 

[Runningman]

They knew that he controlled the storm, did miracles and healings, and was sinless, and was more than a human

Which is just a sample of what a man is capable of when they are empowered by God. Others did the same sort of miracles.

 

[Doug Brents]

Well, the issue with that is that God's name isn't "God." God is The God, but God's name is YHWH according to Scripture, not Jesus.

YHWH means "Lord". It is not a name any more than "God" is a name. The closest thing to a name we have for God is "I AM". And Jesus claimed that name as well.

So Thomas was of course not taking the Lord's name in vain.

Agreed, but for different reasons than you claim.

I don't see any clear indicator that Thomas was blurting out something about his lone-wolf belief system regarding his Scripturally-unsupported feelings about Jesus being God. That isn't something Jesus taught nor anyone else repeated. It would make Thomas unique if that is something he truly believed. I don't see any evidence why he would believe it's the way you so, contrary to everyone calling Jesus a man.

Your blindness is only surpassed by your refusal to see. Does Scripture say it? Yes. Then that is the way it is, regardless of how you feel about it, or what that fact does to your doctrine.

 

[Peterlag]

You are comparing apples to pomegranates. We didn't exist with God before Creation. We were indeed only in His foreknowledge. But Jesus was there with the Father, an integral part of Creation, and clothed with the Glory of God.

But that is not what He prayed. He prayed that He would receive the glory He had (already) with the Father before Creation.

Nobody is anywhere before they are born. And I can pray the same normal prayer. I can say God glorify me with the holy calling that was given me in Christ Jesus before the world began.

 

[Peterlag]

Can you understand that God is not a "Father" because...​

the word "father" is a name or a title? You are a human. You are not a father, or an uncle, or a brother, or a son. Can you understand that because I have a number of Trinitarians tell me they are a father. You don't list "father blood" on the label when you give blood because you are not a father. They don't list "flesh and blood" or "skin and hair" on the label either. You are a human. What is God?

 

[e v e]

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?

The term jehovah itself is a word that can into use in early modern period.
As per other posts of mine, the modern bible based on septuagint and later kjv, both sorcery texts, explains a lot in terms of your question. Do check my content feed for the last post I just made on a another thread, explaining that corruption of original texts.

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)?

In the same way that you, as a human on the currently corrupt and fallen earth have your parents DNA, Christ is God's son and has his nature. This is the same reason all His sons who meet Christ on the clouds will rule with Christ once they are Restored to their Eden land, which is our promised land.

Jesus on this earth is begotten because he chose to come to this dungeon earth, and incarnate in this fallen type of perishable body. Sure his Flesh body had a beginning. So what.

 

[e v e]

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.

Same as today, the matrix gods rule here, and after stealing many concepts from Eden, yes, there seem to be resonance. However, it would be too much of a response and I daresay I doubt you would reply.

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

And still today.

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.

And still today.

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

And still today. We fell and came here, ruled by the prince of the air. Nothing new. If you care about He returning to get us out, then plead Him to destroy those demons you listed posing as gods, and sometimes wearing christian language and clothes.

 

[Runningman]

YHWH means "Lord". It is not a name any more than "God" is a name. The closest thing to a name we have for God is "I AM". And Jesus claimed that name as well.

Agreed, but for different reasons than you claim.

Your blindness is only surpassed by your refusal to see. Does Scripture say it? Yes. Then that is the way it is, regardless of how you feel about it, or what that fact does to your doctrine.

It is quite a stretch that Jesus ever claimed to be YHWH. Jesus never came out and claimed to be YHWH, never said he was God. Jesus suggested that if he had claimed to be God it would be blasphemy in John 10:33-36, but he did claim to be a Son of God. That proves that Jesus didn't view the Son of God title as a claim to deity. This was a title he freely gave to those around him as well.

 

[Peterlag]

YHWH means "Lord". It is not a name any more than "God" is a name. The closest thing to a name we have for God is "I AM". And Jesus claimed that name as well.

Agreed, but for different reasons than you claim.

Your blindness is only surpassed by your refusal to see. Does Scripture say it? Yes. Then that is the way it is, regardless of how you feel about it, or what that fact does to your doctrine.

Trinitarians falsely claim "I AM" is the "Divine Name" by making the connection to Exodus 3:14.

The Septuagint (LXX) for Exodus 3:14 and 15 has "ego eimi ho on YAHWEH" ("I am the one who Is YAHWEH"), not ego eimi.

Exodus 3:14 and 15 are one statement, not two. There is no period punctuation between these two verses in Hebrew or Greek texts.

Pulling verse 14 out of context from verse 15 to support a cult doctrine is deceptive.

"If ego eimi is a title/name for YHWH in 8:58, why is it merely a self-identification when the blind man says "ego eimi" in John 9:9?
What rule of Greek grammar allows Trinitarian followers to turn a common subject-verb phrase into a proper noun in one verse but not the other?"

cc: @Runningman

 

[e v e]

It is quite a stretch that Jesus ever claimed to be be YHWH. Jesus never came out and claimed to be YHWH, never said he was God. Jesus suggested that if he had claimed to be God it would be blasphemy in Joh 10:33-36, but he did claim to be a Son of God. That proves that Jesus didn't view the Son of God title as a claim to deity. This was a title he freely gave to those around him as well.

does not mean he is not deity , as His nature

 

[Runningman]

does not mean he is not deity , as His nature

God is a person with a nature. Jesus is a person with the divine nature. Others have the divine nature too. No one is the same person as the Father though. I think people are not realizing that Lord God Almighty is an actual single person sometimes.

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus said it was the Father in him doing the work and providing the words that he spoke. Jesus didn’t say it was God the Son in him doing the work or providing the words that he spoke. There isn’t a pre-existent God the Son.

 

[Doug Brents]

Nobody is anywhere before they are born.

Nobody, except Jesus. That is another area in which He is unique.

And I can pray the same normal prayer. I can say God glorify me with the holy calling that was given me in Christ Jesus before the world began.

Notice the difference between your prayer and Jesus'. You prayed for what was "given me in Christ Jesus before the world began". Jesus prayed, "with the glory which I had with You before the world existed". You are praying for something you were promised. Jesus prayed for something He already had, that he already possessed.

 

[Doug Brents]

It is quite a stretch that Jesus ever claimed to be YHWH. Jesus never came out and claimed to be YHWH, never said he was God. Jesus suggested that if he had claimed to be God it would be blasphemy in John 10:33-36, but he did claim to be a Son of God. That proves that Jesus didn't view the Son of God title as a claim to deity. This was a title he freely gave to those around him as well.

Read John 10:33-36 more clearly. Jesus did not say it would be blasphemy for Him to claim to be God. That was the Pharisees' claim over Him.
Now read a little further down to the latter half of verse 38. Jesus says that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. Today, we can say that God is in us (the Holy Spirit resides within everyone who is in Christ), but we are not in the Father; we are not yet a part of Him. But Jesus was! Jesus was in the Father just as much as the Father was in Jesus, because Jesus is God.

 

[Doug Brents]

Trinitarians falsely claim "I AM" is the "Divine Name" by making the connection to Exodus 3:14.

The Septuagint (LXX) for Exodus 3:14 and 15 has "ego eimi ho on YAHWEH" ("I am the one who Is YAHWEH"), not ego eimi.

That is NOT what Exo 3:14 says.
Exo 3:14 - "And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “This is what you shall say to the sons of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”"
Exo 3:15 - "God furthermore said to Moses, “This is what you shall say to the sons of Israel: ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is the name for all generations to use to call upon Me."
The phrase "ego eimi ho on Yahweh" is not in that text anywhere. The correct phrase is, "ego eimi ho ego eimi" (I am who I am). But then it says, "ego eimi" (I am) has sent me to you.

Exodus 3:14 and 15 are one statement, not two. There is no period punctuation between these two verses in Hebrew or Greek texts.

There is indeed a separation between Exo 3:14 and 15. "God furthermore said to Moses" is not part of what God said, it is the "narrator's" words.

Pulling verse 14 out of context from verse 15 to support a cult doctrine is deceptive.

"If ego eimi is a title/name for YHWH in 8:58, why is it merely a self-identification when the blind man says "ego eimi" in John 9:9?
What rule of Greek grammar allows Trinitarian followers to turn a common subject-verb phrase into a proper noun in one verse but not the other?"

Because there are qualifiers to the phrase "ego eimi" in every other place in Scripture besides John 8:58. Everywhere else, the phrase is followed by the explanation of what the person is: hungry, blind, tired, a man, a sinner, etc. And if the qualifier is not stated, it is assumed, ie: Are you he? I am (he). But in John 8:58, there is no qualifier, exactly the same way there was no qualifier in Exo 3.

 

[atpollard]

Trinitarians falsely claim "I AM" is the "Divine Name" by making the connection to Exodus 3:14.

Rather than trust OUR judgement, why don't we ask the NATIVE SPEAKERS that were actually there and heard Jesus words first hand how THEY understood THEIR native language?

John 8:57-59 [NKJV]
Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Why do Jews take up stones to stone someone? Here is an explanation of why:

John 10:31-33 [NKJV]
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?"
The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."

The Jews did not believe, but they understood what Jesus was saying ... even if you refuse to understand Jesus' plain words.

 

[Runningman]

Read John 10:33-36 more clearly. Jesus did not say it would be blasphemy for Him to claim to be God. That was the Pharisees' claim over Him.
Now read a little further down to the latter half of verse 38. Jesus says that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. Today, we can say that God is in us (the Holy Spirit resides within everyone who is in Christ), but we are not in the Father; we are not yet a part of Him. But Jesus was! Jesus was in the Father just as much as the Father was in Jesus, because Jesus is God.

Read it again. They accused Jesus of blasphemy, Jesus replied by quoting Scripture (Psalm 82:6) that says "I have said, ‘You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.’" In order to demonstrate that saying that they are all gods and sons of the Most High. How can they accuse him or anyone else for blasphemy because of that? If others say they are the sons of God then it isn't a claim to deity. You misunderstand who God is. Mainly I think you just haven't studied enough or maybe you have studied a lot, but ignored most of the Bible.

 

[Runningman]

Rather than trust OUR judgement, why don't we ask the NATIVE SPEAKERS that were actually there and heard Jesus words first hand how THEY understood THEIR native language?

John 8:57-59 [NKJV]
Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Why do Jews take up stones to stone someone? Here is an explanation of why:

John 10:31-33 [NKJV]
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?"
The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."

The Jews did not believe, but they understood what Jesus was saying ... even if you refuse to understand Jesus' plain words.

Why would you trust the words of individuals with a stated motive to kill Jesus? Jesus said that what they said is an "accusation." Meaning Jesus had awareness that claiming to be God would indeed be blasphemy. If Jesus had claimed to be God, why call that an accusation, and say something else to the contrary? Why not just agree?

John 10
36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?