Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[Runningman]

“Became flesh” does not mean the Word turned into a created being or ceased to be what He was. It means the Word, who was God, took on human nature. You’re forcing a false dilemma—either created flesh or nothing—while ignoring the plain teaching that the Word already was God (John 1:1) and then entered into creation without becoming a creature in His divine nature. Calling it “your god is created flesh” is simply a blatant categorical error on your part. Christianity teaches tabernacling, not transformation of deity into a created thing. And your tone about a “roadblock” only highlights that you’re not engaging the text as it stands. Instead, you’re redefining it so you can knock down a position no one is actually arguing.

"The Word became flesh" is still there. Became means be brought to pass, happen. No matter how you attempt to argue around it, you are stuck between a rock and a hard place with John 1:14. Since flesh is a creation of various compounds and elements, then either the Word became flesh and you accept a created god (idolatry) in your religion or the Word didn't become flesh and you have to reject what the Bible says. I think the route you are trying to unsuccessfully take is, rather than outright deny what John 1:14 says, you are instead trying to change it and disguise it as religious. You're distorting what John 1:14 because the Word being flesh is a stumbling block to your theology.

Romans 1
25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 

[Peterlag]

But if you don't believe He is God..that is just a man doing all that.

What "common men" friends do you have that are considered the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ?

 

[Peterlag]

It should have been taught in second grade that words are not living creatures...

I said to the other employees last week that the word of the boss came down from the office that we all need to be there Tuesday. Nobody believed the boss Frank and his word were two separate living creatures.

If the word of the Lord means something different from the way words are used referring to the word of men? Then God set up different boundaries for me to function in that are different from the way He communicates to me. Thus, English is no longer a useful tool for communication.

The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So, the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So, in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ.

 

[360watt]

Bolded and highlighted in red to make it trinitarian proof. Who is the only God mentioned getting glory in the entire chapter?

The Father getting noted as God does not negate Jesus also being fully God.

This doesn't deny Jesus's deity, but shows the interrelationship in the Godhead.

A statement affirming something doesn't mean the opposite of it is also true..

For example:

Being baptised for the forgiveness of sins.

Doesn't mean 'don't get baptized and you have no forgiveness of sin'

Because of the likes of John asserting belief in Jesus with little mention of baptism.

 

[360watt]

What "common men" friends do you have that are considered the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ?

Then he would be a mortal man that has kingly titles. Some how still able to manipulate the supernatural itself.

If you say he is some kind of lesser God.. then you are polytheistic

 

[e v e]

That's what you are saying. That's not what I'm saying. Words are not living creatures and things don't become people.

short answer:

every ancient text confirms the Word is a being.

- me, retired ancients prof.

 

[e v e]

It should have been taught in second grade that words are not living creatures...

I said to the other employees last week that the word of the boss came down from the office that we all need to be there Tuesday. Nobody believed the boss Frank and his word were two separate living creatures.

If the word of the Lord means something different from the way words are used referring to the word of men? Then God set up different boundaries for me to function in that are different from the way He communicates to me. Thus, English is no longer a useful tool for communication.

The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So, the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So, in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ.

its easy to conceptually confuse fallen earth 'words' with His version of reality.

 

[Peterlag]

short answer:

every ancient text confirms the Word is a being.

- me, retired ancients prof.

Words, Trees, and Cars are not living creatures. There's something wrong if your Bible says they are living creatures.

 

[Peterlag]

Then he would be a mortal man that has kingly titles. Some how still able to manipulate the supernatural itself.

If you say he is some kind of lesser God.. then you are polytheistic

You do not believe in the Christ. To you he's either a god or a man. The following verse talks about people like you.

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,

 

[Peterlag]

If you think cars or trees or words are living creatures.

Then there's something wrong with your Bible if it says those things are living. If the word of the Lord means something different from the way words are used referring to the word of men? Then God set up different boundaries for me to function in that are different from the way He communicates to me. Thus, English is no longer a useful tool for communication.

The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So, the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So, in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ.

 

[Runningman]

The Father getting noted as God does not negate Jesus also being fully God.

This doesn't deny Jesus's deity, but shows the interrelationship in the Godhead.

A statement affirming something doesn't mean the opposite of it is also true..

For example:

Being baptised for the forgiveness of sins.

Doesn't mean 'don't get baptized and you have no forgiveness of sin'

Because of the likes of John asserting belief in Jesus with little mention of baptism.

Let me ask you a question. If someone wrote you long letters about God and, when you read them, the only God they are mentioning the whole time was the Father, would you think they were defining God any differently than the Father? That's what the Bible is like. With Paul's exhaustive defining of God as the Father, he wasn't trying to hint about a different god. Just go with what Paul said, don't add to it and argue against him, and you will see clearly who God is.

So what you are proposing, likely to preserve your beliefs, is a fallacy called an argument from silence, i.e., "Paul didn't say Jesus that Jesus is not God, so we can't rule it out." is the same thing as saying "Paul didn't say God is not a cheese pizza, so we cannot rule it out." The scope of Paul's writings involved defining who God is, not in refuting all of the possible heretical teachings that were abounding The letters are just about getting the truth out there. I would like you to read the first few verses of all of Paul's letters please. Do you see how he opens every letter with saying God is the Father?

 

[Runningman]

short answer:

every ancient text confirms the Word is a being.

- me, retired ancients prof.

I would like to point you to an ancient text called the Old and New Testaments. There is no indicator that the Word is a person, but rather revelation, God's speech, commands, or messages. There is a lot of textual proof for this. Do you contest that?

 

[e v e]

Words, Trees, and Cars are not living creatures. There's something wrong if your Bible says they are living creatures.

it's context. this world is not the real realm where eden paradise and also the satanic principalities are... This current one is Death.

 

[e v e]

I would like to point you to an ancient text called the Old and New Testaments. There is no indicator that the Word is a person, but rather revelation, God's speech, commands, or messages. There is a lot of textual proof for this. Do you contest that?

We are in the fallen realm not eden paradise. This current reality became our situation after the fall but is the wrong context for your point.

 

[Runningman]

We are in the fallen realm not eden paradise. This current reality became our situation after the fall but is the wrong context for your point.

It is a lot bigger than that. We are in a great abyss called "outer space" but the ancients called it heaven. It isn't so much a spiritual destination with harps and cherubs like how you see in oil paintings, rather it's a physical place and we're already spiraling through it at about 67,000 mph. They believed it's fallen, yes, but that eventually it will all be made new. They said it will be the "new heavens" and "new earth" wherein only dwells righteousness just like how "eden paradise" was supposed to be.

Peter described heaven and earth as things that will be physically destroyed and recreated.

2 Peter 3
8Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.
10But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and its works will be laid bare.
11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to conduct yourselves in holiness and godliness 12as you anticipate and hasten the coming of the day of God, when the heavens will be destroyed by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with God’s promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

 

[e v e]

It is a lot bigger than that. We are in a great abyss called "outer space" but the ancients called it heaven. It isn't so much a spiritual destination with harps and cherubs like how you see in oil paintings, rather it's a physical place and we're already spiraling through it at about 67,000 mph. They believed it's fallen, yes, but that eventually it will all be made new. They said it will be the "new heavens" and "new earth" wherein only dwells righteousness just like how "eden paradise" was supposed to be.

Peter described heaven and earth as things that will be physically destroyed and recreated.

2 Peter 3
8Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.
10But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and its works will be laid bare.
11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to conduct yourselves in holiness and godliness 12as you anticipate and hasten the coming of the day of God, when the heavens will be destroyed by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with God’s promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

this humble man says things that give a good start to understanding a few things...
let me know what you think...

 

[e v e]

It is a lot bigger than that. We are in a great abyss called "outer space" but the ancients called it heaven. It isn't so much a spiritual destination with harps and cherubs like how you see in oil paintings, rather it's a physical place and we're already spiraling through it at about 67,000 mph. They believed it's fallen, yes, but that eventually it will all be made new. They said it will be the "new heavens" and "new earth" wherein only dwells righteousness just like how "eden paradise" was supposed to be.

Peter described heaven and earth as things that will be physically destroyed and recreated.

2 Peter 3
8Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.
10But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and its works will be laid bare.
11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to conduct yourselves in holiness and godliness 12as you anticipate and hasten the coming of the day of God, when the heavens will be destroyed by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with God’s promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

thank you... indeed this outer space is a great abyss... but yes, ancients (in a heathen sense of elysian fields, satanic hq (called this version 'heaven').

 

[Runningman]

thank you... indeed this outer space is a great abyss... but yes, ancients (in a heathen sense of elysian fields, satanic hq (called this version 'heaven').

Outer space being heaven is satanic? Ok, we'll see about that. So Jesus ascended to heaven right? Did he ascend to the sky or a spiritual realm known as heaven?

 

[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?


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?

I just like to remind that just as alter2ego does not know where the Trinity comes from, she is just like the Jews who did not know where Jesus came from. That is a common problem of unitarians. So not just unique to the OP.

 

[Runningman]

I just like to remind that just as alter2ego does not know where the Trinity comes from, she is just like the Jews who did not know where Jesus came from. That is a common problem of unitarians. So not just unique to the OP.

This demonstrates severe biblical illiteracy on your part. Jesus identified the Father as the God of the Jews in John 8. Means YHWH is the Father and Jesus acknowledged their accuracy on this point.

John 8
54Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory means nothing. The One who glorifies Me is My Father, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’