Someone recently noted that the word "trinity" is not found in the scriptures.  While that is true, that does not negate the concept behind the term.  The Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son are all described in scripture as God (John 8:58 & Acts 5:3-4 is but one example) Yet we know that God is one.  The term "trinity" merely is a man-made word to describe biblical truth...and there is nothing wrong with that.\n\nIncidentally, the first occurrence in John is "TON THEON", not "HOTHEOS".  The 2nd occurrence is "THEOS".  \nResorting to "conspiracy theories" makes for a foolish argument.  The Gospel of John was so widely dispersed by the early 2nd century that attempts to "edit" the wording would have been physically impossible.  These are simple facts if you chose to be honest with them.\n\nFinally, The "Isaiah Scroll" (Dead Sea Scrolls) is a stark witness against "editing" claims.  This scroll (200BC) was a full 1000 years earlier than previously exsisting manuscripts.  Read Isaiah 53!
200885
First, as is obvious from the above comments, people don't read historical documents.  They hear something from a preacher and accept it as true.\n\nSecond, I believe the primary source of the current conspiracy theory on the bible is Chick Publications who do publish actively pamphlets on a Catholic Conspiracy to alter the bible.\n\nThird, in one case a denomination really did edit the bible.  The Jehovah's Witnesses have mistranslated, or from their point of view correctly translated, the bible.\n\nFourth, the Deuterocanonical books are a source of confusion.  Luther removed James, Jude, Revelations, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, parts of Esther and Daniel.  Lutherans put James, Jude and Revelations back after the Ecumenical Council at Trent.  The other books remain out of their canon.  The problem comes with the novel idea of sola scriptura.  Like predestination, it lacks any precedent prior to the 16th century.  It is a purely man made, unscriptural doctrine and goes against all prior Christian thought.  However, if you decide to use sola scriptura as your decision tool, then what makes it into scripture matters at a profoundly different level than in the older forms of Christianity because it alters the role of scripture completely.  This means that if you base your appeal on scripture and someone is using a different set, the charge that "they" edited it comes up pretty easily.\n\nThe process of choosing books was in process long before Constantine and was really triggered by the presbyter Marcion's heretical sect forcing orthodox Christianity to look at the books read during the Mass.  The current list was promulgated by Pope Innocent and Damasus following the local synod at Carthage's work and the synod at Hippo Regius and possibly a synod at Rome as well as prior work by other of the Fathers.\n\nConstantine's role was somewhat practical.  The books were in separate form and most congregations could not afford all the books and there wasn't agreement until the year 405 what books should be in it.  His role was to push for a single set of books and that the church spend to get them.  He returned three centuries of seized property of Christians tried and executed for their faith.  He didn't make Christianity the state religion, but in handing back all that property and making it legal, the effect was about the same.\n\nFinally, until the late 19th century many Protestant translations were quite poor.  A simple example of this comes from the "scriptural" Christmas carol.  The verse, "Peace on Earth, good will toward men," is not in the bible.  It is "Peace on Earth toward men of goodwill."  It wasn't really the translator's fault.  They lacked access to the oldest documents, which were in Catholic and Orthodox hands.  When they were permitted access they began retranslating the bible and found that their bibles often matched Catholic bibles.  This triggered a big response in many Protestant denominations because key verses disappeared.  Some extreme denominations lost their justification for existance.  So, it wasn't really "editing," so much as correcting and improving as the textual record improved.\n\nThat, while a long time ago, is retained in the oral traditions and memories of some modern Protestant groups.\n\nLike evolution, arguments about the trinity are arguments about sola scriptura.  Without sola scriptura, the evolution problem disappears as does the trinitarian problem.  If you take sola scriptura to its logical extreme, you have intelligent design, Christomonism, and bibliolatry.
320910
The apostles after his death continuously referred to him as he Son of God.  But I look for a more logical way.  The scriptures said that Jesus was without sin and that he had no deception in him.  If that is true and it is, why did he always refer to God as the Father if indeed he was not. And why did the Father always refer to Jesus as his son if he wasn't?  If Jesus was not praying to His father as he said he was, would that be deception? Yes! If at the time of his baptism and voice came out of the heavens and said in effect, This is my beloved Son, if that is not true, is it deception?  Some say it is a MYSTERY and can't be explained.  the real mystery is how anyone can belief such rubbish that God and the Son are the same.  The only place that it says that I (Jesus speaking) and the Father are One, is referring to UNITY of belief and teachings.  Look up that scripture and go back to the previous chapter and the verses before that quote and you will find that the subject is unity of teachings and purpose and not oneness in being.  The Jews accused Jesus saying that he was God so they could punish him by death.  He never said he was.
321042
Various citations regarding the errors of the Trinity, by Catholic Theologians, Protestants, Scholars & Historians, etc: \n\nRegarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.”\nDr. Edgar J. Goodspeed, the Bible translator, on 1 John 5:7: “This verse has not been found in Greek in any manuscript in or out of the New Testament earlier than the thirteenth century. It does not appear in any Greek manuscript of 1 John before the fifteenth century, when one cursive has it; one from the sixteenth also contains the reading. These are the only Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in which it has ever been found. But it occurs in no ancient Greek manuscript or Greek Christian writer or in any of the oriental versions. . . . It is universally discredited by Greek scholars and editors of the Greek text of the New Testament.”- Page 557 of The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament—The American Translation and The King James Version. Edition of 1943. \n\nA PROTESTANT publication states: “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.” (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) \nEdward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”\nBernhard Lohse says in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: “As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity.” \n\nThe New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology similarly states: “The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. Also the Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence said [Protestant theologian Karl Barth].” \nYale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: “To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; they say nothing about it. ”- Origin and Evolution of Religion. \nHistorian Arthur Weigall notes: “Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word Trinity appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord. ” The Paganism in Our Christianity. \n\nThe New Encyclopedia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. By the end of the 4th century - the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.” (1976), Micropedia, Vol. X, p. 126.\nThe New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation one God in three Persons was NOT solidly established, certainly NOT fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299\n\nIn The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing that God is one being). The road which led from
627861
I agree with you completely. I am a christian, but I do not believe in the trinity theory. and there are ALLOT of references like this one that points toward the fact that they are not the same. A few of them are: after Jesus got baptized, God said to him, "this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." would he talk to himself? also when the people asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, Jesus taught them to pray to God, not to himself. If he was God why wouldn't he have the people pray to him? yet another, Jesus on the cross said "My God, why have you forsaken me?" would God not only talk to himself, but also forsake himself? A final one... the bible says that the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming the holy spirit (Mark 3:29). If they were all the same, then blaspheming any of them would be unforgivable. They are very separate beings, and not the same.
515631
Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching? IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible.  A PROTESTANT publication states: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God."—New Catholic Encyclopedia. The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word  [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian." The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]." "The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One."—The Paganism in Our Christianity. \nAlso, if the trinity is true why does Jesus say he is goiing to pray to his heavenly father, and that he doesn't do anying of his own initiative, but he does the will of his father that sent him...
661705
You are right. Trinity is a pagan belief and imagined by so called Christians. Here are some thoughts:\n\nJohn 1:1. The verse speaks of two Gods, but it does not imply equality. Too, the holy spirit is not mentioned in that verse. By the way the word "god" or "God" is a title and can be applied to Jesus. ( Psalm 82:1-6; etc)\n\nThe holy spirit is not a person. It is God's active force. See Acts 2:1-4. As such "it" can be given to persons. ( Example see John 20:22) It has no name, no face--unlike the father, and the son.\n\nMat 28:19. Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit. Does not imply the personality of the spirit, nor the equality of the 3. Since the holy spirit has no name. The word "name" in that verse refers to reputation. ( Psalm 22:1). Things--like electricity, roads, holy spirit--have reputations.\n\nJesus himself admitted that his father is greater than he is. (John 14:28) He admitted that he has limited powers. ( See Matthew 20:20-23; 24:36; John 5:30, etc) So, how can he be equal in power to God?\n\nOh well, you can not convince people who have made up their minds. Those who try to support the trinity are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. They simply can not.\n\nAs the saying goes: 'DO NOT GIVE ME THE FACTS, I HAVE ALREADY MADE UP MY MIND'.
398206
The notion of the Trinity was (I believe) first coined by Tertullian in approx. 200 AD to refer to 3 of something, though vague references to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit being one are present in the New Testament (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14 and a few more).  It was not until LATER theological study that the idea became part of the Christian Orthodox dogma.  It was made official by the first Council of Nicea, hence the line in the Nicene Creed: "And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the giver of life, who proceeds from the father, whom together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the Prophets."
585735
the trinity matter is quite a mystery that's difficult to verbalize.  as long as human are trying grasp all concepts related to "God," there are going to be loopholes and errors, and the like.  \n\nI hope you're not simply looking for fault.\n\nRemember, you might have eloquence of an angel, but if you don't have love..................
123723
The ASKER wants arguments. Yes, this is a good question to really PROVE or DISPROVE a belief. Here is another argument AGAINST:\n\nPrem1: The Bible says that there are many gods, but only one true God the Father. ( 1Corinth 8:5,6; Psl 82:1 )\n\nPrem 2: JEHOVAH is the Almighty God. He is the God of gods. (Ex 6:3; Deut 10:17, King James of 1611 )\n\nPrem 3: Jesus is a god (or God). But he himself admitted that the Father is greater than he; that there are things Jesus can not do. (John 1:1; 5:30; Mat 20:20-23; 24:36,etc )\n \nCONCLUSION: Therefore, although there are many gods as the Bible says, these gods are of lesser power or might compared to Almighty God, JEHOVAH. Further, although Jesus is a god (or God to some) he has Limited powers or authority as he himself admitted.\n\nNote please re. 1John 5:7: "...these three are one" is a GLOSS--or a mischievous insertion--according to some Biblical scholars. That is why in some revised King James Version, these words are omitted. In some translations you won't find these words.\n\nTo the unbiased reader: \nJesus himself said: 'you must love God with all your MINDS...”  Judge for your self whether the Trinity is really a Biblical teaching, or just men's tradition to invalidate God's words.
253395
Well all this bloodline business is pure speculation, however that Jesus was married to the Magdalene is more than speculation since we have evidence in the writings of the earliest christians. You are right to say the christians never thought Jesus was god and such ideas crept into christianity centuries later. Once the church voted on the divinity of Jesus, they picked & chose the writings which suited them (and it's interesting that even with all the picking & choosing the so-called NT still does not declare that Jesus is god). DC is simply stirring up the old issue again and people are sick & tired of churches dictating what god is. And no, the churches do not like people to go sniffing into the past.
597135
Jesus is NOT God.\n\nJesus proclaimed to be The Son of God.\nJesus is The King of Kings. Lord of Lords.\nJesus Christ is the only way to The Father Jehova.\nJesus Christ is the 2nd in The trinty, not the First.\nThe Holy spirit is the 3rd in the Trinity, not the 2nd.\n\nGod The Father..Jesus The Son. The Holy Spirit in the Trinity, just in that order.\n\nIf Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, He would be called "God in the flesh". Jesus is called"The Son of God"., for a reason. Because He is.\n\nJehovah God said what?  I will have NO other God's before me.\nDon't put Jesus Christ before Jehovah God.\n\nWe are Christians and ONE in Christ through the Blood. \n\nJehovah, Jesus, The Holy Spirit are ONE through the power of God.\n\nWe are Christians _Christ like.\nWe are not Jehovians, Jehova-likes.\nIf we were Jehovah like, we would be "equals to God.\n\nWe are God's children, not God's equals.
244394
This is something that is causing great concern for me as a Pastor.\nThe concept of Jesus is God seems to me to be denying the Father.\nIf it is in reference to , Father, Son and Holy Ghost, saying it in that manner only serves to confuse the person you are talking to.\nAs a Pastor I worship God, the Father,  and serve HIS SON, Jesus Christ.
230599
There is no evidence at all that the Council of Nicea was infallible. There is no evidence at all that what we presently have as "the Bible" is what G_d intended mankind to have as the total picture of the message to humanity from G_d. When one reads, as a example, The Gospel of Thomas, it's clear that the sayings there are for the most part the earliest and clearest renditions of the words of Jesus the Christ. I say that first of all because of how they hit my inner man and the Holy Spirit within me and secondly because they are the only words attribited to Jesus the Christ that make sense and jibe with the historical record. The Jesus of the Roman Catholic approved Gospels is if not a total Systemoid, at least not very threatening. In fact its impossible to imagine that anyone encountering the guy in the four Roman Catholic Gospels would want to crucify him, BUT THE GUY IN THOMAS whould anger any entrenched powerful institution. He has the Hard edge to him of a prophet of G_d, just like one would expect Messiah to have.\n\nBut then I dont believe Pauls letters are scripture, nor do i believe he was a Apostle, or even a Pharasee.....So I'm a "heretic" so what?
101901
IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God's revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is. \n\nFirst-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to people in the city of Beroea, "they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so."—Acts 17:10, 11. \n\nA PROTESTANT publication states: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God."—New Catholic Encyclopedia. \n\nThe Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word  [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."
142316
No version of the Bible is correct. They can't even get Jesus's name right (Isa) or answer why the concept of the Trinity didn't show up in the original manuscripts of John, and yet it started showing up in the Latin translations out of no where.\n\nAny Christian 300 years believed that the Bible is the word of God, and yet it was neither written by God, nor by Jesus, only by people who were assistants to the disciples of Jesus, and wrote what the disciples remembered Jesus saying 50 years after Jesus's ascension into heaven. Also if the Bible is the "complete word of God", then why is it that even to this day, there are extra passages and scriptures being included into it and being found (i.e. The dead sea scrolls)?
567275
They probably belongs to one of these cults that deny the trinity. But\n\n YES, it is in the Old Testament. Genesis 1:1: In the beginning, Elohim created. That is not Yahweh, Elohim is a plurality, meaning more than one. Just like Cherubim and Seraphim, angels. Anything that ends in “im” is more than one.\n\nNow, we know that God the Father was there, and you believed that. But in Genesis 1:2, the Holy Spirit moved upon the face of the waters. Then in Proverbs 30:4, it says, who hath created all the ends of the earth? Who hath created the world? What is God's name and what is His Son's name? That’s not the New Testament, that’s the Hebrew Scriptures. In Isaiah 9:6-7, it says, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given. And what is the name of this son? The "Mighty God" in the next verse.\n\nYou see this? READ YOUR HEBREW SCRIPTURE, MY FRIEND.\n\n\n\nRapture\n\nThere is no conflict, it’s probably that you do not understand that there are two “appearings”: two comings of Christ - both with an “R”. The first is the “Rapture”. That's when we hear the words, “come up hither” in Revelation 4:1 and we're caught up in the twinkling of an eye, I Corinthians 15:52. The dead in Christ rise first, then we which are alive and remain are caught up with the dead in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, I Thessalonians 4:16.\n\nNow the tribulation hour begins in chapter 6. We're already gone in chapter 4, with the come up hither. We get to verse 12, we have this problem with the sun you mentioned, but that precedes His coming back to earth, the second part of the Second Coming called His “Revelation”, or his revealing on earth. And revelation 6:12 says, “there was a great earthquake and the sun became black as sack cloth of hair and the moon as blood”. You find it again in Joel chapter 2, verses 30 and 31. But Jesus pinpoints the time in Matthew 24:29, immediately after the tribulation of those days, after the 7 years will the sun become darkened and the moon shall not give her light. Then Christ returns with his people for Jude 14 says the lord comes with ten thousands of his saints. You need to study the two “appearings” - the two “comings” of Christ, my friend.\n\nI always remember a child being taught  about the " Rapture" in the Catholic schools, but They called it" being caught up into heaven". Why do our churches seldom mention the event?\n\n Catholic school they taught it as “being caught up”. That is I Thessalonians 4:17. You know, someone said you can't find the word “rapture” in the Bible. But you can in the Catholic Bible, the Latin Vulgate by Saint Jerome. When he gets to I Thessalonians 4:17, he uses the word “rapiamore” – it means raptured – where it says, “caught up” in our English versions.  Why don't more churches do it? They don't study and they don't know what the Bible says. They don't study the catechism – they don’t study the Word of God. God forgive us for that situation. \n\nI believe probably the most obvious would be events that happened in the Old Testament that seem like the Rapture. And, we have some in the Old Testament.\n\n Well not actually what takes place at the Rapture, for then we get brand new bodies, to be like the body of Jesus, I John 3:2-3.\n\nHowever, there were two men in the Old Testament who were snatched up to meet the Lord in the heavenlies. Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. Now it was a form of the Rapture, but it wasn’t really the Rapture, because he’s on the other side in his old body. It was not changed as he went up. And then in 2 Kings 2:11, Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven, but he’s still there in his body. All the others are there as spirits, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, 2 Corinthians 5:8. And James teaches us that, chapter 2:27, as the body went out, the spirit is dead, because t
48070
Trinity is not excepted because people do not understand the meaning but they think they do but are wrong. The true meaning you said before. Three + unity = trinity. 1+1+1=3. The 3 being as a single digit representing God but containing 3 whole separate numbers representing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These 3 are equal but have diferent functions. an egg contains 3 parts but is one also. 3 in 1 motor oil has 3 diferent typs of lubricating substances but are mixed as one, yet have diferent lube propertys and purposes. Trinity has a complex understanding in which many people will not agree because of thier lack of understanding. 2 people will believe the same thing but one will deny the trinity.