Do you have a problem understanding the concept (doctrine) of the Trinity? If you do, you are not alone. I know of no one who can explain the idea to me where I can comprehend its intricacies. A doctrine which is such an integral part of modern Christianity should have numerous verses in the Bible which would help us grasp the basics. Not so. In fact, as far as I know, there is only one verse and a very questionable verse at that, which is used to corroborate the doctrine as we have it. That verse is: I John 5:7-8. One verse? Yes, one verse. Of course, supporters of the doctrine will point out other references to the Trinity. But, upon further examination, we find that references are to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as separate. None of the references actually say the the three are one ("three-in-one").
Let’s look at a definition of Trinity:
The trinity of God is defined by the Catholic Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature.
However, the trinity was not an idea in the minds of the Bible’s authors. It, instead, originated in the 4th and 5th century CE and cannot be thought of formally as a Bible "belief", except for the aforementioned verse. There is no unambiguous reference to the trinity in the entire New Testament, nor are there any strong suggestions or foreshadowing of the trinity in the Old Testament.
Trinity Was Not In John’s First Epistle in 200 CE
The earliest New Testament manuscripts made no mention of a trinity. Quoting Bishop Clement of Alexandria in 200CE, who was speaking about the verse in I John: "Because there are three who testify, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one." There are three things mentioned in the quote, but there is no mention of a three-in-one god, the "trinity". Nor is any trinity, or anything like it discussed in any of the New Testament manuscripts before about 600 CE, including the Latin and Greek translations. It appears that an addition was made to the author’s verse later.
Trinity Appeared After Several Centuries
After two centuries of extensive disputes about trinitarian doctrine, someone apparently decided to remove the first comma after the word "testify" in the verse and insert "in heaven: Father, Word, and Holy Spirit; and these three are one; and there are three who testify on earth." This late addition appeared in two Latin translations of the Bible, the Old Latin, and the Vulgate Bible. I do not know who did this or why it was done, except to support the idea of a trinity.
The Johannine Comma
The words in bold above represent the addition which has come to be known as the "Comma" or better known as the "Johnnine Comma". With the addition, the verse reads:
"Because there are three who testify in heaven: the Father, Word and Holy Spirit: and these three are one; and there are three who tesify on earth:the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are one."
Evidence Against the Trinity Verse
There are three main reasons for believing that the trinity verse is a late addition:
Virtually No Biblical Corroboration
One would expect to find ample discussion of the Trinitarian doctrine in the New Testament. But, nowhere else in I John is the Holy Spirit or the Word mentioned. Nowhere else in the New Testament is there mentioned a single entity composed of Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. In the much disputed gospel of Matthew passage, Jesus is urging his followers to "go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Here there are three divine entities mentioned, but as individuals, not "three-in-one".
The Greeks Did Not Believe It
During the 1200 years between Bishop Clement’s first mention of John’s gospel in about 200 CE, until about 1500 CE, there appeared 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, but only 8 contain the "Johannine Comma", and these 8 appeared only after 1400 CE, 1300 years after the Bible authors had finished their work.
The Church Doubted It – But Kept Quiet
"The famous passage of the Three Witnesses is found in none of the ancient manuscripts. [Other] facts…militate against the canonicity of the Three Witnesses. However, the Catholic theologian must take into account more than textual criticism." (Catholic Encyclopedia, viii, 436, published under imprimatur of Archbishop Farley; New York, Robert Appleton Co., 1907-1909)
The Catholic church is thus confessing that there is good reason to suspect the trinity verses. But note that the church also said, that in effect, church doctrine took precedent over the truth. It apparently acquisced in a fraud to preserve the only testimony for the Trinity. So much for a church whose Popes had declared: "never deceives and never errs, and shall never err to all eternity".
Other Bible Versions Omit the Trinity Verse
The NIV, the NASB, and the RSV all omit the addition to I John 5:7-8, footnotes stating that some manuscripts add the "Comma". The problem with the footnotes is that many naive Bible-believers often mistake footnotes in their Bibles as accepted alternative translations, endorsed by the editors of that version. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For the editors of the NASB, and the NIV, the footnotes are evidence that the editors recognize that the "comma" is fraudulent, and not worthy of inclusion in their Bible.These editors note that the "comma" appears only in "later manuscripts".
The King James Editors Accept the Trinity Verse
The editors of the KJV chose one of the very few, and very late, Greek translations, the Textus Receptus, which contains the false verse. Thus, today the complete fraudulent verse is repeated even in the latest rewrites of the KJV.
In conclusion- Why does the modern Christian church treat this doctrine as an essential Christian doctrine when little, other than dubious references verify its truth? I do not know. Why is such a little understood doctrine so important. We must remember that this doctrine is the main reason that Islam looks upon Christianity as polytheistic. Does not the revelation of the addition of spurious verses into the Bible cheapen its value as a document of great veracity? Does not it call into great question the other disputed verses and passages as probably spurious as well, bringing doubt into the mind of the thinking Christian of today?
*Thanks to Joseph Francis Alward for the research
Ξ April 23rd, 2008 | → 6 Comments | ∇ Life |
I borrowed this from Ernie Fitzpatrick over at: http://www.lrchouston.com/
Torturing people without end, with no redemptive purpose in mind- out right cruelty without end, is the picture of God that Jesus painted? This is Abba Father? Explain it to me please. Justice you say? How is eternal, infinite hell a just recompense for finite temporal sins? Explain that too.
Hans Kung (1928 – is a Catholic priest, an eminent Swiss theologian, and a prolific author and he remains a Catholic priest in good standing, though the Vatican has rescinded his authority to teach Catholic theology) asked the question this way, “What would we think of a human being who satisfied his thirst for revenge, as the church depicts God does, with an eternal hell”?
There’s simply no rational way to answer that!
Explain to me how this shows the moral goodness of God. Sure we have free will, and who gave us that? And that which God gave us, He’s now going to nail us with an eternal hell, knowing full well, in advance (omniscience) what decisions we’d make? Is this in any way rational? God sees this as love? This is just? Is there any sanity at all to such a doctrine?
God is love, and hell is the price for not knowing that? Me thinks literalists speak with forked-tongue! 
Thanks Ernie. Also check out : God is Love, Hell is Not
http://www.godislovehellisnot.com/
Ξ April 23rd, 2008 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
Juanita Bynum, the televangelist/singer has decided to air her marital difficulties with her televangelist husband on two episodes of Divorce Court. She tells the press her marriage is over to Thomas Weeks III. Why would supposed representatives of Christianity choose to air their "dirty laundry" on a program such as Divorce Court? Perhaps the network agreed to give money to her "ministry". This seems to be fairly representative of where modern televangelism is today.
On another subject, Oral Roberts University has been asked to settle the suit brought by two professors who were forced out by the university for alleging financial and ethical wrongdoing by Richard Roberts, the former university president. Several people familar with the lawsuit said that the university had contacted the professors’ lawyers requesting a settlement amount. $2.5 million has been suggested. The overture came after the university was to produce records which would show that two witnesses could prove wrongdoing in the lawsuit. Roberts and his wife Lindsey are accused of spending school funds on shopping sprees, home improvements, and a stable of horses for their daughters. They are also accused of having sent a daughter and her friends on a Bahamas vacation aboard a university jet. The lawsuit also accuses Lindsay Roberts of having spent the night in a school guest house with an underage male nine times. Richard Roberts, son of university founder Oral Roberts, resigned in November, pledging to clear his name. He and his wife have denied wrongdoing.
GOOD GRIEF, CHARLIE BROWN!!
Ξ April 21st, 2008 | → 9 Comments | ∇ Life |
I think that sooner or later those of us who were Christians at one time or still answer to that appellation, are going to have to admit that it is a skewed Christianity at best that we are presented with today. The more I study the NT and OT, the more I can see how today’s interpretation of what both have to say may be hopelessly flawed at best, and at worst, very detrimental to the teachings Jesus gave us, to the interpretations of Paul, and to the very character of the Source of everything, God. Am I the only one who thinks that today’s Christianity is obsessed with "end times" prophecy when the NT seems to clearly state that the END has already come. The END being the "end of the age", 70 CE and immediately after. Why must Christianity today try stretch a generation into 2000 years. This is only one example of the skewed theology of the traditional Christian church. There are many others……….
Ξ April 14th, 2008 | → 5 Comments | ∇ Life |
ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF HEATHEN ORIGIN
We should bear a fact in mind. When the doctrine of endless punishment began to be taught in the Christian Church, it was not derived from the Scriptures, but from the heathen converts to Christianity, who accepted Christ, but who brought with them into their new church that doctrine which had for centuries been taught in heathen lands, but which neither Moses nor Christ accepted. And having received the idea from heathen tradition, it was natural that the early Christians should transfer it to the Bible, and seek to find it there. Words with other meanings in the original Greek texts were suddenly tied to this heathen concept when the NT was translated into Latin, which over time made it appear that hell had always been present in the original manuscripts.
That heathen invented this doctrine is undeniable.
Says Cicero" "It was on this account that the ancients invented those infernal punishments of the dead, to keep the wicked under some awe in this life, who without them, would have no dread of death itself."
Cicero is only one of many of the writers of the Roman period who wrote on the subject.
Says Polbius, the Greek historian: "The multitude is ever fickle and capricious, full of lawless passions and irrational and violent resentments. There is no way left to keep them in order but by the terrors of future punishment, and all the pompous circumstances that attend such fiction! On which account the ancients acted, in my opinion, with great judgment and penetration, when they contrived to bring those notions of the gods and a future state into the popular belief."
This horrible heathen dogma sought entrance into the Christian church in vain for the first three centuries after Christ, and though here and there a heathenized Christian (Augustine) announced it, it did not become an accredited Christian doctrine till after more than five centuries. Dr. Edward Beecher candidly confesses that as late as three hundred years after Christ it had hardly obtained a foothold.
He says: "What, then, was the state of facts as to the leading theological schools of the Christian world in the age of Origen and some centuries after? It was, in brief, this: There were at least six theological schools in the church at large. Of these six schools, one, and only one, was decidedly and earnestly in favor of the doctrine of future eternal punishment. One was in favor of the annihilation of the wicked. Two were in favor of the doctrine of universal restoration on the principles of Origen, and two in favor of universal restoration on the principles of Theodore of Mopsuestia."
That is to say, here were four times as many Universalist theological schools, where clergymen were educated, as there were schools in which endless punishment was taught, even as late as A. D. 300. But from that time onward, as darkness increased, the heathen idea was more and more transferred to the sacred page, till it entirely overlaid and obscured the truth. and it was not until the light of the Reformation began to dawn that the profane inscriptions of heathen tradition were erased from the palimpsest of the Scriptures, so that the meaning of the inspired authors could be apprehended.
*borrowed from, Pantelism.com
*Italics are my additions
Ξ April 9th, 2008 | → 3 Comments | ∇ Life |
Here’s the second article that I’ve pulled from my files. Once again it had no author attached to it. But, it is a very good article. Enjoy!
If we believe that God expects us to measure up to His expectations, then we will expect others to measure up to our expectations. After all, fair is fair. We only do to others what we think God does to us.
But are we seeing things clearly? Or has our perception of God been tainted by years of poisoned teaching? Do we really have a good understanding of the character of God? Or have we, out of weary exasperation, forced the puzzle pieces together in a way that reveals, but severely distorts the picture? Our actions/behaviors are inherently linked to our picture of God.
Sometimes, an honest look at the way we treat other people will give us a more realistic glimpse of our view of God. Do you like what you see? Want to improve your life? Then, improve your picture of God.
I was going through my files recently and found this wonderful post. The problem is I don’t know to whom to give credit. If it is yours, let me know and I’ll give credit where credit is due!
Monday, May 22nd, 2006
I guess the thing that concerns me is that sometimes correct theology becomes more important than our love for other people. I understand that it is important for intellectual people to sort things out in a way that makes sense. We like to construct a picture of God based on all the sources of information we have. Certainly the bible of christianity is a major source, but when we claim it as THE revelation, and THE authority on “all that is God”, then I think we will always struggle to try to lay out the pieces of the puzzle in a way that makes the most sense, and creates the most believable picture of God. I know that I struggled with it for years, and at best, I came away with a complex system of doctrines and rules, that in the end, just didn’t add up… and I finally had to admit that to myself. My questions about conflicting ideas and evident discrepancies were addressed with answers like… “well, Christianity is a paradox. Sometimes you just have to have faith.” Or, “Yes, that’s the mystery of it all. We’ll just have to wait until the end for the answers.”
Huh???
Thing is, I don’t think the early christian writers (including those NOT included in the bible), ever thought their thoughts, ideas, observations, and commentaries would eventually be turned into a rulebook for religion. There WERE disagreements of thought, and conflicting views on subjects, and evolution of thought (just like all of us have as we grow in our beliefs). But, when we use all of this information as a means of interpreting “correct theology”, I think we can only become frustrated, even confused.
For me, the only thing I can agree on (and believe in) is that Jesus revealed the Father’s love and acceptance to all of humanity. It’s like He was saying, “hey, you knuckleheads! GOD ISN’T MAD AT YOU! So enjoy life, knowing that the One who created you, is with you, and accepting of you. Have no fear! Be satisfied! Be fulfilled! Be who He made you to be! And most of all, ENJOY GOD! …Because He enjoys you!
Maybe I’m all screwed up, but I finally have a picture of God that makes sense. I finally have peace and contentment in my life. I am settled, and happy. It’s a real nice place to be. And if what I believe is wrong, then I’ll just have to suffer the consequences. But, does anyone here really believe that God is so concerned with correctness, that He would reject someone for not being “right”? Is that what it’s all about? Does God’s grace depend on our reaction to His message? Or is His grace a simple, unconditional gift to all?… even to those who “don’t get it”?
Ξ April 1st, 2008 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
I have added Steve Jones’ "My Theological Journey" to my blogroll. These articles are extremely valuable as source material. Steve has, with great clarity, written articles on subjects close to our hearts. Take time to read these. They are worth your time.
You may also click here
Ξ April 1st, 2008 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
I am not thoughts, emotions, sense perceptions, and experiences. I am not the content of my life. I AM LIFE. I am the space in which all things happen. I am consciousness. I am the NOW. I AM……*
I AM….Perhaps the most powerful words we can utter. Think for a minute what Moses heard from God when he first met Him. What name did God use for Himself, and what does that name mean?
When we use this term, "I AM", things happen. The universe begins to move. The universe begins to bring to us whatever follows those words…
"I AM health", "I AM abundance", "I AM love"…There are no more powerful words.
*The Stillness Speaks, Eckhart Tolle
Stumble it!
