The Trinity
Ξ April 29th, 2008 | → 19 Comments | ∇ Life |
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
Stumble it!
on April 29th, 2008 at 12:37 PM
You and I are very much in sync lately! This has been on my mind a lot. Well done in introducing some of the issues.
A high-school girl at our church has a Muslim teacher who took the time to get a bible and put post-it notes with questions on about 50 different pages, then return it to her for her ministers (at my church to answer). 40 of the questions are about the trinity, as Muslims see that as polytheistic.
My father-in-law is also teaching a class right now on the oneness of God. It’s something he never would have considered a few years ago, but I guess his talks with me are starting to poison his mind.
Trinity is certainly a completely ungraspable concept, and scholars will almoast universallly agree that it’s never spelled out clearly in the bible. Yet, as you said, it’s a “required” doctrine. Fascinating!
on April 30th, 2008 at 3:02 AM
hi Don.
you raise some very interesting points here. like yourself, the doctrine of the trinity has never made sense to me or struck me as that important. i see no reason to tie myself up in knots over it and am happy with my agnostic position.
if G-d = 3 persons in a similar manner that light is both a wave & a particle, then so be it. either way, believing it (or not) won’t make me more or less Christ-like.
go well meantime.
Russ.
on April 30th, 2008 at 7:51 AM
Russ- Thanks for commenting. My raison d’etre here is, of course, to get reasonable people to thinking on their own, to question the previously unquestionable, venture out into unknown territory.
on May 1st, 2008 at 8:49 PM
I was always taught that the Trinity, 3 in 1, principle was much like water. H2O can be liquid, ice and vapor, depending on temperature. This is a reasonable explanation, much like the light wave and particle analogy, but the whole concept has never been that theologically important to me either. Scriptures always to seem to me to keep the 3 as individuals as well as the Apostles’ Creed.
The biggest reason to me for the church to demand the Trinity doctrine to be taught is, I think, to keep the church from sounding polytheistic, as you mentioned. Nice observation and great topics.
How great it was to see you in DFW this past weekend! I wish it could have been longer. Bless you, Don!
on May 3rd, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Hi Jared- Thanks for commenting. I really enjoyed our short visit and look forward to a longer one. I just finished “The Spontaneous Healing of Belief”. I believe your Dad has too. Hope you get a copy of it. It is revolutionary!
on May 8th, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Is God three or is He one and does it matter?
1.In Genesis 1:26 says, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. Why is God using Us and Our instead of Me and My?
2.John 1:1-2;14 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. 14-And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” So the Word was with God, the Word was God, and the Word became flesh. So far it appears that God is 2.
3.Mark 3:29, “But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” What does this mean? If the Holy Spirit is not God then why is it important not to blaspheme against the HS?
I have tried to keep it simple because I am an old college student (almost 30) who has more important things to write (like the stuff I am paying for). I would like to state where I am on the journey. I do believe that God resides in three persons. Does this make sense and does it have to? I don’t believe so. Why must it make sense to us in order for it to be true.
I do believe in a literal hell but I do not believe that God sends anybody there just as a judge does not send anybody to prison. If there is no hell then why did Jesus die on the cross? I do believe that people must be told about Jesus and what He accomplished on the cross otherwise verses like Romans 2:14-15, 2 Peter 3:9 make no sense. I also don’t believe in stressing hell, judgement, damnation, and torment. I want to persuade others to be followers of Jesus because of Who He is not just what He did on the cross. Jesus is love. I believe He wants to restore people to what God originally intended them to be.
I do not believe bashing somebody with eternal damnation does a lot of good at all. People who want to say that the bible is only about judgement are becoming like the pharisees found in the gospels. They have strict rules and laws that people couldn’t keep. We can’t keep the rules that fundamentalist have set before us either. I still think God is 3 in 1 but at the same time I think Jesus wants to restore us to the Father. Without Jesus I believe this to be impossible. Once someone is restored to Jesus I believe it is time to get to work and make more disciples, baptize and teach them what Jesus taught His original disciples. Grace and peace to you Don.
Because of Jesus,
David Knapp
(I did not write this in order to change your mind, plus I don’t believe either one of has a lot of time to debate.)
on May 8th, 2008 at 9:23 PM
David- Thanks for your comments. There is an obvious disjoint between you and I when it comes to the verses of the Bible. In my opinion, none of the verses which you cited prove the point you we’re trying to make. I could fill another separate post with verses which clearly show that Jesus, time and time again refered to God as a separate entity. For brevity’s sake, I will offer small few:
Mark 14:32-36 clearly has God as Jesus praying to himself.
Jesus said, …”I am returning to…my God (mou theos)…”
John 20:17
“John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him [God] which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.” (Revelation 1:4-5)
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.” (2 Corinthians 13:14) Three separate entities, not 3-in-one.
“The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)
Jesus asks, “Why do you call me good? Only God is good.” (Mark 10:18) Also in Matthew 19:17; Luke 18:19.
“No one has ever seen God.” (John 1:18) Yet crowds of people saw Jesus.
“Father, if it is Thy intention, let this cup pass from me, however, not my will but thine be done” Luke 22:42
Maybe the most famous one is the one made from the cross:
“My God, My God, (mou theou)why have you forsaken me?” Mark 15:34
“I do believe in a literal hell but I do not believe that God sends anybody there just as a judge does not send anybody to prison”
David, that is exactly what a judge does. He rules on law that has been broken, and “sends” the criminal to prison for his crimes. This is exactly what traditional Christianity says that God does. He assesses your sin. If you haven’t “done” enough to atone for those sins, you go to hell. Why would God create man, after Adam, of course, as an imperfect being. Then expect him to be perfect; to tell him that he loves all mankind, but if man make mistakes and doesn’t measure up, he will be sent to Hell. How can God create an imperfect being and then ask perfection of him with horrible consequences when he fails to measure up.. I believe we have always been in right relationship with God, we just don’t know it. He think there’s something for us to do, when all the time God has already done it for us. This is true whether we accept it or not. THAT is the unconditional love of God.
I know you are busy. I appreciate our dialogue. Please come again and comment if you find the time. Blessings to you.
on May 8th, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Don,
Thank you that there is a place where people can come and have their views heard. Even though we don’t agree on a lot of ideas you still let me speak what is on my mind. Also I think it is good that we can write our thoughts because they actually help us crystalize what we believe.
It is so hard to stay away… tomorrow I must! I disagree that it is the judge who sends someone to prison. If you were sitting in prison and somebody asked you why you were there what would you say? I am in here because the judge put me here? The only reason someone is in prison is because they are guilty of a crime. The judge had no choice but to carry out the sentence because of the situation the guilty person put themselves in but it still the prisoners fault. When a parent spanks (I received those, no timeout for me) their child is it the parents fault for spanking the child or did the child do something to deserve it? You can use timeout instead of spank if you prefer.
I am not all that interested in traditional Christianity, but rather what the bible has to say. It is misinterpretation to say that we can earn our salvation. I am kind of curious of what denomination you came from. Not all evangelicals believe quite the same thing.
I don’t think He did create us as imperfect beings. I believe I became imperfect for the sinful choices I have made and I have made quite a few sinful choices. God doesn’t expect me to be perfect, and knows that task is impossible. God does love all of mankind. I can’t measure up nor can anybody but that is not why they would be “sent” to hell. God is perfect. When we choose not to be perfect then we choose the opposite of God. It is at this moment that we decide our place of destination and it is not God’s fault for that. The blame rest on our shoulders. If these thoughts come from the church you were apart of then I feel bad for your time wasted with them. I am sure there are good people among them but their theology is lopsided.
If we have been in right relationship with God then what is the point of Jesus death on the cross. Do you believe that it happened? If so, for what reason? Do you believe in the Jesus as portrayed by the gospel authors? If Jesus death on the cross was pointless then what are we all doing? If it is just all about love then why would a loving God let all of the horrible things happen here on earth? Every year 15 million children die of hunger. If God is all loving then why would He allow this? Here is the point: If we are not at fault for our mistakes then somebody is to blame for the mess of the earth, right? If it is not us then it must be God. I don’t believe it to be God of course. It is because of our choices that 15 million children died last year of hunger. We are to blame, not God. You are right that God has unconditional love for us. That is precisely the reason He sent Jesus to die on the cross for us. My focus is not hell because that has been taken care of. My focus is how I can tell others about Jesus sacrifice so they can be saved from their bad choices and at the same time fill those starving bellies. I believe both of these working in harmony is truly spreading God’s kingdom here on earth. As always, grace and peace.
David
on May 9th, 2008 at 8:04 AM
Don: “You mentioned Paul, and the God-breathed OT. That’s fine, but most contentious issues arise in the NT, which was never intended or called by Paul or any other early writers, “SCRIPTURE”. Paul would be very shocked to see how we are using his “letters” to specific churches (groups).”
Not true. In those days we have Jesus telling the common citizen, “You have heard it was said.” Most didn’t read. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. If they were Jewish they had been taught the Torah their whole life. Now we see Paul telling them to hold to both the Torah and his letters.
I don’t know if it has been asked but what is your thought on the New Testament scriptures. If you think they are fallible then there really is nothing to discuss. Being a follower of Jesus my foundation for any argument on what it means to be a follower must be based from Scripture. If yours is not the same view then it really is a waste of time discussing anything further.
on May 9th, 2008 at 3:49 PM
David-Thanks for your comments. I will try to keep my response brief.
When Jesus said, “You have heard it said…”, He was speaking about the OT to Jews, the people he came to teach. We (Gentiles) were not to be included. Paul was writing his letters to specific groups of followers of Jesus, mostly Gentile followers. Paul was the one took Jesus’ teaching to Gentiles. My belief stands, Paul would be shocked if he knew we were using his letters as scripture. In the Thessalonians quote you gave it says “traditions” not scripture. Traditions speak of accepted ideas and beliefs very much like those of the Catholic Church. Their traditions actually hold a place higher than scripture in some cases, but they’re not scripture. Neither were the “traditions” Paul spoke of. The only scripture Paul knew of and cared about was the OT. He said nothing of his letters.
I guess maybe your last question should have been asked first. Here is my answer:
I do not believe that the New Testament Canon as decided by the Council of Nicea is infallible. I do not believe the NT as we have it today is inerrant, without error. I have seen with my own eyes over 60 errors of significance in the NT text (pick your favorite translation, the errors are there). I have done research which satisfactorily proves to me that Matthew did not write that gospel, Mark probably didn’t write the gospel attributed to him. Luke’s gospel was written by several authors. I don’t believe there is anywhere in the Bible to be found a statement from God about which books in the Bible were authorized by him. The NT is simply a compilation of stories and teachings brought together for the first time by the Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea for the purpose of unifying Christian belief, and solidifying his reign. You cannot imagine the number and variety of Christian sects which existed in the four century; everything from gnostic and mystery sects to those who followed only one are two books as we know them today. Here’s an interesting fact: about 300 years after the Council of Nicea, there were six theological schools in Christendom, one taught its students ET (eternal torment-hell), one taught annihilation of the damned, four taught universal salvation of all mankind.
Why were the majority of theological schools eventually done away with? Very simply, the universal (catholic) church was losing members. The only way they could “stop the bleeding” was to find a way to scare the people back into the church. Augustine, a former pagan who had believed in Hell (from his old pagan religion), created the doctrine of hell for the universal church after becoming one of its leaders. The doctrine of hell was not generally believed or followed for several centuries to come until the church insisted that it be believed. The teaching of the six theological schools prove that fact.
David all I ask is for you to research the facts. Don’t be afraid. The Devil will not seize you (for there is no Devil as you have been taught) You will not be consigned to Hell for questioning whether what you have believed is correct. Christianity does not crumble to pieces because the NT is fallible and contains errors. All of us do well to emulate the life and teachings of Jesus the man. Love was his life as it should be ours. God is unconditional love. No one ever did a better job of expressing God’s love than did Jesus. He himself told us to love God with all our hearts and our neighbors as well. Those were his only injunctions to us.
David, I was raised in a Southern Baptist church. My father and grandfather were deacons. I was a deacon for 21+ years in a very large (12,000 mem.) Southern Baptist church. I am 62 years old.
Blessings to you. I DO hope to hear from you again, but I understand if you wish to end our conversation.
on May 10th, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Hello Don
Just curious. where in the states do you live? And by any chance do you golf?
on May 10th, 2008 at 4:44 PM
John T.- I live in Texas, DFW area.I used to play. Haven’t played in a couple of years.
on May 10th, 2008 at 6:35 PM
I like the fact that you are a learned man. Maybe I can take you out for a round of Golf and pick your brain
on November 24th, 2008 at 8:02 AM
Don, like many of your posts, I’ll have to cogitate on this for a while. To me the Trinity is not complex at all, and I have always been a little amused that others are so confounded by it. To me it is simple. God IS. Everywhere. He is around us like the air. We’ve to reach out and there He is. Whether we believe or not does not change God. He is what He is. If we accept that He is, we open ourselves to being influenced/used by Him. If we walk in awareness, we are in effect, taking big breaths of God, becoming infused with the Holy Spirit, becoming a more Godly presence in this world. The more aware we are of God’s presence, the more anxious we are to be filled with Him. I can believe that God so filled a man like Jesus Christ that He became perfect, and that He died for us, for our salvation, that we might all come closer to God, without fear, to breathe deeply of Him, to live Godly lives. I am not learned. I just know that God exists, and that nothing is more important than that.
on November 24th, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Thank you for your comments. Good one as usual.
on December 2nd, 2008 at 5:45 AM
Don,
Thanks for your comments on my blog. I read your posting here and a selection of the comments. I guess I have never struggled with the concept of Trinity nor have I relied on the verse you critique to sustain it. For me “Trinity” may not be a biblical concept that is defined but seems a “reasonable” term to put some definition to a mystery we can not understand.
Do I believe God is “One”? Yes
Do I believe that One God is represented in more then one distinct part? Yes
How is this possible? No idea
I am trying to get your take on Jesus. Is he more than man but less than God in your view?
on December 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Steve- Thanks for your comment.
“I am trying to get your take on Jesus. Is he more than man but less than God in your view?”
You know, that’s a pretty good assessment of my view. I have found that as I journey, I revise my views and ideas on a regular basis. I was in the church for 59 years and never questioned anything. That is no longer the case. I know our Source has so much more for us and I’m seeking exactly that.
I noticed that you are an educator. I spent 34 of my best years as one.
Blessings to you.
on December 7th, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Don,
About 15 years ago I read the New Testament with the intention to eliminate as much bias as I could from the reading. Trying as hard as I could to not see the Bible through the lens of my upbringing (that I was not highly critical of). What hit me was that my idea of God and Christ did not change at all. My idea of how church operates changed greatly
I was not able to come away with the same view of Christ as you suggest. We differ in that if I read you correctly, Christ occupies the space somewhere between God and man. I see him occupying every space but that…nothing less than God, nothing more than man. Again, how is this possible? No idea
Appreciate your insights though
on December 8th, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Steve- I guess we’ll never answer all our questions (and I have a few!)while on this plane of existence. That, however, doesn’t mean that I’ll stop my journey. There are just so many questions that I “couldn’t” ask for almost 60 years. Now at 63, I’m just getting started with asking them. The remarkable freedom in God I have found allows any question to be asked. I like that. No guarantees, however, that I find the answer. But, I shall keep on keepin on. Blessings to you brother. I like our discussion