Holy Trinity a Fake?

abram

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
2,181
oklahoma
I'm among those few Christian Protestants who don't believe in Trinity [I think that Jesus was the Son of G-d in the sense of the first creation of G-d ... not that Jesus is G-d and I consider the Holy Spirit a Divine Energy, not a Person].

This said, it's evident that it's all about a theological debate. If we want to keep it on the historical layer we should wonder when Trinity became the dominant belief about the nature of G-d.

Now ... to defend the theological conception [which appeared only in II century CE ...] someone says that already in the Gospel of Matthew it was present.

28:19




Nice ... but where it's said that they are the same person?
The idea that "Jesus was the Son of G-d in the sense of the first creation of G-d ... not that Jesus is G-d and I consider the Holy Spirit a Divine Energy, not a Person" is Arianism The major denomination still holding that view is the Jehovah's Witnesses, many of whom identify Jesus with an Archangel such as Saint Michael. The other major non-Trinitarian group in the U.S. are the Unitarian Universalists, who are more similar to the Sabellians who taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are essentially synonymous .

There are various passages in the Bible that are taken to suggest the Trinity : use of the plural Elohim for God in Gen. 1:1; Jesus' statement John 10:30: "I and the Father are one"; 2 Cor. 13:14:The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and jthe love of God and kthe fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." , etc., plus the references by Jesus to sending the Holy Spirit; John 14:16-17). Matthew 28:19 (Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" . and 1 John 5:7-8 (“For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement") are passages most frequently used. Note, however, that the KJV translation of John 5 is more explicitly Trinitarian than others. We have similar statements by Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr. But the connection wasn't made explicit. That seems to have begun in the second century by Theophilus of Antioch who writes of God, Logos and Sophia: and by Tertulian in the third century c.e., who defends the concept against Praxeas. Arianism was defeated at Nicaea in 325 c.e., Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius leading the Trinitarian faction. Arianism was by no means dead. Constantine was baptised on his deathbed by an Arian, and Arianism was supported by Constantius II and affirmed in no less than Eleven Arian confessions by various councils of bishops. as late as 361 c.e. First Nicaea had little to say about the Holy Spirit, whose position was affirmed at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 c.e. Two years later, the formula of Constantinople was reaffirmed in a statement that was not contested by subsequent Arian decarations.
 

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,482
Malaysia
Okay, let's kind of try to see things this way. We have only one Sun, right. Which some folks in the ancient past even considered as their god. Or perhaps their chief god among many other gods.

They all saw only one Sun. So they never said that the Sun had a 'son', who was also the same sun as the Sun. They also never talked about any spirit of the Sun. The Sun, or the Sun God, to them was only the Sun or the Sun God. No three in one concept for them.

So, why was it that Christianity kind of needed to break away from the absolute Unitarianism of its spiritual-theological predecessor, Judaism?
 
Jan 2015
929
England
The idea that "Jesus was the Son of G-d in the sense of the first creation of G-d ... not that Jesus is G-d and I consider the Holy Spirit a Divine Energy, not a Person" is Arianism The major denomination still holding that view is the Jehovah's Witnesses, many of whom identify Jesus with an Archangel such as Saint Michael.
Just a correction, it's not the case that 'many' Jehovah's Witnesses identify Jesus with 'an Archangel such as Michael'. All Jehovah's Witnesses do - it is actually part of our official teachings. And we don't believe he was 'an Archangel such as Michael', because the Bible only talks about Michael the archangel. We do not believe that there is more than one archangel, because the Bible does not speak of more than one. But yes, we do believe that Michael, the archangel, and Jesus, the chief of the angels, are one and the same.

There are various passages in the Bible that are taken to suggest the Trinity : use of the plural Elohim for God in Gen. 1:1;
This is simply the plural of majesty, and it appears in other Semitic languages regarding gods that are known to be singular.

Jesus' statement John 10:30: "I and the Father are one";
He also said the same regarding his disciples, but clearly they are not literally one person. It simply means that they are perfectly in union with each other, just as Jesus prayed that his disciples would be.

Significantly, in John 20:17, Jesus referred to the Father as 'my God'.

2 Cor. 13:14:The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and jthe love of God and kthe fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." , etc., plus the references by Jesus to sending the Holy Spirit; John 14:16-17). Matthew 28:19 (Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" .
Mentioning multiple people or things at once does not mean that those people or things are identical. And in many cases, it can show the opposite. For example, Jesus mentioned himself and God in the same sentence, but in such a way that shows that they are different. In John 17:3 he said: "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." The fact that he differentiated between 'you, the only true God', and himself, Jesus Christ, shows that he did not consider himself to be the same as God, the one to whom he was speaking and identified as the only true God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: abram

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,482
Malaysia
Just a correction, it's not the case that 'many' Jehovah's Witnesses identify Jesus with 'an Archangel such as Michael'. All Jehovah's Witnesses do - it is actually part of our official teachings. And we don't believe he was 'an Archangel such as Michael', because the Bible only talks about Michael the archangel. We do not believe that there is more than one archangel, because the Bible does not speak of more than one. But yes, we do believe that Michael, the archangel, and Jesus, the chief of the angels, are one and the same.


This is simply the plural of majesty, and it appears in other Semitic languages regarding gods that are known to be singular.


He also said the same regarding his disciples, but clearly they are not literally one person. It simply means that they are perfectly in union with each other, just as Jesus prayed that his disciples would be.

Significantly, in John 20:17, Jesus referred to the Father as 'my God'.


Mentioning multiple people or things at once does not mean that those people or things are identical. And in many cases, it can show the opposite. For example, Jesus mentioned himself and God in the same sentence, but in such a way that shows that they are different. In John 17:3 he said: "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." The fact that he differentiated between 'you, the only true God', and himself, Jesus Christ, shows that he did not consider himself to be the same as God, the one to whom he was speaking and identified as the only true God.
So, more or less, you're saying that Jehovah's Witnesses do not subscribe to the doctrine of a divine Jesus, but only Jesus as the Archangel Michael. Now, that is really a vast climbdown from mainstream Christianity.

And now, just as a matter of curiosity, do you guys believe in Melchisedec? If yes, in what way?
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
929
England
So, more or less, you're saying that Jehovah's Witnesses do not subscribe to the doctrine of a divine Jesus, but only Jesus as the Archangel Michael. Now, that is really a vast climbdown from mainstream Christianity.
We believe in Jesus as the firstborn Son of God, the only creature created directly by God (hence 'only-begotten son'), because he was used as the means by which God created all other things. We do believe he is extremely powerful, far more powerful and with far more authority than any of the other angels. We just don't believe that he's God, because the way we see it, he clearly worships God himself (he referred to the Father as 'my God' to Mary, and in Revelation he refers to 'the temple of my God', and in John is constantly reiterates the fact that he is merely doing what he has been taught by his Father, and he makes a distinction between himself and ‘the only true God’ whom he was sent by).

And now, just as a matter of curiosity, do you guys believe in Melchisedec? If yes, in what way?
Absolutely, because he's definitely there in the Bible. The Scriptures don't reveal much about him, but we believe that he was a king-priest directly designated by God, who lived in the time of Abraham and ruled over the area that later became Jerusalem. Why? What are the various 'ways' that it is possible to believe in him?
 
Last edited:

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,482
Malaysia
I did not mean that mortal, human Melchisedec, but the one that has been described by some, according to what I have read, is more like some kind of divine or near divine being. Like on the same level of Gabriel or Archangel Michael, or even, as some would have it, the Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
929
England
I did not mean that mortal, human Melchisedec, but the one that has been described by some, according to what I have read, is more like some kind of divine or near divine being. Like on the same level of Gabriel or Archangel Michael, or even, as some would have it, the Holy Spirit.
No, we just believe in the Melchizedek mentioned in the Bible - the one whom Abraham encountered. We base all of our beliefs on the Bible (for instance, this is why we only believe in one archangel, because the Bible only mentions one - calling Gabriel an archangel is from later tradition).
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,477
Dispargum
So, why was it that Christianity kind of needed to break away from the absolute Unitarianism of its spiritual-theological predecessor, Judaism?
I'm guessing it has to do with the concept of salvation. Jesus as savior, would seem to have too big a job for a mere prophet to perform. God cursed Adam and all of his descendants for the original sin of eating the apple. Only another God can undo that divine curse. So now there are two Gods - the Old Testament Father God and the New Testament Son God. But I would argue that Christianity did not break away from the unitarianism or monotheism of Judaism. That would have been an easier solution - simply acknowledge the existence to two Gods. I don't know why Christianity insisted on monotheism. Monotheism certainly complicated things to the point that only the Trinity could make sense of it all.