Thank you for the exchange Hyroglyphx ...
Your avies have been makin' me ROTFLin'.
Hyro writes:
Peg writes:
[The 'Trinity' doctrine] was first instituted as doctrine in the middle of the 3rd century...so its not really a bible teaching.
The concept of the trinity is all throughout the bible: John 1, Romans 1, 1st Peter 1, etc...
It appears quite likely that the majority of those who study scripture apart from doctrine may be quickly inclined to disagree. The fact that you did not decide to list any examples from the original testaments seems to strengthen such a notion. Of all the examples given above, of which the
Comma Johanneum may prove the most spurious, not one was extracted from outside the Roman church testaments.
Such facts simply strengthen Peg's argument. Additionally, the clause mentioned above, indeed a tarnished prize to trinitarians, has since been removed from many different published translations due to its absence from, as well as its, widely held to be, unauthorized insertion into early manuscript texts.
It may have never had a word or name to it, which was later expressed, but I think that basic concept has been around from its inception.
There certainly is no plain expression from scripture that identifies a trinity, sacred or otherwise. Also, all things exist from the moment of their conception; the question is, where may one identify this supposed inception regarding a trinity of sorts as it is assumed to relate to scripture? Again, Peg's answer seems most reasonable apart from indoctrination. One may have an easier go at establishing the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes as a trinity.
Although, one may need to incept such a unique doctrine ... before one can begin establishing it within the Roman scripture text collection.
Whether or not Hebrews or early Christians assimilated the pagan concept of a triune deity is a matter of debate.
Perhaps the doctrine in question is a matter of debate, but likely more often to those who accept it without research. Imho, a cursory examination provides very little evidence, especially as the extent to which this doctrine has been manufactured is exposed. A more thorough investigation will likely return a very questionable, and not at all certain, verdict, which in itself proves, to an extent, that such doctrine has little to no actual support. Otherwise it should seem to be most obvious to identify, when pointing out to those who have not been indoctrinated, which is seldom the case.
I liken this dynamic to seeing various objects within cloud formations; you may not see the elephant in the cumulous clouds until I point it out to you, yet ...
Then there is the fact that what we share in our perception at that point is indeed not an elephant in actuality.
We already know that is a distinct possibility.
Very distinct. Perhaps even bordering obvious for many secularists and often even more so to what have, due to a rejection of the highly questionable conceptualization, become popularly cast as heterodox traditions. As an aside, it is quite easy, with little to no provisions for challenge at all, to provide verse after verse, upon verse, establishing that the Father is One. Yet, as far as scholarship goes, the best verse used to support a hybrid three-in-one godhead is currently a documented forgery not found in any of the earliest recovered manuscripts.
The
Codex Sinaiticus, recently published online in its entirety btw
(woot woot!), which contains a Syriac translation of the synoptics gospels, as well as the booklet dedicated to the name of Yochan, predates the
Peshitta and has the last page of the Matisyahu gospel booklet missing. To add a further bit o' mystery, scholarship also suggests that the oldest Latin texts are missing that page as well, which draws heavy criticism towards employing Matisyahu 28:19 as a reliable inspiration which may have supported a trinity doctrine in its usual ambiguous fashion.
Additionally, the passage makes no mention of, nor does it lend any credence to, any alleged co-eternity, co-equality or co-substance which many press so hard towards. Finally, within all the vastness of scripture, this is likely the only area, and actually the most common verse employed by trinies, wherein one may, in an attempt to perhaps embolden the flailing doctrine, suggest whether, or not, the Ruach HaKodesh may possibly be asserted to possess 'a name'.
ALL Christian holidays have pagan influence: Christmas and Easter most notably.
It seems an admirer of Yeshua HaMashiach may identify more naturally with the observances that their Mashiach indeed observed, such as Passover, etc..
Yet, 'most notably' indeed, aside from all the festivals and feasts dedicated to Patron Saints, which the majority of traditionalists flat out reject as pagan concepts, further refusing to carry such observances over from Catholicism to Christianity. At this point, some may assume, '
But the early catholic tradition is christian, not pagan', without realizing that the Roman Catholic Church does not bear the name of Yeshua in
any way, shape or form and is rather exactly what it has always publicly referenced itself as; the Roman Catholic (Universal) Church, thus standing identified by its own words from day one.
It is not, and was never, the 'Church of Yeshua HaMashiach' or the 'Christian Church of God', but has always been the 'Roman Universal Church' ...
And, as such, the Inventor of the Trinity conceptualization as relating to catholicism, or Katherine-ism.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
™ Version 4.2