How did the Trinity doctrine develop in the early church?

[Grailhunter]

The Nicene Creed was adopted in 325 AD, so it seems even older than the supposed first citation of the Old Roman Creed about 341 AD...

Most sources and scholars consider the Old Roman Creed much older than the Nicene Creed developed by the Roman Catholic Church which includes their doctrines. The Old Roman Creed - The Apostles Creed was shorter and its purpose was to be recited at baptism. No reason to debate it is history. But just as a matter of curiosity what source do you have that the Nicene Creed is older?

It would not make a lot of sense because they did not wait 3 centuries to come up with a Creed.

 

[TazzJazz]

John 1:1 wasn't written then :)

Hello, my cousin.

John 1:1 doesn't say anything about a trinity.

 

[walter]

""If it is such a fundamental teaching what did Moses, king David, king Solomon, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob say about it?""
John 1:1 wasn't written then :)

Read 50 different Bibles in English and John 1:1 is translated differently.

 

[rvmb]

Read 50 different Bibles in English and John 1:1 is translated in so many different ways, so what does one translation have to do with another?

Here's a few.
What different message do you get ?
*************************
New International Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New Living Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Study Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New American Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NASB 1995
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NASB 1977
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Amplified Bible
In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.

Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Contemporary English Version
In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.

Good News Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

International Standard Version
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NET Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
Classic Translations
King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

King James 2000 Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New Heart English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

World English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

American King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

American Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

A Faithful Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Darby Bible Translation
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Revised Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Webster's Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Early Modern
Geneva Bible of 1587
In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.

Bishops' Bible of 1568
In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God.

Coverdale Bible of 1535
In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde.

Tyndale Bible of 1526
In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
Literal Translations
Literal Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

Berean Literal Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

Smith's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Literal Emphasis Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Catholic Translations
Douay-Rheims Bible
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Catholic Public Domain Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Translations from Aramaic
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

Lamsa Bible
THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word.

NT Translations
Anderson New Testament
IN the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD, was with God, and the WORD was God.

Godbey New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Haweis New Testament
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Mace New Testament
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.

Weymouth New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Worrell New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Worsley New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

​

 

[HealthyShape]

Most sources and scholars consider the Old Roman Creed much older than the Nicene Creed developed by the Roman Catholic Church which includes their doctrines. The Old Roman Creed - The Apostles Creed was shorter and its purpose was to be recited at baptism. No reason to debate it is history. But just as a matter of curiosity what source do you have that the Nicene Creed is older?

It would not make a lot of sense because they did not wait 3 centuries to come up with a Creed.

I do not think that the Nicene Creed is older as such. I am just saying it is old enough to be even older than the first preserved citation of the Old Roman Creed. Just an interesting fact.

How do you deal with verses like "I and the Father are one"? Or with the closeness "in the bosom of the Father", "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" etc.

 

[rvmb]

Hello, my cousin.

John 1:1 doesn't say anything about a trinity.

Hey Tazz, I simply accept that in some form before Creation, The Father, The Word, The HS existed.
Are there any verses that you are aware of that teach differently ?

 

[HealthyShape]

In the 4th Century there Is literally volumes of words that explained the Trinity, where is "any of the scriptures" in the Bible that says the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, co-equal and co-eternal?

Why is something that is said to be so fundamental, explained fully in the 4th Century but not in the first century?
If it is such a fundamental teaching what did Moses, king David, king Solomon, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob say about it?

My answer would be - because heresies about the nature of God also appeared after the 1st century, so the need to clear things up arose later, after the apostles were already departed.

It is like asking why we have no Scriptures saying whether catholicism or protestantism, arminianism vs calvinism etc. The first church had a bit different worries.

 

[walter]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I stand corrected, thank you, what I meant was most rendered it this way, but about 10 Bibles in English render in another way.

If you want to see them I can look them up?

 

[Grailhunter]

I do not think that the Nicene Creed is older as such. I am just saying it is old enough to be even older than the first preserved citation of the Old Roman Creed. Just an interesting fact.

How do you deal with verses like "I and the Father are one"? Or with the closeness "in the bosom of the Father", "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" etc.

I already gave you a date......
The earliest written form of this creed is found in a letter that Marcellus of Ancyra wrote in Greek to Julius, the bishop of Rome, about AD 341. And they are discussing the Creed that had been around for who knows when.

And Christ explained the "I and the Father are one. It is a concept of unity that also applies to us and is the basis for the concept of the Body of Christ being Christianity. Read carefully

The New Testament Yeshua gives us a clearer explanation of the oneness concept. Speaking to God the Father (He was not talking to Himself) Yeshua says this about the concept of one...John 17:22 “And the glory which to them; that they may be one just as We are one.” Because Yeshua says “just as” this is an exactness, a duplication of a condition that we can achieve, and He states that this condition of “oneness” can apply to us, but it has nothing to do with absorption or singularity, but rather a condition of spiritual union and solidarity between God and us. The next verse further defines this by describing a unity with Christ that would cause the same condition with us as it did with them, a condition of perfection. Again, not talking to Himself, in John 17:23 “I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that You did send Me, and do love them, even as you do love Me.” In this context millions of people could be made one...one being a abstract concept of one, but a more literal meaning of unity, solidarity, and perfection and even a “body” that is considered one....the body of Christ or the body of the Church. And then, the next verse is probably one of the best verses to put this oneness concept into perspective. The leading verses are speaking of the works of the Holy Spirit and then ends with this explanation. 1st Corinthians 12:11-13 “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.”.....So the "Oneness" is something that applies or will apply to all of us and we are not gods nor will we ever be gods.

 

[HealthyShape]

I already gave you a date......
The earliest written form of this creed is found in a letter that Marcellus of Ancyra wrote in Greek to Julius, the bishop of Rome, about AD 341. And they are discussing the Creed that had been around for who knows when.

Yes. And the Nicene Creed is from 325 AD. And the supposed text of the Roman Creed does not contradict the Nicene Creed in any way, it is just shorter. It does not claim there are three Gods.

And Christ explained the "I and the Father are one. It is a concept of unity that also applies to us and is the basis for the concept of the Body of Christ being Christianity. Read carefully

The New Testament Yeshua gives us a clearer explanation of the oneness concept. Speaking to God the Father (He was not talking to Himself) Yeshua says this about the concept of one...John 17:22 “And the glory which to them; that they may be one just as We are one.” Because Yeshua says “just as” this is an exactness, a duplication of a condition that we can achieve, and He states that this condition of “oneness” can apply to us, but it has nothing to do with absorption or singularity, but rather a condition of spiritual union and solidarity between God and us. The next verse further defines this by describing a unity with Christ that would cause the same condition with us as it did with them, a condition of perfection. Again, not talking to Himself, in John 17:23 “I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that You did send Me, and do love them, even as you do love Me.” In this context millions of people could be made one...one being a abstract concept of one, but a more literal meaning of unity, solidarity, and perfection and even a “body” that is considered one....the body of Christ or the body of the Church. And then, the next verse is probably one of the best verses to put this oneness concept into perspective. The leading verses are speaking of the works of the Holy Spirit and then ends with this explanation. 1st Corinthians 12:11-13 “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.”.....So the "Oneness" is something that applies or will apply to all of us and we are not gods nor will we ever be gods.

If the Son and the Father are in a unique and perfect spiritual unity, why to even divide them into three independent beings? They do not have physical individual bodies like we do, so we cannot make just equation between our unity and their unity. We cannot say things like "who sees me, sees you" etc., obviously.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yes. And the Nicene Creed is from 325 AD. And the supposed text of the Roman Creed does not contradict the Nicene Creed in any way, it is just shorter. It does not claim there are three Gods.

yes it does

 

[Grailhunter]

If the Son and the Father are in a unique and perfect spiritual unity, why to even divide them into three independent beings? They do not have physical individual bodies like we do, so we cannot make just equation between our unity and their unity. We cannot say things like "who sees me, sees you" etc., obviously.

Whatever their "bodies" are they have names and sit on thrones and speak to each other and love each other and be pleased with each other. And personal thoughts that are unique to them. And Christ said He did not do His will but the will of the Father. Christ said He did not know the end of them was but the Father did. And Yahweh did not begot Himself.

 

[walter]

I stand corrected, thank you, what I meant was most rendered it this way, but about 10 Bibles in English render in another way.

If you want to see them I can look them up?

- Diaglott (1864) In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.
- The Bible—An American Translation (1935): "the Word was divine".
- The Bible—Containing the Old and New Testaments (Moffatt, 1950): "the Logos was divine".
- The Authentic New Testament (1958): "the Word was divine".
- New Testament in an Improved Version (1808): "and the Word was a god".
- Goodspeed(i) 1 In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.
- NSB(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like God (God-like).
- The New Testament in an Improved Version (1808): "and the word was a god".
- New World Translation (NWT): "The Word was a god".
- In the beginning, there was the Word, The Word was with The God [Greek: ton theon], And [a] god [Greek: theos] was the Word.
John | 2001 Translation

 

[HealthyShape]

- Diaglott (1864) In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.
- The Bible—An American Translation (1935): "the Word was divine".
- The Bible—Containing the Old and New Testaments (Moffatt, 1950): "the Logos was divine".
- The Authentic New Testament (1958): "the Word was divine".
- New Testament in an Improved Version (1808): "and the Word was a god".
- Goodspeed(i) 1 In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.
- NSB(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like God (God-like).
- The New Testament in an Improved Version (1808): "and the word was a god".
- New World Translation (NWT): "The Word was a god".
- In the beginning, there was the Word, The Word was with The God [Greek: ton theon], And [a] god [Greek: theos] was the Word. John | 2001 Translation

Just because of curiosity, I googled what is the "Improved Version" of the New Testament (1808). It is an anonymous work created by Unitarians. Well, what a surprise...

The New World Translation is from another sect - Jehovah's Witnesses - again, an anonymous work.

 

[HealthyShape]

Whatever their "bodies" are they have names and sit on thrones and speak to each other and love each other and be pleased with each other. And personal thoughts that are unique to them. And Christ said He did not do His will but the will of the Father. Christ said He did not know the end of them was but the Father did. And Yahweh did not begot Himself.

This does not prove three separate Gods, but three separate persons. Because they are one spirit, they are one God, one essence. In some places they act as separate persons, in some other places they are described interchangeably.

 

[HealthyShape]

yes it does

Claim that there are three Gods? No, it does not.

 

[walter]

Just because of curiosity, I googled what is the "Improved Version" of the New Testament (1808). It is an anonymous work created by Unitarians. Well, what a surprise...

The New World Translation is from another sect - Jehovah's Witnesses - again, an anonymous work.

Does it really matter what it's named or where it comes from it is a valid translation just like all the rest of them. It just happens to be that most every translation in English is translated by Trinitarians not by Unitarians. Unitarians are a minority and probably prefer to be Anonymous.

Research shows that the Jews before and after the first century were Unitarians, they believed in one God one Person. Not one God 3 Persons.

Yes, mainstream pre-first-century and after, Judaism was a form of strict, "unitary" monotheism, believing in one God who is a single person. The central tenet of Judaism, the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4, declares: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one".

 

[HealthyShape]

Does it really matter what it's named or where it comes from

Yes, of course it matters.

it is a valid translation just like all the rest of them.

No, none of these translations are valid.

 

[HealthyShape]

Yes, mainstream pre-first-century and after, Judaism was a form of strict, "unitary" monotheism, believing in one God who is a single person. The central tenet of Judaism, the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4, declares: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one".

This is a common mistake. Since the 2nd century AD, so called modern Judaism is what you are talking about. But in the first century AD and before, Jews considered at least two powers in heavens, because of many OT Scriptures.

But because Christians identified the second power with Jesus, Jews became "strictly unitarian" in reaction to that. They also selected the proto-Masoretic text in which the prophecies were not so clearly about Christ as in the LXX.

 

[St. SteVen]

Research shows that the Jews before and after the first century were Unitarians, they believed in one God one Person. Not one God 3 Persons.

Research shows?
Who would need to research such a thing?
Obviously the Jews don't believe in Jesus, God the Son.