The Deception of the Teaching of the Trinity

[christiang]

I see from the capital letters and the abuse that you are rattled.

Bible Gateway gives 56 English versions of Mt 28:19 and ALL of them give the Trinitarian formula.

Shem Tov's Matthew
Shem-Tov's text is basically BH (Vav Consecutive predominates) with a mixture of MH and later rabbinic vocabulary and idiom. In addition the text reflects considerable revision to make it conform more closely to the standard Greek and Latin Gospel texts. The underlying text, however, reflects its original Hebrew composition, and it is the most unusual text of Matthew extant in that it contains a plethora of readings not found in any other codices of Matthew. It appears to have been preserved by the Jews, independent from the Christian community.
Is that really a reliable source?

It sometimes agrees in odd ways with Codex Sinaiticus. It contains some striking readings in common with the Gospel of John, but in disagreement with the other Gospels. ...... ST also contains 22 agreements with the Gospel of Thomas.
You are relying on this for your claims? Seriously?

Where are these quotes from Eusebius? Please give proper references.

If there are "AMPLE OUTSIDE EVIDENCES demonstrating Matthew 28:19 in its original form" where are they?
Please give references

What about the evidence from the Didache that I gave?

Folks reading this please note that christiang claims that a single highly dubious version of Matthew's gospel - supposedly preserved by Jews not Christians, and containing much material not found in other versions, and containing material in agreement with the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas - is in fact the only true version and that all other versions are forgeries.

I only need find one reference for you, for the internal evidence is already compelling enough,

Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920) -- Book 3
"Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name"
Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920) -- Book 3

Now choose who you will believe. I've argued this enough with you.

 

[Mungo]

I only need find one reference for you, for the internal evidence is already compelling enough,

Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920) -- Book 3
"Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name"
Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920) -- Book 3

Now choose who you will believe. I've argued this enough with you.

The internal evidence is not compelling because there is none of any substance. I have already explained the apparent contradiction between Mt 28:19 and for example Acts 8:16. Of course you have not responded to that.

Eusebius. Let's see, Eusebius lived from 260-340. I have given you quotes from three different sources before that date that clearly show the Trinitarian formula of Mt 28:19, and I can give you others. Your one example does nothing to contradict my case.

You one example is hardly "Ample outside evidences"

 

[ScottA]

Is Satan not called god?

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4 [BSB])

Or even Moses?

And the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. (Exodus 7:1 [ESV])

So if Jesus Christ is lesser than God,

You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28 [ESV])

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (John 20:17 [NIV])

Yet he is called God also,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 [ESV])

Did it not occur to you he is simply called God because of the authority given to him by God,

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Matthew 28:18 [NIV])

To be the very exact representation of God,

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (Hebrews 1:3 [NIV])

Just as Adam was made in the image of God,

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27 [NIV])

And subsequently gave him authority over all earth,

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:28 [NIV])

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Genesis 1:28 [NASB])

Yet Jesus Christ was given the highest measure of authority, over heaven and earth, hence why his name is the greatest,

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, (Philippians 2:9 [ESV])

Because EVEN THOUGH THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD, THE FATHER, just like any being that is called "god", Jesus Christ is called "God" because of the authority given to him by God TO BE AS GOD, his very own representation in creation.

If we call Jesus Christ Emanuel, being God with us, whom lowered himself for us...is he lesser for having done so? Certainly not. Or if we have seen Christ, but not the Father, have we not seen the Father also...as he himself said? Of if we are filled with the Spirit of God, shall we not call him Holy, or Spirit, or Helper?

Is not God all this and more?

So, then, if we call him One, or Three, or All in all...is he not even without number? Have we therefore sinned simply because we sometimes speak of him in part, knowing full well he is both One and All? Certainly not. It is no sin.

 

[christiang]

The internal evidence is not compelling because there is none of any substance. I have already explained the apparent contradiction between Mt 28:19 and for example Acts 8:16. Of course you have not responded to that.

Eusebius. Let's see, Eusebius lived from 260-340. I have given you quotes from three different sources before that date that clearly show the Trinitarian formula of Mt 28:19, and I can give you others. Your one example does nothing to contradict my case.

You one example is hardly "Ample outside evidences"

You are readily discarding the quote of Eusebius because you do not want to believe, even though it is there in early writings showing Matthew 28:19 in another form. Yet here you say, "there is no proof", as if I whipped this out of thin air. And you are also blithely unaware that Eusebius is not just any author, he was there at the council of Nicaea when the doctrine of the trinity began to be promulgated. I suggest you read on the history of the council here The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine , which is a good article that helps expose the lie.

And yes the internal evidence is compelling, somehow you cannot get it in your head that:

"in the name of the Father, the son, and the holy spirit" IS NOT "in my name" (which 6 passages in the book of Acts coincide with)

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 [NIV])

because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
(Acts 8:16 [NIV])

So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
(Acts 10:48 [NIV])

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:5 [NIV])

And whatever you should ask in my name, this I shall do, that the father should be glorified in the son. (John 14:13 [ABP])
And everything, what ever you should do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to the God and father by him. (Colossians 3:17 [ABP])

And when they believed Philip announcing good news, the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were immersed, both men and women. (Acts 8:12 [ABP])

These 6 passages IN THE BIBLE ITSELF ALREADY PROVE THAT THE TRINITARIAN MATTHEW 28:19 IS A FORGERY. Yet you refuse to see this OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION because you do not want to see! It's right there before your very eyes, right under your very nose. Yet you are willingly refusing to accept the truth, just like many others have done in the past, for various reasons. You believe a lie.

 

[christiang]

If we call Jesus Christ Emanuel, being God with us, whom lowered himself for us...is he lesser for having done so? Certainly not. Or if we have seen Christ, but not the Father, have we not seen the Father also...as he himself said? Of if we are filled with the Spirit of God, shall we not call him Holy or Spirit? Certainly not.

Is not God all this and more?

So, then, if we call him One, or Three, or All in all...is he not even without number? Have we therefore sinned simply because we sometimes speak of him in part, knowing full well he is both One and All? Certainly not. It is no sin.

It is sin, because you have called God three in contradiction of,

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4 [NIV])

Now, as ONE GOD, AS ONE INFINITE BEING, AS THE ONLY BEING THAT NEVER HAD A BEGINNING, AS THE ONLY BEING THAT PREDESTINES ALL THINGS, THE ONLY BEING THAT IS EVERYWHERE, he has given authority to beings he has created to be "gods", hence why the angel that spoke to Moses was called "God", just as Jesus Christ is called "God", BECAUSE TO BE CREATED AND THUS BE CALLED A "SON OF GOD" IS TO BE LIKE GOD THE FATHER, which is why those who are being conformed to the image of God, WILL ONE DAY RULE ON THE EARTH LIKE GOD, FOR THAT IS WHAT BEING A "SON OF GOD" IS, FOR A SON OF GOD IMAGES THE VERY NATURE OF GOD TO RULE AND HAVE AUTHORITY, with each son of God having different measures of authority, and Jesus Christ having the highest measure of authority of all the sons of God.

 

[ScottA]

It is sin, because you have called God three in contradiction of,

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4 [NIV])

Now, as ONE GOD, AS ONE INFINITE BEING, AS THE ONLY BEING THAT NEVER HAD A BEGINNING, AS THE ONLY BEING THAT PREDESTINES ALL THINGS, THE ONLY BEING THAT IS EVERYWHERE, he has given authority to beings he has created to be "gods", hence why the angel that spoke to Moses was called "God", just as Jesus Christ is called "God", BECAUSE TO BE CREATED AND THUS BE CALLED A "SON OF GOD" IS TO BE LIKE GOD THE FATHER, which is why those who are being conformed to the image of God, WILL ONE DAY RULE ON THE EARTH LIKE GOD, FOR THAT IS WHAT BEING A "SON OF GOD" IS, FOR A SON OF GOD IMAGES THE VERY NATURE OF GOD TO RULE AND HAVE AUTHORITY, with each son of God having different measures of authority, and Jesus Christ having the highest measure of authority of all the sons of God.

This is you saying Jesus is NOT Emanuel (God with us). You have spoken. So be it.

 

[christiang]

This is you saying Jesus is NOT Emanuel (God with us). You have spoken. So be it.

No, this is you not understanding how Jesus Christ can be "God with us" while yet still not being the Father himself. It relates to being the "image of God".

 

[bbyrd009]

God is the head of Christ. Jesus is made into God for sinful purposes. How many "trinity" threads do we need anyway lol

 

[101G]

God is the head of Christ. Jesus is made into God for sinful purposes. How many "trinity" threads do we need anyway lol

GINOLJC, bbyrd009, u KNOW BETTER, 1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God".
#1. God, Christ, and man are only titles. if the scriptures would have said something like this this, "Yahweh" is the head of "Jesus", ok. but it didn't.

 

[Mungo]

And yes the internal evidence is compelling, somehow you cannot get it in your head that:

"in the name of the Father, the son, and the holy spirit" IS NOT "in my name" (which 6 passages in the book of Acts coincide with)

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 [NIV])

because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
(Acts 8:16 [NIV])

So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
(Acts 10:48 [NIV])

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:5 [NIV])

And whatever you should ask in my name, this I shall do, that the father should be glorified in the son. (John 14:13 [ABP])
And everything, what ever you should do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to the God and father by him. (Colossians 3:17 [ABP])

And when they believed Philip announcing good news, the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were immersed, both men and women. (Acts 8:12 [ABP])

These 6 passages IN THE BIBLE ITSELF ALREADY PROVE THAT THE TRINITARIAN MATTHEW 28:19 IS A FORGERY. Yet you refuse to see this OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION because you do not want to see! It's right there before your very eyes, right under your very nose. Yet you are willingly refusing to accept the truth, just like many others have done in the past, for various reasons. You believe a lie.

Already dealt with in post #12 - which you did not respond to

 

[Mungo]

You are readily discarding the quote of Eusebius because you do not want to believe, even though it is there in early writings showing Matthew 28:19 in another form. Yet here you say, "there is no proof", as if I whipped this out of thin air. And you are also blithely unaware that Eusebius is not just any author, he was there at the council of Nicaea when the doctrine of the trinity began to be promulgated. I suggest you read on the history of the council here The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine , which is a good article that helps expose the lie.

If the doctrine of the Trinity was not promulgated until the Council of Nicea in 431, then how do you explain the quotations I gave from the 1st & 2nd centuries which quote the Trinitarian formula in Mt 28:19, some 250-350 years earlier?

 

[christiang]

If the doctrine of the Trinity was not promulgated until the Council of Nicea in 431, then how do you explain the quotations I gave from the 1st & 2nd centuries which quote the Trinitarian formula in Mt 28:19, some 250-350 years earlier?

I said promulgated, not originated. The doctrine of the trinity had already been spurring from before that council. It was at that point that it then started becoming mainstream in the false church established by the Romans, that now you, the protestants, have borrowed, among many other false teachings that came from her.

 

[ScottA]

No, this is you not understanding how Jesus Christ can be "God with us" while yet still not being the Father himself. It relates to being the "image of God".

I will quote you again then:

Because EVEN THOUGH THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD, THE FATHER, just like any being that is called "god", Jesus Christ is called "God" because of the authority given to him by God TO BE AS GOD, his very own representation in creation.

...You say Jesus is merely "called" God, and is "as" a mere "representation."

So...are you saying that Jesus is God or not? Because your words so far say he is not.

 

[ScottA]

God is the head of Christ. Jesus is made into God for sinful purposes. How many "trinity" threads do we need anyway lol

This is all just a misunderstanding, an inability to relate to the greater complexity of God through human eyes. It's ridiculous.

But even using a man as an example...if I am a father to my son and a son to my father, should my own children deny that I am a son because they have not seen my father? No - that would be just as ridiculous as saying that Jesus is not God or that he and the Father are not One [and the same] because we have not seen the Father. What is possible among men, is certainly possible by God - and more than likely, since we are created in his image.

 

[epostle1]

This is all just a misunderstanding, an inability to relate to the greater complexity of God through human eyes. It's ridiculous.

But even using a man as an example...if I am a father to my son and a son to my father, should my own children deny that I am a son because they have not seen my father? No - that would be just as ridiculous as saying that Jesus is not God or that he and the Father are not One [and the same] because we have not seen the Father. What is possible among men, is certainly possible by God - and more than likely, since we are created in his image.

Good point. It's mostly the bizarre post-enlightenment cults that deny the Trinity. (JW's, SDA's Christadelphians, etc.) Their rabid anti-Catholicism depends on false histories and truckloads of nonsense.

In seeking to understand the traditional family, Christians should keep in mind that not only are individual persons created in the image of God, but so is the family itself. The human family is the closest analogy that mankind will ever come to concretely understanding the Blessed Trinity.

The creeds teach that while there is one God, He exists in three distinct persons. The bible, on the other hand, reveals that man is made in the 'image of God'. From these two truths, therefore, we can acknowledge that the complete image of God is found in the Triune understanding of Him.

This understanding of His Triune nature is reflected by the human family whose personal relationships approach the likeness of the Trinity. There are multiple demonstrations of this truth.

Consider the unity of the Trinity which is reflected in the unity of the family. Or the "family of persons" which is found in both. The persons of the Trinity share the 'same substance ' while a human family becomes one flesh: wife with husband and parents with children.

There is also another element in the Trinity that lends itself to human likeness. The Nicene Creed professes this about the Trinity: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

In Catholic theology, the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the will of both the Father and the Son, or in other words, through the activity which they engage in, otherwise known as "love". The Holy Spirit is poured forth through the exchange of love between the Father and the Son. This is why perhaps Jesus says to the Apostles: " Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." (John 16:7)

In the eternal economy of the Trinity, therefore, a person 'proceeds' from the love between two other persons. And so, the Holy Spirit is love 'proceeding' or 'coming from' the first two persons of the Blessed Trinity. The human family has a rather striking parallel to this dynamic. The ultimate act of intimacy in a marriage mirrors the eternal exchange of love between the first two persons of the Trinity.

And like the eternal or continual procession of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, the act of love between a man and a woman causes a 'procession' of another human person (i.e. the birth of a child)...
The Catholic Legate

 

[epostle1]

By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church's previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress...

Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the believing mind becomes increasingly more firm. Only the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. This is the main distinction to keep in mind when considering development.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt 5:17, 13:31-32, Jn 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor 2:9-16, Gal 4:4, Eph 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture itself (“progressive revelation”).

Some examples would be: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (a Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, and so forth. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Holy Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development.

The canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed that grows into a tree (Mt 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning.

It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too.
The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea,
and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople.
The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies.

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism.

Indeed, there is a lot of Scripture that would indicate the Trinity and Christology (Jesus as God), but if one doesn’t attempt to put the verses together in a certain systematic way, it wouldn’t jump right out from Scripture. So for that reason the Church had to develop it — and usually in response to heretics.

So, for example, the heretical Nestorians came around and claimed that Jesus was two persons: human and divine. The Church said “no, that’s not true. He is one Person, the God-Man.” The Nestorians speculated falsely about the nature of Mary, but the Church pronounced on the doctrine of Mary, against the Nestorians, giving her the title of Theotokos, which means “God-bearer,” or “Mother of God.” That occurred at the Council of Ephesus in 431. We often find, then, in Church history, heretics coming along and making a new claim. The Church reflects upon it, and rules against it.

Christology was further elaborated upon twenty years later, at the council of Chalcedon in 451. This Council promulgated the notion of the Two Natures of Christ and the Hypostatic Union:, that is, Jesus is God and Man, with no separation. That was in response to the Monophysite heresy, which held that Jesus had one nature. The Church ruled that He had Two Natures. And so, on and on, with all the heretics. The Bible itself, in its own example, demonstrates development.

 

[epostle1]

You are readily discarding the quote of Eusebius because you do not want to believe, even though it is there in early writings showing Matthew 28:19 in another form. Yet here you say, "there is no proof", as if I whipped this out of thin air. And you are also blithely unaware that Eusebius is not just any author, he was there at the council of Nicaea when the doctrine of the trinity began to be promulgated. I suggest you read on the history of the council here The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine , which is a good article that helps expose the lie.

The link is from The United Church of God was founded in 1998, so it's novel teachings can be traced back 19 years, not 2000 years. It's an offshoot of Herbert W. Armstrong's World Wide Church of God. It's a pop-up cult.

And yes the internal evidence is compelling, somehow you cannot get it in your head that:

"in the name of the Father, the son, and the holy spirit" IS NOT "in my name" (which 6 passages in the book of Acts coincide with)

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 [NIV])

because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
(Acts 8:16 [NIV])

I think you have that backwards.

So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
(Acts 10:48 [NIV])

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:5 [NIV])

And whatever you should ask in my name, this I shall do, that the father should be glorified in the son. (John 14:13 [ABP])
And everything, what ever you should do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to the God and father by him. (Colossians 3:17 [ABP])

And when they believed Philip announcing good news, the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were immersed, both men and women. (Acts 8:12 [ABP])

These 6 passages IN THE BIBLE ITSELF ALREADY PROVE THAT THE TRINITARIAN MATTHEW 28:19 IS A FORGERY. Yet you refuse to see this OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION because you do not want to see! It's right there before your very eyes, right under your very nose. Yet you are willingly refusing to accept the truth, just like many others have done in the past, for various reasons. You believe a lie.

Sabellianism was an early Trinitarian heresy that exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son (John 10:30). It was promoted by Sabellius in Rome during the early third century. In the infant Church, the first confession of faith concerning the Divinity of Jesus Christ was based on St. Peter's words: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." [Matt. 16:16] Early Christians worshiped and died for Jesus Christ based on this simple confession without thinking about what it actually implied. If Christ is God, then how does He relate to the God of the Old Testament? Is Christ another God, another Person or just another manifestation distinct from the Father?

In the early third century, a few Christians, who included Noetus, were speculating that the Father and the Son are only different aspects or modes of the one Divine Being. The Father became the Son after taking flesh of Mary. This speculation developed further under Sabellius. The Sabellians (also called Monarchians or Modalists) claimed that since there is only one God, there is only one Person in the Godhead. There are no personal relationships between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The only distinguishing relationships were between God and man. The Trinity was not three Persons in one God, but three functional relationships with man. The Father is the mode that created man; the Son is the mode that redeemed man; the Holy Spirit is the mode that sanctified man.

Pope Callistus condemned this heresy, but it continued to flourish in the East into the fifth century. Even today it makes a comeback with the formula: "In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier." But what is the big difference between three Persons vs. three modes?
God is love (1 John 4:8,16).
The Son loves the Father (John 14:31; 15:10);
however, true love can only be between distinct persons and not manifestations (modes). If there are no distinct personal relationships within the Godhead, then there is no love within the Godhead. God could only love after man was created. This causes problems for the eternal, loving God.

Eusebius of Caesarea was only one Church Father who wrote 100 years before the doctrine of the Trinity was more developed. Singling him out is dishonest. Quoting him in isolation from the whole Church is also dishonest.

Didache
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110])...
..."For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

Justin Martyr
"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

There's plenty more where that came from.
But you have nothing to do with THAT Church.

 

[epostle1]

The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

The term “Trinity” was first used around the time of the 12th Pope, St. Soter (166-175), and the 13th Pope, St. Eleutherius (175-189). Theophilus was bishop of Antioch, and use the Greek “trias”, which was Latinized into “trinitas” about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time.

Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use.

 

[bbyrd009]

Constantine Wrote Matthew 28:19 Into Your Bible!

 

[ScottA]

By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church's previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress...

Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the believing mind becomes increasingly more firm. Only the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. This is the main distinction to keep in mind when considering development.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt 5:17, 13:31-32, Jn 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor 2:9-16, Gal 4:4, Eph 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture itself (“progressive revelation”).

Some examples would be: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (a Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, and so forth. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Holy Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development.

The canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed that grows into a tree (Mt 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning.

It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too.
The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea,
and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople.
The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies.

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism.

Indeed, there is a lot of Scripture that would indicate the Trinity and Christology (Jesus as God), but if one doesn’t attempt to put the verses together in a certain systematic way, it wouldn’t jump right out from Scripture. So for that reason the Church had to develop it — and usually in response to heretics.

So, for example, the heretical Nestorians came around and claimed that Jesus was two persons: human and divine. The Church said “no, that’s not true. He is one Person, the God-Man.” The Nestorians speculated falsely about the nature of Mary, but the Church pronounced on the doctrine of Mary, against the Nestorians, giving her the title of Theotokos, which means “God-bearer,” or “Mother of God.” That occurred at the Council of Ephesus in 431. We often find, then, in Church history, heretics coming along and making a new claim. The Church reflects upon it, and rules against it.

Christology was further elaborated upon twenty years later, at the council of Chalcedon in 451. This Council promulgated the notion of the Two Natures of Christ and the Hypostatic Union:, that is, Jesus is God and Man, with no separation. That was in response to the Monophysite heresy, which held that Jesus had one nature. The Church ruled that He had Two Natures. And so, on and on, with all the heretics. The Bible itself, in its own example, demonstrates development.

This all speaks of labor pains. But I do not participate in the Catholic and Protestant opposition. Though I do not condemn it either, for in the body analogy, it is the driving force of the legs, one thrusting backward and the other forward, that drives us on. So then, if I, speaking from the heart (of the body), seem ever to speak contrary, it is not contrary, but blood. He who has an ear, let him hear.

As for the Church - the Church never "rules." There is one authority given to the body, and another authority given to the head, whom is Christ. This we do well to understand, lest we put our foot in the mouth of Christ. When the Church has arrived at the unity to which it was commanded, we surrender all unto new birth. And although there are many midwives (meaning the Church), the child is delivered to the Husband and Father. Therefore, my counsel is also "love", as you have stated...but not love for the leg on which I stand, but for both - for this is the driving force, which we share in. In the body, we have no enemies that are not cast out.

Therefore, it is not the Church that rules over the body, but the Head. And that rule is not by men in service of God, though Ambassadors are a part, that rule is by the spirit of God - a command given first before the apostles, that we should know His voice...and not the voices of men. This is what is meant in the commandment, that women should be silent in church - meaning the bride, that the Church follow the Head/Husband, and not the Church - for even the leaders of the Church are the bride and not the Husband.

Thus, the revelation of all truth during these times, does not descend from the Church ruling, but always from the Head. It is therefore by the providence of God that history (His story) is written according to the scriptures. His Word is his own...and it does not come forth from the body or bride - but it is the body and bride and Church who hear his voice in spirit.