The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine

Few understand how the Trinity doctrine came to be accepted - several centuries after the Bible was completed! Yet its roots go back much farther in history.

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

Most people assume that everything that bears the label "Christian" must have originated with Jesus Christ and His early followers. But this is definitely not the case. All we have to do is look at the words of Jesus Christ and His apostles to see that this is clearly not true.

The historical record shows that, just as Jesus and the New Testament writers foretold, various heretical ideas and teachers rose up from within the early Church and infiltrated it from without. Christ Himself warned His followers: "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name . . . and will deceive many" (Matthew 24:4-5).

You can read many similar warnings in other passages (such as Matthew 24:11; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 2 Timothy 4:2-4; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 1 John 2:18-19, 26; 4:1-3).

Barely two decades after Christ's death and resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote that many believers were already "turning away . . . to a different gospel" (Galatians 1:6). He wrote that he was forced to contend with "false apostles, deceitful workers" who were fraudulently "transforming themselves into apostles of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:13). One of the major problems he had to deal with was "false brethren" (verse 26).

By late in the first century, as we see from 3 John 9-10, conditions had grown so dire that false ministers openly refused to receive representatives of the apostle John and were excommunicating true Christians from the Church!

Of this troubling period Edward Gibbon, the famed historian, wrote in his classic work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire of a "dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church" (1821, Vol. 2, p. 111). It wasn't long before true servants of God became a marginalized and scattered minority among those calling themselves Christian. A very different religion, now compromised with many concepts and practices rooted in ancient paganism (such mixing of religious beliefs being known as syncretism, common in the Roman Empire at the time), took hold and transformed the faith founded by Jesus Christ.

Historian Jesse Hurlbut says of this time of transformation: "We name the last generation of the first century, from 68 to 100 A.D., 'The Age of Shadows,' partly because the gloom of persecution was over the church, but more especially because of all the periods in the [church's] history, it is the one about which we know the least. We have no longer the clear light of the Book of Acts to guide us; and no author of that age has filled the blank in the history . . ."For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul" ( The Story of the Christian Church, 1970, p. 33).

This "very different" church would grow in power and influence, and within a few short centuries would come to dominate even the mighty Roman Empire! By the second century, faithful members of the Church, Christ's "little flock" (Luke 12:32), had largely been scattered by waves of deadly persecution. They held firmly to the biblical truth about Jesus Christ and God the Father, though they were persecuted by the Roman authorities as well as those who professed Christianity but were in reality teaching "another Jesus" and a "different gospel" (2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:6-9).

This was the setting in which the doctrine of the Trinity emerged. In those early decades after Jesus Christ's ministry, death and resurrection, and spanning the next few centuries, various ideas sprang up as to His exact nature. Was He man? Was He God? Was He God appearing as a man? Was He an illusion? Was He a mere man who became God? Was He created by God the Father, or did He exist eternally with the Father?

All of these ideas had their proponents. The unity of belief of the original Church was lost as new beliefs, many borrowed or adapted from pagan religions, replaced the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Let us be clear that when it comes to the intellectual and theological debates in those early centuries that led to the formulation of the Trinity, the true Church was largely absent from the scene, having been driven underground. (See the chapter "The Rise of a Counterfeit Christianity " in our free booklet The Church Jesus Built for an overview of this critical period.).

For this reason, in that stormy period we often see debates not between truth and error, but between one error and a different error— a fact seldom recognized by many modern scholars yet critical for our understanding.

A classic example of this was the dispute over the nature of Christ that led the Roman emperor Constantine the Great to convene the Council of Nicaea (in modern-day western Turkey) in A.D. 325.

Constantine, although held by many to be the first "Christian" Roman Emperor, was actually a sun-worshiper who was only baptized on his deathbed. During his reign he had his eldest son and his wife murdered. He was also vehemently anti-Semitic, referring in one of his edicts to "the detestable Jewish crowd" and "the customs of these most wicked men"—customs that were in fact rooted in the Bible and practiced by Jesus and the apostles.

As emperor in a period of great tumult within the Roman Empire, Constantine was challenged with keeping the empire unified. He recognized the value of religion in uniting his empire. This was, in fact, one of his primary motivations in accepting and sanctioning the "Christian" religion (which, by this time, had drifted far from the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles and was Christian in name only)

. But now Constantine faced a new challenge. Religion researcher Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God that "one of the first problems that had to be solved was the doctrine of God . . . a new danger arose from within which split Christians into bitterly warring camps" (1993, p. 106).

Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 as much for political reasons—for unity in the empire—as religious ones. The primary issue at that time came to be known as the Arian controversy.

"In the hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing body of Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was to his interest to have the church vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop Hosius, who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet representing the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to restore harmony.

"Constantine himself of course neither knew nor cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius' advice appealed to him as sound" (Arthur Cushman McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, 1954, Vol. 1, p. 258).

Arius, a priest from Alexandria, Egypt, taught that Christ, because He was the Son of God, must have had a beginning and therefore was a special creation of God. Further, if Jesus was the Son, the Father of necessity must be older. Opposing the teachings of Arius was Athanasius, a deacon also from Alexandria. His view was an early form of Trinitarianism wherein the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one but at the same time distinct from each other.

The decision as to which view the church council would accept was to a large extent arbitrary. Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God: "When the bishops gathered at Nicaea on May 20, 325, to resolve the crisis, very few would have shared Athanasius's view of Christ. Most held a position midway between Athanasius and Arius" (p. 110).

As emperor, Constantine was in the unusual position of deciding church doctrine even though he was not really a Christian. (The following year is when he had both his wife and son murdered, as previously mentioned).

Historian Henry Chadwick attests, "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun" ( The Early Church, 1993, p. 122). As to the emperor's embrace of Christianity, Chadwick admits, "His conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear" (p. 125).

Chadwick does say that Constantine's deathbed baptism itself "implies no doubt about his Christian belief," it being common for rulers to put off baptism to avoid accountability for things like torture and executing criminals (p. 127). But this justification doesn't really help the case for the emperor's conversion being genuine.

Norbert Brox, a professor of church history, confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian: "Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god . . . At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)" ( A Concise History of the Early Church, 1996, p. 48).

When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination" (1971 edition, Vol. 6, "Constantine," p. 386).

With the emperor's approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius—also a minority view. The church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicaea to endorse a belief held by only a minority of those attending.

The groundwork for official acceptance of the Trinity was now laid—but it took more than three centuries after Jesus Christ's death and resurrection for this unbiblical teaching to emerge!

The Council of Nicaea did not end the controversy. Karen Armstrong explains: "Athanasius managed to impose his theology on the delegates . . . with the emperor breathing down their necks . . .

"The show of agreement pleased Constantine, who had no understanding of the theological issues, but in fact there was no unanimity at Nicaea. After the council, the bishops went on teaching as they had before, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain imperial favor. Athanasius was exiled no fewer than five times. It was very difficult to make his creed stick" (pp. 110-111).

The ongoing disagreements were at times violent and bloody. Of the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea, noted historian Will Durant writes, "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome" ( The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8). Atrociously, while claiming to be Christian many believers fought and slaughtered one another over their differing views of God!

Of the following decades, Professor Harold Brown, cited earlier, writes: "During the middle decades of this century, from 340 to 380, the history of doctrine looks more like the history of court and church intrigues and social unrest . . . The central doctrines hammered out in this period often appear to have been put through by intrigue or mob violence rather than by the common consent of Christendom led by the Holy Spirit" (p. 119).

Disagreements soon centered around another issue, the nature of the Holy Spirit. In that regard, the statement issued at the Council of Nicaea said simply, "We believe in the Holy Spirit." This "seemed to have been added to Athanasius's creed almost as an afterthought," writes Karen Armstrong. "People were confused about the Holy Spirit. Was it simply a synonym for God or was it something more?" (p. 115).

Professor Ryrie, also cited earlier,writes, "In the second half of the fourth century, three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor [today central Turkey] gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity" (p. 65). They proposed an idea that was a step beyond Athanasius' view—that God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit were coequal and together in one being, yet also distinct from one another.

These men—Basil, bishop of Caesarea, his brother Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus—were all "trained in Greek philosophy" (Armstrong, p. 113), which no doubt affected their outlook and beliefs (see "Greek Philosophy's Influence on the Trinity Doctrine," beginning on page 14).

In their view, as Karen Armstrong explains, "the Trinity only made sense as a mystical or spiritual experience . . . It was not a logical or intellectual formulation but an imaginative paradigm that confounded reason. Gregory of Nazianzus made this clear when he explained that contemplation of the Three in One induced a profound and overwhelming emotion that confounded thought and intellectual clarity.

"'No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Three than I am carried back into the One. When I think of any of the Three, I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me'" (p. 117). Little wonder that, as Armstrong concludes, "For many Western Christians . . . the Trinity is simply baffling" (ibid.).

In the year 381, 44 years after Constantine's death, Emperor Theodosius the Great convened the Council of Constantinople (today Istanbul, Turkey) to resolve these disputes. Gregory of Nazianzus, recently appointed as archbishop of Constantinople, presided over the council and urged the adoption of his view of the Holy Spirit.

Historian Charles Freeman states: "Virtually nothing is known of the theological debates of the council of 381, but Gregory was certainly hoping to get some acceptance of his belief that the Spirit was consubstantial with the Father [meaning that the persons are of the same being, as substance in this context denotes individual quality].

"Whether he dealt with the matter clumsily or whether there was simply no chance of consensus, the 'Macedonians,' bishops who refused to accept the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, left the council . . . Typically, Gregory berated the bishops for preferring to have a majority rather than simply accepting 'the Divine Word' of the Trinity on his authority" ( A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State, 2008, p. 96).

Gregory soon became ill and had to withdraw from the council. Who would preside now? "So it was that one Nectarius, an elderly city senator who had been a popular prefect in the city as a result of his patronage of the games, but who was still not a baptized Christian, was selected . . . Nectarius appeared to know no theology, and he had to be initiated into the required faith before being baptized and consecrated" (Freeman, pp. 97-98).

Bizarrely, a man who up to this point wasn't a Christian was appointed to preside over a major church council tasked with determining what it would teach regarding the nature of God!

The teaching of the three Cappadocian theologians "made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture" ( The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, "God," p. 568).

The council adopted a statement that translates into English as, in part: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages . . . And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets . . ." The statement also affirmed belief "in one holy, catholic [meaning in this context universal, whole or complete] and apostolic Church . . ."

With this declaration in 381, which would become known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Trinity as generally understood today became the official belief and teaching concerning the nature of God.

Theology professor Richard Hanson observes that a result of the council's decision "was to reduce the meanings of the word 'God' from a very large selection of alternatives to one only," such that "when Western man today says 'God' he means the one, sole exclusive [Trinitarian] God and nothing else" ( Studies in Christian Antiquity, 1985,pp. 243-244).

Thus, Emperor Theodosius—who himself had been baptized only a year before convening the council—was, like Constantine nearly six decades earlier, instrumental in establishing major church doctrine. As historian Charles Freeman notes: "It is important to remember that Theodosius had no theological background of his own and that he put in place as dogma a formula containing intractable philosophical problems of which he would have been unaware. In effect, the emperor's laws had silenced the debate when it was still unresolved" (p. 103).

Now that a decision had been reached, Theodosius would tolerate no dissenting views. He issued his own edict that read: "We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but (who affirm) the order of the Trinity by recognizing the Persons and uniting the Godhead" (quoted by Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223).

Another edict from Theodosius went further in demanding adherence to the new teaching: "Let us believe the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles [assemblies] the name of churches.

"They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and the second the punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of Heaven, shall decide to inflict" (reproduced in Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, editor, 1967, p. 22).

Thus we see that a teaching that was foreign to Jesus Christ, never taught by the apostles and unknown to the other biblical writers, was locked into place and the true biblical revelation about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was locked out. Any who disagreed were, in accordance with the edicts of the emperor and church authorities, branded heretics and dealt with accordingly. Trinity doctrine decided by trial and error.

This unusual chain of events is why theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson would summarize the story in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith by noting that the adoption of the Trinity doctrine came as a result of "a process of theological exploration which lasted at least three hundred years . . . In fact it was a process of trial and error (almost of hit and miss), in which the error was by no means all confined to the unorthodox . . . It would be foolish to represent the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as having been achieved by any other way" (1980, p. 172).

They then conclude: "This was a long, confused, process whereby different schools of thought in the Church worked out for themselves, and then tried to impose on others, their answer to the question, 'How divine is Jesus Christ?' . . . If ever there was a controversy decided by the method of trial and error, it was this one" (p. 175).

Anglican churchman and Oxford University lecturer K.E. Kirk revealingly writes of the adoption of the doctrine of the Trinity: "The theological and philosophical vindication of the divinity of the Spirit begins in the fourth century; we naturally turn to the writers of that period to discover what grounds they have for their belief. To our surprise, we are forced to admit that they have none . . .

"This failure of Christian theology . . . to produce logical justification of the cardinal point in its trinitarian doctrine is of the greatest possible significance. We are forced, even before turning to the question of the vindication of the doctrine by experience, to ask ourselves whether theology or philosophy has ever produced any reasons why its belief should be Trinitarian" ("The Evolution of the Doctrine of the Trinity," published in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, A.E.J. Rawlinson, editor, 1928, pp. 221-222). Why believe a teaching that isn't biblical?

This, in brief, is the amazing story of how the doctrine of the Trinity came to be introduced—and how those who refused to accept it came to be branded as heretics or unbelievers.

But should we really base our view of God on a doctrine that isn't spelled out in the Bible, that wasn't formalized until three centuries after the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles, that was debated and argued for decades (not to mention for centuries since), that was imposed by religious councils presided over by novices or nonbelievers and that was "decided by the method of trial and error"?

Of course not. We should instead look to the Word of God—not to ideas of men—to see how our Creator reveals Himself!

Nope, if this were so then the council of Acts 15 would have said "and be sure to remember the feast-days", even using the presence of the Holy Spirit on gentiles as proof that they were Christ's w/o first following the Mosaic Law, but they did not; the letter they did "being led by the Spirit."

This is just getting silly! The Council in Jerusalem dealt with one subject. Circumcision of adult male Gentile converts......and nothing else.

[Acts 15:1-2] And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, "Except ye be circumcised" after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

On the other hand.......the Apostles all continued observing the Feasts and Sabbaths throughout the New Testament. Here is Paul's example:

Paul kept the Feasts.......all of them. His own chronicler, Luke speaks of the "Days of Unleavened" [Acts 12:1-3]1And about that time, Herod the king put forth his hands, to do evil to certain of those of the assembly, 2and he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword, 3and having seen that it is pleasing to the Jews, he added to lay hold of Peter also — and they were the days of the unleavened food —

It would seem silly to reference this time as such if the Apostles did not observe it.

[Acts 18:21] 21but took leave of them, saying, ‘It behoveth me by all means the coming feast to keep at Jerusalem, and again I will return unto you — God willing.’ And he sailed from Ephesus,

The particular Feast Day is not mentioned but is assumed to be one of the major three Feasts. It was at the end of Paul's second journey.....probably Tabernacles.

[Acts 27:9] 9And much time being spent, and the sailing being now dangerous — because of the fast also being already past — Paul was admonishing,

Luke, here....chronicles the observance of the "Fast" which would be "Yom Kippur". He (Paul) was under guard but only had to refrain from drinking or eating to observe the "Day of Atonement".

Paul spent 3 years in Ephesus [Acts 19:10; 20:31] and from here....wrote to the Corinthians: [I Corinthians 16:5-8] 5And I will come unto you, when I pass through Macedonia — for Macedonia I do pass through — 6and with you, it may be, I will abide, or even winter, that ye may send me forward whithersoever I go, 7for I do not wish to see you now in the passing, but I hope to remain a certain time with you, if the Lord may permit; 8and I will remain in Ephesus till the Pentecost.

He celebrated Shavuot with the Church at Ephesus and then went on to Macedonia by Berea and Thessalonica [Acts 20:1-4] and eventually came to Phillipi where he observed the "Days of Unleavened" [Acts 20:6] 6and we sailed, after the days of the unleavened food, from Philippi, and came unto them to Troas in five days, where we abode seven days.

He again was on his way to Jerusalem and desired to be there by Pentecost [Acts 20:16] 16for Paul decided to sail past Ephesus, that there may not be to him a loss of time in Asia, for he hasted, if it were possible for him, on the day of the Pentecost to be at Jerusalem.

Paul's entire ministry revolved around the Sabbaths and Feasts of Yahweh........and he also ate unleavened bread during the Passover Festival.

[I Corinthians 5:8] 8so that we may keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of evil and wickedness, but with unleavened food of sincerity and truth.

Now..............for John:

From the Early Church Father, Polycrates of Ephesus 130/196 A.D.

As for us, then, we scrupulously observe the exact day,2 neither adding nor taking away. For in Asia great luminaries3 have gone to their rest, who shall rise again in the day of the coming of the Lord, when He cometh with glory from heaven and shall raise again all the saints. I speak of Philip, one of the twelve apostles,4 who is laid to rest at Hierapolis; and his two daughters, who arrived at old age unmarried;5 his other daughter also, who passed her life6 under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and reposes at Ephesus; John, moreover, who reclined on the Lord's bosom, and who became a priest wearing the mitre,7 and a witness and a teacher-he rests at Ephesus. Then there is Polycarp, both bishop and martyr at Smyrna; and Thraseas from Eumenia, both bishop and martyr, who rests at Smyrna. Why should I speak of Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who rests at Laodicea? of the blessed Papirius, moreover? and of Melito the eunuch,8 who performed all his actions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and lies at Sardis, awaiting the visitation9 from heaven, when he shall rise again from the dead? These all kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month, in accordance with the Gospel, without ever deviating from it, but keeping to the rule of faith.

Moreover I also, Polycrates, who am the least of you all, in accordance with the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have succeeded-seven of my relatives were bishops, and I am the eighth, and my relatives always observed the day when the people put away10 the leaven-I myself, brethren, I say, who am sixty-five years old in the Lord, and have fallen in with the brethren in all parts of the world, and have read through all Holy Scripture, am not frightened at the things which are said to terrify us. For those who are greater than I have said, "We ought to obey God rather than men."

Click Here

I get so tired of Biblical illiterates who insist on telling me that the Feast Days were eliminated......somehow.....some way. Scripture makes them just look silly!

Are you saying that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God?

John 1:1-3,14

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. ... 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.

Philippians 2:5-10

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

As for the Holy Spirit, see post #219

“In your reference to Revelation in what sense is the Father, Jehovah or Yahweh, the Almighty, the one “who is, was and is coming”? (Rev. 1:8)
You don’t say.”

I thought it was self-evident. It’s another declaration of eternity. He was, He is, He is to come, past, present and future. He is always existing, from age to age, with no ending and no beginning. Similar to what God means when He calls Himself “I AM that I AM” in the Old Testament, and when Jesus calls Himself “I am” in the new.

“How is the Christ “the first and the last”? (Rev.1:17)
You don’t say.”

Actually, I DID say it, in two different posts. It’s not my fault you don’t like reading uncomfortable things or having a straightforward debate.

“How would this “prove” the two speakers are equal in a triune “godhead”?”

Ummm, they’re both called by the same title, The First and the Last, as well as Almighty, in direct reference to the fact that they are all-powerful and have always existed, and are the first cause that created everything, and have no ending?

“And so it goes as you reference these verses as though your assertion is self evident proof.”

It IS self-evident proof. Do you have any explanation for how two DIFFERENT gods can be First and Last, Almighty? Unless the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally in substance the same God, there CANNOT be two different gods who are equally the First and the Last, the first cause of all creation who is ever-existent.

“A good example of this is the references by trinitarians made to Isa. 9:6. Surely this demonstrates the trinity in the O.T. but what is says is that Jesus is a “mighty god”, eternal father, not the Almighty Father, something that would be contrary to what the trinity doctrine says.”

Oooooops!

Isa_44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

There’s only one God. Therefore, your argument is invalid. If He is the “Mighty God,” then there would be two different gods.

And Jesus Christ IS called Almighty. I mean, I only quoted the text like 3 or 4 times for you ALREADY.

Sorry, but the Word was with God and IS God.

Joh 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God.

And as for the Eternal Father, it is not a contradiction where the Son and the Father are conflated, Per Barnes:

“The phrase may either mean the same as the Eternal Father, and the sense will be, that the Messiah will not, as must be the ease with an earthly king, however excellent, leave his people destitute after a short reign, but will rule over them and bless them forever (Hengstenberg); or it may be used in accordance with a custom usual in Hebrew and in Arabic, where he who possesses a thing is called the father of it.”

There comes a saturation point where, when we have so many scriptures calling Jesus GOD, that we just kind of HAVE to believe it.

“Well and good. Does that prophecy call Jesus God? Not at all but Emmanuel (God is with us) does show God was showing favor toward the nation, He was was with them.”

Oooooops, SORRY. The reference is in direct reference to the child of the VIRGIN who shall be called “God with Us.” The SAME child in Isaiah 9:6. That’s why even in the Targum, written 30 years before the time of Christ, the Jews applied these scriptures on the MESSIAH. It’s self-evident unless you have ulterior motives.

Now what does "If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well" mean unless it is to say that this is all that they need to do life-wise to be Christians? (Not that they wouldn't do good works, as James says faith w/o works is dead, but that these are the requirements to keep spiritually clean, the answer to what sort of life do I live to be conducive to godliness.)

You speak of the Halakhah Laws. Do you know what they are? What exactly is James telling the gathering? He is agreeing that the Gentile converts should no longer be required to undergo circumcision.........and they would do well to eat no blood, eat no meat of strangled animals, eat no food offered to idols and keep themselves sexually pure.

Where does he tell them no longer to observe the Feasts and Sabbaths that Paul and John continued to do throughout the New Testament (and their disciples continued to observe into the second and third centuries)?

The Halakhah Laws are found in Leviticus, Chapters 17 & 18].....and they deal with "Strangers among us" as the Jews of the Jerusalem Church still viewed the Gentiles to be. It had only been recently that the Church even considered them for salvation and any type of evangelizing [Acts 11:18-19]. This was the bone of contention that got Paul so riled up [Acts 15:2] and caused him to seek this council and have it out with James.....once and for all.

James had been sending out "circumcision patrols" to Asia minor, interfering with Paul and his ministry [Galatians 2:12] and Paul had just about had it! He even suggests that these folks from Jerusalem (he calls them agitators) go castrate themselves! Here is the "New International version for clarity: [Galatians 5:10-12] 10I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

The Council dealt with adult, Gentile convert circumcision.....and nothing else. The Feasts, the Sabbaths, the dietary Laws were not an issue! The Halakhah Laws dealt with how the "Strangers among us" should conduct themselves.....living with and observing the Feasts of Israel. Here's a snippet:

[Leviticus 17:10-16]10“ ‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. 11For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.c 12Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.” 13“ ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.”

15“ ‘Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean. 16But if they do not wash their clothes and bathe themselves, they will be held responsible.’ ”

And the clincher: [Exodus 12:48-49]48“A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

Paul and Barnabas were allowing uncircumcised, adult male Gentiles to partake of the Passover with them in Antioch......and the "Church" (can you say Pharisees?) wanted it stopped!

The Feast Days, Sabbaths and Dietary restrictions were never a subject dealt with by the council.

Interesting, interesting -- now what does Romans 2:28-29 mean?

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."

Now if circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit (Holy Spirit, I assume), then what grounds would one have for requiring physical circumcision according to the law? Did Jesus fulfill the Law, and does his Spirit indwell the believer? If the physically uncircumcised gentile believer were kept from communing with the Jewish believer, because of the law, then that is to say that Jesus does not fulfill the requirement of the law.

In this much you and I agree, but there is more here -- This is actually the same principle talked about in Jesus's reply when the religious-elite said "he casts out devils by the prince of the devils"; he replied "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls" which also applies to the Kingdom of God and the household of the brethren. [Lk 11]

If Jesus then fulfills the requirements of circumcision, how can he fail to fulfill the feasts & fasts contained in the law?

It doesn't preclude them from celebrate/observe them, but there is no longer a requirement to. Here is your answer; Colossians 2:16-17
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

The underlined portion is the direct answer to your question, the bold-portion is exactly that I said up-thread, that they are mere pointers [pictures] to the real thing (Jesus).

As to why the early Christians observed them, this is easy: to remember, as humankind is very prone to forget.

Despite your assertions.... .the Messiah is not called Almighty God, who is the Father.
But the Messiah is called the “Mighty God” of Isa. 9:6. Jesus said even the judges of Israel were properly called gods so calling the messiah a Mighty God isn't contradictory to Isa. 44:6.

Are you trying to say Almighty God, THE Father is also the Messiah, the Mighty God, of Isa. 9:6?

You wrote:

“Isa_44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
There’s only one God. Therefore, your argument is invalid. If He is the “Mighty God,” then there would be two different gods.”

I feel no need to defend arguments I haven't made.

I don't have “ulterior motives” in these debates, I do so for enjoyment and if I think it will be useful. But I find it less so especially if you're going to try to tell me what I like or not.

“It’s not my fault you don’t like reading uncomfortable things or having a straightforward debate.”

Have no fear, you’d be absolved of fault were that ever the case, it is not.

It doesn't preclude them from celebrate/observe them, but there is no longer a requirement to. Here is your answer; Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. The underlined portion is the direct answer to your question, the bold-portion is exactly that I said up-thread, that they are mere pointers [pictures] to the real thing (Jesus).

16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

I've highlighted two words in this passage which have been inserted by the translators to bring the Greek more in line with their settled theology. These words are shown in italics in your KJV.

But first.....ask yourself.....why does Paul make this statement....leaving it somewhat muddled as he does? Why didn't he clearly say one way or the other that these practices were now unnecessary? The Colossian Church was a Gentile Church so this would have been a terrific opportunity for Paul to make it very plain that these practices were no longer binding upon Yahweh's people. This Epistle could have been the defining moment for this new theology......the abolition of Sabbath observances and any and all recognition of dietary regulations!

But Paul......nowhere in this Book (or any other scripture) says that. What does he say instead? What question is he here addressing? Looking at the rest of the chapter it becomes very clear that the subject is something entirely different.

The issues are; [2:4] Men beguiling you with enticing words; [2:8] Men spoiling you with philosophy and deceit....after the traditions of the world and not after Christ; [2:18] False humility of mankind and "Angel" worship; [2:22] Commandments and doctrines of men. So....these are the subjects of [Colossians 2] and they all deal with issues from mankind....not Yahweh. Was Paul a Liar? Was he an idiot? You evidently think that Paul doesn't know that the Holy Days listed in scripture [Leviticus 23] were created by Yahweh. You probably think that Paul was an uneducated pagan who didn't know scripture very well because you evidently believe that Paul thinks the "Word of Yahweh" is a rudiment of this world.

If you believe that Paul is saying that these Yahweh ordained, Yahweh commanded Holy Days are a "rudiment of this world, philosophy of men and vain human deceit", it is direct blasphemy against Yahweh....or an exercise in human deception.

What you need to understood here is that Paul is addressing "ascetic Gnosticism" which had begun to creep into the Colossian Church. He had been informed of it by Epaphras [Colossians 1:7] who had evangelized the Colossian Church and was currently visiting Paul in Rome while Paul was incarcerated. Paul had never been to Colossae but was well aware of the problems there.

The Colossian coverts to Christianity had previously been pagan idol worshipers and adherents of Greek asceticism and were now being criticized by their pagan neighbors for doing what?

[Colossians 2:16] 16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

They were being ostracized by their pagan neighbors for doing exactly what you folks think Paul was telling them not to do. Think! They never did these things before so why would Paul even mention them? What this verse really teaches is....."Don't let these pagan gnostics JUDGE you for HOW you are keeping YAHWEH'S holy days". In other words.....it's an affirmation that these folks were actually observing Yahweh's ordained dietary restrictions and his ordained Sabbaths. They had been taught these things by Epaphras [4:12][Philemon 23].

By cautioning the Colossian Christian converts to not let others judge them how they observed these things is proof they were indeed observing them! Paul wasn't questioning them in whether or not they should be kept. The obvious implication is.....they were keeping them.....and...Paul did not tell them to desist!

Now.....about the added words of the translators. Let's read the verse as the Holy Spirit inspired it....without the added words of the KJV translators. [Colossians 2:16-17] 16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths (plural), 17which are a shadow of things to come..... but the body of Christ.

Paul is saying, Don't let anybody criticize you for observing Yahweh's dietary laws and specially ordained Feast days (SABBATWN) except members of the Church! That's what the "Body of Christ" is......the church! The word "days" doesn't even appear in the Greek manuscript. It is simply referring to Yahweh's Holy Sabbaths (SABBATWN).

If Paul had been writing about the weekly Sabbath he would have used the word SABBATON.....not SABBATWN. They mean two different things.

16 ¶ Μὴ not οὖν therefore/then τις some/any (nom) ὑμᾶς you(pl) (acc) κρινέτω let-him/her/it-be-JUDGE-ing! ἐν in/among/by (+dat) βρώσει eating (dat) { ἢ or ἐν in/among/by (+dat) πόσει drinking (dat) ♦ καὶ and/also ἐν in/among/by (+dat) πόσει drinking (dat) } , ἢ or ἐν in/among/by (+dat) μέρει parts of the country (dat) ἑορτῆς festival (gen) ἢ or { νουμηνίας new moon (gen), new moons (acc) ♦ νεομηνίας new moon (gen), new moons (acc) } ἢ or σαββάτων sabbaths (gen) ·

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.