Perfect Description

[Justice]

I was reading about the early church, and how the belief of the Trinity came about in about the year 425ish. It speaks about John 5: 7-8, and how it was changed in the 4th century to make the Trinity belief seem more sound Biblically.

Here is how the verse stands today in the English Bible:

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

There is an amazing history linked to these verses.

Here is how they appeared before it was changed in about 425:

6. There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one.

That's it. Nothing about the "Trinity." It was translated as above in the original Greek New Testament. After a huge uproar from the Catholic Church, he said if anyone could find a single instance of the passage in Greek that was according to the new English wording, he would include it in the Greek.

Scholars agree that the single copy produced was a fake, but he was true to his word and added it.

However, apparently it still does not appear in the German Bible today.

Anyway, I came to a statement that hit me. I feel this perfectly describes anyone who would hold so tight to their beliefs, as to not even give modern revelation a read.

People cared more about what their dogma, creeds, and councils had taught than what the word of God actually said.

It's a very interesting read.

Mormonism and the nature of God/Trinity/Nicene creed - FAIRMormon

[Snow]

I was reading about the early church, and how the belief of the Trinity came about in about the year 425ish. It speaks about John 5: 7-8, and how it was changed in the 4th century to make the Trinity belief seem more sound Biblically.

Here is how the verse stands today in the English Bible:

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

There is an amazing history linked to these verses.

Here is how they appeared before it was changed in about 425:

6. There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one.

That's it. Nothing about the "Trinity." It was translated as above in the original Greek New Testament. After a huge uproar from the Catholic Church, he said if anyone could find a single instance of the passage in Greek that was according to the new English wording, he would include it in the Greek.

Scholars agree that the single copy produced was a fake, but he was true to his word and added it.

However, apparently it still does not appear in the German Bible today.

Anyway, I came to a statement that hit me. I feel this perfectly describes anyone who would hold so tight to their beliefs, as to not even give modern revelation a read.

People cared more about what their dogma, creeds, and councils had taught than what the word of God actually said.

It's a very interesting read.

Mormonism and the nature of God/Trinity/Nicene creed - FAIRMormon

You've either got to stop believing what you read or start reading something credible instead.

A belief in the Trinity began in the 3rd century (not the 5th) or even earlier depending on how you define it. The modern notion of the Trinity was likely or at least possibly made official in the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE though the new version was published and promulgated until the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but Christians, at least a lot of Christians believed in it even before 381.

[Justice]

Here is where we need to discuss what we mean.

I meant that it actually came about; was finalized, in the 4th century at the Council of Nicea. It started in the 3rd century, yes, but was by far a minority view. You say "a lot" believed it, but that is relative.

The first written version of the "Trinity" belief was included in the documents that resulted from the Council of Constantinople. But, even they admit it needed clarification because it was very difficult to understand. They revised it, or finalized it, and published it as a result of the Council of Nicea.

I don't know what changes were made to it at the Council of Chalcedon. My guess is very little since the creed from the Nicea is still the one in general use today.

The Trinity was not taught by Christ, or any of the Apostles. It does not appear in the New Testament. It wasn't until about 200 years later where it first started surfacing. It's also interesting how it was very much like the philosophical views of the day. There was definately some Greek "logic" used in arriving at the belief.

In any case, that 1 John chapter 5 was changed is undisputed.

In fact, John 10:30 is one of the main verses used to support the doctrine. But, a proper understanding of the Greek sheds light on the "interpretation:"

Note that “one” in this verse is neuter, not masculine. In Greek, the masculine would be used to indicate a oneness of person or being, and neuter implies a oneness of purpose.

Nearly all of the people, articles, and books cited in this article aren't LDS. It also gives a considerable amount of "early Church" (pre-300 AD) sources as evidence.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Justice

[Still_Small_Voice]

It makes sense to me that verses 7 and 8 may very likely have been inserted into the text. Look at how verses 6 through 9 read:

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

I see nothing wrong with the teachings in verse 7 or how it would conflict with true doctrine.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[bytebear]

I think if you are trying to disprove by scripture, you will be beaten down by LDS scripture, which is more specific than the Bible in terms of a "trinitarian" union.

By the way, these are verses I point to when we are accused of non-trinitarian doctrine. I simply say, we don't believe the details are the same (and it is challenging for most non-LDS to really define those details), but the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one God".

Doctrine and Covenants 20:28

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

3 Nephi 11:27

And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

2 Nephi 31:21

And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Mormon 7:7

And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

[Snow]

Here is where we need to discuss what we mean.

I meant that it actually came about; was finalized, in the 4th century at the Council of Nicea. It started in the 3rd century, yes, but was by far a minority view. You say "a lot" believed it, but that is relative.

The first written version of the "Trinity" belief was included in the documents that resulted from the Council of Constantinople. But, even they admit it needed clarification because it was very difficult to understand. They revised it, or finalized it, and published it as a result of the Council of Nicea.

I don't know what changes were made to it at the Council of Chalcedon. My guess is very little since the creed from the Nicea is still the one in general use today.

The Trinity was not taught by Christ, or any of the Apostles. It does not appear in the New Testament. It wasn't until about 200 years later where it first started surfacing. It's also interesting how it was very much like the philosophical views of the day. There was definately some Greek "logic" used in arriving at the belief.

In any case, that 1 John chapter 5 was changed is undisputed.

In fact, John 10:30 is one of the main verses used to support the doctrine. But, a proper understanding of the Greek sheds light on the "interpretation:"

Note that “one” in this verse is neuter, not masculine. In Greek, the masculine would be used to indicate a oneness of person or being, and neuter implies a oneness of purpose.

Nearly all of the people, articles, and books cited in this article aren't LDS. It also gives a considerable amount of "early Church" (pre-300 AD) sources as evidence.

The Council of Nicea was in 325 CE., not 425.

The Nicene Creed of today was not the one that was agreed to in 325. Originally it didn't say anything about a trinity. It spoke only of the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost was added later - supposedly in 381 but officially published in 451.

Yes - I agree - you are correct that the modern concept of the Trinity is found nowhere in the Bible.

I wouldn't say that rejection of the Comma Johanneum undisputed but it is certainly rejected by the vast majority of scholars and probably all credible scholars.

[Justice]

The Council of Nicea was in 325 CE., not 425.

Blah! Typo.

Yeah hard for it to be in the 4th century and be in 425. At least I got the century right. :)

My reason for posting was to draw attention to that quote. I really wasn't wanting to discuss the Trinity again. It's just that the quote was made about the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Trinity belief.

It seems it's a popular topic.

[Snow]

Blah! Typo.

Yeah hard for it to be in the 4th century and be in 425. At least I got the century right. :)

My reason for posting was to draw attention to that quote. I really wasn't wanting to discuss the Trinity again. It's just that the quote was made about the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Trinity belief.

It seems it's a popular topic.

I reread your post and now can tell that it was just a typo, so I guess you were right to begin with.

[Justice]

Ouch.

Yeah, I see now I did it twice. You're kind to accept it as a typo.

But, when I get something stuck in my head, I go with it... good or bad. :)

Another thing I like in this article (something I learned in the college courses I took) is that the word used in Greek for "one" meant one in unity. Greek had a word for being numerically one, but it wasn't used. I had forgotten some of the detail surrounding that.