cyberpi in #73 said:
I am simply looking for the origin of who created the Trinity... because its not in the bible. If it were the word of God (swt), then I don't want to counter it... so I look up Tertullian's literature to see if he claims God (swt) told him. No... Tertullian was not a profit. In fact he was countering Praxeas who thought Jesus (pbuh) and God (swt) were so much the same that you could say god the Father died on the cross.
Cyberpi, I suspect there may be important differences between the Christian and Muslim ways of establishing doctrine. I know next to nothing about Islam so I speak only for Christianity. In Christianity, a belief does not have to be explicitly stated in the Bible in order for it to become a test-of-faith doctrine (i.e. if you accept it you're in; if you reject it you're out).
It does have to have basis in scripture. And that is what people have been giving you as answers that you rejected. Thus, I will try to explain from a different angle. I don't know how to explain without looking at the history of Christianity and how it has developed over the millennia so here goes.
My own understanding of the origins of Christianity suggests that it was very fragmented and diverse. (Some Christians will deny this version but it is the one that makes most sense to me so it is the one I will use here.) One of my teachers said it was more diverse than today. I cannot imagine how that was possible but he knows the history so I'm taking him at his word.
Perhaps we might view it as the roots of a tree as viewed from the bottom up. They come from many different locations but all join in the trunk of the tree. So with the origins of Christianity. The way I see it, by the third to the fifth centuries AD Christianity was solidifying into one like the trunk of the tree where all the diverse root system comes together.
For about a thousand years there were two branches of Christianity: The Eastern or Greek Orthodox Church, and the Western or Roman Catholic Church. In the sixteenth century the Reformation took place in Western Christendom. I don't know the history of the Eastern Church and will here focus on the Western one.
This is when the Lutheran Church, and a number of others, started. By now, the tree of Western Christianity has been branching out for several centuries, like the top of the tree. Today we see a new form of Christianity developing. See the subsection on "Liberal Christianity" in the
Beliefs and Spirituality forum of this site.
The way I see it, there are central tenets of the Christian faith that have been largely unchallenged throughout its history. Some of these are the belief of the trinity, the virgin birth of Christ, etc. I understand these were established in the church councils Constantine called after he legalized Christianity as the formal religion of the Roman Empire.
I understand the Eastern and Western Churches split over the question of what/who Jesus really was, whether he was the very same substance as the Father i.e. the same as God. The Western Church resolved this problem by wording it in such a way as to allow personal interpretation without saying so.
Cyberpi, can you see that you are asking for clarification on a question that is older than the Muslim religion itself? Perhaps you can understand why nobody is giving you clear answers that also make sense. Does that discredit the religion? Of course not!
This does not mean you and I have to believe it. We do have to acknowledge that there is a major belief system in this world known as Christianity. And I think we are bound by human decency to be respectful of it and its adherents and their beliefs. When and if I have to choose loyalty between Christianity and Islam, I naturally choose Christianity. Why? Because it's in my blood and the blood of my ancestors from time immemorial.
As to the new form of Christianity that is forming--it challenges some of the basic tenets of the religion that were established under Constantine. What defines it as "Christian"? I don't think anybody knows for sure at this point in history. (I might post this question in the
Liberal Christianity section.) But you can be sure the old question as to exactly who/what Jesus is/was is a key issue.
As has been the age-old tradition, I expect it to be figured out via dialogue and general consensus and/or compromise. It may become part of church politics as in the past, or it may be discarded in the name of peace as an unimportant question. Of course, traditional Christians would be horrified by such a move but so be it.
Back to the topic of this thread. Since this question is older than the closed canon of Scripture itself, it can hardly be considered to be the result of corruption in the Bible. The disagreement on this issue may be the reason the Bible is not clear on it. Maybe the decision-makers re closing the canon could not agree so they left it ambiguous. Who knows?
The guy first known to write about a Trinity was AGAINST saying Jesus (pbuh) and God (swt) were the same.
The very fact that he used the word in the context of a heated argument tells us how the word came into common usage. Even in conflict we humans will borrow ideas from our enemies if they are more effective than our own. Perhaps Muslims don't do this but it looks like we Christians sure do.
That is my pesonal position on this at the moment. I tend to change and grow in my thinking as new information comes in. I do not pretend to speak for anyone beside myself, Christian or otherwise.
Ruby
There are people who understand it experientially, too. Quahom1 has a nice description of what "the Trinity" means to him.
