Athanasian Creed - The Man-Made Doctrine

[2timothy316]

For clarity, is the Athanasian Creed found here https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/c ... sian-creed the accepted belief of the trinity for all trinitarians?
If not what is? Who is reading this creed for the first time? Who considers it to be holy scripture?

The creed ends with "one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully."
If it isn't scripture...How do they have the authority to say such a thing?

[The Tanager]

But the Bible does not teach the trinity. It is something thought up by "Christian" disciples at the end of the first century and on into the fourth century when it became doctrine. I have comments from a Catholic encyclopedia that admit that the trinity doctrine is not a teaching by the earliest disciples and the only thing in the Bible that even hints at a trinity is Matthew 28:19. That is it. And it says nothing about them all being equal. "Scholarship" will lead one to this fact, if one delves deeply enough.

Are you saying that one (Catholic) encyclopedia (if you understood it correctly) is good enough to say the Bible doesn't teach a trinitarian understanding of God? Whether you are or not, I doubt you are understanding that encyclopedia's claim correctly. It is probably saying there isn't a verse that directly teaches the trinity (even Matt 28:19 doesn't say all 3 are God one being in three persons, etc), but I'm pretty sure (being Catholic) that the authors will think the trinity comes from the verses of the Bible when it talks of there being one God, and that (in different areas) talks of the Father being divine/God, and talks of Jesus/Son being divine/God, and talks of Spirit being divine/God and that these persons interact with each other to denote some kind of distinction.

The common English definition of "begotten" is: (1)Procreated, (2)Given rise to; caused

Therefore it can be said that Jesus was "procreated, or, "caused." He was the first and only thing created by God Himself. Everything else was created through Jesus.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;because by means of him all other things were created..." (Colossians 1:15,16)

Why do you think the Athanasian creed was written with the modern common English definition of 'begotten' in mind? The Athanasian creed clearly says "The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone," so they clearly were not saying that Jesus was procreated or caused or the first and only thing created by God Himself and that everything else was created through Jesus. You may think the Athanasian creed got it wrong, but it's not because of the modern common English definition of 'begotten'.

Now for the different critique that the Bible teaches something different than the Athanasian creed in Colossians 1:15-16, I have two questions:

(1) Why do you understand first-born to mean first created versus first in rank?

(2) Why do you translate the back end of the verse as "because by means of him all other things were created..."? Where does the "other" come from?

[2timothy316]

(8) Why do you think anything that is important must be moved to the category of “scripture”? I don’t get the connection there.

All of this is very odd to me that you don't get the connections between identifying what is man-made and what isn't and what scripture is important.

Clarifications of basic definitions are needed.
Concerning any trinity creed, can anything written down as being identified from God not be considered as holy scripture?

What does scripture mean to you?

[2timothy316]

Trinitarians don’t believe people went looking for the trinity, but that it calls from the Biblical pages.

Explain this in as much detail as you can. Explain how it calls to you. Do you hear something? Do you see a hand gesturing? Do Bible pages and words glow?

Why, after thousands of years did the scriptures start calling for people to look for a trinity? I mean, couldn't this have started before Jesus arrived...or for that matter after he arrived and was walking with his disciples, he could have explained it all. From your view, I seem to gather that the trinity isn't really all that important. I mean, salvation doesn't depend on it. So who cares? So why, after thousands of years of the trinity not even mattering, did it suddenly matter....or does it? I just fail to see the point. Does God teach mankind things that don't really matter?

[2ndpillar2]

For clarity, is the Athanasian Creed found here https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/c ... sian-creed the accepted belief of the trinity for all trinitarians?
If not what is? Who is reading this creed for the first time? Who considers it to be holy scripture?

The creed ends with "one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully."
If it isn't scripture...How do they have the authority to say such a thing?

Athanasius had the authority of the Roman empire, as he was a bishop of the Roman church. The Roman empire got its authority from the "dragon" (Revelation 13:4). Athanasius was at the Nicene Council and debated for the Trinity dogma. Is it true? In the eyes of those on the wide path to destruction (Mt 7:13), and being "deceived" (Revelation 13:14), well, yes. Is it true in fact, of course not. Those with the mark of the beast with two horns like a lamb, will have to drink from the cup of God's anger (Rev 14:10).

[The Tanager]

All of this is very odd to me that you don't get the connections between identifying what is man-made and what isn't and what scripture is important.

Clarifications of basic definitions are needed.
Concerning any trinity creed, can anything written down as being identified from God not be considered as holy scripture?

What does scripture mean to you?

Scripture are specific books of the Bible that were written by certain people, within a certain time period about God’s dealings with humanity. Creeds are philosophical reflections on scripture and, as such, contain truths from God.

Explain this in as much detail as you can. Explain how it calls to you. Do you hear something? Do you see a hand gesturing? Do Bible pages and words glow?

It was simply a poetic choice of words. I’m saying the trinity idea comes from putting scriptural passages together. Scripture teaches (1) there is one God, (2) the Father is God, (3) Jesus is God, (4) the Spirit is God, and (5) the Father, Son, and Spirit interact. We name the putting of all that together “trinity”. Then people try to go deeper on how it all fits together. Just like the atonement was an act Jesus performed, but then people go deeper and try to come up with theories about how atonement actually works. The important bit is the truth the theories are trying to get at.

Why, after thousands of years did the scriptures start calling for people to look for a trinity? I mean, couldn't this have started before Jesus arrived...or for that matter after he arrived and was walking with his disciples, he could have explained it all.

It wasn’t thousands of years. It wasn’t even hundreds of years when the trinitarian creeds were finally put down. That only happened because some Christians were saying some unbiblical stuff about God. It is there from the time of Jesus in the pages of the Bible when Jesus claims equality with the Father.

From your view, I seem to gather that the trinity isn't really all that important. I mean, salvation doesn't depend on it. So who cares? So why, after thousands of years of the trinity not even mattering, did it suddenly matter....or does it? I just fail to see the point. Does God teach mankind things that don't really matter?

You don’t understand my view well then. It does matter. All truth matters. But perfect knowledge of the truth isn’t required for salvation, thank God. It doesn’t matter in that way. There is life beyond salvation. From the point of salvation, we are growing in our knowledge of who God is, who we are, and how we should be loving each other.

[onewithhim]

But the Bible does not teach the trinity. It is something thought up by "Christian" disciples at the end of the first century and on into the fourth century when it became doctrine. I have comments from a Catholic encyclopedia that admit that the trinity doctrine is not a teaching by the earliest disciples and the only thing in the Bible that even hints at a trinity is Matthew 28:19. That is it. And it says nothing about them all being equal. "Scholarship" will lead one to this fact, if one delves deeply enough.

Are you saying that one (Catholic) encyclopedia (if you understood it correctly) is good enough to say the Bible doesn't teach a trinitarian understanding of God? Whether you are or not, I doubt you are understanding that encyclopedia's claim correctly. It is probably saying there isn't a verse that directly teaches the trinity (even Matt 28:19 doesn't say all 3 are God one being in three persons, etc), but I'm pretty sure (being Catholic) that the authors will think the trinity comes from the verses of the Bible when it talks of there being one God, and that (in different areas) talks of the Father being divine/God, and talks of Jesus/Son being divine/God, and talks of Spirit being divine/God and that these persons interact with each other to denote some kind of distinction.

The Bible does not refer to the Son of God as God, and neither the Holy Spirit. Please show me verses that say so. I think the trinity falls into the realm of tradition, and tradition trumps the Bible, as I've had Catholics tell me.

[onewithhim]

But the Bible does not teach the trinity. It is something thought up by "Christian" disciples at the end of the first century and on into the fourth century when it became doctrine. I have comments from a Catholic encyclopedia that admit that the trinity doctrine is not a teaching by the earliest disciples and the only thing in the Bible that even hints at a trinity is Matthew 28:19. That is it. And it says nothing about them all being equal. "Scholarship" will lead one to this fact, if one delves deeply enough.

Are you saying that one (Catholic) encyclopedia (if you understood it correctly) is good enough to say the Bible doesn't teach a trinitarian understanding of God? Whether you are or not, I doubt you are understanding that encyclopedia's claim correctly. It is probably saying there isn't a verse that directly teaches the trinity (even Matt 28:19 doesn't say all 3 are God one being in three persons, etc), but I'm pretty sure (being Catholic) that the authors will think the trinity comes from the verses of the Bible when it talks of there being one God, and that (in different areas) talks of the Father being divine/God, and talks of Jesus/Son being divine/God, and talks of Spirit being divine/God and that these persons interact with each other to denote some kind of distinction.

The common English definition of "begotten" is: (1)Procreated, (2)Given rise to; caused

Therefore it can be said that Jesus was "procreated, or, "caused." He was the first and only thing created by God Himself. Everything else was created through Jesus.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;because by means of him all other things were created..." (Colossians 1:15,16)

Why do you think the Athanasian creed was written with the modern common English definition of 'begotten' in mind? The Athanasian creed clearly says "The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone,"

The Athanasian Creed was men's thinking, according to their misunderstanding of the Scriptures (or their deliberate pulling the wool). I think they knew that they were going against Scripture. Some of the "early fathers" thought that Colossians 1:15 clearly showed that Christ was created, as it says "the first-born" of all creation. He was part of the "creation," and the first-born of it. They felt this was too much against their teachings, so they contrived an explanation that you probably hold to today. It doesn't match the clear meaning of the verse.

[onewithhim]

But the Bible does not teach the trinity. It is something thought up by "Christian" disciples at the end of the first century and on into the fourth century when it became doctrine. I have comments from a Catholic encyclopedia that admit that the trinity doctrine is not a teaching by the earliest disciples and the only thing in the Bible that even hints at a trinity is Matthew 28:19. That is it. And it says nothing about them all being equal. "Scholarship" will lead one to this fact, if one delves deeply enough.

Are you saying that one (Catholic) encyclopedia (if you understood it correctly) is good enough to say the Bible doesn't teach a trinitarian understanding of God? Whether you are or not, I doubt you are understanding that encyclopedia's claim correctly. It is probably saying there isn't a verse that directly teaches the trinity (even Matt 28:19 doesn't say all 3 are God one being in three persons, etc), but I'm pretty sure (being Catholic) that the authors will think the trinity comes from the verses of the Bible when it talks of there being one God, and that (in different areas) talks of the Father being divine/God, and talks of Jesus/Son being divine/God, and talks of Spirit being divine/God and that these persons interact with each other to denote some kind of distinction.

The common English definition of "begotten" is: (1)Procreated, (2)Given rise to; caused

Therefore it can be said that Jesus was "procreated, or, "caused." He was the first and only thing created by God Himself. Everything else was created through Jesus.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;because by means of him all other things were created..." (Colossians 1:15,16)

Why do you think the Athanasian creed was written with the modern common English definition of 'begotten' in mind? The Athanasian creed clearly says "The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone," so they clearly were not saying that Jesus was procreated or caused or the first and only thing created by God Himself and that everything else was created through Jesus. You may think the Athanasian creed got it wrong, but it's not because of the modern common English definition of 'begotten'.

Now for the different critique that the Bible teaches something different than the Athanasian creed in Colossians 1:15-16, I have two questions:

(1) Why do you understand first-born to mean first created versus first in rank?

(2) Why do you translate the back end of the verse as "because by means of him all other things were created..."? Where does the "other" come from?

I explained what I think of number (1).

"Other" is included because that fills out the meaning of the sentence, just as many versions of the Bible do with their translations. The Scripture just said that Jesus was the "first-born of all creation," so there remains the clear meaning of the following information, which says that he created all "other" things. It makes perfect sense.

[The Tanager]

The Bible does not refer to the Son of God as God, and neither the Holy Spirit. Please show me verses that say so. I think the trinity falls into the realm of tradition, and tradition trumps the Bible, as I've had Catholics tell me.

I’m not Catholic. Tradition doesn’t trump the Bible for me. As far as what the Bible says on this issue, we are already having a bit of that conversation on another thread, so you can respond to my latest post there: viewtopic.php?t=41587.

The Athanasian Creed was men's thinking, according to their misunderstanding of the Scriptures (or their deliberate pulling the wool). I think they knew that they were going against Scripture.

This is psychological speculation. It doesn’t matter what explanation you can contrive for their beliefs. It doesn’t matter if your explanation for their beliefs is even right. That would be the genetic fallacy. What matters is the argument for and argument against.

Some of the "early fathers" thought that Colossians 1:15 clearly showed that Christ was created, as it says "the first-born" of all creation. He was part of the "creation," and the first-born of it. They felt this was too much against their teachings, so they contrived an explanation that you probably hold to today. It doesn't match the clear meaning of the verse.

If your argument here for Col 1:15 teaching Jesus was created is that some early fathers interpreted it that way, then that’s a bad argument because it’s just an appeal to authority and only one side of the authorities at that. Other early fathers interpreted it differently, so why not go with them?

If your argument here is that your interpretation of Col 1:15 is the “clear meaning of the verse”, then that’s a bad argument because it’s just begging the question. What is your support for it being the clear meaning?

"Other" is included because that fills out the meaning of the sentence, just as many versions of the Bible do with their translations. The Scripture just said that Jesus was the "first-born of all creation," so there remains the clear meaning of the following information, which says that he created all "other" things. It makes perfect sense.

If your argument for adding “other” follows from what you previously said, you’ve still got some work to do because appeals to some authorities (especially when even more authorities disagree) and begging the question are not rational ways to support your belief that is then used to support other beliefs.

[JehovahsWitness]

... the trinity idea comes from putting scriptural passages together. Scripture teaches (1) there is one God, (2) the Father is God, (3) Jesus is God, (4) the Spirit is God, and (5) the Father, Son, and Spirit interact. We name the putting of all that together “trinity”.

That may well be, but to conclude that the spirit is a person and that Almighty God YHWH and the Son are equal in age, rank, power and authority is totally incorrect. When Jesus was on earth he endlessly debated with the Pharisees whose ideas (like those of the trinitarians) came from "putting scriptural passages together". The problem is they misunderstood the scriptures they were putting together, and put them together incorrectly.

MATTHEW 22:29

In reply Jesus said to them: “You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God

TRINITY 2023: viewtopic.php?p=1112469#p1112469

To learn more please go to to other posts related to ...

THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED , LORD & SAVIOUR and ... JESUS