Argument Against the Trinity? Origin of the Trinity

One of the comments in my previous post “Argument against the Trinity? Jose Ventilacion on the death of Christ” had a comment from “Javier” that tried to argue against the Trinity:

History and Archeology show that the Trinity comes from the false religion. You can find images and sculptures of trinitarian gods from Babylon and Egypt in museums and ancient churches. The Trinity had its origin and development by men in the councils of Nicaea (325 CE) and Constantinople (381 CE), not in the Bible.

Here’s my reply:

1. First we must get our definition right with the Trinity.  Why?  Because those who are refuting the Trinity need to get the definition right or else they risk the high probability of not refuting the actual doctrine of the Trinity in their arguments but instead commit a strawman fallacy.
2. What is the doctrine of the Trinity?  I thought the debate laid out the doctrine of the Trinity well; the doctrine of the Trinity is the doctrine that “within the One Being that is God there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal Persons, namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.“
3. Javier claimed that “History and Archeology show that the Trinity comes from the false religion,” but there’s problems with his assertion.
   1. He has the burden of proof of demonstrating that false religions do have a theology in which they believed in the Trinity specifically with the following elements: (1) there is only one Being that is God, (2) that within the one true God there exists only three (no more and no less) eternally co-equal and co-eternal Persons, (3) namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  I doubt that the guy would be able to find that there’s proof for the Trinity from pagan “false religion.”
   2. The guy might find the belief of Tritheism (belief that there are three gods) but that is not the doctrine of the Trinity.
   3. The guy might find an emphasis of three gods among the gods but again that’s not the doctrine of the Trinity.
   4. Also let us say that there’s the belief of the Trinity among false religions; still he hasn’t disproved the Trinity for the relationship that the “Trinity comes from the false religion” has not been demonstrated.
      1. Remember just because something comes first in of itself does not mean it caused something.
      2. For example history attests that the practice of circumcision existed before Judaism.  Does that mean we can rule this was not something God wanted at one time in history with Israel merely because it has appeared before chronologically in history?
4. Our commentator also asserted that “You can find images and sculptures of trinitarian gods from Babylon and Egypt in museums and ancient churches.”
   1. The phrase itself “trinitarian gods” is a contradiction for the Trinity is a doctrine that believes there is one God while gods are plural.
   2. Pagans often have sculptures and images of a triade of gods and Tritheism but remember that is the Trinity.
   3. Again even if its true that there were images of the Trinity in Babylon and Egypt that still does not disprove the Trinity of the Bible per se for it still needs to be proven that Christianity actually got their doctrine from the Babylonians and Egyptians.
   4. Moreover the Egyptians and Babylonians were praying before the nation of Israel existed; does that mean we can say prayer is from the Babylonians and Egyptians and therefore we must reject it?  That’s analogous to the terrible form of the argument that has been given by our critic.
   5. Since this critic used the argumentation that the Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible means it is not taught in the Bible, if we emply the same kind of faulty argumentation of the critic it also disprove the thesis that the Trinity came from Babylonians and Egyptians.
      1. Nowhere does the word Trinity appear in Babylonian religion.
      2. Nowhere does the word Trinity appears in Egyptian religion.
      3. Therefore using the faulty reasoning of the critic himself used, we see that must mean the Egyptians and Babylonians were not Trinitarians.
5. Our critic states “The Trinity had its origin and development by men in the councils of Nicaea (325 CE) and Constantinople (381 CE), not in the Bible.”
   1. We have an interesting contradiction here with the comment of this anti-Trinitarian.  On the one hand the critic claims the Trinity “comes from the false religion.”  Yet on the other hand the Trinity had its origin in Nicaea.  If the Trinity originated in the council of Nicea than it did not originated in pagan false religions.  If the Trinity originated among pagan false religions than it was not the Council of Nicea that originated it.
   2. The Trinity was not invented by the church in the council of Nicea. Contrary to the anti-Trinitarian the Trinity is taught in the Bible.  Here’s a relevant post demonstrating that the Trinity is Biblical: Seventeen Sessions on the Trinity! Audios and Notes.

More could be said but there’s already enough problems noted here with those who try to argue against the Trinity by playing the game of asserting its origin as being from somewhere else besides the Bible.