Early Christians Rejected the Trinity

[metis]

Well said, infact if you go to a Jewish synagogue and talk about the Trinity you will most likely be told to be quiet about it or you will be asked to leave as they do not believe in the Trinity and as Jesus himself was a Jew then how could he and his disciple believe in a trinity.

Because, contrary to the opinion of some, the concept of the Trinity does not posit any more than the one God.

Again, "essence" needs to be understood before looking at this concept correctly because that's a large part of the basis of the Trinitarian concept.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

#1. "We" who?
#2. That's also a very short outline.
#3. In your dreams.

The outline is the Old Testament.

Only Marcionites and similar types of groups have a qualm with that.

 

[Terry Sampson]

We would consider Christians to believe in the "same God", in the sense that they share the same rough outline as Jews, and Jews definitely believe in the "same God" as us, 100%.

• Let's assume, for the sake of argument,
  • that the Jews believe in God the Father, maker of the heavens and the earth; and
  • that Christians, for the most part anyway, also believe in God the Father, maker of the heavens and earth.

That's about the limit of the "short, rough outline" that traditional Jews and Christians share. Beyond that, Christian beliefs about God are all over the place.

As for Jews and Muslims believing in the "same God", you need to explain why Jewish Scripture says God acknowledges the righteous as His children and they acknowledge Him to be their Father; but Allah and Muslims have no such relationship.

• Deuteronomy Chapter 14:
  • You are children of the LORD your God.
• 2 Samuel, Chapter 7:
  • 8 And now, so shall you say to My servant, to David; 'Thus says the Lord of Hosts. I took you from the sheep cote, from following the sheep, to be a leader over My people Israel.
    9 And I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you, and have made for you a great name, like the name of the great ones that are in the earth.
    10 And I will appoint a place for My people, for Israel, and I will plant them, and they will dwell in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and the wicked people shall not continue to afflict them as formerly.
    11 And even from the day that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. And the Lord has told you that the Lord will make for you a house.
    12 When your days are finished and you shall lie with your forefathers, then I will raise up your seed that shall proceed from your body after you, and I will establish his kingdom.
    13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
    14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to Me a son; so that when he goes astray I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of Adam.
• Psalm, Chapter 2:
  • 7 I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you. will proclaim the Lord’s decree:
    He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father."

• Wisdom of Solomon, Chapter 2:
  • 12 ‘Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training.
  • 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord.
  • 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
  • 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange.
  • 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.
  • 17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
  • 18 for if the righteous man is God’s child, He will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries
  • 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance
  • 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.’
  • 21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them,
  • 22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hoped for the wages of holiness, nor discerned the prize for blameless souls;
  • 23 for God created us for incorruption, and made us in the image of His own eternity,
  • 24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it.

There is this difference also: In Surah 78:21-34, I read:

• Truly Hell lies in ambush, a place unto which the rebellious return to tarry therein for ages.
  They taste therein neither coolness nor drink, save boiling liquid and a cold, murky fluid, a fitting recompense. Truly they anticipated not a reckoning, and denied Our signs with utter denial. And everything have We recorded in a book.
  So taste! For We shall not increase you in aught but punishment! Truly the reverent shall have a place of triumph, gardens and vineyards, buxom maidens of like age, and an overflowing cup.

Now, find me a Jew that still subscribes to the faith of the Jews that they learned at home and/or in a synagogue, who believes that their God promises such punishment and rewards.

 

[eik]

That really wasn't the main issue at all as they dealt with Jesus' relationship with God in a way that was quite contentious to most others within the Church, though not necessarily wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

From your Wiki article:

"The Arian concept of Christ is based on the belief that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten within time by God the Father."

The Trinitarian concept is that God the Son was "begotten outside of time by God the Father."

which derives from the Nicene creed "...begotten of the Father before all ages."

So the difference between Arianism and Trinitarianism relates to "when" God the Son was begotten.

Non Trinitarians say he was begotten on his conception.

And when one uses the word "heresy", they should always remember that what's a "heresy" will typically depend on which side one is on. On top of that, there was much debate in the 2nd century over this issue, which is largely absent in any of the 1st century sources. It seems that just the aura and martyrdom of Jesus was enough at first, but then the nit-picking got involved.

Heresy is quite often employed to promote one divisive philosophy over another, where neither philosophy derives from the bible; or else pretend that the bible infers a particular philosophy when it doesn't.

I agree the term is divisive. It was very common in the Christological controversies. Doubtless it was exceedingly misused for political point scoring by all factions. Yet there is undoubtedly heresy in this area, such as the belief that Christ was an angel or did not come from God.

As for myself, I don't lose any sleep over it one way or the other.

Yet it's important to know what the bible says and doesn't say. So those who say the bible teaches implied trinitarianism need to be able to fully prove the implication. If they can't they should be losing sleep.

 

[metis]

So the difference between Arianism and Trinitarianism relates to "when" God the Son was begotten.

Non Trinitarians say he was begotten on his conception.

Exactly, which is why I posted that there was a compromise to bring those in Arianism aboard with the Nicene Creed.

Heresy is quite often employed to promote one divisive philosophy over another, where neither philosophy derives from the bible; or else pretend that the bible infers a particular philosophy when it doesn't.

Not everything is cut and dry as anyone who's spent time in scripture studies should know. Nor are all events or beliefs provable.

The Nicene Creed was an is an attempt to teach what the Church believes the relationship likely is in the opinion of over a thousand bishops that were involved. The fact that it is not considered to be slam-dunk proven is referred to in the Catholic terminology "the Mystery of the Trinity". Even there being One God is not provable.

Yet it's important to know what the bible says and doesn't say. So those who say the bible teaches implied trinitarianism need to be able to fully prove the implication. If they can't they should be losing sleep.

See above, because the problematic word you used above is "prove".

Nor is having politically-correct beliefs by themselves likely to be the determiner of one's fate, although there's no doubt that some beliefs are more important than others, such as the belief IN God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats makes this abundantly clear.

 

[Ponder This]

That analogy is definitely contrary to the so-called orthodox conception of the Trinity. Your analogy describes how bread has parts or components, and each component is not the bread itself, i.e., partialism (considered a heresy by orthodox, trinitarian Christians).

An intriguing interpretation...
Partialism Heresy: 'The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are similar to each other but not One in Essence.'

Partialism doesn't appear to be what the analogy is saying. Try again? Maybe don't over-analyze the analogy?

Orthodox Definition of the Trinity is that the 'Father Son and Holy Spirit are One in Essence, Co-Eternal, Undivided.
I found this interesting statement. Note the the phrase "One in Essence" What is the "Essence"? Isn't that what we would all like to know?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Man is a spirit, a soul and a body. Are we three persons or three parts (not equal parts) of different materiality and purpose and yet still one? Does my spirit look like my body and yet still one person?

That's hilarious. It's YOU Trinitarians that are the ones saying there are 3 separate persons. Not me.

 

[Kenny]

That is hilarious. It is YOU Trinitarians that are the ones saying that each is a separate person. Not me.

Nice try... is your spirit different from your body?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Nice try... is your spirit different from your body?

Of course my spirit is different from my body. But it is not another person. Is yours?

See the ridiculous flaw in your argument.

 

[Kenny]

Of course my spirit is different from my body. But it is not another person. Is yours?

See the ridiculous flaw in your argument.

So when your body dies, are you still alive? And are the two different materiality and for different purposes?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

So when your body dies, are you still alive? And are the two different materiality and for different purposes?

No - when your body dies you are dead. I believe it is talking about the breath of life, when it refers to our spirit. When we die - we give up the breath of life.

While we have the breath of life, we are a living being. (A soul if you will.)

 

[Kenny]

No - when your body dies you are dead. I believe it is talking about the breath of life, when it refers to our spirit. When we die - we give up the breath of life.

While we have the breath of life, we are a living being. (A soul if you will.)

So, there are two of you (minimum) - but still one person. Your body has a function (looks like your spirit but is a different materiality) and your spirit has a function but is a different materiality.

Now, I think you are beginning to get that there is one God but manifested in three different purpose but still one God.

 

[Brian2]

باسمك اللهم

Let me get right to the point: an early Church father and Christian theologian, Tertullian (d.220 CE), a staunch advocate of the Trinity doctrine, confessed in his writings that the majority of Christians in his time, whom he refers to as “Believers” not only rejected the Trinity, but held it in contempt as nothing more than thinly veiled tritheism: “The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own dispensation. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves preeminently the credit of being worshipers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God)

Source: Against Praxeas; ch. III

Based on this quote, I have some questions for trinitarian Christians:

1. Are those Christians who reject the Trinity still considered ‘Believers’? Tertullian apparently thought so

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, does that not indicate that belief in the Trinity is not a necessary doctrine for faith?

3. If the Trinity is so evident from Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles, why, according to Tertullian, was it rejected by the majority of Christians as late as the 3rd century CE?
In fact, if you study the development of this Trinity doctrine, you will see that the earliest mention of the word Trinity in Christian literature is in the late 2nd century CE by the theologian Theophilus of Antioch (d. 183 CE). But curiously, he defines the Trinity contrary to the so-called orthodox conception of ‘Father, Son, Holy Spirit’, instead claiming that the Trinity is “God, His Word [Logos], and His Wisdom [Sophia]”

Source: Apology to Autolycus

In summary, it is quite apparent to me the Trinity doctrine was developed by certain theologians and then made an essential part of the Christian dogma by powerful Bishops. It was certainly not taught by Jesus of Nazareth or his disciples and apostles. It is certainly not taught in the Hebrew Bible, which zealously affirms unitarian monotheism.

Tertullian does not say the majority of believers rejected the trinity, he says the majority of believers are simple,,,,,,,as in simple folk.
Tertullian knows that believers in Jesus can also believe heresies and Tertullian writes against heresies.

Here is a site which presents more views from the early church which support the trinity.
Ignatius of Antioch is a very early church Father and from the orthodox church and is said to have been, along with Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle. Both seem to have believed in the deity of Jesus and the special unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The Early Church Fathers on Jesus
Tracing the Thread of Trinitarian Thought from Ignatius to Origen | Maranatha Baptist Seminary

 

[Muffled]

Arianism is a heresy derived from conflating biblical doctrine with Greek triadiam. It denies the co-eternality of different members of the triad. Take away the Greek philosophy and both Arianism and Sabellianism would have no reason to exist. All Trinitarian heresies are predicated on a Trinity itself derived from the corruption of biblical doctrine by Greek philosophy.

I believe I was never influenced by Greek philosophy and find Sabellius half right simply because the Word of God supports that view of the Trinity.

 

[Muffled]

The difference is they believe in God BUT associate things with God that aren't God. That is the Islamic subtlety.
On the Christian end, other Christians who reject the trinity are often considered total disbelievers in even God (atheists), which is a stark contrast, and they also have a strong age-old dissonance towards Jewish theology.

We would consider Christians to believe in the "same God", in the sense that they share the same rough outline as Jews, and Jews definitely believe in the "same God" as us, 100%.

I don't know of any place in Christianity where that happens.

 

[Muffled]

So is God a Spirit as John said, or is he 3 persons as you say?

I believe God is a Spirit in three persons.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I believe God is a Spirit in three persons.

Please provide a scripture that says that.

 

[eik]

I believe God is a Spirit in three persons.

You won't find any allusion to that directly because God supervenes the concept of a "person," which word has a specific reference to a human person.

If you want to say God is or exists in three "divine persons" you may, but you're not really communicating a lot, as a "divine person," as a concept, doesn't have existence in the bible, except either as reference to the Father directly, or one in whom the Father is manifested, which brings the concept to the conclusion that no "divine person" can ever exist separately from the Father, which makes the concept redudant, and which is likely why the bible has no real use for the concept of a "divine person" as inferring division within God whom cannot be perceived by humans except in terms of his manifestation, and only understood in terms of the spiritually-one hierarchy of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.