History of the Trinity Doctrine

[outhouse]

Not mainline, Bible-believing Christians who believe in the Deity of Christ. We get our beliefs purely from the Bible. One example from Luke 1:

The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Do you see it?

your using faith to interpret sentances, and even then it says jesus is the son.

not a part of god that he sent down to be himself.




Its laughable really, to think a god who could do anything and create anything had to put himself through being born and childhood, teenage years all the way to 33, and he was such a powerful god, no one wrote about while he was alive. not a single scribe.

only decades after his death by another culture and religion, from a different geographic location! did this jewish god, become popular enough for romans to write about.


can you even start to explain that?

 

[fallingblood]

not with any credibility

I expect more from a rebuttal. To this point, I haven't seen any credible arguments against my position. Pegg has added some good substance, and I would say we see the issue in a similar light. But really, my argument seems pretty tight as no thorough or partial rebutal has toppled it.

 

[outhouse]

I expect more from a rebuttal. To this point, I haven't seen any credible arguments against my position. Pegg has added some good substance, and I would say we see the issue in a similar light. But really, my argument seems pretty tight as no thorough or partial rebutal has toppled it.

its not as much againt you as the posters taking sides


The trinity evolved much later from the sources we have.

I would need some better evidence then hope and want and faith.


I view all the early writers as viewing jesus as divine, and the son of god, and some confusion due to a written in family connection.


we also have a evolving idea of what now defines the spirit, because judaism views of such never changed as dramaticly as this new faith

 

[fallingblood]

its not as much againt you as the posters taking sides


The trinity evolved much later from the sources we have.

I would need some better evidence then hope and want and faith.


I view all the early writers as viewing jesus as divine, and the son of god, and some confusion due to a written in family connection.


we also have a evolving idea of what now defines the spirit, because judaism views of such never changed as dramaticly as this new faith

Actually, the idea of the Spirit in Judaism did change quite a bit. By the time it gets to the NT, it really is taking on the idea of Wisdom as well. Incidentally, Jesus is also combined with the idea of Wisdom.

The defined concept of Trinity was a much later evolution, but as I showed in my OP, by the time of Tertullian, it was already getting quite under the way. And the basic constructs were already developing by the time of Paul, with Paul equating Jesus and God.

At the same time, after Nicaea and Constantinople (really where the creed comes from), the idea continued to evolved. Even today, the concept has not quit evolving.

 

[fallingblood]

Hi fallingblood. Do you think that Hellenistic Buddhism might have influenced the formation of the Christian trinity doctrine? (See Trikaya)
I admit that I read the Christian scriptures through a Buddhist lens, and see a lot of Buddhist thought in them. I don't want to project something onto them that isn't there. Is the Holy Spirit as "The Spirit of Truth" the same thing as Dharmakaya, or Truth body? I can't say.

Sorry for not getting to this sooner.

There is definitely some similarities with Buddhism (in this regard, I'm most familiar with Pure Land Buddhism, which uses Trikaya). I don't think either actually influenced the other though. One can also find similarities in Hinduism, as well as Taoism and Confucianism. I think the interfaith dialogue though can be very helpful. Personally, I like viewing the Trinity in through the lens of Taoism or Confucianism.

 

[outhouse]

Actually, the idea of the Spirit in Judaism did change quite a bit. By the time it gets to the NT, it really is taking on the idea of Wisdom as well. Incidentally, Jesus is also combined with the idea of Wisdom.

The defined concept of Trinity was a much later evolution, but as I showed in my OP, by the time of Tertullian, it was already getting quite under the way. And the basic constructs were already developing by the time of Paul, with Paul equating Jesus and God.

At the same time, after Nicaea and Constantinople (really where the creed comes from), the idea continued to evolved. Even today, the concept has not quit evolving.

that I agree with most of except your part on pauls view

I think paul was equating jesus as a divine son of god, and I dont think its clear he places them as one substance, hes pretty clear their is a distinction between them

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus the son of God taught without a single doubt, that his Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD.( John 17:1-6) so if a religion teaches a trinity god --in reality they call Gods son a liar. trinity translations are corrupt.

Jesus also taught that he is in the Father, and the Father is within him. He also said that the Father and him were one. So taking just one quote really doesn't work. The entirety has to be looked at.

So in reality, they aren't calling Jesus a liar. They are simply looking at the entire picture instead of taking one verse out of context.

 

[fallingblood]

Also the greeks were refusing to belong to a religion with a single God--they had many gods--they also wanted the holidays as well, so catholicism turned pagan holidays into supposed christian holidays, but in reality were trying to turn the table of demons into the table of God.

That simply is not true. In fact, many Greeks were getting fed up with their older religions. Many were turning to Judaism (without actually converting).

The holidays didn't come about until quite some time later, as did Catholicism. So you're mixing up the history here.

 

[fallingblood]

that I agree with most of except your part on pauls view

I think paul was equating jesus as a divine son of god, and I dont think its clear he places them as one substance, hes pretty clear their is a distinction between them

Paul was also a Pharisee by all accounts. Even if we take the idea that he was a God-fearer, he still placed himself inside the Pharisee idea. For them, there was only one God.

Paul also states a number of times that there is one God. So to see Jesus as a divine son of God would get into a fuzzy area that I don't think he would have been willing to accept that a new divine being existed when that would infringe of God's place.

Now, like you said, he does make a distinction between God and Jesus, and that is something that has held in modern ideas of the Trinity. But at the same time, Paul states quite clearly that Jesus is equal to God, that he was in the form of God. So it becomes a little fuzzy.

 

[F0uad]

Paul was also a Pharisee by all accounts. Even if we take the idea that he was a God-fearer, he still placed himself inside the Pharisee idea. For them, there was only one God.

Paul also states a number of times that there is one God. So to see Jesus as a divine son of God would get into a fuzzy area that I don't think he would have been willing to accept that a new divine being existed when that would infringe of God's place.

Now, like you said, he does make a distinction between God and Jesus, and that is something that has held in modern ideas of the Trinity. But at the same time, Paul states quite clearly that Jesus is equal to God, that he was in the form of God. So it becomes a little fuzzy.

I have a question is it possible that Paul/Saul was influenced by Roman and Greek teachings? Since he was according the Book of Acts an Roman citizen or for example in Roman 16:13 where he calls hes mother one of the Romans. Also to notify according to many historians he travelled many times from Rome to Antioch, across Greece and then finally reaching Jerusalem where he allegedly had a vision according the Book of Acts?

There are several statements in Paul's work that contradict the whole emphasis on one-god, works and several other things that Jesus(pbuh) preached in Mark therefore my question..

 

[fallingblood]

I have a question is it possible that Paul/Saul was influenced by Roman and Greek teachings? Since he was according the Book of Acts an Roman citizen or for example in Roman 16:13 where he calls hes mother one of the Romans. Also to notify according to many historians he travelled many times from Rome to Antioch, across Greece and then finally reaching Jerusalem where he allegedly had a vision according the Book of Acts?

There are several statements in Paul's work that contradict the whole emphasis on one-god, works and several other things that Jesus(pbuh) preached in Mark therefore my question..

He probably was influenced. Judaism was influenced by Greek thought as well, as they were living in a Hellenistic society.

But Paul does, on occasion, state that there is just one God.

 

[F0uad]

He probably was influenced. Judaism was influenced by Greek thought as well, as they were living in a Hellenistic society.

But Paul does, on occasion, state that there is just one God.

So if you agree with the notion that he can and was probably influenced then surely i can suggest that he promoted the trinity, son of god emphasis etc?
Well there are more reference's referring to a multiplied god also not to forget that most of the Gospels are probably influenced by him also since ''hes'' students were writing it

 

[outhouse]

Paul was also a Pharisee by all accounts.

false and off topic

his teaching were the opposite of who he states taught him, and he never stood by mosaic laws.

his actions were "all" of a god-fearer

he still placed himself inside the Pharisee idea

you mean partially and not supported, as any other jew or god-fearer could?

there was only one God.

No, he quite clearly calls jesus the son of god, not a part of god
other then hoa a son is part of a father. [family]

Paul also states a number of times that there is one God.

Yes, and in context he believes there is only one yahweh.

a son of god, is not god. Roman empoerers were "sons of god"

I would state paul looked at jesus as divine though.

So to see Jesus as a divine son of God would get into a fuzzy area that I don't think he would have been willing to accept that a new divine being existed when that would infringe of God's place.

sure he would

he lived in a polytheistic roman world who viewed "son of god" as mortals, and had a habit of being a criminal locked up in prison, and a headhunter and not following mosaic laws.

he was no strict follower of judaism, we know him as a great opportunist, a traveling homeless man with no family, and no family values who held this jesus legend close to his heart.


based on a few writings taken out of context, your trying to guess his imagination on the topic.

Paul states quite clearly that Jesus is equal to God, that he was in the form of God

again paul was trying to elevate his "son of god" higher then roman emporers.

and it would make him a liar, because he also places jesus as a mortal man who walked the earth, allthough his focus is on the mythical divine jesus. which gods form never has been known to do.

yeesh its pretty obvious they were winging it, trying to hold on to monotheism and "a" powerful god that made judaism so appealing to romans.

So it becomes a little fuzzy.

I agree


I think were both trying to interpret another mans imagination based on small amount of evidence to work with

 

[sojourner]

also not to forget that most of the Gospels are probably influenced by him also since ''hes'' students were writing it

False. None of the gospel writers were "Paul's students."

 

[outhouse]

False. None of the gospel writers were "Paul's students."

agree, not directly


since pauls movement grew into christianity, one could probably claim his remote indirect students, vaguely with a wish and a prayer

 

[sojourner]

agree, not directly


since pauls movement grew into christianity, one could probably claim his remote indirect students, vaguely with a wish and a prayer

yeah, but the traditions out of which three of the gospels came were patently pre-Pauline -- and were, in fact, Galilean.

 

[outhouse]

yeah, but the traditions out of which three of the gospels came were patently pre-Pauline -- and were, in fact, Galilean.

id argue that all day long.


only some of the sayings made through in Q and Thomas which didnt even make the cut.

But as a whole, the works are roman, despite GMatthews author/s writing to a more jewish orientated sect, that still used Gmarks roman foundation.

I think the only tie you couild make is that jesus was from the area, and that is where the legend originates. After that, there is no clear connection to galilee at all.





if you have some info on a connection please share

 

[sojourner]

id argue that all day long.


only some of the sayings made through in Q and Thomas which didnt even make the cut.

But as a whole, the works are roman, despite GMatthews author/s writing to a more jewish orientated sect, that still used Gmarks roman foundation.

I think the only tie you couild make is that jesus was from the area, and that is where the legend originates. After that, there is no clear connection to galilee at all.





if you have some info on a connection please share

Q is patently Galilean and predates Mark by 30 years. Yes, Luke is Gentile. Matthew is Jewish, writing to an expatriate Jewish community.

I think Q is Galilean, because the outlying, more rural areas were far more suspicious of the Roman "Big Brother" than the urbanites were. Q is so suspicious. The remaining L and M material are not.

 

[F0uad]

Well you forget the notion that Pauline scriptures date back earlier then that of Mark what is considered to be the oldest gospel, we also know that Matthew and Luke used Mark's work so therefore i can conclude that all work have been influenced by Paul in a way.

Also there is no historical evidence that the gospels were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke or John since the writers used a 3rd person view on the stories and the titles clearly say ''According to'' and not ''By''.

 

[outhouse]

Well you forget the notion that Pauline scriptures date back earlier then that of Mark what is considered to be the oldest gospel, we also know that Matthew and Luke used Mark's work so therefore i can conclude that all work have been influenced by Paul in a way.

Also there is no historical evidence that the gospels were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke or John since the writers used a 3rd person view on the stories and the titles clearly say ''According to'' and not ''By''.

because paul was before the gospels does not mean they were influenced by them.

its obvious they were not, and follwoing other developing traditions