The Trinity Concept

[Mister Emu]

The issue was WHETHER PETER BECAME A BISHOP AND PASSED ON THIS AUTHORITY to the roman church.

I'm not as sure it matters whether Peter was a Bishop as whether he passed on the authority, and to who.

Many bishops “involved themselves in the affairs of other congregations”.

Of note, Clement was writing about a controversy in the Corinthian Bishopric, and telling them to accept the Bishops they had expelled back. Lightfoot notes that this authortative take is "the first step towards Papal domination" (Apostolic Fathers: S. Clement of Rome, 70)

Secondly Mr Emu writes : “Ignatius writes in 107 that Rome presided over the Church.” - you will have to give us a reference so as to allow us to study the actual quote your referring to..

I will rescind this comment, as I cannot find the translation I had read. English translation say that the Roman Church "presides over love", whereas I had read that it was 'presides over the brotherhood of love'. I think that statement still implies a certain primacy, but not on the level I had thought before... It is in his letter to the Romans, in the introduction.

Thirdly Mr Emu claimed : Irenaeus, disciple of a Bishop directly appointed by St. John, wrote that Rome has superior authority, and that all the faithful must agree with it. In this case, as with your second claim, you will have to give us a reference to study the text you are referring to.

Adversus Haereses, III:3:2

Clear reminds Mr. Emu to read the RECOGNITIONS where the homilies history of Clement tells of Clements conversion and his initial meetings with the very much alive Apostle Peter and of his daily interactions with the Apostle Peter over a significant period of time.

The Clementine Romance(dated to the 4th century)?

I might also remind us that ALL of these texts are pseudographical to the extent that we cannot prove who wrote ANY of them and simply ascribe authorship due to tradition.

Ultimately true, but there is little reason to doubt the scholarly consensus that 1 Clement is authentic.

1 Peter could certainly have been written by Peter in rome. However, the claim doesn’t care whether Peter was IN Rome or not. The claim is that there is no time-appropriate textual evidence that Peter was a Bishop in Rome for a 20 plus year period. It would not have taken twenty plus years for Peter to write 1 Peter.

No, but it is interesting that claim invokes a supposed silence by Peter in Rome, when one of his epistles was written from there.

You are correct though, there is nothing written in the 50s/60s that I know of that says "Peter was Bishop of Rome"... just the universal tradition that that is where he was and the lack of any other tradition in regards to his location. We have people saying he was in Rome and no one saying he was not, that he was somewhere else.

Mr Emu, if you know of ANY un-equivocal period-appropriate textual evidence

I never said I did...

A) If Peter WAS illiterate as some have claimed, then he could not have written first peter.

As you yourself note, he does not actually have to write it.

We have few writings of Peter whether he was a Bishop or not. Paul was not a Bishop but he wrote prodigiously.

 

[Clear]

1) Mr Emu said : I'm not as sure it matters whether Peter was a Bishop as whether he passed on the authority, and to who.

Clear agrees : You and I agree on this. Your wonderful clarification also makes the discussion more simple. Certainly it is very clear that all individuals Peter ordained had authority specific to their office which he ordained them to. That is, a Bishop of a congregation is given authority over his congregation, but not over all christendom.

2) Thank you for having courage to rescind your statement that “Ignatius writes in 107 that Rome presided over the Church”. I notice that I need to and ought to do the same thing sometimes. It makes you as a person, MORE trustworthy in my eyes, NOT less.

3) Clear said in his third point : “ Mr Emu claimed : Irenaeus, disciple of a Bishop directly appointed by St. John, wrote that Rome has superior authority, and that all the faithful must agree with it.” Clear wanted a reference and was given : Adversus Haereses, III:3:2 by Mr. Emu

If I am correct; The following quote is the entire third chapter of A.H. by Irenaeus. Can you point out where the chapter says what you claim? (Or is my reference incorrect? Did I look up the wrong reference?)

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

I’ve got a chore to do and will comment on the other items when I return. Thank you for your time Mr. Emu.

Clear

 

[truseeker]

Colossians 1:18 is speaking of Jesus when it says. "He is the head of the body, the church."
Ephesians 5:23 says "Christ is the head of the church." Nothing says that Peter is the head of anything. In Matthew 18:18-19 Jesus is speaking to all of the apostles when He tells them, "if two of you agree on earth as touching any thing... it shall be done for them of my Father in Heaven." So no one apostles had supremacy over any other. At least two had to agree on anything for it to be done. Seems like Jesus had the prefect chance to say that Peter was in charge but He did not.

 

[Mister Emu]

Or is my reference incorrect? Did I look up the wrong reference?)

I believe it is this... A.H. Book 3, Chapter 3, paragraph 2. It is the paragraph directly above what you quoted haha...

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

You can read it here, might need to scroll down a bit
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

I’ve got a chore to do and will comment on the other items when I return. Thank you for your time Mr. Emu.

I too need to respond to your second post still, just need the proper amout of time

Seems like Jesus had the prefect chance to say that Peter was in charge but He did not.

Jesus had already singled out Peter.

 

[truseeker]

Why would Jesus single out Peter and then later say two had to agree on things. This makes no sense. If Peter was over the others Jesus would have told them to listen to Peter not tell them that two had to agree on everything. Jesus never gave up his place as the "Rock" and head of the church.

 

[Clear]

Clear referred to : the RECOGNITIONS where the homilies history of Clement tells of Clements conversion and his initial meetings with the very much alive Apostle Peter and of his daily interactions with the Apostle Peter over a significant period of time.
Mr Emu asks Clear : The Clementine Romance(dated to the 4th century)?

I think I understand your point regarding time period AND the confusing reference to BOTH Recognitions and Homilies. Though they contain much of the same data, they are different. I apologize for the confusion. Most of the early scholars (cf wikipedias list) listed the Recognitions and Homilies (much of the same information) to the second century.

However, It is the later scholars which started to date it later, (3rd and 4th centuries) but I think the tubingen school is correct in noting the very close doctrinal affiliation to dead sea scroll theology (which must come from an earlier time period), that is, from a time when the mixture of Judaism and Christianity was apparent and strong.

Such early “novels” as the Clementine “recognitions” are syncretic and I believe the tubingen school is correct that the ur-text and doctrines are from a much earlier time period than the fourth century. That is to say, I believe the earlier scholars are correct, rather than the later scholars. And, I think the tubingens are correct in their associations (though I admit they could be wrong, but it would take more data for me to change my mind since I think their case is very strong...)

However, suppose I retract ANY reference to Clementine recognitions, we are still left with even LESS data than before (which is my claim - “We have a dearth of data” regarding Peter as Bishop or Peter giving authority to the catholic church)


Having said that, I do think your observation is very clever and smart when you observed that it doesn’t really matter IF Peter was a Bishop, but rather the underlying important principle is whether Peter passed on his type of authority to others, and who that person was.

I also agree with you against Truseeker, that Peter WAS given special authority and occupied a different position than other apostles. Trueseeker; I understand your claim and it's logic that the apostles may not have agreed with each other on all issues, but I think certain apostolic interactions represents human frailty and lack of unity, rather than lack of authority.

Mr. Emu, I’ll look at Irenaeus tomorrow and get back to you. I ran out of time tonight. Thanks for civil discussion. I’m sorry if I’ve been snide. You've been wonderfully civil.

Clear
fueidrrm

 

[truseeker]

Colossians 1:18 and Ephesians 5:23 both say that Jesus is the head of the church, not Peter.
I Corinthians 10:4 says the "Rock was Christ." When Jesus is talking to Peter He says "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." Could He not be referring to Himself as the rock. Basically "You are Peter but on the rock of myself I am building my church." If He wanted to be clear that it was Peter He would have said "On you I will build my church."

 

[Clear]

Truseeker ;

TruSeeker said in post #56 : “Jesus gave the "keys" equally to all the apostles. Peter had no superiority over any of the others.

Please do not misunderstand my specific agreement with Mr. Emu. I also believe that an authentic church of Jesus christ will be directed BY Jesus Christ through revelation to the leaders of his church in any day and age it exists. However, it is your claim that Jesus gave "equal authority to all apostles" which puts you at odds with my opinion.


I believe Mr. Emu is exactly correct in his specific belief that Peter was given specific authority the other apostles were not given. One may argue what the nature of that authority was; or if it was passed on or not; or who might have received it after Peter, etc. But the historical context is very, very clear that Peter possessed special authority.

I believe the Ancient Judao-Christian texts regarding authority (whether one denominates it “priesthood” or not, the principles are the same), demonstrate a simple and consistent religious framework as to how the ancient understood God’s administration in all ages.

Judao-christian literature of the period demonstrates clearly their belief that God the Father has ultimate authority over all other beings (who are subservient to him). As Barnabas said : “to rule” implies that one has authority, so that the one giving orders is really in control.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 6:18) This ancient Judao-Christian framework was very clear that ALL authentic religious authority, whether that given to the Son Jesus, to angels or to men, flows from that ultimate source and is delegate to a specific degree to his authentic servants as he sees fit.


GOD THE FATHER WIELDS AUTHORITY OVER ALL THINGS
Sacred texts make clear that ancient Judao-Christians believed that God the Father wielded ultimate authority. This is true whether it was Jewish Enoch who proclaimed of the Father “Your authority and kingdom abide forever and ever; and your dominion throughout all the generations of generation;..” (1st Enoch 84:2) or whether it is Christian Hermas who taught “God alone has the power to give healing, for all authority is his. (Hermas 60:3-4).
.
.
.
SPECIFIC SACRED AUTHORITY IS DELEGATED FROM GOD THE FATHER (OFTEN THROUGH HIS SERVANTS) TO OTHER BEINGS WHO THEN POSSESS WHATEVER SPECIFIC DEGREE OF AUTHORITY HE GAVE THEM.


1) GOD THE FATHER DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO JESUS TO ACCOMPLISH GOD THE FATHERS PURPOSES

Though the angel tells the prophet Enoch “... All these things which you have seen happen by the Authority of his Messiah so that he may give orders and be praised upon the earth. (1st Enoch 52:4) still, the Messiah himself is given whatever authority he has and is sent by God, his father : “I will send my chosen one, having in him one measure of all my power, and he will summon my people... (The Apocalypse of Abraham 31:1)

Isaiah describes his Pre-creation vision of seeing God the Father sending of the pre-mortal Messiah to earth to accomplish the atonement : “I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus, “Go out and descend through all the heavens...14 And afterwards you shall ascend from the gods of death to your place, and ....in glory you shall ascend and sit at my right hand, ... 16 This command I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.” (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 10:6-16) According the ancient Christians, Jesus did not take authority unto himself nor did he send himself, but he was given authority by and sent by God, the Father to accomplish his role as redeemer.

This doctrine was integral to early Christianity. For example, A frightened Bartholomew fell at Jesus’ feet and prayed :

“...Lord Jesus Christ, everlasting one, who gave grace for the whole world to those who love you, ... who at the command of the Father gave up your life above and completed your work, who changed the dejection of Adam into joy and overcame the sorrow of Eve with gracious countenance...” (The Gospel of Bartholomew chap IV)

Jesus confirms this doctrine that he is sent.

“Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life everyone who came to me.” (The Gospel of Bartholomew CH IV )



2) JESUS DELEGATES SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF AUTHORITY TO OTHER MEN (UNDER THE DIRECTION OF HIS FATHER) TO ACCOMPLISH GOD’S PURPOSES.

The ancient Jews understood that men who had authentic authority, such as the prophets, received authority from God.

“May the God under whose authority my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, served in reverence, ...may he bless these lads, Manasseh and Ephraim. (testament of Jacob 4:11-16)

This doctrine of Testament of Jacob is confirmed to continue in the Christian Apocalypse of Abraham :

“And the angel said to me, “Abraham!” And I said, “Here I am, your servant.” And he said, “Know from this that the Eternal One whom you have loved has chosen you. Be bold and do through your authority whatever I order you against him who reviles justice.” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 14:1-4)

When the pre-mortal Jesus is sent to Abraham, he makes clear that he is sent by God to bless Abraham “in the name of God” (i.e. in God’s place and stead he is doing this) :

5 And he said to me, “Stand up, Abraham, friend of god who has loved you, let human trembling not enfold you!” For lo! I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God, creator of heavenly and earthly things, who has loved you....8 I am Iaoel (a euphamism for Jehovah)...11 I am ordered to loosen Hades ....13 I am sent to you now to bless you and the land which he whom you have called the Eternal One has prepared for you. .... I am assigned (to be) with you and with the generations which is predestined (to be born) from you. (The Apocalypse of Abraham 10:5, 11,14-17)

The vast descension literature confirms the descension of Jesus into Sheol during the three days between his death and resurrection. And many of the saints arose and were resurrected with him.

The Prophet enoch (“the great scribe&#8221, when told by God to write, was given authority both to write and to judge, according to his specific station.

“...I sat upon a great throne at the door of the seventh palace, and I judged all the denizens of the heights on the authority of the Holy One...The princes of kingdoms stood beside me, to my right and to my left, by authority of the Holy One blessed be he” (3rd Enoch 16:1)

It was not just Enoch who kept records by authority of the holy one, but enoch observed that angels that “keep the heavenly books” do so by authority they are Given :

" ... he is in charge of the books of the living, for he records in the books of the living everyone whom the Holy One, blessed be he, is pleased to bring into life, by authority of the Omnipresent One.” (3rd Enoch 18:24)

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

It is not just Apostles of Jesus who have been delegated specific and limited authority, but just as God the Father, delegates specific authority to Jesus, and as Jesus delegates specific authority to the Apostles; the Apostles delegate specific authorities to others, such as bishops (who then issue authority to deacons, etc).

This ancient understanding of descending delegation was even an integral part of the early Christian prayers. For example, the hellenistic Synagogal Prayer #9 relates this doctrine :

“1 The one who is, Master, Lord, God the Almighty; ...7 the God and Father of your only Son, our God and Savior, the maker of the whole universe through him; 8 the Administrator, the Guardian,... 9 you are the one who gave standards for the Church, through the appearance in flesh of your Christ, subject to the witness by the Paraclete, through your apostles and through us bishops who by your grace are present. (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #9 A Prayer of Praise to God for his greatness, and for His appointment of Leaders for His People (AposCon 8.5.1-4) 9:1-13)

“For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. (The gospel of Phillip)

This descending delegation of sacred authority was the same process God had always used. "... God gave Levi the authority, and to Judah with him [as well as to me and to Dan and to Joseph], to be rulers. It is for this reason that I command you to give heed to Levi, because he will know the law of God and will give instructions concerning justice and concerning sacrifice for Israel until the consummation of times; he is the anointed priest of whom the Lord spake. The Jews taught : “ (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Reuben 6:7-8)

That the apostles delegated specific local authority to church offices anciently is very clear from their texts.

“Be subject to the Bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was to the Father, and as the apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there might be unity, both physical and spiritual. (Ignatius to the Magnesians 13:2)

“Therefore, as the Lord did nothing without the Father, either by himself or through the apostles (for he was united with him), so you must not do anything without the bishop and the presbyters. (Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:1)

It was also clear that the Bishop could delegate descending authority for certain sacred functions to others. Regarding the Eucharist, Ignatius taught :

“Let no one do anything that has to do with the church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomsoever he himself designates) is to be considered valid. .... It is not permissible either to baptize or to hold a love feast without the Bishop. (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2)

This all relates to the Opening post only indirectly inasmuch as it describes the Hierarchy within those individuals who make up the ancient Trinity / God Head. The point is, that sacred authority centers in God the Father; who, sends others to accomplish a task (such as when the Father sends his son Jesus to accomplish the Atonement), and Jesus may, (in accordance with his Father's will), give to others a portion of authority to accomplish a task Jesus sends them to do; and thus authority is given in a very organized, "descending" fashion. I believe that Peter was given keys to certain authority the others were not given. In any case, Truseeker, I wish you good luck in coming to your own understanding as to what you will believe on such subjects.

Clear
fuvivian

 

[Mister Emu]

C) It is difficult to imagine that the apostle Peter would not have given many types of textual testimonies of Jesus to many groups in many contexts over a 20 year period

There is no certainty that Peter was there for 20 years. The question of how long, and what was done when there is largely unanswered.

It seems your argument is largely one of incredulity, correct? It stretches credulity to believe Peter was there without(barring 1 Peter) written documentation.

I would also argue that it stretches the bounds of credulity to believe that Peter was somewhere else besides Rome, and there is not even a tradition of it. No one else claims Peter's residence while he was in Rome, no one but Rome claims his place of martyrdom.

 

[Clear]

Mr Emu;

I had thought for a moment, the issue of Peter was not important to you, but if it is, it is fine to continue with it.

Mr Emu wrote : “It seems your argument is largely one of incredulity, correct? It stretches credulity to believe Peter was there without(barring 1 Peter) written documentation.”

You are misunderstanding. I BELIEVE Peter WAS in Rome. I do NOT believe he was a Bishop for 20 plus years in Rome. And, despite theories against Petrine authorship of Peter, I believe he did write or dictate at least the ur-material underlying the Petrine texts. Whether he wrote 1 Peter (or any of the Petrine texts), these are tangential issues, unrelated to the underlying issue of Whether Peter was the first bishop of Rome who passed on his apostolic authority to a succession of Catholic bishops.

I do not believe the tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome who gave apostolic authority to a succession of bishops who came after him.


1) THE CLAIM THAT PETER WAS THE FIRST BISHOP OF ROME

According to the dogmatic canons and decrees 246, ft nt. 6, “...the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter,...”, and “...full power was given to him...by Jesus Christ.” (I can find the book I am quoting from if you need a further source for this quote) Remember that underlying the claim that Peter was bishop of Rome was the claim to have the Authority of God. The absence of appropriate textual data that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome does harm to this theory, worse harm to the theory, is data AGAINST the theory that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. Lack of period data in favor of the claim, yet existence of data against the claim should justify the incredulity of the scholars.

For example : You quoted Irenaeus as a good source for early data and he tells us that Bishop Linus was the first Bishop of Rome (NOT Peter) :

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul] then, upon founding and erecting the church [at Rome], committed the office of administering the church to Linus. Of this Linus, Paul speaks in the epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement received the bishopric." (Irenaeus against Heresy, bk. III, ch. iii: 2, 3.)

Eusibius agrees with Irenaeus that "Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the Church at Rome" Both agree that it was Linus, and NOT Peter who was Bishop of Rome.

Thus, If we are to believe your source Irenaeus, then Peter and Paul organized a church at Rome, and in the same manner as in other cities they appointed a bishop to preside over that church but it was Linus. If we believe Irenaeus, then Peter was NEVER one of the first three Bishops. We also have NO evidence from the early period that Peter served as a Bishop of the church at Jerusalem, yet we have early testimony that Peter was NOT numbered among the first Bishops.


2) YOUR INTIMATION THAT ROME HAD AUTHORITY OVER ALL OTHER CHRISTIAN CONGREGATIONS

I did get around to reading Irenaeus after reading your claim in post #53 :

Mr Emu stated in Post #53 : Irenaeus, disciple of a Bishop directly appointed by St. John, wrote that Rome has superior authority, and that all the faithful must agree with it.

I think you have taken Irenaeus’s comments out of context. He does not seem to be addressing “all the faithful” as you inferred, but rather the chapter heading itself explains that it is a “refutation of the heretics”. In the first sentence Irenaeus makes this clear that “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church” and not simply the Church in Rome, to teach the correcting and original traditions of “those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. “ Ireneaus reminds them that the Apostles themselves had given them authority to act as a legitimate ecclesiastical “government over them”.

Irenaeus further explains the context that that they are referring to “...all those who, ... assemble in unauthorized meetings” and he is calling upon tradition that the Roman church was founded by the apostles, as opposed to the heretical “churches” meeting aside from the roman congregation (churches which presumably, could not make the same claim to be founded by apostles).

The sentence you apparently refer to, regards heretical meetings and churches that do not agree with the traditional doctrine of this roman congregation. The sentence reads “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority...” One commenter remarks : It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better.”

Another translation of this sentence by a Catholic work by Berington and Kirk (vol. i. p. 252.) reads : “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” . This second Catholic translation is more consistent in context since, as dissensions arose between Christian churches, "most potent principality" was one of the arguments for which church should be pre-eminent over the others. Irenaeus' claim was that the original doctrine and faith was kept at Rome, but the same claim could have been made by Antioch, or Corinth, or the Jerusalem congregations (heretical elements aside). Any congregation which is remaining true to the traditions of the apostle may make this same claim to their heretics.

And in the end of chapter three Irenaeus relates the succession of bishops down to Eleutherious who “does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” In relating this succession, Irenaeus is talking about the tradition and truth as “the same vivifying faith, which had been preserved”. He does not claim the same for apostolic authority (though he could claim that original Bishops, ordained by the Apostles had some degree of authority). Though I would agree with the historical observation that competing claims to authority between many Christian Churches both arises and intensifies very soon thereafter, just as various Christian churches today claim to have sufficient authority to act in the name of God.

PETER IS NOT THE ONLY AUTHORITY INFLUENCING ROME
It is not as simple as it is made out to be. The claim to Peters role as Bishop and sole Petrine authority in Rome is made more confusing by the Apostle Paul’s very influential role. Paul exercises apostolic authority and counsel as well, especially since extant letters to the early church were for the most part, written by Paul (some, possibly from Rome itself).
Theories of the existence of a Pauline congregation in Rome at the same time as the Petrine congregation may further increases possibilities for conflicting claims of which church was apostolic and orthodox and which was heretic. We certainly see arguments for and against Paul on the forums, one wonders if such arguments were any less aggressive in certain quarters at the end of the first and into the second century.


Authority is the underlying reason to Claim that Peter was the First Bishop of Rome and that he passed on apostolic authority. As contradictions and incompatibilities to this claim increase, so rises the level of incredulity of the claim.



Clear
fuactwrr

 

[Clear]

Madhuri : I have considered where you started and where we are and have considered how Authority relates to your Opening Post.

Madhuri asked in the Opening Post : So what does it mean to not believe in the trinity? I am thoroughly confused.

Then multiple answers were given, the subject took a historical turn, referring to the development of the various descriptions of what the trinity meant to christians. For example regarding doctrine :

Truseeker asked in post #38 “Who gave the bishops and pope the right to decide.”

Lawrence replied in post #40 “ Eph 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone Jn20:21 ....Mt 16:18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church

Truseekers question referred to a time AFTER the apostles and prophets have died, yet Lawrences answer referred to BEFORE the apostles and prophets had died.

Thus the discussion became related to the authority of apostles and prophets to declare what was true regarding questions of the trinity (and other issues). I jumped in the conversation in post #50 to make the point that apostles were dead and that prophets who were living after Jesus died, such as agabus and others, were not key players in the texts that ended up in the Modern New Testament. There WERE no apostles and prophets (agabus and others notwithstanding) at this later period and the Bishops of the Catholic church were not the same as apostles and were not the same as prophets.

I explained that after the death of the prophets and apostles, there was a lack of a central and global authority (prophet or an apostle) who could guide developing christianity in doctrinal disputes. I pointed out that Origen admitted that his type of christianity had not yet decided on details such whether God had a body or not

Clear said : Even Clement’s successor Origen explicitly acknowledges that when he wrote around the middle of the third century a.d., there were still many very, very basic doctrines which had not been settled. For example : The issue of divine embodiment of God had yet to be settled in the Church: Origen wrote :

“How God himself is to be understood, – whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies” – is “a point which is not clearly indicated in our teachings.”

. Many of these doctrines were “worked out” by influential individuals who, I think, probably came up with the best theories they could given their situation and the external pressures. For example, one of the complaints the Jews made against the Christians is the same complaint that Islam made (and still makes); which was that of polytheism. By claiming that there was a Lord God (who was God), who had a Son (who was also a God), and a Holy Spirit (who was either a God or God-like in some qualities), the early Christianity came under some derision for having multiple Gods. In fact, the claim of ancient Christianity, that a man (Jesus) could also be a God, has always been a most difficult point for other religions to believe.

I have wondered how this doctrine would have developed if there weren’t outside pressures that influenced a developing Christianity to adopt the theory of a “tri-une” (three is really one) God, rather than the earlier, and simpler, principle of a LORD GOD over all other beings, whether other beings are described as God-Like or not.

However, in relation to authority, I think that the fact that there are principles upon which the three individuals of the “Trinity” can be distinguished and are different, is one of the reasons many christians do not believe in the theory of a “three is really one” God.

One principle upon which the three are different and distinguishable is their level of authority. In the early Judao-Christian tradition, Jesus is sent by his Father and does not have the level of authority that the Father has.

Clear
seeitzmm

 

[truseeker]

Some of us do not see three "individuals" and that is why we do not believe in a trinity. We see the Holy Spirit as the power God has and extends into the universe and not as a separate "person." We see God as a family consisting at present of the Father and the Son with more adopted children to be added later. People have spirits and those spirits are sinful and mortal. God has a spirit that is "Holy" and infinite but that spirit is not separate from God just as a man's spirit is not separate from the man.

 

[Clear]

I believe Truseeker's comments are a pretty fair representation of how many christians view the father and the son and their relationship.

The Holy Ghost, is, I think, more difficult for individual christians to have a concrete idea of what they think or how to describe any intimate relationship since there are fewer concrete textual descriptions from ancient period of his characteristics and functions.

Clear

 

[truseeker]

I feel some additional clarification is needed on the subject of the trinity. The idea that God is a trinity forever limits Him to those three "persons." Father, Son, Holy Spirit. But God wants more sons and daughters John 1:12 says "to as many as believed him, to them gave he the power to become the sons of God." So some day God may consist of the Father and ten million sons and daughters, or a billion, or more.God will not be limited to three "persons." Galatians 4:7 says "Wherefor thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." In most places an adopted child is treated exactly the same under the law as a birth child. So all these millions of adopted children will be completely equal with Jesus and will be part of God's family. Not some etherial idea that God made us so we are all His children. But through becoming His sons we will actually be part of His family. Satan does not want people to understand and realize their true potential to actually become part of God's family so he blinds people's minds with the false idea that God is limited to three "persons."

 

[Clear]

Madhuri :

Like Truseeker’s above post, all of us want to provide “some additional clarification”, which, ultimately, is simply a personal reflection of our own beliefs. I do not think this can be helped as it's part of our nature.

The varying conflicting responses as to what God himself is like and what individuals envision the trinity to be like ought to give you some idea of wide spectrum of various beliefs and the tremendous confusion even within modern christendom as to what the trinity might be like.

Not only does the personal belief regarding the trinity vary according to the individual and the type of tradition individuals come out of, but beliefs regarding the trinity and what they were like were different anciently then they are nowadays. Additionally, we all have personal interpretations as to what ancient texts meant by their descriptions. Early sacred Judao-Christian texts closer to the time of Christ described the trinity differently and in much, much greater detail than later sacred texts. Thus, religious historians may have a very different definition of the trinity than non-historian Christians who read the same texts (if you need examples, let me know).

The formation of the most common doctrines regarding the trinity, though they are modified by other religions and individuals, still seem most to contain and reflect the Catholic basis to some extent. This makes perfect sense if we believe B.F. Westcot’s remark that : “It cannot be too often repeated, that the history of the formation of the whole Canon involves little less than the history of the building of the Catholic Church.” If this is an overstatement, it’s not much of an overstatement in regards to western christianity. Though he is referring to text, his principle also applies to doctrinal traditions (since texts we read affect the doctrinal traditions we formulate).

I think the underlying reason much of Christianity does not believe in the “three is one God” is that they see many references to individual characteristics within the trinity, which are, in their view, better explained by a different theory (a theory very often of their own making). From a historical point of view, the individual may simply be historically oriented and simply believe in earlier models of the trinity, or a more arian model of the trinity.

Clear
seviviiv

 

[truseeker]

Just a word to all those who think they have the only true answer to this and other questions. It says in I Corinthians 3:19 " the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." Many intelligent people think they know all about God and creation and everything else but unless God has opened their minds and revealed the truth to them they are only believing earthly foolishness.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Holy Ghost, is, I think, more difficult for individual christians to have a concrete idea of what they think or how to describe any intimate relationship since there are fewer concrete textual descriptions from ancient period of his characteristics and functions.
Clear

Numbers [11v17] calls God's spirit as 'it'.
Because Greek grammar rules use the masculine for it, then it is understood as a masculine form instead of something God possesses.

 

[JohnOB]

I have only recently found out that a lot of Christians (predominantly Protestants, I gather) do not believe in the concept of the Trinity. But you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. So what does it mean to not believe in the trinity? I am thoroughly confused.

Some information about Trinity:

GEN 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,
and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over
the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move
along the ground."

3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us,
knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and
take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

ISA 6:3 And they were calling to one another: "Holy, holy, holy is the
LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory."

8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who
will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

42:1 "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations.

48:16 "Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I
have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there." And now the
Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit.

61:1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has
anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the
brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from
darkness for the prisoners,

2 to proclaim the year of the LORD'S favor and the day of vengeance of our
God, to comfort all who mourn,

3 and provide for those who grieve in Zion--to bestow on them a crown of
beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a
garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks
of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendor.

63:9 In all their distress he too was distressed, and the angel of his
presence saved them. In his love and mercy he redeemed them; he lifted them
up and carried them all the days of old.

MAT 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary
was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was
found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him
in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary
home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy
Spirit.

3:11 "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one
who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will
baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

12:28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of
God has come upon you.

28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

LUK 1:35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the
power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will
be called the Son of God.

3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And
a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well
pleased."

4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led
by the Spirit in the desert,

14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about
him spread through the whole countryside.

JOH 1:32 Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from
heaven as a dove and remain on him.

33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize
with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and
remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'

3:34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives
the Spirit without limit.

35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.

7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were
later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since
Jesus had not yet been glorified.

14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to
be with you forever--

17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither
sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be
in you.

26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have
said to you.

15:26 "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father,
the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

16:7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away.
Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will
send him to you.

13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all
truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and
he will tell you what is yet to come.

14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it
known to you.

15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit
will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

20:22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy
Spirit.

ACT 1:2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions
through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

3 After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many
convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of
forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this
command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised,
which you have heard me speak about.

5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized
with the Holy Spirit."

2:33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the
promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

10:36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the
good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

37 You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after
the baptism that John preached--

38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and
how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of
the devil, because God was with him.

ROM 1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of
David,

4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the
Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Bereanz]

I have only recently found out that a lot of Christians (predominantly Protestants, I gather) do not believe in the concept of the Trinity. But you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. So what does it mean to not believe in the trinity? I am thoroughly confused.

Hi Madhuri, it's very easy to be thoroughly confused by the many and varied re-interpretations of, not only the doctrines of God the son, the Holy Spirit, and the Father,which go to make up the "trinity concept" but also nigh on every other biblical teaching, I'm sure you will agree. However if I may be so bold, it doesn't really matter what people who profess to be protestant, catholic or whatever title they give themselves "believe;" the scripture is the only authority on scripture, and the scripture states that it is not open to any private interpretation.

So to asnwer your question, if someone states that they do not "believe" in "the concept of the trinity" they simply don't yet have a clear understanding of the scripture, or, they have been subjected to inaccurate teaching about it. The good news is that this sort of topic isn't a Biblical guessing game for anyone committed to understandng these and other important Christian doctrines. The scripture states that God is not a God of confusion, so therefore we can happily conclude from this, that neither is the scripture which God gave us.