The Trinity, considering it's biblical, why then......

[firedragon]

If it were biblical, why the need for the creeds in the first place?

Don't take every single post as an attack on the trinity and you have to step up and justify the trinity in return. This post is not apologetic against the concept of the trinity but a historical study or an attempt to get views pertaining to the OP from everyone, not only books that we all can buy or/and what we learn in the curriculum.

 

[firedragon]

maybe the OP is historically incorrect. the coptics claim to be older than the latin church.

Great. In that case please quote the history and the development.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

The Athanasian Creed was the product of and in the history of theological/doctrinal development. IMO, your question actually is: "what is the story of the Trinitarian doctrine's development from beginning to end?***" Ergo, I say, any discussion about who was right or wrong is off-topic and merits a firm and prompt reprimand from the Mods. What is appropriate is information about the people who contributed to the doctrine's development and/or opposed it, in part or whole.

*** or at least "to the final statement of the Athanasian Creed".

Thanks for understanding my friend. I agree with you, we may all have our own theologies and what ever ideologies and expect attacks all the time, but its also important to understand a post and engage. If one doesnt understand a post in the first place, there is no point whatsoever.

You nailed it though.

 

[Vouthon]

The answer is simply that the Trinity is not fully spelled out in the Bible. Even Trinitarians generally acknowledge this, in my experience. The "seeds" of the doctrine can be found there, depending on one's interpretations. For Christians who don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura, this is really not problematic. Christianity is bigger than the Bible.

An important point regarding sola scriptura. You're right that this has never been a problem for churches which believe in 'sacred tradition' as an authority alongside scripture.

Even in the early church, Patristic-era Christians recognised that while the 'substance' or 'seed' of Trinitarian dogma could be traced back to scriptural declarations in the New Testament (such as the divinity and pre-existence of Jesus, which is unquestionably taught by various NT authors) the full elaboration of this concept was something derived from the church's sacred apostolic tradition that had to be 'developed' - or rather, fully 'teased out' - by later theologians and ecumenical councils to arrive at a completely 'rationalised' and 'systematic' account of the complicated NT data.

What we have in the NT is not 'systematic theology' (like later Trinitarianism) but rather affirmations of inchoate beliefs of the early church about God and Jesus. The work of 'teasing' that out into a fully consistent framework - that took account of all the data - is what led to the emergence of early Trinitarianism amongst the fathers of the second - fourth centuries (finally defined dogmatically at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE).

Here's an example, from the early church father St. Basil the Great's (330 – 379) De Spiritu Sancto in which he rebuts arguments that were disputing the divine 'hypostasis' (personhood) of the Holy Spirit. He appeals to the unwritten apostolic tradition of the Fathers who preceeded him for this doctrine (the last 'leg' of the Trinitarian equation):


CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil)

Chapter 27

Of the origin of the word with, and what force it has. Also concerning the unwritten laws of the church.


Now it has been asserted in the previous portion of this treatise that the word 'in' has not been specially allotted to the Holy Spirit, but is common to the Father and the Son. It has also been, in my opinion, sufficiently demonstrated that, so far from detracting anything from the dignity of the Spirit, it leads all, but those whose thoughts are wholly perverted, to the sublimest height. It remains for me to trace the origin of the word with; to explain what force it has, and to show that it is in harmony with Scripture.

66. Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church.

For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more....

Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learned the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents...

In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. Dogma and Kerugma are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world...

67. Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on the mystery of godliness 1 Timothy 3:16 is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;— which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;— a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?...

71. In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form with the Spirit has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. I praise you, it is said, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you; 1 Corinthians 11:2 and Hold fast the traditions which you have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If, as in a Court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our acquittal? I think so; for at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established. Deuteronomy 19:15 And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with a hoary antiquity.​

 

[Brickjectivity]

Given the premise that the Bible is completely propagating the Trinity (if you believe it or not take it as a hypothetical premise for the sake of this question) why is it that the early church took almost 4 centuries to come up with the trinity as clearly stipulated as in the Athanasian Creed?

When this question or any similar question is asked what you see mostly is people trying to prove Jesus is God and quote the Bible. The question is not that and any objective person would be able to see it. Also, this question is asked with the premise given that the Bible is fully Trinitarian purely to be precise in the question.

"Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis (et) Spiritus Sanctus.- Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost."

Anyone could look up the creed so there is no point cutting and pasting the whole thing, but do not forget that the trinity concerns the father, son, and the holy spirit, not just that Jesus is divine. So please consider the whole trinity, that all three are eternal, but not three Eternals but one eternal.

Thus, the question is "why is it that the early church took almost 4 centuries to come up with the trinity as clearly stipulated as in the Athanasian Creed"?

How can I explain this in a way that it will be useful to a good Muslim?

For a very, very long time people tried to be nice to each other. The idea of trinity could have been there in conversation and simply not widespread.

Let me talk about what I think is the Holy Spirit to a Christian living around 0CE and what they probaby think about the Trinity. I'll talk about it without anyone paying me or knowing who I am, no bribes that can taint my opinion. Wisdom is in the Jewish canon usually feminine, and in Christianity this may correlate with the Holy Spirit. Its possible that early Christians liked to think of wisdom as the wife giving birth to the son, and there might be some ways of arguing this from scripture. Its not, today, how people discuss it who often go for other (forceful) attempts to prove it by quotes or by authorities, because that's what everyone knows and is familiar with. I think that the gentleness and playfulness of the idea is gone from what it once was. What changes by 4th century is that many bishops are pushy and want to have their way, and they make things political instead of abstract, friendly, conceptual. They want everyone to agree that there is a Trinity, and that its very, very important; more important than being nice people. Since that time the church and bishops have softened again, partly due to the horrible subsequent events. They still try to argue that Trinity and creeds are a means to an ecumenical effort, but I think this effort is horribly doomed to fail and stuck in a rut. What is needed is neither that nor the sola scriptura which is presented by many protestants such as myself. We all just need to relax our grip and avoid the mistakes of the past. Then Trinity can once again be an idea, a concept; something for people to share instead of a control.

Christian authors believe that the Torah has been internalized and is now housed in the church and this is equivalent to saying that the church has the Holy Spirit. Its saying the same thing. Jews do not have an official stance on what Christians consider the Holy Spirit to be, however Christians will often draw a line from Holy Spirit to the Jewish terms 'Shekinah' and 'Ruach'. If correct then the Holy Spirit is that part of the trinity which is placed upon the 70 Elders in the Jewish book Numbers chapter 11 verse 16 et all. ( Numbers is fourth book of the Pentateuch. ) Throughout scripture (both Jewish and Christian) the Holy Spirit is usually dispensed in bursts. It comes upon Sampson (character in Judges) from time to time, so he is not always strong. It momentarily enables king Solomon or king David to prophesy. It comes upon Peter, and he heals in that moment. For a short time some apostles heal people merely with their own shadow, but that does not go on forever. The only exception is when the Holy Spirit is spoken of as wisdom (its true form), in which case it can remain. The reason it remains is that Jews believe that the time has not yet come when a person has the Torah internally, but Christians do. When the spirit remains and the torah is internalized it is called 'Baptism of the Holy Spirit'. For that reason as you move from Jewish to Christian scriptures you will see a discussion unfolding about the internalization of the Torah and what it means: Does it mean that Christians do or don't need to be circumcised physically? Its a supposed to be friendly conversation, as you can see when Paul in the book Acts visits the apostles in Jerusalem. Paul doesn't go to Jerusalem with a gentile army to coerce the twelve. He goes with a few people at most, talks to Peter. There is a discussion. They try to work out the best path forward.

Towards 4th century you see a breaking down of this friendliness. People go to war over their ideas. They have lost their cool.

 

[Terry Sampson]

You nailed it though

I am comforted knowing that I did, and that you confirmed it. Thanks.

 

[Terry Sampson]

The idea of trinity could have been there in conversation and simply not widespread.

"All models are wrong, but some are useful." All models are wrong - Wikipedia

 

[Brickjectivity]

"All models are wrong, but some are useful." All models are wrong - Wikipedia

Don't tell the Fashion industry. They'll think its an insult.

 

[Vouthon]

Let me talk about what I think is the Holy Spirit to a Christian living around 0CE and what they probaby think about the Trinity. I'll talk about it without anyone paying me or knowing who I am, no bribes that can taint my opinion. Wisdom is in the Jewish canon usually feminine, and in Christianity this may correlate with the Holy Spirit.

You're absolutely correct about the feminine personification of Divine Wisdom (as the amanuensis and emanation of God's presence on earth or within people) in the sapiential texts of pre-Christian Judaism, namely Chokmâh rendered into Greek as Sophia.

We can find this personification of God's divine 'daughter' or 'female manifestation / co-agent of creation' in the Book of Proverbs in the Tanakh, in the Book of Sirach (200 BCE), in the Wisdom of Solomon (first century BCE) and other ancient Jewish 'wisdom' literature within and without the Bible.

In Prov. 8:1–30, for instance, we read: "Does not wisdom call, and does not understanding raise her voice?....I, wisdom...before the hills, I was born (holalti), when he established the heavens I was there...when [God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like an amon; and I was daily his delight, playing before him always."

"Amon" is a hapax legomenon (appears only once in the entirety of the Hebrew Bible, with no parallel) but the majority of scholars render it as "little child" or contrarily "masterworker". The ancient Septuagintal version thus renders this into Greek as harmozousa, “the woman who holds all things together in harmony" through a combination of both meanings.

What we thus have here - described by this ancient Jewish biblical author - is a literary personification of Divine Wisdom as the "little daughter" or "masterworker" (amon) of God begotten (holalti) "before the ages" and existing 'beside' the God of Israel from all eternity ("when he established the heavens" and "marked out the foundations of the earth") as his co-agent of creation in whom God "delights".

Now, one can take this description as mere 'literary artifice' or as insinuating something literal about the nature of God. The early Christians were part of a tradition of 'binatarian' Jews - 'heretical' from the vantage point of the growing/developing Rabbinic orthodoxy, especially after the collapse of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. and the extinction of rival sects like the Sadducees and Essenes - who understood the divine chokmah to be a literal description of the nature of God.

The Jewish author of the Book of Sirach (132 BCE) seems to have understood 'Wisdom' in this second literal sense and has her deliver a solemn first-person narrative about her origins in eternity:

(24:3) I came forth from the mouth of the Most High,
and covered the earth like a mist.
(4) I dwelt in the highest heavens,
and my throne was in a pillar of cloud.
(5) Alone I compassed the vault of heaven
and traversed the depths of the abyss.
(6) Over waves of the sea, over all the earth,
and over every people and nation I have held sway.​

Note, how Wisdom - this eternal divine ordering principle, who came into being prior to the creation of the world - is described as coming "forth from the mouth of the Most High", that is she is portrayed as the Word of God. This is the exact same sense in which the NT authors employ the sapiential tradition, they too equate 'Wisdom' with the 'Word' of God which for them is Jesus's pre-incarnate status.

However, there is also a pre-Christian Jewish equation of 'Wisdom' with the 'the Spirit' (i.e. the spirit of God hovering over the waters of creation in Genesis 1:2 and referred to in Joel 2:28 as being "poured" out so that the sons and daughters of Israel will prophesy).

This can be seen in the Wisdom of Solomon (a Jewish text written in the first century BCE) which refers to Wisdom as the 'breath' of God:

(7:25) She is a breath of the power of God,
and a pure emanation (aporroia eilikrinēs) of the glory of
the Almighty;
therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her.
(26) For she is a reflection (apaugasma) of eternal light,
a spotless mirror of the working of God (tēs tou theou
energeias),
and an image (eikōn) of his goodness.

​

Where I would disagree partially with your argument, is that the New Testament equates Divine Wisdom with Jesus the pre-incarnate 'Word' and not with a 'distinct' Spirit (the personhood of the 'Spirit' was to emerge gradually in the unwritten tradition of the church after the close of the apostolic New Testament era, it is not explicit in the NT).

Thus, in the New Testament we find Jesus described as the pre-incarnate Wisdom of God:

"...We proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God...

Among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age...But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

(1 Corinthians 1.23, 2:1-14)​

"I want their hearts to be encouraged and united in love, so that they may have all the riches of assured understanding and have the knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge...

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him"

(Colossians 2:2-3)​

This is reflected in the mother church of Eastern Orthodoxy being called the Hagia Sophia:


Holy Wisdom - Wikipedia

Holy Wisdom (Greek: Ἁγία Σοφία, Latin: Sancta Sapientia, Russian: Святая София Премудрость Божия, romanized: Svatya Sofiya Premudrost' Bozhya "Holy Sophia, Divine Wisdom") is a concept in Christian theology.

Christian theology received the Old Testament personification of Wisdom (Hebrew Chokhmah) as well as the concept of Wisdom (Sophia) from Greek philosophy, especially Platonism. In Christology, Christ the Logos as God the Son was identified with Divine Wisdom from earliest times. The identification of Holy Wisdom with God the Son remains particularly pronounced in Eastern Orthodoxy, while the Latin Rite has placed more emphasis of the identication of God the Son with the Logos.​

 

[Fool]

Coptics are Nicene Trinitarian Christians just like Catholics.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html


again it originated long before any nicene creed. origen, the heretic was proposing long before any latin church


A direct influence on second century Christian theology is the Jewish philosopher and theologian Philo of Alexandria (a.k.a. Philo Judaeus) (ca. 20 BCE - ca. 50 CE), the product of Alexandrian Middle Platonism (with elements of Stoicism and Pythagoreanism). Inspired by the Timaeus of Plato, Philo read the Jewish Bible as teaching that God created the cosmos by his Word (logos), the first-born son of God. Alternately, or via further emanation from this Word, God creates by means of his creative power and his royal power, conceived of both as his powers, and yet as agents distinct from him, giving him, as it were, metaphysical distance from the material world (Philo Works; Dillon 1996, 139-83; Morgan 1853, 63-148; Norton 1859, 332-74; Wolfson 1973, 60-97)

 

[sojourner]

Given the premise that the Bible is completely propagating the Trinity (if you believe it or not take it as a hypothetical premise for the sake of this question) why is it that the early church took almost 4 centuries to come up with the trinity as clearly stipulated as in the Athanasian Creed?

When this question or any similar question is asked what you see mostly is people trying to prove Jesus is God and quote the Bible. The question is not that and any objective person would be able to see it. Also, this question is asked with the premise given that the Bible is fully Trinitarian purely to be precise in the question.

"Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis (et) Spiritus Sanctus.- Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost."

Anyone could look up the creed so there is no point cutting and pasting the whole thing, but do not forget that the trinity concerns the father, son, and the holy spirit, not just that Jesus is divine. So please consider the whole trinity, that all three are eternal, but not three Eternals but one eternal.

Thus, the question is "why is it that the early church took almost 4 centuries to come up with the trinity as clearly stipulated as in the Athanasian Creed"?

Because the Apostles were trying to come up with a unifying doctrine that would satisfy the diversity of the church. There were so many differing ideas about the nature of God, of Jesus, of the Holy Spirit, that were giving rise to some really wacky theological constructions that the Apostles felt strayed from the core beliefs of the Faith. It took that long for these differing theologies to spread and gain favor among different facets of the Church, and that's finally when a definitive doctrine was needed.

 

[firedragon]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html


again it originated long before any nicene creed. origen, the heretic was proposing long before any latin church


A direct influence on second century Christian theology is the Jewish philosopher and theologian Philo of Alexandria (a.k.a. Philo Judaeus) (ca. 20 BCE - ca. 50 CE), the product of Alexandrian Middle Platonism (with elements of Stoicism and Pythagoreanism). Inspired by the Timaeus of Plato, Philo read the Jewish Bible as teaching that God created the cosmos by his Word (logos), the first-born son of God. Alternately, or via further emanation from this Word, God creates by means of his creative power and his royal power, conceived of both as his powers, and yet as agents distinct from him, giving him, as it were, metaphysical distance from the material world (Philo Works; Dillon 1996, 139-83; Morgan 1853, 63-148; Norton 1859, 332-74; Wolfson 1973, 60-97)

But brother, Philo is not a 4th century trinitarian, nor was he post-New Testament church father who had anything to do with a trinity. So how is that relevant?

If you are claiming Coptic Christians had the Trinity as you know now, before the 4th century then please provide your reasoning and some evidence. Then it will be relevant.

 

[firedragon]

Because the Apostles were trying to come up with a unifying doctrine that would satisfy the diversity of the church.

Their intention was to just "Unify"? How about Tertullian? You think he was trying to unify? If you could be more specific it will be great.

 

[firedragon]

It just took a while that's all. No big deal really.

Great. Thanks.

 

[Left Coast]

Their intention was to just "Unify"? How about Tertullian? You think he was trying to unify? If you could be more specific it will be great.

Tertullian's views were somewhat idiosyncratic and changed over the course of his life from more orthodox to less so. That's one of the reasons he's not a Saint.

 

[Jimmy]

Great. Thanks.

Well if you're upset it took so long and if you want to share why that's cool. Or if you're just curious as to why it took so long that's cool too. I'm not Being sarcastic. I'm being serious. I'm not too knowledgeable about the subject

 

[firedragon]

Well if you're upset it took and if you want to sure why that's cool. Or if you're just curious as to why it took so long that's cool too. I'm not Being sarcastic. I'm being serious. I'm not too knowledgeable about the subject

Great. Thanks.

 

[Fool]

But brother, Philo is not a 4th century trinitarian, nor was he post-New Testament church father who had anything to do with a trinity. So how is that relevant?

christianity isn't catholic. christianity and trinitarianism existed long before the roman world decided to incorporate christianity. the coptics do not follow the latin church

If you are claiming Coptic Christians had the Trinity as you know now, before the 4th century then please provide your reasoning and some evidence. Then it will be relevant.

the first christians of the first century were mostly jews,

Origen of Alexandria | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy


You history is skewed; if you think the coptic came after the roman church, babylon

 

[firedragon]

Tertullian's views were somewhat idiosyncratic and changed over the course of his life from more orthodox to less so. That's one of the reasons he's not a Saint.

Yet he pioneered the usage of the word Trinity, so that kind of dismissal is also idiosyncratic in my opinion.

Anyway, you are right, he was never declared a saint due to his views, but does that make it idiosyncratic? In that case his views on grace, hereditary nature of human beings and responsibility in view of God by human beings are all shared by
Hilary, Ambrose, Cyprian etc. Also his subordinationism was debated even two centuries after Athanasias. Also brother, if you consider Jerome and Pelagius, they were all concurring with Tertullian in many teachings so its better not to dismiss a person but rather analyse.

 

[firedragon]

christianity isn't catholic. christianity and trinitarianism existed long before the roman world decided to incorporate christianity. the coptics do not follow the latin church

No one said it never existed, but can you quote the existence of the trinity as you know now, prior to the 4th century?

the first christians of the first century were mostly jews,

Origen of Alexandria | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy


You history is skewed; if you think the coptic came after the roman church, babylon

No one said who came after whom.

I am asking for some source of the trinity as you know now prior to the 4th century.