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

[Left Coast]

Brother, thats Trias, which someone has translated as "Trinity" and its not a coeternal God, son and the holy spirit there, its just three, God, his word, and his all knowing nature or wisdom of God. You really didnt have to cut and paste that because I have already stated this exact same thing.

I wanted folks to see the original quote, that's why I posted it.

You don't mind people reading Theophilus as referencing the Trinity, so I don't see a point to discussing the point further.

The point more relevant to the OP is that, whoever uttered the word first, the concept developed over time from strains of thought that can be seen in the Bible depending on interpretation.

 

[firedragon]

I wanted folks to see the original quote, that's why I posted it.

You don't mind people reading Theophilus as referencing the Trinity, so I don't see a point to discussing the point further.

The point more relevant to the OP is that, whoever uttered the word first, the concept developed over time from strains of thought that can be seen in the Bible depending on interpretation.

Hmm. In this case, I completely disagree. Because you are making the mention of the word Trinity and Three as a generic matter where Theophilus is definitely not mentioning the "trinity" because the trinity has nothing to do with God, his word, and his wisdom, yet Tertullian though is a subordinationist is directly referring to the trinity. The original point of speaking about Tertullian in here was because of the assertion that Tertullian was basically working alone. And if you are dismissing him so simply by that connotation you are wrong, and I gave you the names and theological viewpoints that many many others were in the same track as him, so the whole point I repeat "is not to dismiss so simply but analyse". Maybe you missed it.

Peace.

 

[Left Coast]

Hmm. In this case, I completely disagree. Because you are making the mention of the word Trinity and Three as a generic matter where Theophilus is definitely not mentioning the "trinity" because the trinity has nothing to do with God, his word, and his wisdom,

...yes, yes it does. Trinitarians regard those concepts as basically interchangeable. The Son is the Word, the Spirit is the Wisdom of God.

yet Tertullian though is a subordinationist is directly referring to the trinity. The original point of speaking about Tertullian in here was because of the assertion that Tertullian was basically working alone. And if you are dismissing him so simply by that connotation you are wrong, and I gave you the names and theological viewpoints that many many others were in the same track as him, so the whole point I repeat "is not to dismiss so simply but analyse". Maybe you missed it.

Peace.

My point wasn't to dismiss him. We seem to be talking past each other.

 

[firedragon]

...yes, yes it does. Trinitarians regard those concepts as basically interchangeable. The Son is the Word, the Spirit is the Wisdom of God.



My point wasn't to dismiss him. We seem to be talking past each other.

Cheers.

 

[Fool]

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


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.

i already showed you twice. in both articles from plato.stanford.edu


origen was the a christian, who existed long before the council of nicea, to propose it and probably took his understanding of it from philo. he was later declared a herectic.


here is even an earlier version found in the refutation of all heresies that the catholic church tried to suppress.



H. And they divide him into three, like Gēryōnēs; 1 for, they say, he has a mental, psychic, and choïc [aspect]; 2 and they think that the Gnosis of 3 this [Man] is the beginning of the possibility of knowing God, saying:

J. The beginning of Perfection [is] the Gnosis of Man, but the Gnosis of God is perfected Perfection. 4

H. All these, he says 5—mental, psychic, and earthy—descended together into one man—Jesus, born of Mary.

And these three Men, he says, spake each from their own special essences to their own special folk.

For of the universal principles there are three kinds [or races]—the angelic, psychic, and earthy; and three churches—angelic, psychic, and earthy named the Elect, Called, and Bound.

...........................
...........................
...........................

H. Following after these and such like [follies], these most wonderful “Gnostics,” discoverers of a new grammatical art, imagine that their prophet Homer showed forth these things arcanely; and, introducing those who are not initiated into the Sacred Scriptures into such notions, they make a mock of them.

And they say that he who says that all things are from One, is in error, [but] he who says they are from Three is right, and will furnish proof of the first principles [of things]. 2

J. For one (H. he says) is the Blessed Nature of the Blessed Man Above, Adamas; and one is the [Nature] Below, which is subject to Death; and one is the Race without a king 3 which is born Above—where (H. he says) is Mariam the sought-for, and Jothōr the great sage, and Sepphōra the seeing, and Moses whose begetting is not in Egypt—for sons were born to him in Madiam. 4

S. And this (H. he says) also did not escape the notice of the poets:


1

C. For the Greatnesses (H. he says) needs must be spoken, but so spoken by all everywhere, “that hearing they may not hear, and seeing they may not see.” 2

J. For unless (H. he says) the Greatnesses 3 were spoken, the cosmos would not be able to hold together. These are the Three More-than-mighty Words (Logoi): Kaulakau, Saulasau, Zeēsar;—Kaulakau, the [Logos] Above, Adamas; Saulasau, the [Logos] Below; Zeēsar, the Jordan flowing upwards. 4

(17 5) S. He (H. he says) is the male-female Man



1 while the Greek [theologi] generally call Him the “Heavenly Horn of Mēn,” 2 because He has mixed and mingled 3 all things with all.

 

[firedragon]

i already showed you twice. in both articles from plato.stanford.edu


origen was the a christian, who existed long before the council of nicea, to propose it and probably took his understanding of it from philo. he was later declared a herectic.


here is even an earlier version found in the refutation of all heresies that the catholic church tried to suppress.



H. And they divide him into three, like Gēryōnēs; 1 for, they say, he has a mental, psychic, and choïc [aspect]; 2 and they think that the Gnosis of 3 this [Man] is the beginning of the possibility of knowing God, saying:

J. The beginning of Perfection [is] the Gnosis of Man, but the Gnosis of God is perfected Perfection. 4

H. All these, he says 5—mental, psychic, and earthy—descended together into one man—Jesus, born of Mary.

And these three Men, he says, spake each from their own special essences to their own special folk.

For of the universal principles there are three kinds [or races]—the angelic, psychic, and earthy; and three churches—angelic, psychic, and earthy named the Elect, Called, and Bound.

...........................
...........................
...........................

H. Following after these and such like [follies], these most wonderful “Gnostics,” discoverers of a new grammatical art, imagine that their prophet Homer showed forth these things arcanely; and, introducing those who are not initiated into the Sacred Scriptures into such notions, they make a mock of them.

And they say that he who says that all things are from One, is in error, [but] he who says they are from Three is right, and will furnish proof of the first principles [of things]. 2

J. For one (H. he says) is the Blessed Nature of the Blessed Man Above, Adamas; and one is the [Nature] Below, which is subject to Death; and one is the Race without a king 3 which is born Above—where (H. he says) is Mariam the sought-for, and Jothōr the great sage, and Sepphōra the seeing, and Moses whose begetting is not in Egypt—for sons were born to him in Madiam. 4

S. And this (H. he says) also did not escape the notice of the poets:


1

C. For the Greatnesses (H. he says) needs must be spoken, but so spoken by all everywhere, “that hearing they may not hear, and seeing they may not see.” 2

J. For unless (H. he says) the Greatnesses 3 were spoken, the cosmos would not be able to hold together. These are the Three More-than-mighty Words (Logoi): Kaulakau, Saulasau, Zeēsar;—Kaulakau, the [Logos] Above, Adamas; Saulasau, the [Logos] Below; Zeēsar, the Jordan flowing upwards. 4

(17 5) S. He (H. he says) is the male-female Man



1 while the Greek [theologi] generally call Him the “Heavenly Horn of Mēn,” 2 because He has mixed and mingled 3 all things with all.

What is "This" and "It" in your post? What did Origen propose, and probably adopt from PHilo? Could you explain?

 

[Fool]

What is "This" and "It" in your post? What did Origen propose, and probably adopt from PHilo? Could you explain?

you're op is rife with errors to begin with. the catholic church is not christianity, nor is it the early church. the trinity literally just means 3 things.

i'm not doing your reading. you were provided links and quotes. thats just laziness and attempt to promote the trinity as nicenean. farcical


the latin church had suppressed the idea via irenaeus long before the council of nicene convened and then double backed.

 

[firedragon]

i'm not doing your reading. thats just laziness

Thanks. Cheers.

 

[Brickjectivity]

An extremely interesting and insightful post, thank you for penning it! I will need to reflect on your points somewhat, before getting back to you (If that's OK?) as there is a lot to unpack and chew on.

That sounds good. I'll bookmark this and check back.

 

[Vouthon]

That sounds good. I'll bookmark this and check back.

I'll get back to you asap, once I've gathered my thoughts into something coherent.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

you're op is rife with errors to begin with. the catholic church is not christianity, nor is it the early church. the trinity literally just means 3 things.

i'm not doing your reading. you were provided links and quotes. thats just laziness and attempt to promote the trinity as nicenean. farcical


the latin church had suppressed the idea via irenaeus long before the council of nicene convened and then double backed.

I think it would depend what exactly you're counting as the Trinity.
Origen certainly didn't have a view of the Trinity as being any sort of equitable relationship between the three parts.
Subordinationist's tended to take the Arian view on the Trinity at the time of the Council, so if you're trying to track the origin of any sort of modern Trinity, it's a little tough to suggest Origen is a more accurate reading of it than Tertullian, and in either case it was the Council that passed orthodoxy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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"?

At the risk of being an atheist in a theological discussion (usually a somewhat uncomfortable seat to perch on)...

In various forms, the trinity obviously predates the Athanasian Creed. But in a general sense, there was no clear orthodoxy, and no clear 'Church' for most of the period you are talking. Is it any wonder there were a variety of ideas on something as complex as the trinity?

I mean, various ideas about it's mere existence, the eternal nature of the son and the holy spirit, what the relationship of the three parts were...and all this in a time when Biblical Scholarship was in it's infancy.

I think it's more surprising that an orthodox position was reached at all, but from my point of view that had more to do with political expediency than theology.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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"?

It's obviously a progressive interpretation.

Like the rapture was.

Another case in point that the Bible is not a divinely-inspired work.

 

[firedragon]

At the risk of being an atheist in a theological discussion (usually a somewhat uncomfortable seat to perch on)...

In various forms, the trinity obviously predates the Athanasian Creed. But in a general sense, there was no clear orthodoxy, and no clear 'Church' for most of the period you are talking. Is it any wonder there were a variety of ideas on something as complex as the trinity?

I mean, various ideas about it's mere existence, the eternal nature of the son and the holy spirit, what the relationship of the three parts were...and all this in a time when Biblical Scholarship was in it's infancy.

I think it's more surprising that an orthodox position was reached at all, but from my point of view that had more to do with political expediency than theology.

Some Atheists are such honest scholars that its impossible to make an atheist feel uncomfortable in any theological discussion setting.

Anyway your points are taken. You see, the first council of Nicea occurred in the year 325 which was installed to debate the nature of Jesus predominantly and establish an orthodoxy. Jesus passed somewhere around the year 30. Almost 300 years after that Arius and Alexander were debating the status of Jesus which is one of the key elements in the trinity of the Athanasian Creed. There were many great church fathers who had varying views throughout history. My question is, what were the real reasons for it taking almost 4 centuries? 350 years?

I am looking for data. There is a lot of scholarship on this and historical data on this topic of how and when all of this occurred. But there could always be something new we didn't think about.

 

[firedragon]

It's obviously a progressive interpretation.

Like the rapture was.

Another case in point that the Bible is not a divinely-inspired work.

The question is brother, with the premise that the Bible is lets say divinely inspired as Christians believe. That should not enter this discussion because this is the premise of the question. I understand your point but its for a different thread.

 

[firedragon]

you're op is rife with errors to begin with. the catholic church is not christianity, nor is it the early church. the trinity literally just means 3 things.

i'm not doing your reading. you were provided links and quotes. thats just laziness and attempt to promote the trinity as nicenean. farcical


the latin church had suppressed the idea via irenaeus long before the council of nicene convened and then double backed.

Nice. Thanks.

 

[Fool]

I think it would depend what exactly you're counting as the Trinity.
Origen certainly didn't have a view of the Trinity as being any sort of equitable relationship between the three parts.
Subordinationist's tended to take the Arian view on the Trinity at the time of the Council, so if you're trying to track the origin of any sort of modern Trinity, it's a little tough to suggest Origen is a more accurate reading of it than Tertullian, and in either case it was the Council that passed orthodoxy.

still, it relates to jesus' quote that the Father is greater. john 14:28


further I also provided a link to Irenaeus fault finding with the naassene, who did claim that there was three in one.


Adopting these and such like (opinions), these most marvellous Gnostics, inventors of a novel69 grammatical art, magnify Homer as their prophet-as one, (according to them,) who, after the mode adopted in the mysteries, announces these truths; and they mock those who are not indoctrinated into the holy Scriptures, by betraying them into such notions. They make, however, the following assertion: he who says that all things derive consistence from one, is in error; but he who says that they are of three, is in possession of the truth, and will furnish a solution of the (phonomena of the) universe. For there is, says (the Naassene), one blessed nature of the Blessed Man, of him who is above, (namely) Adam; and there is one mortal nature, that which is below; and there is one kingless generation, which is begotten above, where, he says, is Mariam70 the sought-for one, and Iothor the mighty sage, and Sephora the gazing one, and Moses whose generation is not in Egypt, for children were born unto him in Madian; and not even this, he says, has escaped the notice of the poets.

• 
  "Threefold was our partition; each obtained
  
  His meed of honour due."
  

 

[firedragon]

still, it relates to jesus' quote that the Father is greater.


further I also provided a link to Irenaeus fault finding with the naassene, who did claim that there was three in one.

Hmm. Naassenes believed in a trinity?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

still, it relates to jesus' quote that the Father is greater. john 14:28


further I also provided a link to Irenaeus fault finding with the naassene, who did claim that there was three in one.


Adopting these and such like (opinions), these most marvellous Gnostics, inventors of a novel69 grammatical art, magnify Homer as their prophet-as one, (according to them,) who, after the mode adopted in the mysteries, announces these truths; and they mock those who are not indoctrinated into the holy Scriptures, by betraying them into such notions. They make, however, the following assertion: he who says that all things derive consistence from one, is in error; but he who says that they are of three, is in possession of the truth, and will furnish a solution of the (phonomena of the) universe. For there is, says (the Naassene), one blessed nature of the Blessed Man, of him who is above, (namely) Adam; and there is one mortal nature, that which is below; and there is one kingless generation, which is begotten above, where, he says, is Mariam70 the sought-for one, and Iothor the mighty sage, and Sephora the gazing one, and Moses whose generation is not in Egypt, for children were born unto him in Madian; and not even this, he says, has escaped the notice of the poets.

• 
  "Threefold was our partition; each obtained
  
  His meed of honour due."

Again, though, I'm not for a moment suggesting there wasn't consideration or argument about the nature of God, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Look at it this way, if you're considering Irenaeus, why stop there? Why not Justin?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hmm. Naassenes believed in a trinity?

Sort of, if you're expanding the word out to simply mean 'three'.
Just as clarification, you're interested in the modern concept of the Trinity, right? Not just every instance of discussion around three, etc?