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

[Piculet]

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

Is there evidence for that?

 

[firedragon]

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?

The study is about the Athanasian Creed. So yes, the modern concept of Trinity.

I was just curious about this particular comment I was responding to because it seems to allude that this gnostic group
Naassenes were trinitarian, but i am clarifying his position clearly.

 

[Fool]

Is there evidence for that?

its called the refutation of all heresies.


chapter V

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol V: The Refutation of All Heresies

 

[Fool]

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?

The terms we translate as “Trinity” (Latin: trinitas, Greek: trias) seem to have come into use only in the last two decades of the second century; but such usage doesn't reflect trinitarian belief. These late second and third century authors use such terms not to refer to the one God, but rather to refer to the plurality of the one God, together with his Son (on Word) and his Spirit. They profess a “trinity”, triad or threesome, but not a triune or tripersonal God. Nor did they consider these to be equally divine. A common strategy for defending monotheism in this period is to emphasize the unique divinity of the Father. Thus Origen (ca. 186-255),

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The terms we translate as “Trinity” (Latin: trinitas, Greek: trias) seem to have come into use only in the last two decades of the second century; but such usage doesn't reflect trinitarian belief. These late second and third century authors use such terms not to refer to the one God, but rather to refer to the plurality of the one God, together with his Son (on Word) and his Spirit. They profess a “trinity”, triad or threesome, but not a triune or tripersonal God. Nor did they consider these to be equally divine. A common strategy for defending monotheism in this period is to emphasize the unique divinity of the Father. Thus Origen (ca. 186-255),

Yes, I understand all that. My only real point here is that discussion of a trinity was occurring for many years. However it was a point of conjecture, and the various beliefs...whilst loosely beliefs in a trinity...did not lead to modern trinitarianism. They were in many cases declared heretical due to their differences.

So if you want to look at the origins of discussion in this area, it makes sense to examine various claims in this area, and the role they played in developing ideas and discussion.

But the modern conceptualisation of the Trinity...or the modern orthodoxy if you prefer...is different to these early beliefs.

 

[Fool]

Yes, I understand all that. My only real point here is that discussion of a trinity was occurring for many years. However it was a point of conjecture, and the various beliefs...whilst loosely beliefs in a trinity...did not lead to modern trinitarianism. They were in many cases declared heretical due to their differences.

So if you want to look at the origins of discussion in this area, it makes sense to examine various claims in this area, and the role they played in developing ideas and discussion.

But the modern conceptualisation of the Trinity...or the modern orthodoxy if you prefer...is different to these early beliefs.

there are a few problems with the OP

the latin church is not the Christian church. the latin church might fall under that umbrella but it isn't the umbrella. the OP spoke of the early church. it didn't speak of the roman/latin church. there was a church long before rome became involved and any modern trinitarianism of today.


orthodoxy for the latin church isn't relevant to other churches who understood the trinity differently and still do. there are 40,000+ denominations of christianity.


modern and popular aren't exclusive to a thing. they are qualifiers.

whether the latin church used the idea from previous versions matters not one whit because there were other versions long before the latin church decided to go with a form of trinity.

these are the problems with this thread

 

[firedragon]

the latin church is not the Christian church. the latin church might fall under that umbrella but it isn't the umbrella. the OP spoke of the early church. it didn't speak of the roman/latin church. there was a church long before rome became involved and any modern trinitarianism of today.

whether the latin church used the idea from previous versions matters not one whit because there were other versions long before the latin church decided to go with a form of trinity.

orthodoxy for the latin church isn't relevant to other churches who understood the trinity differently and still do. there are 40,000+ denominations of christianity.

Okay. What did that church which you speak about say about the trinity and what are the documents that discuss the trinity, is it the same as the Athanasian creed, if not still the same question in the OP applies.

Cheers.

 

[Hawkins]

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"?

In a car incident how do you distinguish a fact from a hearsay? is it the first car hit the second car or is it the second car hit the first car?
Moreover, don't sound as if humans have the ability to reach a history precisely, you can't even prove the food contents you yourself ate a week ago.

There's no proof showing that "they came up" something till the 4th century. This is rather a guess or at best pure speculation. Thomas is a valid eyewitness. He called Jesus God while Jesus didn't deny. That's the fact for God's Trinity. How humans came up with the term (actually human concepts can go before the formation of a technical term) is irrelevant.

To give you a reference on how reliable claims about 4th century can be, today's humans don't even have a scroll of the book we call Bible before that point. The earliest ancient scrolls we can have today is around 4th century. So don't sound as if everything is crystal clear before the 4th century while we can't even keep a single ancient scroll of the Bible itself. History basically doesn't conserve anything for humans. You need faith to assume whichever you WANT to assume.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

there are a few problems with the OP

the latin church is not the Christian church. the latin church might fall under that umbrella but it isn't the umbrella. the OP spoke of the early church. it didn't speak of the roman/latin church. there was a church long before rome became involved and any modern trinitarianism of today.


orthodoxy for the latin church isn't relevant to other churches who understood the trinity differently and still do. there are 40,000+ denominations of christianity.


modern and popular aren't exclusive to a thing. they are qualifiers.

whether the latin church used the idea from previous versions matters not one whit because there were other versions long before the latin church decided to go with a form of trinity.

these are the problems with this thread

I agree, to a point, but I had already clarified with the OP that it was the modern orthodox form of the trinity he was taking about.
My interest in this topic is historical, rather than theological, so far be it from me to judge Christian beliefs. But it might make it easier to discuss if you gave us some examples of which particular beliefs you're promoting here.

The Anti-Nicene period is a fairly confusing mish-mash of variations on a central belief structure built around Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

In a car incident how do you distinguish a fact from a hearsay? is it the first car hit the second car or is it the second car hit the first car?
Moreover, don't sound as if humans have the ability to reach a history precisely, you can't even prove the food contents you yourself ate a week ago.

There's no proof showing that "they came up" something till the 4th century. This is rather a guess or at best pure speculation. Thomas is a valid eyewitness. He called Jesus God while Jesus didn't deny. That's the fact for God's Trinity. How humans came up with the term (actually human concepts can go before the formation of a technical term) is irrelevant.

To give you a reference on how reliable claims about 4th century can be, today's humans don't even have a scroll of the book we call Bible before that point. The earliest ancient scrolls we can have today is around 4th century. So don't sound as if everything is crystal clear before the 4th century while we can't even keep a single ancient scroll of the Bible itself. History basically doesn't conserve anything for humans. You need faith to assume whichever you WANT to assume.

You have not understood the OP mate.

 

[Fool]

I agree, to a point, but I had already clarified with the OP that it was the modern orthodox form of the trinity he was taking about.
My interest in this topic is historical, rather than theological, so far be it from me to judge Christian beliefs. But it might make it easier to discuss if you gave us some examples of which particular beliefs you're promoting here.

The Anti-Nicene period is a fairly confusing mish-mash of variations on a central belief structure built around Jesus.

I'm not promoting a belief. I'm correcting the fact that there was historically a church before roman, there was a trinity before the nicene creed. the idea of trinity didn't suddenly appear in the fourth century.

the naassene were practicing. the naassene were a sect of the essene. they were jewish, not christian in the "modern" sense. they believed in a trinity and it's only thanks to irenaeus' "refutation of all heresies" that we know about it and that roman church tried to quash it.


as to the validity of the trinity, that isn't being promoted/discouraged by myself

 

[sojourner]

the latin church is not the Christian church. the latin church might fall under that umbrella but it isn't the umbrella. the OP spoke of the early church. it didn't speak of the roman/latin church. there was a church long before rome became involved and any modern trinitarianism of today.

Do you understand that there were far more Eastern bishops at the Council of Nicea than there were Roman bishops? I don't know why everyone who dismisses the trinity automatically vilifies the RCC. it wasn't their baby. At the time of the Council, there was only "the Church." And it stood in a direct vector from the early proto-church.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not promoting a belief. I'm correcting the fact that there was historically a church before roman, there was a trinity before the nicene creed. the idea of trinity didn't suddenly appear in the fourth century.

Mate. You have said this many many times already. I understand what you are saying.

But you have not responded with relevance to the OP. Quote the source, the primary source, and what is the trinity. Even if as you say there was a trinity which as a premise in this post is agreed upon by default, what is that trinity and whats the primary literature? And how is that in corroboration to the Athanasian creed? If its the same thing, well thats a brand new find that no scholar or historian in the world has ever discovered so obviously I would love to see this. If its different then still the question of the OP applies.

I have asked this question several times brother. You are not providing a single objective response. Dont think that this thread is naturally meant as a debate against the trinity or anything of the sort. Read the OP.

Peace.

 

[Piculet]

Read the OP.

It looks like a lot of people have difficulties understanding your OPs. Maybe the fault is in the OPs?

 

[Fool]

there is

Mate. You have said this many many times already. I understand what you are saying.

But you have not responded with relevance to the OP. Quote the source, the primary source, and what is the trinity. Even if as you say there was a trinity which as a premise in this post is agreed upon by default, what is that trinity and whats the primary literature? And how is that in corroboration to the Athanasian creed? If its the same thing, well thats a brand new find that no scholar or historian in the world has ever discovered so obviously I would love to see this. If its different then still the question of the OP applies.

I have asked this question several times brother. You are not providing a single objective response. Dont think that this thread is naturally meant as a debate against the trinity or anything of the sort. Read the OP.

Peace.

the trinity as described by the naassene doesn't agree with either the nicene, or the athanasian.

in the naassene trinity the three in one are a hierarchy of God the Father is greatest and agrees with Jesus' statement. God the Spirit existed before the begotten. God the Son is the least because the flesh counts for not.

the actual word trinity wasn't coined until the late 2nd century. the trinity as an idea was already being discussed and promoted by certain gnostic groups.

 

[Fool]

Do you understand that there were far more Eastern bishops at the Council of Nicea than there were Roman bishops? I don't know why everyone who dismisses the trinity automatically vilifies the RCC. it wasn't their baby. At the time of the Council, there was only "the Church." And it stood in a direct vector from the early proto-church.

east or west the rcc was running the show at nicea, at rome and at constantinople under the roman empire.

 

[sojourner]

east or west the rcc was running the show at nicea, at rome and at constantinople under the roman empire.

False. The Church was running the show. The bishops -- mostly Eastern -- were running the show.

 

[firedragon]

there is
the trinity as described by the naassene doesn't agree with either the nicene, or the athanasian.

in the naassene trinity the three in one are a hierarchy of God the Father is greatest and agrees with Jesus' statement. God the Spirit existed before the begotten. God the Son is the least because the flesh counts for not.

the actual word trinity wasn't coined until the late 2nd century. the trinity as an idea was already being discussed and promoted by certain gnostic groups.

Primary sources brother. Cheers.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Primary sources brother. Cheers.

Naassene Fragment - Wikipedia

It's in the fragment itself, but it doesn't meet the requirements of the OP.
Trinity type concepts were discussed basically since the start of the Ante-Nicene period, but these are the Trinity as it's understood in modern times by the majority of major Christian denominations.

 

[Piculet]

its called the refutation of all heresies.


chapter V

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol V: The Refutation of All Heresies

Thank you.
I can't find anything related to this.

• • 
    Chapter V.-Anaximander; His Theory of the Infinite; His Astronomic Opinions; His Physics.
    
  Anaximander, then, was the hearer of Thales. Anaximander was son of Praxiadas, and a native of Miletus. This man said that the originating principle of existing things is a certain constitution of the Infinite, out of which the heavens are generated, and the worlds therein; and that this principle is eternal and undecaying, and comprising all the worlds. And he speaks of time as something of limited generation, and subsistence, and destruction. This person declared the Infinite to be an originating principle and element of existing things, being the first to employ such a denomination of the originating principle. But, moreover, he asserted that there is an eternal motion, by the agency of which it happens that the heavens52 are generated; but that the earth is poised aloft, upheld by nothing, continuing (so) on account of its equal distance from all (the heavenly bodies); and that the figure of it is curved, circular,53 similar to a column of stone.54 And one of the surfaces we tread upon, but the other is opposite.55 And that the stars are a circle of fire, separated from the fire which is in the vicinity of the world, and encompassed by air. And that certain atmospheric exhalations arise in places where the stars shine; wherefore, also, when these exhalations are obstructed, that eclipses take place. And that the moon sometimes appears full and sometimes waning, according to the obstruction or opening of its (orbital) paths. But that the circle of the sun is twenty-seven times56 larger than the moon, and that the sun is situated in the highest (quarter of the firmament); whereas the orbs of the fixed stars in the lowest. And that animals are produced (in moisture57 ) by evaporation from the sun. And that man was, originally, similar to a different animal, that is, a fish. And that winds are caused by the separation of very rarified exhalations of the atmosphere, and by their motion after they have been condensed. And that rain arises from earth's giving back (the vapours which it receives) from the (clouds58 ) under the sun. And that there are flashes of lightning when the wind coming down severs the clouds. This person was born in the third year of the XLII. Olympiad.59