The Trinity

[Sum1sGruj]

This does not preclude Jesus from being the same person as the Father since the Father has always desired to be King.

The adversary thinks that presence in the flesh would cause God to be weak and therefore vulnerable. God displayed strength to endure the worst that humans have to endure at the hands of the enemy.

I honestly don't see this to be the case. If God was going to come down to Earth in flesh, why he would have proclaimed Himself as the son,, of Himself?
He was born endowed with the Holy Spirit.
The Adversary wouldn't have tempted God Himself. Think about it, how are you going to tempt a being that can effectively snap their fingers and have anything, and without consequence?

I believe in the Trinity to the extent of Jesus, God, Bible., not a literal division of God Himself.

 

[jonadab]

1+1+1=1? or 1+1+1=3 or 1+1+1= something else?

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.​

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.​

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.​

 

[Katzpur]

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.​

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.​

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.​

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.​

Wonderful quotes! There was no "Trinity" in ancient Christianity. There was a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost but they were not somehow mystically united as a single, indivisible substance until the fourth century. I'm glad to see that so many Christians are finally starting to acknowledge this.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

According to Revelation 3v14 Jesus believes he is the 'beginning of the creation' by God.

God is unbegotten, and God is uncreated.

 

[Muffled]

I honestly don't see this to be the case. If God was going to come down to Earth in flesh, why he would have proclaimed Himself as the son,, of Himself?
He was born endowed with the Holy Spirit.
The Adversary wouldn't have tempted God Himself. Think about it, how are you going to tempt a being that can effectively snap their fingers and have anything, and without consequence?

I believe in the Trinity to the extent of Jesus, God, Bible., not a literal division of God Himself.

There is a simple expediant. God recognizes that he will look like just another human being. For Him to be seen as God He has to proclaim Himself as God; to be seen as God in the flesh, He has to proclaim Himself as being in the flesh ie a son.

Everybody has a spirit. Jesus has the Spirit of God which is the essential nature of God.

The point was not for Jesus to snap His fingers to make things happen even though He could. Part of Satan's temptation was to get Jesus to do just that. Mat 4:3 And the tempter came and said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.

If you believe in a Biblical Trinity, you do well. God can't be divided; I congratulate you on recognizing that fact.

 

[Muffled]

Wonderful quotes! There was no "Trinity" in ancient Christianity. There was a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost but they were not somehow mystically united as a single, indivisible substance until the fourth century. I'm glad to see that so many Christians are finally starting to acknowledge this.

There is no record of theology before the fourth century. Where is your evidence fo your claim that there is?

The Athanasian creed was not equivalent to the Nicene creed. It was the Athanasian creed that incorrectly saw the trinity as three persons and it is the creed that the Catholic church picked up even though that was not the agreed on creed from the council of Nicea. It appears that Athanasius had set up a rival creed to the one officially agreed upon by church leaders.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Wonderful quotes! There was no "Trinity" in ancient Christianity. There was a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost but they were not somehow mystically united as a single, indivisible substance until the fourth century. I'm glad to see that so many Christians are finally starting to acknowledge this.

This is the teaching of the Didache as well. Father ,Son, and holy Ghost.

 

[Katzpur]

There is no record of theology before the fourth century. Where is your evidence fo your claim that there is?

There are hundreds of ancient writings, Muffled, records of what was actually believed and taught by the Christians living during Jesus' day and in the first and second centuries. There is no mention of anything resembling the Trinity as defined at Ncea.

The Athanasian creed was not equivalent to the Nicene creed. It was the Athanasian creed that incorrectly saw the trinity as three persons and it is the creed that the Catholic church picked up even though that was not the agreed on creed from the council of Nicea. It appears that Athanasius had set up a rival creed to the one officially agreed upon by church leaders.

So what makes a man-made creed written in one century any more inspired than a man-made creed written the next? Neither creed was inspired by God nor approved of by Him. I will admit, though, that the Nicene Creed is more understandable and straightforward than the Athanasian Creed which reads like something someone at the IRS wrote.

 

[sojourner]

Neither creed was inspired by God nor approved of by Him.

I don't think you can substantiate this claim.

 

[sojourner]

This is the teaching of the Didache as well. Father ,Son, and holy Ghost.

But the very instruction to baptize in the name (not names) of Father, Son, H.S. denotes that, although not condensed into a concise formula, the Trinity was conceived of very early on (Kloppenborg dates the Didache from the late 1st-early 2nd century.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't think you can substantiate this claim.

I definitely can't prove it, but that fact that the Church of that day claimed that revelation had ceased with the deaths of the Apostles seems to pretty much confirm what I'm saying. For starters, it wasn't even the head of the Church who called the council at Nicea in 325 A.D. I know it was supposed to have been called to put an end to the Arian controversy, but if it had been God's idea that a council be held for this purpose, it's highly unlikely that He would have directed a pagan emperor to convene it, as opposed to the Pope. Jesus Christ established His Church to function within a specific organizational structure, which included prophets and apostles, all of whom had been martyred more than two hundred years earlier. Nobody in 325 A.D. was claiming revelation from Heaven. (1) Since the council was presided over by a politician and not someone who held the authority the apostles had held, and (2) since that politician didn't care one way or the other what was decided, and (3) since the head of the Church was not even in attendance, it is pretty darned unlikely that any of the procedings took place with God's blessing.

With the idea in mind that revelation from God had long-since ceased by 325 A.D. what support can you provide for the idea that the council was called at God's request and that the final vote was what He would have wanted it to be?

 

[outhouse]

before 325AD there was no structure at all among christians

in every town there were unique beliefs and books being held high over others. There was definatly NOT a trinity type view that was popular everywhere. The idea existed before 325AD in certain places but it was not accepted widely as it is NOT part of the gospels themselves.

In my opinion, The trinity was human inspired as it was definatly not in the gospel which is said to be divine inspired. The nicaea council decided the trinity, its content and its structure. If you say it was not human inspired, I'd like to see links and some sort of proof.

I believe the trinity was heavily contested then as its still contested to this day by some

 

[sojourner]

I definitely can't prove it, but that fact that the Church of that day claimed that revelation had ceased with the deaths of the Apostles seems to pretty much confirm what I'm saying. For starters, it wasn't even the head of the Church who called the council at Nicea in 325 A.D. I know it was supposed to have been called to put an end to the Arian controversy, but if it had been God's idea that a council be held for this purpose, it's highly unlikely that He would have directed a pagan emperor to convene it, as opposed to the Pope. Jesus Christ established His Church to function within a specific organizational structure, which included prophets and apostles, all of whom had been martyred more than two hundred years earlier. Nobody in 325 A.D. was claiming revelation from Heaven. (1) Since the council was presided over by a politician and not someone who held the authority the apostles had held, and (2) since that politician didn't care one way or the other what was decided, and (3) since the head of the Church was not even in attendance, it is pretty darned unlikely that any of the procedings took place with God's blessing.

With the idea in mind that revelation from God had long-since ceased by 325 A.D. what support can you provide for the idea that the council was called at God's request and that the final vote was what He would have wanted it to be?

Sorry to disagree with you, but the Church has always held with continuing revelation. The closing of the canon has nothing to do with continuing or non-continuing revelation. Church councils were often called by rulers. Whitby, for example, was called by King Oswy. I disagree that Jesus "called his church to function within a specific organizational structure." None of your statements can stand up to historical scrutiny.

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry to disagree with you, but the Church has always held with continuing revelation. The closing of the canon has nothing to do with continuing or non-continuing revelation.

I'm just going by what every Catholic I've ever talked to has told me.

Church councils were often called by rulers.

Given the fact that there was essentially no distinction between church and state at that time, I'm well aware of that fact. That doesn't make it right.

I disagree that Jesus "called his church to function within a specific organizational structure." None of your statements can stand up to historical scrutiny.

Yeah, I know you disagree because we've had this discussion before. I believe every statement I have made is historically verifiable.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But the very instruction to baptise in the name (not names) of Father, Son, H.S. denotes that, although not condensed into a concise formula, the Trinity was conceived of very early on (Kloppenborg dates the Didache from the late 1st-early 2nd century.

the words are...

7:1 (and) concerning baptism, baptize thus:
Having said all these things beforehand,
immerse in the name of the Father
and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit

in flowing water-


( From the Translation and recent research by Aaron Milavec)


one can be quite certain the didache was originally composed orally before a text version was scripted. it was used during the mid first century to initiate non-Jews into one branch of the Jesus movement. it predates the canonical gospels and was formulated in the first generation following Jesus death.

 

[sojourner]

the words are...

7:1 (and) concerning baptism, baptize thus:
Having said all these things beforehand,
immerse in the name of the Father
and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit

in flowing water-


( From the Translation and recent research by Aaron Milavec)


one can be quite certain the didache was originally composed orally before a text version was scripted. it was used during the mid first century to initiate non-Jews into one branch of the Jesus movement. it predates the canonical gospels and was formulated in the first generation following Jesus death.

I'm well aware of the Didache.
And you don't see an obvious Trinitarian formula there?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm well aware of the Didache.
And you don't see an obvious Trinitarian formula there?

No ... At that time, the Composite Idea of the Trinity was not thought of... even up to the time of the writing of the synoptic gospels it had not been established, though it might have been a minority idea, but there is no evidence to confirm this.
The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit were still thought of as separate identities. The argument continues to this day.

Presented with any group of entities , be they tom, dick or harry. there is no reason to suppose they make up a single identity, nor would this have been the case for proto Christians. It is a novel Idea.

 

[barney1956]

There was no subject so hotly debated in the early church than the relationship between God , Jesus, and the Holy spirit. Every side in the debate went through the stage of declaring the others Heretics. All were certain there was only one God.

The Trinity concept was numerically the winner.
However virtually all the other concepts still survive to this day in one form or another.

Most people I have met, Trinitarians or not, are quite unable to explain the Trinity in simple terms.

Muslims are unwilling to even try.

However This does not mean the concept is false, it simply means like all religious concepts, it is mysterious.

i really don't understand why people use this word "mysterious" as though God doesn't want us to understand or truly know him.The scriptures are quite clear i believe.I mean the scriptures say you get eternal life by getting to know the only true God and the one he sent forth Jesus Christ.There's nothing mysterious about that,and in that scripture(john 17:3) nothing is said about getting to know a third person.

In scripture when one of the apostles see a vision of God they see him standing with his son standing at his right hand side or they see God sitting on a throne with his son sitting on God right hand side,but in these visions they never see a third person.None of this is mysterious to me,it seems crystal clear.

I honestly don't believe the trinity doctrine is from the Bible.I think it's a doctrine that a group of people in the 4th century came up with to try to explain God and when people check the scriptures to see if it's true and have reservations that it's truly biblical the religious leaders cry it's mysterious as though that explains everything.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

i really don't understand why people use this word "mysterious" as though God doesn't want us to understand or truly know him.The scriptures are quite clear i believe.I mean the scriptures say you get eternal life by getting to know the only true God and the one he sent forth Jesus Christ.There's nothing mysterious about that,and in that scripture(john 17:3) nothing is said about getting to know a third person.

In scripture when one of the apostles see a vision of God they see him standing with his son standing at his right hand side or they see God sitting on a throne with his son sitting on God right hand side,but in these visions they never see a third person.None of this is mysterious to me,it seems crystal clear.

I honestly don't believe the trinity doctrine is from the Bible.I think it's a doctrine that a group of people in the 4th century came up with to try to explain God and when people check the scriptures to see if it's true and have reservations that it's truly biblical the religious leaders cry it's mysterious as though that explains everything.

the scriptures might be quite clear to some people, but certainly not to others.
The problem with the scriptures is with their reliability... I would agree that they hold much truth, however they are still unreliable in detail. Simply reading the four synoptic gospels, shows that the four authors do not agree even on basic details.
nor do any of them confirm the Trinity concept.
Mystery is a term used to cover for the unknown, unconfirmed, or unexplained. It does not mean untruth.

 

[sojourner]

No ... At that time, the Composite Idea of the Trinity was not thought of... even up to the time of the writing of the synoptic gospels it had not been established, though it might have been a minority idea, but there is no evidence to confirm this.
The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit were still thought of as separate identities. The argument continues to this day.

Presented with any group of entities , be they tom, dick or harry. there is no reason to suppose they make up a single identity, nor would this have been the case for proto Christians. It is a novel Idea.

Still, neither the idea nor the words would have been there if they hadn't had some sort of idea of a Trinity. Why baptize in the name of three persons, instead of just one? We can say without much doubt that the fully-formed doctrine was not conceived that early, but the idea was being tossed around that Jesus and the Holy Spirit had at least something special to do with God, and were, in some sense, Divine.