The Trinity

[sojourner]

To be more precise, scholars currently hold that the writer of Hebrews is unknown. The Church herself has always maintained that Paul wrote it. Since the Church authored the bible, perhaps we should take her word for it, the misgivings of modern scholars notwithstanding.

I don't see why we should. The church said that the universe was geocentric, too. Shall we ignore the scholars on that account, too?

 

[Dunemeister]

I don't see why we should. The church said that the universe was geocentric, too. Shall we ignore the scholars on that account, too?

That's a rather different order of thing, don't you think? The Church wasn't around when the world was created, so it's understandable that they wouldn't know much about physical cosmology. However, the Church was there when the canon was being written and formed, so we should expect she'd know a great deal more about that.

 

[Shermana]

That's a rather different order of thing, don't you think? The Church wasn't around when the world was created, so it's understandable that they wouldn't know much about physical cosmology. However, the Church was there when the canon was being written and formed, so we should expect she'd know a great deal more about that.

The Orthodox Church that compiled the New Testament was most certainly not existent before 100 A.D.

Nazarene Jews who held beliefs nothing like the proto-Orthodox, let alone the 4th century early Orthodox, wrote the contents of the "New Testament" (and likely more than what was compiled). That "Church" was much different.

 

[gzusfrk]

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

The trinity is fine and dandy, and im ok with it, But it is Jesus christ that saves.

 

[sojourner]

That's a rather different order of thing, don't you think? The Church wasn't around when the world was created, so it's understandable that they wouldn't know much about physical cosmology. However, the Church was there when the canon was being written and formed, so we should expect she'd know a great deal more about that.

The church also says that the gospels were written by disciples and contemporaries of Jesus, ascribing names of authors to them that are not on the earliest copies. But we know from the dates (and from the state of illiteracy of the time and place) that this most likely is not so.

The church also says that Paul wrote Colossians -- even though modern scholars doubt it from language and style of writing.

The church also says that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. See above. In fact, it's likely that there were at least four different authors just of Genesis, plus the voice of redactors.

 

[Dunemeister]

The Orthodox Church that compiled the New Testament was most certainly not existent before 100 A.D.

Nazarene Jews who held beliefs nothing like the proto-Orthodox, let alone the 4th century early Orthodox, wrote the contents of the "New Testament" (and likely more than what was compiled). That "Church" was much different.

In actual fact, there is an unbroken continuity between the Orthodox Church and the Apostles. The Church has "changed" in some ways over the years. She has clarified dogmas, for example. But the line is unbroken.

 

[Dunemeister]

The church also says that the gospels were written by disciples and contemporaries of Jesus, ascribing names of authors to them that are not on the earliest copies. But we know from the dates (and from the state of illiteracy of the time and place) that this most likely is not so.

The church also says that Paul wrote Colossians -- even though modern scholars doubt it from language and style of writing.

The church also says that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. See above. In fact, it's likely that there were at least four different authors just of Genesis, plus the voice of redactors.

None of this perturbs me, because as I said, the Church that developed the canon is better positioned than Johnny-come-lately scholars to know about its development.

 

[sojourner]

In actual fact, there is an unbroken continuity between the Orthodox Church and the Apostles. The Church has "changed" in some ways over the years. She has clarified dogmas, for example. But the line is unbroken.

Nazarene Jews could not have written the NT -- the epistles are far too Greek, both in thought and style, and Luke is too Greek, as well, for that to have been the case. We know that the apostles did go to other places and evangelize, however.

 

[sojourner]

None of this perturbs me, because as I said, the Church that developed the canon is better positioned than Johnny-come-lately scholars to know about its development.

Not so. The church was not always so organized and unified. Early on, the church was quite diverse. And we are in a better position to understand writing styles and development of cultural differences better now than the church was when it began these traditions in the first place.

 

[Shermana]

In actual fact, there is an unbroken continuity between the Orthodox Church and the Apostles. The Church has "changed" in some ways over the years. She has clarified dogmas, for example. But the line is unbroken.

Well, the Epistles like from Peter, Jude and John are very Jewish (note: The word Jewish does not mean Pharisaic), Revelation is especially Jewish, but Paul perhaps not so much but even that is debated heavily, but the Gospels, including Luke, are heavily Jewish, emphasizing Jewish Law and the Torah, such as Luke 16:17, and then Matthew, the most Jewish of them all. There may be something to be said about them being "Greek" but they aren't anywhere close to "gentile" by the use of the word "Greek", which is a slippery Semantic when discussing them. John and Mark's Jewishness is debated but there's good reason to believe they were in fact in line completely with Jewish law and written to people who were already familiar with it, but opposed to the Pharisees' version of it. As for "Clarifying Dogmas", who wrote those Dogmas? . Who exactly got to decide how to "clarify" Dogma? The first 15 bishops of Jerusalem were circumcised Jews! James the Just is widely regarded as extremely Jewish. Was he wrong? Did doctrine change?

However, with that said, there's really no reason to believe the chain between the Orthodox Church and the Nazarene Jews who were the original apostles is unbroken. Perhaps that's something you can believe freely within the orthodox church, but you'll have no weight with that line of thought with anyone outside of it.

But perhaps this topic is best reserved for another thread as its getting off the subject of the Trinity.

 

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Atruthseeker
1+1+1=1? or 1+1+1=3 or 1+1+1= something else?

This is theology, not mathematics. God can't be reduced to a mathematical equation.

 

[kjw47]

The church also says that the gospels were written by disciples and contemporaries of Jesus, ascribing names of authors to them that are not on the earliest copies. But we know from the dates (and from the state of illiteracy of the time and place) that this most likely is not so.

The church also says that Paul wrote Colossians -- even though modern scholars doubt it from language and style of writing.

The church also says that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. See above. In fact, it's likely that there were at least four different authors just of Genesis, plus the voice of redactors.

I am pretty sure the apostles basically said the words and had like a secretary do the actual writing.

 

[Dunemeister]

Not so. The church was not always so organized and unified. Early on, the church was quite diverse. And we are in a better position to understand writing styles and development of cultural differences better now than the church was when it began these traditions in the first place.

None of this tells against my claims, although I disagree that the early church was not organized and unified. The unifying principle was apostolic doctrine as it was handed on (traditioned, in the Greek) to the bishops, who in turn passed it along. Innovations and divergences were quickly detected and repudiated. We 21st Century North Americans may wish to govern things differently, but the Church did in fact maintain control over its traditions, and there was a system, even if informal at first, for handing them on.

 

[Dunemeister]

Nazarene Jews could not have written the NT -- the epistles are far too Greek, both in thought and style, and Luke is too Greek, as well, for that to have been the case. We know that the apostles did go to other places and evangelize, however.

Missed this. "Could not have"? By Jesus' day, the entire Roman world was pretty thoroughly Hellenized, even Jerusalem. Jewish polemics against paganism used pagan philosophical categories in order to do so. Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising if at least some, even many, Nazarene Jews spoke Greek. It was necessary to conduct business.

Besides, how in the world could we form conclusions of such sweeping generality from the information we have available? I still maintain that the Church's testimony is far superior to the Johnny-come-latelies picking over the scraps of what has survived from antiquity.

 

[Dunemeister]

However, with that said, there's really no reason to believe the chain between the Orthodox Church and the Nazarene Jews who were the original apostles is unbroken. Perhaps that's something you can believe freely within the orthodox church, but you'll have no weight with that line of thought with anyone outside of it.

But perhaps this topic is best reserved for another thread as its getting off the subject of the Trinity.

The lists of bishops provides some reason to believe the chain is unbroken. But you are right that the claim won't have much weight with those outside the church. For as the Nicene creed affirms, the Church is just as much an object of faith as God Himself is. For the Orthodox, having faith in God but not having faith in the Church is oxymoronic.

This is related to the Trinity in that there is no particular reason to think that the Trinity is the correct way to understand the nature of God if you don't affirm that the Church's tradition is correct. After all, the bible is the Church's book. But the bible is also capable of multiple interpretations, and it's not obvious that it teaches the trinity. So once again, the only thing we have to go on ultimately is the Church's testimony. If people choose to reject the Church's testimony (authority), then of course there's no way to gainsay. To paraphrase Ivan Karamazov, if there is no Church, then all is permitted.

 

[Muffled]

Incorrect.

Pray tell; where does your information come from? Are you saying your source is better than God?

 

[sojourner]

I am pretty sure the apostles basically said the words and had like a secretary do the actual writing.

Nope. The styles, language, theological intents, etc. denote that the apostles did not "write" -- or dictate -- the gospels.

 

[sojourner]

None of this tells against my claims, although I disagree that the early church was not organized and unified. The unifying principle was apostolic doctrine as it was handed on (traditioned, in the Greek) to the bishops, who in turn passed it along. Innovations and divergences were quickly detected and repudiated. We 21st Century North Americans may wish to govern things differently, but the Church did in fact maintain control over its traditions, and there was a system, even if informal at first, for handing them on.

I disagree. There was wide disagreement in matters of theology -- even in Paul's time. Churches were scattered, separated by distance and sometimes by culture. While there was some organization, early on there was wide disagreement as to doctrine, leading to the classic heresies. These disagreements did not begin to be settled until Nicea.

 

[sojourner]

Missed this. "Could not have"? By Jesus' day, the entire Roman world was pretty thoroughly Hellenized, even Jerusalem. Jewish polemics against paganism used pagan philosophical categories in order to do so. Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising if at least some, even many, Nazarene Jews spoke Greek. It was necessary to conduct business.

Besides, how in the world could we form conclusions of such sweeping generality from the information we have available? I still maintain that the Church's testimony is far superior to the Johnny-come-latelies picking over the scraps of what has survived from antiquity.

You're discounting the differences in political leanings between the Nazarenes and the Hellenists. Hellenests were far more cosmopolitan -- an attribute reflected in many of the NT writings. In fact, the only writings that could be considered Nazarene in nature are the Q writings. "Speaking Greek" isn't the only criterion that's investigated. "The church's testimony" is highly biased. Modern scholarship is not.

 

[sojourner]

Pray tell; where does your information come from? Are you saying your source is better than God?

Pray tell; what did God "source?" My information comes from peer-reviewed scholarship. That information is better than "the church says so," because it's better informed and less biased.