Why do we believe in the trinity?

[Dinami]

I know what it is. My question is it wasn't really taught in the scriptures it was developed by a church. So, why do we believe what the church created rather than what the scriptures actually say?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Me Myself]

I think this is the kind of things that you would want in same "faith debates" or in "scriptural debates".

The DIRs are not for debating.

If you plan on debating this topic, I advice you to ask a mod to move this thread to the relevant subforum

 

[Dinami]

Lol I'm new, I'm not really sure where to post such questions

 

[Monster!]

No idea but meh, who cares, I like the idea of the trinity and think it shows the multiple natures of God well so why change it? X

 

[sojourner]

I know what it is. My question is it wasn't really taught in the scriptures it was developed by a church. So, why do we believe what the church created rather than what the scriptures actually say?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Because, while beliefs are grounded in the texts, they have never been limited to the texts. There are allusions to the Divinity of Christ and the Divine nature of the Holy Spirit in scripture. The doctrine per se is not articulated, but the seeds are certainly there.

 

[MysticTraveler]

I don't know, but I'd be curious to hear some good arguments for and against. I know that the concept of the Trinity is a big point of division between Christians and their Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters, and I have to agree with the Jews and the Muslims that it is a difficult concept to get behind.

 

[InChrist]

The biblical scriptures reveal One God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Shiranui117]

No idea but meh, who cares, I like the idea of the trinity and think it shows the multiple natures of God well so why change it? X

If I may, what exactly do you mean by "multiple natures" of God?

I don't know, but I'd be curious to hear some good arguments for and against. I know that the concept of the Trinity is a big point of division between Christians and their Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters, and I have to agree with the Jews and the Muslims that it is a difficult concept to get behind.

Yeah, this definitely belongs in the Debates forums. There are already several threads related to the Trinity elsewhere in the debate forums. If you want to make a topic just listing pros and cons without getting into actual debate, then I think we could do that here on the Christianity DIR--as long as some characters like me can restrain ourselves from debating

 

[Clear]

Dinami :

If, by "the trinity", you are referring to the concept of a nicene-type, model of the Godhead, then I also have wondered why this model became popular over other worldviews. I have often wondered what sort of model for a Godhead a completely unbiased person would develop upon reading the Old and New Testaments and the early Judeo-Christian literature for the first time. I do not think it would be a nicene model.


Early Judeo-Christian Godhead versus Later Nicene-type Theories regarding the Godhead [FONT=&quot]

Historians have long noted that the theories derived by theologians concerning the Godhead (such as the Nicene Theory) were neither the earliest nor the orthodox Christian worldview described by the earliest Judao-Christians. The Nicene theory is not particularly intuitive when reading the New Testament text, nor any of the other early Judeo-christian texts and their descriptions of the early beliefs regarding the Godhead.



The earlier Judao-Christian Worldview regarding the Godhead

In the earliest Judao-Christian worldview, Jesus was a different individual from his Father in that he was the “only begotten God” as it says in New Testament John 1:18 (grk) (“…ο μονογενης θεος.) whereas, God the Father was not a “begotten God” in this same sense. John's distinction that Jesus was a "begotten God" was not the only important distinguishing characteristic between these individuals.

In the early Judao-Christian worldview, the Son was not omnipotent as was the father. The son obtained his authority from the father whereas in early Christianity, the Father was the source of all authority. The Son was subservient to the Father, whereas the Father had all authority and gave to the son a degree of the Fathers’ authority. The Son was given the co-mission (commission) of the Father and co-operated (cooperated) with the Father, in the Fathers plan to educate the pre-existent spirits of men in the early Judao-christian worldview. Ascension literature describe two individuals very clearly, as well as their relationship as individuals. Decensus literature, early christian prayers, their mishnas, their early hymns, etc. contain descriptions of them as individuals. It is only the later literature, in the age of theologians that begin to interpret the 3 individuals in the Godhead as somehow being 1 individual.



Speculative motives for the Origin of the Nicene Theory

Period scholars have discussed origins and motives as to why the original orthodox worldview of the Godhead as individuals (i.e. “3” individuals” equals “3” individuals) became less popular and what motivated the development of the later “Nicene Theory” for a Godhead (i.e. “3” individuals equals “1” individual).

One wonders if the pressures on early Christianity to combat the complaints of Frank Christian Polytheism by Jews and other religions (who were caricaturizing and taking Christian claims out of Context to discredit it) was one of the reasons for the shift in popularity away from the early Judao-Christian Godhead (3 individuals = 3 individuals) to the theologian derived Nicene Theory (“3” individuals = “1” individual)



The Nicene Theory did not relieve doctrinal pressures nor create a sufficiently clear theory

Though I believe the motives underlying the development of the “Nicene theory” were more complex than this, the development of this theory did not and does not relieve the ongoing complaint of “Polytheism” by other religions as they view the Christian Claim. For example, Islam continues to point out that Christianity, in their view, is a polytheistic religion in that it encourages the worship of Jesus as a God as well as labels the Holy Spirit as a God, as well as encouraging the worship of the Lord God (allah). Their arithmetic is as good as anyone elses, and to them, this Christian claim equates to three Gods.

This same conceptual difficulty exists for other religions as they attempt to understand the Nicene theory of the Christian Godhead. It is very, very difficult for many non-christian religions to conceptualize how the Nicene theory can claim that God the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet that means that there is one God rather than meaning that there are three Gods.

It doesn’t help when they see that, even the Christians themselves remain confused by and are unable to explain the Nicene theory to the satisfaction of its investigators. They point out that such theories are not well explained (nor easily explainable) and they note that deep controversies and debates as to the nature of the Godhead continue even within Christianity itself. Other religions also see this on-going Christian debate regarding the Nicene Theory and remained baffled.

Thus, in their eyes, the Nicene Theory continues to be a form of Polytheism (a “monotheistic polytheism” or a “polytheistic monotheism&#8221. If the reason that the Nicene theory was developed was to relieve early Judao-christianity from the complaint of Frank Polytheism, it hasn’t worked. I think that the development of the Nicene Theory by the theologians created as many problems as it was intended to solve. While it served to "deny"overt polytheism, it did not create an overt monotheism. None of christianity's critics cared to keep judeo-christian claims in the context of the earlier type of henotheism (just as debaters in the forums do not care to keep one anothers claims in context, but often seek to discontextualize their opponents real views).

One of Christianities greatest conceptual hurdles has always been its’ claim that a man (Jesus) was a God. If one motive for development and adoption of the Nicene Theory was to make this Christian claim more easy to understand and accept, then adopting the nicene theory does not seem to have improved clarification of nor acceptance of this Christian claim either, as it may have been intended to do.

Clear
eiseviil
[/FONT]

 

[Desert Snake]

I know what it is. My question is it wasn't really taught in the scriptures it was developed by a church. So, why do we believe what the church created rather than what the scriptures actually say?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it is taught in the scriptures, it's just not labeled as the 'trinity'.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Players that form the Trinity were well known, long before the Decision at nicea...
The Didache states that, In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy spirit, to be used in Baptism, certainly as early as 50 or 60 AD . this was very shortly after the birth of Christianity.
However they did not use these names as a Trinity, Jesus was not yet believed to be God, that concept had not been thought of.

It is easy to understand how the Father Son and Holy Ghost "Had to become" the trinity.
As soon as it became recognised by Christians that Jesus was God, the Trinity concept became inevitable.
Christianity could not accept that it was a polytheistic religion.

That being said, there are Branches of Christianity that see God Jesus and the Holy Spirit as separate entities. the JW's, Unitarians and LDS can be seen in that light. Though each have a different take on that position.

Nicea was all part of the Romanisation of the Church. This spread Roman practises through out the Empire. The process was not completed in Britain Until the Celtic Church accepted Roman domination at the Synod of Whitby in 664. The Celtic tradition continued in Iona and Ireland for a while longer.

 

[Desert Snake]

Thanks for the good post, Terry.

The Catholic church frowned upon anything that was thought to be 'pagan', which necessarily included many Celtic beliefs and traditions. Irish, Welsh and Scots who had maintained their Celtic identity therefore adhered to denominations that allowed them to integrate their culture into their religion.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Thanks for the good post, Terry.

The Catholic church frowned upon anything that was thought to be 'pagan', which necessarily included many Celtic beliefs and traditions. Irish, Welsh and Scots who had maintained their Celtic identity therefore adhered to denominations that allowed them to integrate their culture into their religion.

It is uncertain when Christianity came to the British Islands, But is was very early in Christian History, as some were here when the romans arrived in 54 AD. This was long before even the "Roman Church" became established. The Celtic church was far more like the early Coptic church than the Roman one. In that it was based on individual monasteries and the Bishops were "Wanderers" or even hermits, and had no see or administrative role...
Later they were cut off in the more western and northern parts, when the Saxons invaded the south. So it was much later that they came into contact again, with the newer re-established Roman church.

 

[Desert Snake]

It is uncertain when Christianity came to the British Islands, But is was very early in Christian History, as some were here when the romans arrived in 54 AD. This was long before even the "Roman Church" became established. The Celtic church was far more like the early Coptic church than the Roman one. In that it was based on individual monasteries and the Bishops were "Wanderers" or even hermits, and had no see or administrative role...
Later they were cut off in the more western and northern parts, when the Saxons invaded the south. So it was much later that they came into contact again, with the newer re-established Roman church.

Interesting, thanks.

 

[Shiranui117]

Nicea was all part of the Romanisation of the Church. This spread Roman practises through out the Empire. The process was not completed in Britain Until the Celtic Church accepted Roman domination at the Synod of Whitby in 664. The Celtic tradition continued in Iona and Ireland for a while longer.

Actually, this is not the case. The Trinity was first elaborated in its current, full-fledged form by Eastern Fathers, particularly St. Athanasius of Alexandria. In fact, every Ecumenical Council was dominated by Eastern Fathers (The Pope of Rome wasn't even invited on one occasion!) and every solution to problems about theology and Christology came from the East, rather than from the West.

In fact, the First Council of Nicaea explicitly limited Rome's jurisdiction to Italy alone.

In summation, the Church of the first millennium was far from ever being "Romanized."

 

[Desert Snake]

Actually, this is not the case. The Trinity was first elaborated in its current, full-fledged form by Eastern Fathers, particularly St. Athanasius of Alexandria. In fact, every Ecumenical Council was dominated by Eastern Fathers (The Pope of Rome wasn't even invited on one occasion!) and every solution to problems about theology and Christology came from the East, rather than from the West.

In fact, the First Council of Nicaea explicitly limited Rome's jurisdiction to Italy alone.

In summation, the Church of the first millennium was far from ever being "Romanized."

I think Terrywoodenpic may have been addressing the trinity from specifically a western Europe/British Isles perspective, though I could be wrong.

 

[heksesang]

The Trinity (as an official doctrine) is taught because the Church wanted to claim that Jesus was God AND avoid being seen as a polytheistic religion. In my opinion, the Trinity (along with calling Mary the mother of God) is just as heretical as much of the gnostic stuff.
The way I see it, in reality Jesus never called himself God, he came with statements which I interpret to mean he was like God (two minds who think the same are one). After all, man was made in God's image, which means we must be able to be like him. Jesus was that, the true image of God.

 

[Shiranui117]

I think Terrywoodenpic may have been addressing the trinity from specifically a western Europe/British Isles perspective, though I could be wrong.

Then perhaps I misunderstood him. If such was the case, then I offer my apologies to Terrywoodenpic.

 

[Katzpur]

I know what it is. My question is it wasn't really taught in the scriptures it was developed by a church. So, why do we believe what the church created rather than what the scriptures actually say?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not wrong; you're right. I'm sure you know the history of the development of this doctrine, so I won't both explaining it to you. All Christians don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity, though, by the way. I know I don't.

 

[Shermana]

The Players that form the Trinity were well known, long before the Decision at nicea...
The Didache states that, In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy spirit, to be used in Baptism, certainly as early as 50 or 60 AD . this was very shortly after the birth of Christianity.
However they did not use these names as a Trinity, Jesus was not yet believed to be God, that concept had not been thought of.

It is easy to understand how the Father Son and Holy Ghost "Had to become" the trinity.
As soon as it became recognised by Christians that Jesus was God, the Trinity concept became inevitable.
Christianity could not accept that it was a polytheistic religion.

That being said, there are Branches of Christianity that see God Jesus and the Holy Spirit as separate entities. the JW's, Unitarians and LDS can be seen in that light. Though each have a different take on that position.

Nicea was all part of the Romanisation of the Church. This spread Roman practises through out the Empire. The process was not completed in Britain Until the Celtic Church accepted Roman domination at the Synod of Whitby in 664. The Celtic tradition continued in Iona and Ireland for a while longer.

The reference in the Didache Chapter 7 is pretty much unanimously considered to be an interpolation, and this formula is interpolated in other writings like the long form of Ignatius's epistles, and likely even Matthew 28:19 which differs from Eusebiu's account)