The Trinity: Genesis of a doctrine

Thomas said:
..Yes, according to their way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Well, I have to say that I would have thought that it was YOUR way of thinking.

Philo wrote that God created and governed the world through mediators. Logos is the chief among them, the next to God, demiurge of the world. Logos is immaterial, an adequate image of God, his shadow, his firstborn son.
Click to expand...

You assume that the Arians believed in Philo's concept, as you do.
That is because you say that Arius believed that the Son was "fully God".
Can the Son be partially God?

Thomas said:
Your thesis makes it a much simpler case against Arius. A denial of the divinity of Jesus would have put him inarguably outside the Christian pale, a heretic beyond dispute.
Click to expand...

They were not denying the divinity of Jesus .. this is the whole point .. they were saying that his divinity
was not as great as the Father's divinity.

Thomas said:
That someone might be 'wrong' does not make them 'bad'.
Click to expand...

Not automatically .. no.
However, if somebody "knows" in their heart that they are propagating falsehood, then that is BAD!

Thomas said:
I know, but when interrogating Antiquity, we have to try and understand what they saw as reasonable answers..
Click to expand...

Naturally, we do.
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
Well, I have to say that I would have thought that it was YOUR way of thinking.
Click to expand...
Understandable, however, if you care to check any of the many references, you'd see you are mistaken.

muhammad_isa said:
You assume that the Arians believed in Philo's concept, as you do.
Click to expand...
Ah, perhaps I did not make myself clear. If you check back, we were discussing your inability to accept 4th century philosophy and theology.

I said (#68) "Perhaps if you acquainted yourself with the philosophical and theological currents of those times, with Philo of Alexandria (Hebrew), or Plotinus (Hellene), you would see the claim as credible and contextually logical."
I simply offered Philo and Plotinus as examples, I did not mean to imply that Arius was a student of Philo or, for that matter, of Plotinus.

muhammad_isa said:
They were not denying the divinity of Jesus .. this is the whole point .. they were saying that his divinity was not as great as the Father.
Click to expand...
Well we agree on that! :D

muhammad_isa said:
However, if somebody knows in their heart that they are propagating falsehood, then that is BAD!
Click to expand...
Agreed, but as I said, I would not go so far as to accuse Arius of that.
 
Thomas said:
According to some systems. Check out Demiurge on wiki.
Click to expand...

I see..
So we have the greek word "theos" used in different contexts.
The gnostics had varying philosophies, and so we need to establish what the ancient greeks
were referring to when they said "theos" .. it doesn't have to refer to YHWH.

So you are suggesting Arius could have meant "fully-god" as opposed to a gnostical demiurge?
 
muhammad_isa said:
The gnostics had varying philosophies, and so we need to establish what the ancient greeks
were referring to when they said "theos" .. it doesn't have to refer to YHWH.
Click to expand...
Quite right. Depends on context, whether it's the God of Peter or of Plato, for example :)

muhammad_isa said:
So you are suggesting Arius could have meant "fully-god" as opposed to a gnostical demiurge?
Click to expand...
No, don't think so ...
 
Thomas said:
No, don't think so ...
Click to expand...

OK..
So it's just a case of fully-god or not-god, is it?

Why would Arius accuse him of believing in Sabellianism (three different modes or aspects of God)?
Wouldn't it appear that he didn't believe in a trinity from such an accusation?
 
muhammad_isa said:
OK.. So it's just a case of fully-god or not-god, is it?
Click to expand...
Is it?

muhammad_isa said:
Why would Arius accuse him of believing in Sabellianism (three different modes or aspects of God)?
Click to expand...
Who can say? We don't know what Alexander preached, and Arius' accusation – reported in wiki – seems to depend on "The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates Scholasticus", but as Socrates was a Trinitarian, no doubt you deem him unreliable, so best let that one go?

muhammad_isa said:
Wouldn't it appear that he didn't believe in a trinity from such an accusation?
Click to expand...
As the dispute arose from his teaching on the Trinity, that seems unlikely.
 
Thomas said:
Who can say? We don't know what Alexander preached, and Arius' accusation – reported in wiki – seems to depend on "The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates Scholasticus", but as Socrates was a Trinitarian, no doubt you deem him unreliable, so best let that one go?
Click to expand...

OK :)
but on reflection..
None of his writings have survived and so all that is known about him comes from his opponents.
...
Sabellius also considered the Father and the Son to be "one substance," meaning that, to Sabellius, the Father and Son were one essential person, though operating as different manifestations or modes
Click to expand...

..so you could argue that it was due to the "one substance" business. :D


Thomas said:
As the dispute arose from his teaching on the Trinity, that seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

Yes, it always seems to come back to that, doesn't it. :D
It is your perception that Arians believed in a trinity based on the Philo model .. not mine.
 
Thomas said:
Did you read my post #102? Do I need to explain it again?
Click to expand...

Of course I did.
..so we have 2 sects of Christians, who both purportedly believe that
God is beyond human understanding (trinitarians), killing each other over what God is.

..but I presume you think that what they believed had little to do with the dispute?
 
Thomas said:
But did you understand?
Click to expand...

What .. about the many references you mean?
I'm aware that you deduce that they all believed in a godhead.

Thomas said:
As the dispute arose from his teaching on the Trinity, that seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

Hmm .. so "fully-god".
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Arius was therefore saying the Son is YHWH.
..and that is because they all believed in a godhead / trinity of some kind.

OK .. let's say Arius did believe in a godhead.
Which one is YHWH .. the godhead, the Father, the son .. or all of them?

Arius' godhead is comprised of "different substances", of course. [ not consubstantial ]
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
I understand you correctly, you are saying that
Click to expand...
@muhammad_isa
If you stop telling people what they are saying, instead listen to what they are saying, you might just start to achieve a little bit of the education here that you're trying to impose upon others. IMO
 
RJM Corbet said:
If you stop telling people what they are saying, instead listen to what they are saying..
Click to expand...

It's a difficult subject :)
Perhaps you can tell us what "the One God" is?
The doctrine of the Trinity employs a godhead that is the "One God" .. is that right?
Is the godhead also YHWH?
 
muhammad_isa said:
It's a difficult subject
Click to expand...
Bingo!

It doesn't matter what you hear. It can't be right because you know it can't. No evidence or argument can ever have any effect upon your mind. When it gets too difficult, you just ignore everything that has been said over the past weeks and months, and bring it back to square one as if the whole discussion never happened.

You just keep banging your own drum, deaf to anything you hear.

Waste of time ...
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
..No evidence or argument can ever have any effect upon your mind..
Click to expand...

They could have believed in the resurrected Christ as "just the the Messiah". I don't know, but they probably didn't.
I understand you now. From this we get the various theories that express HOW Jesus was divine.
Thankyou for correcting me. :)
Click to expand...
 
RJM Corbet said:
You just keep banging your own drum, deaf to anything you hear..
Click to expand...

I'm not purposely misunderstanding what others are saying.
The devil is always sowing his seeds of mistrust and suspicion.

When we become accustomed to a certain way of thinking, it is often difficult to see the wood for the trees.
That applies to us all.

When I say "we both believe in God", you try to distance yourself from my beliefs.
What if I say "we both believe in Jehovah" ? :D

Here is a thread that @Thomas appeared to enjoy in 2003.
It's 23 pages long.
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/8750/

Perhaps Jehovah should have sent "Alexander" to us instead of Jesus? ;)
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
When I say "we both believe in God", you try to distance yourself from my beliefs.
What if I say "we both believe in Jehovah" ?
Click to expand...
Not in any simplistic literalist way. It's subtle. That's the problem. Spirit moves beyond human understanding. You can't fit God into a book. Christ came AS God. As THE Son of God. You don't have to like it. Argue the fine issues but that is what Christians believe.

The Incarnation of Christ contains infinite mystery, far beyond 'just' the words he spoke and far beyond what the Quran allows. And I believe a lot of other stuff too,*

Your argument contains a fatal flaw that you insist the Qur'an to be correct on all matters, and so where it disagrees, others must be wrong: trinitarian Christianity must be wrong. It condemns trinitarians to hell.

But one religion does not have to accept the scicptures of another. God speaks to the individual heart and soul and spirit. God is there for anyone of any or of no religion -- any place, any time in history. Literalists may not be wrong, but perhaps they want to limit Spirit to within their own human understanding?

God meets us where we are. You can carry on trying to save Christians from hell but I'll take my chances. So, no, I don't really seem to believe anything close to what you do?

(edited ...)
 
Last edited:
*
Spirit surrounds and contains and permeates nature. Nature is just one room/dimension in an infinite house of spirit. The walls of the room are time/space. There are many perhaps infinitely other rooms/dimensions.

My Father's house has many mansions.

Spirit weaves nature. The greater wheel of Spirit turns the lesser wheel of nature but is not turned by it. Gods of this world serve a time and are replaced by new gods then move on to higher places, ever closer to the infinite, ever receding light.

Love, in its truest meaning, holds it all together.

Is there something higher that contains and permeates the dimension of Spirit? And is there something higher even than that? Are there infinity of ever higher, more inclusive dimensions?

One thing for sure, I know existence is intelligent, and that we'll never get our human minds around it, No matter how wonderful our science, Spirit will always be higher and further. Imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top