The Trinity: Genesis of a doctrine

[Ahanu]

IN THE APOSTOLIC ERA:
A Trinitarian formula is evident in the very earliest Christian Scriptures:

57AD: "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man, speaking by the Spirit of God (pneuma theos), saith Anathema to Jesus. And no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost (hagios pneuma)" (1 Corinthians 12:6)

58AD: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all" (2 Corinthians 13:13)
)

It might be interesting to start with similarities. Let's compare the formula "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" with the Qur'an.

"For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live" (1 Corinthians 8.5-6).

"Paul, an apostle - sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead . . . Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age" (Galatians 1.1-4).

"To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ . . ." (1 Thessalonians 1.1).​

"Respond to God and His Messenger when He summons you to what gives you life." (Qur'an 8.24)​

Is "He" here referring to God or Muhammad here? We don't know. It's ambiguous. Why?

"It is not befitting for a believer, man or a woman, when a matter has been decided by God and His Messenger to have any option about their decision. If anyone disobeys God and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong path." (Qur'an 33.26)​

"Do not be forward in the presence of God and His Messenger; but fear God, for God is He Who hears and knows all things." (Qur'an 49.1)

"Those who give their allegiance to you, they have given it to God himself. The Hand of God is above their hands." (Qur'an 48.10)

"He who obeys the Messenger obeys God." (Qur'an 4.80)

"You did not throw when you threw, but it was God who threw." (Qur'an 8.17)
​

Here we see a parallel with the NT verses above.

 

[Ahanu]

Oooh, God forbid!

What's wrong with YouTube?

Just as good as any university in my opinion.

 

[Thomas]

I was primarily referring to the burning of 'heretical' teachings by Justinian I in 543.
..it also applies to 'the great persecution' around the time Origin died too.

OK. Still possibly hyperbole, though ...

..but we can both claim to know what Arius was saying?

If only you'd offer sources, then your claim might have some substance.

I would say that the Arian controversy is VERY important when it comes to the validity of the trinity.

Indeed. Hence the need for precision, and not generalities.

It was a substantial number of early Christians who believed in subordination.

Did they, though?

Your quote from Origen is not reliable...

Seems to me nothing is reliable if it doesn't agree with you...

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu –

It might be interesting to start with similarities...

as you say, similarities and parallels, but not the same, and the distinction is in the detail.

Here we see a parallel with the NT verses above.

Again, parallels, but not sameness. Muhammed (pbuh) claimed he was a Prophet, Jesus claimed more than that.

 

[RJM]

Muhammed (pbuh) claimed he was a Prophet, Jesus claimed more than that.

Always the main issue

 

[Thomas]

What's wrong with YouTube?
Just as good as any university in my opinion.

LOL, universities tend to show a tad more discrimination in the content they offer!

When the content's good, it's excellent, and when it's bad, it's dire!

If anyone has an hour and a half to spare, can they watch Denys Turner: Faith, Reason & The Eucharist and explain it to me?

 

[RJM]

What's wrong with YouTube?

Just as good as any university in my opinion.

I agree. You Tube requires discernment. It requires user judgement and intelligent fact-checking across a wide range of material – unlike modern universities which are more interested in no-platforming ‘wrong’ views to protect their precious little darlings from becoming offended, imo

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK. Still possibly hyperbole, though ...
Seems to me nothing is reliable if it doesn't agree with you...

That's unfair. I'm talking about the fact that you quote writings based on Latin translations
of Greek scholars, where the originals conveniently don't exist anymore.

That is what most Abrahamic sects do .. cherry-pick their scholars.
As the Romans killed lots of Christians, and burnt lots of writings, it is
not reasonable to assume that Nicene Christianity is "the religion of Jesus".

If we quote the Bible in some Latin translation, and had no originals to compare
it too, what sort of authority does it hold???

 

[Thomas]

I'm talking about the fact that you quote writings based on Latin translations of Greek scholars, where the originals conveniently don't exist anymore.

What are you basing your understandings on?

If we quote the Bible in some Latin translation, and had no originals to compare it too, what sort of authority does it hold???

For the Christian, the same as the Quran does for Moslems.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What are you basing your understandings on?

The whole lot. You imply that encyclopaedias are not reliable.
I would agree with that to some extent.
However, wikipedia in particular, is written by Muslims AND Christians AND Atheists.
It therefore pieces together history from different perspectives and is enlightening, imo.

For the Christian, the same as the Quran does for Moslems.

Well you said it. Is Christianity supposed to be a religion of truth, or a religion of Latinos?
Citing scholars, and suggesting some are divinely inspired and some are not .. which is what in effect you are doing ..
is purely a tradition.
Personally, I would rather base my "tradition" on something more sound.

Incidentally .. this is not something personal .. I do have a great respect for the Catholic church .. it's overall defence
of moral values etc.
It also doesn't follow from my argument above that I don't respect Augustine or Aqinas, for example.
We are discussing the Nicene creed / orthodox trinity here .. not other issues.

 

[RJM]

If anyone has an hour and a half to spare, can they watch Denys Turner: Faith, Reason & The Eucharist and explain it to me?

20 minutes was enough for me ...

 

[Thomas]

The whole lot. You imply that encyclopaedias are not reliable.

No, only that they can only draw conclusions from the same sources which you consider unreliable, so by that token, they too are unreliable ... so I'm not sure where that leaves you?

Is Christianity supposed to be a religion of truth, or a religion of Latinos?

Dunno, never thought about it that way. Is Islam a religion of truth, or a religion of Arabs?

Citing scholars, and suggesting some are divinely inspired and some are not .. which is what in effect you are doing .. is purely a tradition. Personally, I would rather base my "tradition" on something more sound.

What about Barakah and the saints of Islam? Does not Islam rely on Tradition?

Incidentally .. this is not something personal ..

No offence taken.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..anyhow, the council of Nicaea brought a few bishops together, and a creed was written down.

Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as essentially the same; followers of Alexander did not. The exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up.

As we all know .. it wasn't cleared up.

From the OP..

380AD: The Edict of Thessalonica makes (Nicene) Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Only now can one talk of 'The Roman Church', and the above demonstrates the Doctrine of the Trinity had been established long before

How long before?
You continue to insist that you know what all these scholars you quoted believed .. and even what Arians believed.
I have tried to show you why that is not a valid argument .. but again, you insist that Latin accounts are "proof".

From my perspective, I see that the doctrine of the orthodox trinity began, for sure,
from around 325 AD.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What about Barakah and the saints of Islam? Does not Islam rely on Tradition?

Don't know much about that .. I'm sure all Islamic sects have their saints.
The "tradition" that interests me is one of the disciples of Muhammad, although
the various countries around the world often have their own particular schools of thought.

 

[RJM]

From my perspective, I see that the doctrine of the orthodox trinity began, for sure, from around 325 AD.

Put that aside for a moment. Do you believe that Nicea rubber-stamped the divinity of the Son -- that Arians rejected the divinity of the Son?

 

[Thomas]

You continue to insist that you know what all these scholars you quoted believed .. and even what Arians believed. I have tried to show you why that is not a valid argument ..

Sorry, but your skepticism isn't a 'valid argument'.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you believe that Nicea rubber-stamped the divinity of the Son -- that Arians rejected the divinity of the Son?

No
As Thomas has said, it is most likely that they had a Neoplatonic view
i.e. Father greater than the Son .. yet the Son is still divine.

We can talk about "fully God" or "very God of very God" .. but where does that get us?
It leads down the very cul-de-sac that you would have us all believe.

Please tell us what they DID believe .. according to you.

 

[RJM]

No
As Thomas has said, it is very likely that they had a Neoplatonic view i.e. Father greater than the Son
..yet the Son is still divine.

But divine is divine. Are you saying that pre-Nicea Christian bishops were discussing degrees of divinity or multiple gods?

Again, because the divinity of Christ does not seem to have been the main issue, but how to square it theologically? This has gone round and around on several threads, to point of exhaustion?

Either Arians thought Christ was divine, or they did not. Christianity as a monodeistic faith, seems never to have implied degrees of divinity? So the only alternative then is polydeism? Or what am I missing?

 

[RJM]

Please tell us what they DID believe .. according to you.

I have explained it:

The water in your bucket is of the same nature (or rather Spirit) as the water of the well from which it came? Jesus Christ was sinless, of virgin birth, the perfect vehicle -- unlike ordinary nature which is tainted by original sin -- in that way Christ not just fully nature, but fully Spirit also.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Christianity as a monotheistic faith, seems never to have implied degrees of divinity? So the only alternative then is polydeism?

How so? Take Tertullian, for example..

Though Tertullian considered the Father to be God (Yahweh), he responded to criticism of the Modalist Praxeas that this meant that Tertullian's Christianity was not monotheistic by noting that even though there was one God (Yahweh, who became the Father when the Son became his agent of creation), the Son could also be referred to as God, when referred to apart from the Father, because the Son, though subordinate to God, is entitled to be called God "from the unity of the Father" in regards to being formed from a portion of His substance.

I don't agree with Jesus being "God" .. nevertheless.
It is easy to see how people might get confused when it comes to divinity.
I was CERTAINLY confused when I was a lad.
Fortunately for me, the "mysteries" later became clear