The Trinity: Genesis of a doctrine

[Thomas]

It needs be understood that the doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent upon a single theologian; right from the outset, in its most inchoate form, it was the common belief of the mainstream church, that is the church which baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – baptised ion three names but under one God – and it was a given that Jesus was God, and that the Holy Spirit was God.

In that sense, the doctrinal disputes that ranged over the centuries either side of Nicaea are – some might say – theological wrangling over technicalities. The disputes pall into insignificance in the face of the fact that those who were identified as Christian, the body of the church, were not theologians, but believed that God is Three, and God is One.

As critics point out, the Doctrine of the Trinity is never explicitly declared in Scripture; as believers point out, it is implicit in the text.

To my mind, the orthodox Trinitarian line can be said to be thus:
In any discussion, which position limits the doctrine the least? That is the one to follow.

Seem from that perspective then, any opposition to the doctrine can be seen as an attempt to rationalise the doctrine, to reduce it, limit it or, ultimately, explain it away.

That has been the singular delight in my studies of theology – the opening of vistas sometimes hitherto undreamt of.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It needs be understood that the doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent upon a single theologian; right from the outset, in its most inchoate form, it was the common belief of the mainstream church, that is the church which baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – baptised ion three names but under one God – and it was a given that Jesus was God, and that the Holy Spirit was God.

I more or less agree .. except with regards to the first church in Jerusalem in the first century.

In that sense, the doctrinal disputes that ranged over the centuries either side of Nicaea are – some might say – theological wrangling over technicalities. The disputes pall into insignificance in the face of the fact that those who were identified as Christian, the body of the church, were not theologians, but believed that God is Three, and God is One.

..again, more or less.

To my mind, the orthodox Trinitarian line can be said to be thus:
In any discussion, which position limits the doctrine the least? That is the one to follow.

I don't get that. I want to know what is the correct belief. It is best to start without any assumptions .. particularly when one
realises that politics and religion were/are heavily intertwined. To dismiss the possibility of corruption as "hyperbole" is
your choice. Christians were persecuted and killed. Writings were destroyed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In 66 AD, the Jews revolted against Rome. Rome besieged Jerusalem for four years, and the city fell in 70. The city, including the Temple, was destroyed and the population was mostly killed or removed.

Hmm .. yes.

In the 2nd century, Hadrian rebuilt Jerusalem as a pagan city called Aelia Capitolina, erecting statues of Jupiter and himself on the site of the former Jewish Temple, the Temple Mount. Bar Cochba led an unsuccessful revolt as a Messiah, but Christians refused to acknowledge him as such. When Bar Cochba was defeated, Hadrian barred Jews from the city, except for the day of Tisha B'Av, thus the subsequent Jerusalem bishops were gentiles ("uncircumcised") for the first time

There's just too much general history there to ignore. Of COURSE the "gentile church" make claims about what the original Jerusalem church believed. Why wouldn't they? What credibility would it have otherwise?
Christianity started off as an "offshoot" from Judaism.
It evolved over centuries to become a specific, trinitarian Roman religion, amidst political turmoil.
Jesus DID NOT come to correct the shema!

Suggesting that the trinity is in the OT is nonsense. Ask RabbiO

 

[Ahanu]

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

Yes, this is often noted, but all too often it goes unnoticed in Christian discourse about Jesus in the Qur'an that a prophet has a much higher status than, say, a prophet in the Bible. This is clear in the quotes from the Qur'an shared in post #21.

 

[Thomas]

.. except with regards to the first church in Jerusalem in the first century.

Well who knows what those crazy dudes got up to?

I want to know what is the correct belief.

Well if you're not going to allow the evidence to speak, then you're a bit stymied ...

.. particularly when one realises that politics and religion were/are heavily intertwined.

Same with the Jews, same with the Moslems, really – once you address the world around you, politics is inevitable and inescapable.

While Constantine supported Christianity, he did allow freedom of all religious belief, although weighted in his own interest. What we do not see is politics seeking to determine the theological dialogue, the development of doctrine. It's clear that Constantine was largely ambivalent to the Arius/Alexander dispute – he just wanted a decision, either way, to settle the issue.

So, primarily because his theological advisers were Trinitarian, the vote went that way. I think another 'political' current was bishops being asked to favour a presbyter over a bishop, that impacts their own authority. Sheer audacity! Arius wasn't allowed to speak at Nicaea, so Eusebius fronted for him.

To dismiss the possibility of corruption as "hyperbole" is your choice. Christians were persecuted and killed. Writings were destroyed.

Indeed, but not on the scale that people often assume. The persecutions were localised to the East, and intermittent.

Five people were exiled after Nicaea, and were reinstated within a couple of years. No burnings, no persecutions.

Theodosius' persecution was politically clever, but how widespread is a matter for scholars.

Book burnings? We simply don't know. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Orthodox writings are no less rare, so one can't make a case based on what we do not have. And again, translations, even if only partial, turn up centuries later, which means copies survived.

There may well have been burnings for the benefit of the Emperor, or by a few zealots, but as I said before, Emperors like to think they've got rid of all the evidence, as it were, and then stuff turns up.

'Origenism', for example, popped up in monasteries

There's just too much general history there to ignore.

Actually there's a lack of materials ...

Of COURSE the "gentile church" make claims about what the original Jerusalem church believed.

Doesn't mean it's not true ...

Christianity started off as an "offshoot" from Judaism.

Ooh, steady ... so did Islam.

It evolved over centuries to become a specific, trinitarian Roman religion, amidst political turmoil.

So did Islam, in its own way.

How do you view 'trinitarian Greek religion'? The Orthodox Patriarchies?

Jesus DID NOT come to correct the shema!

Who says He did.

Suggesting that the trinity is in the OT is nonsense. Ask RabbiO

OK ... immaterial ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well who knows what those crazy dudes got up to?

I beg your pardon? Surely they had more authority [as regards to what Jesus taught] than those centuries later.

While Constantine supported Christianity, he did allow freedom of all religious belief, although weighted in his own interest. What we do not see is politics seeking to determine the theological dialogue, the development of doctrine

I don't remember suggesting that any particular person directly interfered .. it was more about the policies in general. One moment they persecute .. the next moment it becomes the "state religion" .. the next moment "this sect or that" are persecuted etc. etc.

Indeed, but not on the scale that people often assume. The persecutions were localised to the East, and intermittent.

I strongly disagree .. over the centuries, there was lot of persecution of Christians of various types.

Book burnings? We simply don't know. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Orthodox writings are no less rare, so one can't make a case based on what we do not have. And again, translations, even if only partial, turn up centuries later, which means copies survived.

It's not good enough for me. I want the source, and see how all the pieces fit together. Constructing a jig-saw of what people believed without it is not "beyond reasonable doubt".

Doesn't mean it's not true ...

Not without evidence, no.

How do you view 'trinitarian Greek religion'? The Orthodox Patriarchies?

I'm not familiar with it. I understand it to be as a result of political division of the medieval Christian church.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Suggesting that the trinity is in the OT is nonsense. Ask RabbiO

OK ... immaterial ...

No it isn't.
The first commandment is the most important concept of G-d. i.e. monotheism
One could argue that the Holy spirit is a consubstantial "person" in the OT.
What is to stop there being many consubstantial persons .. why only three?

Insisting that somebody has to believe in this philosophical approach is man-made.
Trinities have nothing to do with monotheism.

 

[Thomas]

The first commandment is the most important concept of G-d. i.e. monotheism

Christianity is a monotheist religion.

Trinities have nothing to do with monotheism.

In your opinion ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Christianity is a monotheist religion.

Yes .. it is.
That is why God, the Most High, tells us in the Qur'an that Jews, Christians and Muslims
will not fear, neither will they grieve.

In your opinion ...

Yes .. in my opinion.
Almighty God tells us in the Qur'an that He is not the third of three .. He is One.
It is purely a philosophical concept to imagine that God is equivalent to several equal manifestations
that share the same nature.
A concept that defeats the whole point of monotheism, imo.

OK, it is perfectly reasonable to speculate about the nature of God..
..but why is it necessary to insist upon a specific philosophy?
Why do you think that happened?
Why do you think so much hate developed between Christians?

I understand that you believe in it .. I understand that Christians have baptised in the name
of the Father, Son and Holy ghost from very early on .. yet there has always been a diverse
range of opinions, as we can see from the works of "against heresy", and it was not until around
the 5th. century that the orthodox trinity became uppermost.

You question whether the early Christians were really subordinationsts, yet the wiki says that they were,
and it is borne out by the hate that developed towards Origin, for example .. IMO
You complain about wiki being a "poor" source of knowledge .. yet when I read the pages on Islamic topics,
I find most of it to be acceptable.
Do you think that it is biased? It doesn't seem that way to me.

 

[RJM]

Where in the world are Christians hating and killing each other?
Where in the world are Muslims hating and killing each other?

The Pope has just said Mass in Iraq.
Are there Muslims working with lepers in Zimbabwe?

Who are you to harass and condemn?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Where in the world are Christians hating and killing each other?

No .. I am referring to back to the 5th. century..

Where in the world are Muslims hating and killing each other?

Oh .. they are alright!
This shia / sunni thing for a start.
In Iraq, Sadam Hussein was a politician who espoused Ba'athism, a mix of Arab nationalism and Arab socialism.
President Bashar al-Assad's of Syria is also a Ba'athist.
The water is very muddy.

Who are you to harass and condemn?

No .. I'm not condemning.
As has been pointed out to me, we all have different creeds.
I am discussing the subject that @Thomas brought up in the OP.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I remember learning to sing Handel's Messiah and performing it in front of parents at secondary school. I've always loved music and singing.

Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth,
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
King of Kings...and Lord of Lords,
and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Hallelujah!

The phrase "Hallelujah" is used in Judaism as part of the Hallel prayers, and in Christian prayer,
It means the same as Alhamdulillah in Islam .. All praise is due to the God.

[ "..and then I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like I love you" ]

Love who? We love God!
The thing that divides us all is creed.

 

[Thomas]

Yes .. it is.

There you go, then.

Yes .. in my opinion.

There you go then!

Almighty God tells us in the Qur'an that He is not the third of three .. He is One.

Yep. Exactly what we say.

It is purely a philosophical concept to imagine that God is equivalent to several equal manifestations that share the same nature. A concept that defeats the whole point of monotheism, imo.

Quite, the concept was condemned when Sabellius introduced it in Rome (c215AD) and again when when Noetus (c230AD) and Praxeas (2nd/3rd century) were condemned for similar ideas.

I understand that you believe in it ..

There you go, then.

You question whether the early Christians were really subordinationsts ...

No, I don't.

and it is borne out by the hate that developed towards Origin, for example ..

Subordinationism wasn't really the thing, that was a stick to beat him with. The problem for many was Origen was too much the philosopher for the theologian, and too much the theologian for the philosopher... he had his detractors, but he had his supporters, too.

You complain about wiki being a "poor" source of knowledge ..yet when I read the pages on Islamic topics, I find most of it to be acceptable. Do you think that it is biased? It doesn't seem that way to me.

OK. For me, if wiki claims something, I want to know where that claim comes from.

 

[Thomas]

Just to clarify another point: The doctrine of the Trinity was always 'orthodox'.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There you go, then.
..OK. For me, if wiki claims something, I want to know where that claim comes from.

Of course. That is not at all unreasonable.

You didn't answer these questions..

OK, it is perfectly reasonable to speculate about the nature of God..
..but why is it necessary to insist upon a specific philosophy?
Why do you think that happened?
Why do you think so much hate developed between Christians [ in the 4th and 5th. centuues ]?

 

[RJM]

..but why is it necessary to insist upon a specific philosophy?

Muhammad: the Trinity is part of the Catholic religion. Catholicism has a structure.

For instance the Catholic church has a daily Mass for the specific day that is everywhere the same mass. Wherever in the world I happen to be, if I find a Catholic church and attend mass I will hear exactly the same readings and prayers and dedications for today at any Catholic church from Rome to Mumbai to Alaska. In the old days the mass was in Latin, so the words were the same everywhere. Nowadays the mass is in the vernacular, but it's not the priest of the day who decides the service for the day.

As far as I know, Catholics also believe that up until the priest puts on the stole, he is just any man, but when he puts on the stole, he becomes the minister of Christ, according to his training and vows with divine authority to administer the Eucharist, and other sacraments too. In the same way that a judge, say, is just an ordinary man, until he puts on the judge's robe and becomes an agent of the crown. Along with other specific stuff. He does not have to be a perfect person. His personal character does not affect his function as a minister of the Crown.

That is the Catholic church. A lot of other religions don't like it. A lot of other Christians don't like it. But no-one says they have to. I do not have to be a Catholic. But if I choose to be one, that is what I get.

 

[Thomas]

You didn't answer these questions:
..but why is it necessary to insist upon a specific philosophy?

Don't be misled. It's not philosophy, it's theology, which seeks to understand the nature of Revelation.

As to why insist – I would have thought the same reason Islam insists upon its articles of faith. Philosophy was primarily deployed to reason with the outside world who thought Christianity was naive superstition. Theology employed the lexicon, because it's in the nature of the science – philosophy means 'the love of wisdom'.

Why do you think that happened?

The clarification of doctrine? To preserve against error and false philosophy. If you look at Bid‘ah or Zindīq in Moslem tradition, there are probably correspondences.

Why do you think so much hate developed between Christians...

Why so much hate between Moslems today?

Whatever the reasons, the fact is it's a tragedy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..As to why insist – I would have thought the same reason Islam insists upon its articles of faith. Philosophy was primarily deployed to reason with the outside world who thought Christianity was naive superstition. Theology employed the lexicon, because it's in the nature of the science – philosophy means 'the love of wisdom'.

No .. that is not what I see. I see a lot of competing philosophies that BECAME part of theological opinions.
I see that the insistence was set in motion by Constantine, realising that unity of religion in the empire was powerful,
as had emperors before him behaved in this fashion.

I am aware that Constantine himself didn't insist on any particular view. I am aware that infighting amongst people and varying actions of emperors continued. Nevertheless, that is what happens when an empire or nation declares a religion with a specific creed, and declares all others heretical.

You say that the doctrine of the trinity was always "orthodox". That is your belief, but imo, has no foundation.
One minute you say that you agree that many early Christians were subordinationists, and the next minute
write them all off as heretical?

The clarification of doctrine? To preserve against error and false philosophy. If you look at Bid‘ah or Zindīq in Moslem tradition, there are probably correspondences.

Yes .. I see that. I also see that it is when government insist on certain interpretations, whether they be right or wrong,
it no longer has much to do with truth .. more to with power and wealth.

Whatever the reasons, the fact is it's a tragedy.

Indeed it is.
What is written is written. Yet we do have a say in it. We all hold responsibility for what we believe and how we behave.

 

[Thomas]

No .. that is not what I see.

OK.

I see a lot of competing philosophies that BECAME part of theological opinions.

OK, if that's the way you choose to see it.

You say that the doctrine of the trinity was always "orthodox". That is your belief, but imo, has no foundation.

OK, if that's the way you choose to see it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Muhammad: the Trinity is part of the Catholic religion.

Of course it is .. we're discussing how that probably came to be.

For instance the Catholic church has a daily Mass for the specific day that is everywhere the same mass. Wherever in the world I happen to be, if I find a Catholic church and attend mass I will hear exactly the same readings and prayers and dedications for today at any Catholic church from Rome to Mumbai to Alaska. In the old days the mass was in Latin, so the words were the same everywhere. Nowadays the mass is in the vernacular, but it's not the priest of the day who decides the service for the day.

I'm not criticising organised religion per se..

I do not have to be a Catholic. But if I choose to be one, that is what I get.

Mmm .. so it is.
Wouldn't it be nice if Jesus was amongst us now, and we didn't have to consider anybody's views except his?