The Trinity: Genesis of a doctrine

That's an illogical argument !
Let me clarify – if you understood the theological and philosophical currents that both sides were working from, you'd see that neither side could be accused of incompetence.

That I think Arianism is mistaken is my opinion, but I don't think Arius mad, bad, foolish or incompetent ... he argued for what he believed, and has my respect in that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
In my opinion, God doesn't need our help to protect others in that way, and deny them the right of deciding for themselves what is true and false.
LOL, you take that up with your clergy, and I'll take it up with mine ;)
 
..if you understood the theological and philosophical currents that both sides were working from, you'd see that neither side could be accused of incompetence..

..but I'm not accusing either side of incompetence.
You are the one who implies that one side is right and the other wrong.

Me: It is SURELY obvious to most theologians that an eternal God cannot be the same as a non-eternal son.
Thomas: Quite :) That's why the Arians were wrong!

So we both see that it is wrong, and you suggest that they couldn't have understood that over many years?

If you'd only have agreed that the Arians only believed Jesus was "godly" and not God,
we wouldn't have got to this point.
Hence my reply..
Thomas: And on what evidence is the wiki articles based?
Me: I don't think we should go down that avenue .. but if you insist..

Anyhow .. I'm out of this thread :)
 
Last edited:
..but I'm not accusing either side of incompetence.
Your words in my mouth. I never implied that of anyone, that was your conclusion.

You are the one who implies that one side is right and the other wrong.
But not incompetent. Einstein got things wrong, doesn't make him incompetent.

So we both see that it is wrong, and you suggest that they couldn't understand that over many years?
As I keep trying to point out, what we see is irrelevant. The way they see is the point.

An Orthodox scholar said of the Patristic Era, "When the Fathers thought, they Platonised," and I should think all scholars agree on that point.

Anyhow .. I'm out of this thread :)
See ya! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Apropos of nothing:

Ammonius Saccas (175-c. 245) is regarded as a founder of neoplatonism. He is mainly known as the teacher of Plotinus (205-270), whom he taught from 232 to 243. He also taught Origen (c. 184–c. 253), although we cannot date the years with any certainty. The two students were a generation apart, so unlikely that they met, but not impossible!

Later Christian writers said Ammonius was a Christian, but were probably mixing him up with another Ammonius of Alexandria who wrote biblical texts.

Some say 'Saccas' derives from Śākyas, an ancient ruling clan of India, and that Ammonius was of Indian origin, a view both contested and supported by recent scholarship. Some scholars supporting Ammonius' Indian origins have also contended that this ancestry is consistent with the passion of his foremost student Plotinus for India – Plotinus travelled East in pursuit of further knowledge after leaving Alexandria, but not as far as India.

Swami Krishnanada says:
"Plotinus, the celebrated mystic, comes nearest in his views to the Vedanta philosophy, and is practically in full agreement with the Eastern sages, both in his theory and his methodology... To Plotinus, God or the Absolute is the All... above all contradictions and differences. It is the first causeless Cause, and the world emanates from It as an overflow of its Perfection... This is nothing short of the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara. Only the view that the world is an overflow of the Perfection of God is peculiar to Plotinus. For, to the Vedanta, there is no such overflow; there is, to it, only the Absolute, and the world is its appearance; not an emanation from or an overflow of its being."

Plotinus' disciple Porphyry records that Plotinus was recommended to the teachers in Alexandria who then had the highest reputation; but he came away from their lectures so depressed and full of sadness – In Acts 17:21, Luke offers an aside: "Now all the Athenians, and strangers that were there, employed themselves in nothing else, but either in telling or in hearing some new thing." Luke's disparaging of Athens, always seeking after novelty, seems to have transferred to Alexandria, where some accused the city of being a hotbed of intellectual novelty-seeking and faddery. Whatever the case, Plotinus was deeply dissatisfied with what Alexandria had to offer. In his despair, a friend suggested he give it one last shot, and seek out Ammonius Saccas. He went, and said to his friend, "This is the man I was looking for."

From Ammonius he became eager to acquaint himself with Persian philosophical disciplines "and that prevailing among the Indians." (Porphyry) although, as I said, he never reached India.

Little is known about Ammonius' role in the development of Neoplatonism. He himself is categorised as a 'Middle Platonist' (these are categories determined much, much later by scholars highlighting the development of Plato's original models). Porphyry seems to suggest that Ammonius was instrumental in helping Plotinus think about philosophy in new ways.

To add to the confusion:
According to Porphyry, the parents of Ammonius were Christian, but he rejected their religion in favour of pure philosophy (which would have had its 'religious' dimension). This was contested by Jerome and Eusebius, but it appears they were confusing Ammonius Saccas with the Ammonius of Alexandria who wrote biblical texts.

It seems that Ammonius had two pupils called Origen: Origen the Christian, and Origen the Pagan. And since there were two Origens who were accepted as contemporaries it was easy for later Christians to accept that there were two individuals named Ammonius, one a Christian and one a Pagan...
 
Last edited:
@Thomas -

I’m impressed that Ammonius did not let his own death stop him and that he continued to teach Plotinus a year after he died.

(I beg your indulgence. I’m just in a nitpicking mood this morning!)
 
I’m impressed that Ammonius did not let his own death stop him and that he continued to teach Plotinus a year after he died.
Ouch! :D

My bad. I swept that bit out of wiki (and elsewhere!) and didn't think to check ... Looks like his death is uncertain, but perhaps 245.
 
I believe:

Much of what is seen in New Testament is fabricated to support theology continued along the Paulinian line. The main goal was end of animal sacrifices and unification. Unification required ending religious circumcision. End of animal sacrifices required a new sacrifice. Unification also required substitution for "gods", "sons of gods", and "divine" "divi filius" emperors.

Far from "following" Jesus, the new Roman religion used Jesus as "god" (polytheist substitution), demiurge (Greek polytheist substitution) messiah (Jewish unification), lamb (Jewish sacrifice), priest (unification), unleavened bread (Jewish unification), eating of the "body" of the sacrifice (unification, polytheistic sacrifice).

The trinity is merely a theological attempt at an explanation for the pre-designed theology that developed out of the unification goals.
 
I believe:

Much of what is seen in New Testament is fabricated to support theology continued along the Paulinian line. The main goal was end of animal sacrifices and unification. Unification required ending religious circumcision. End of animal sacrifices required a new sacrifice. Unification also required substitution for "gods", "sons of gods", and "divine" "divi filius" emperors.

Far from "following" Jesus, the new Roman religion used Jesus as "god" (polytheist substitution), demiurge (Greek polytheist substitution) messiah (Jewish unification), lamb (Jewish sacrifice), priest (unification), unleavened bread (Jewish unification), eating of the "body" of the sacrifice (unification, polytheistic sacrifice).

The trinity is merely a theological attempt at an explanation for the pre-designed theology that developed out of the unification goals.
Why would anyone want to end animal sacrifices at that time? There was good money to be made from this practice. I don't believe PETA existed at that time.
 
Why would anyone want to end animal sacrifices at that time?
Hi moralorel,

The variances in practices and holidays of animal sacrifices was one of the obstacles to finding common ground in polytheism and Judaism.

Roman Religion

Romans Mixed Religions​

"The Romans looked for common ground between their major gods and those of the Greeks..."
"...As the Romans extended their dominance throughout the Mediterranean world, their policy in general was to absorb the deities and cults of other peoples rather than try to eradicate them..."
They expected Judaism to be no different, however first time integrating monotheism. They discovered that Jewish monotheists don't mix with polytheism. Jewish rebellions brought only more attention to integration. Few Jewish people cooperated despite formulation of new religion to integrate with them. If you consider "common ground" between Greco-Roman polytheism and Judaism what religion do you arrive at? Christianity.

Roman Sacrifice Important​

"...the victim must seem willing to offer its own life..."
Roman church: "...a death he freely accepted..."

The Romans liked the power and dominance of the sacrifice and the meal of eating the sacrificed body.

Roman Sacrifice
"...how Romans thought about sacrifice... sacrifice as violence and sacrifice as ritual meal."

The Roman church substituted this with theatrical sacrifice:
  • Jesus is sacrifice
  • Sacrifice "re-presented"
  • Graphic depiction of violence, crucifix, dripping blood
  • Eating the "body" of the sacrifice
  • Blood theatrics with drinking red wine
Unleavened bread used for Jewish people. Didn't work for them. Other adaptations (e.g. messiah) for Jewish people also failed. Major frustration for Romans. Jewish temple destroyed, ending their sacrifices. Still didn't work to integrate Judaism with the new mixed "common ground" religion. Jewish people mistreated for millennia. A new religion was formed to accommodate them, as is normal Roman practice, and they (understandably) didn't cooperate. However, momentum in place, and the new religion became the religion of non-Jewish people in the Roman empire.
 
Last edited:
Much of what is seen in New Testament is fabricated to support theology continued along the Paulinian line.
Well if you have evidence that the New Testament is fabricated, bring it on, but as far as I know, there is no argument that has not been met and countered. The theology speaks for itself.

The main goal was end of animal sacrifices and unification.
The main goal would have been either monotheism or polytheism – the rest is negotiable.

Unification required ending religious circumcision.
Not really. You mean unification required the Jews to stop being Jews?

... the new Roman religion ...
What do you mean by 'Roman religion'?
 
The variances in practices and holidays of animal sacrifices was one of the obstacles to finding common ground in polytheism and Judaism.
The difference between polytheism and monotheism was way bigger and more important than on what days who celebrated what.

If you consider "common ground" between Greco-Roman polytheism and Judaism what religion do you arrive at? Christianity.
Sorry, this is nonsense. There's no 'common ground' between what has its roots in Judaism, and polytheism.
 
Hi moralorel,

The variances in practices and holidays of animal sacrifices was one of the obstacles to finding common ground in polytheism and Judaism.

Roman Religion

Romans Mixed Religions​

"The Romans looked for common ground between their major gods and those of the Greeks..."
"...As the Romans extended their dominance throughout the Mediterranean world, their policy in general was to absorb the deities and cults of other peoples rather than try to eradicate them..."
They expected Judaism to be no different, however first time integrating monotheism. They discovered that Jewish monotheists don't mix with polytheism. Jewish rebellions brought only more attention to integration. Few Jewish people cooperated despite formulation of new religion to integrate with them. If you consider "common ground" between Greco-Roman polytheism and Judaism what religion do you arrive at? Christianity.

Roman Sacrifice Important​

"...the victim must seem willing to offer its own life..."
Roman church: "...a death he freely accepted..."

The Romans liked the power and dominance of the sacrifice and the meal of eating the sacrificed body.

Roman Sacrifice
"...how Romans thought about sacrifice... sacrifice as violence and sacrifice as ritual meal."

The Roman church substituted this with theatrical sacrifice:
  • Jesus is sacrifice
  • Sacrifice "re-presented"
  • Graphic depiction of violence, crucifix, dripping blood
  • Eating the "body" of the sacrifice
  • Blood theatrics with drinking red wine
Unleavened bread used for Jewish people. Didn't work for them. Other adaptations (e.g. messiah) for Jewish people also failed. Major frustration for Romans. Jewish temple destroyed, ending their sacrifices. Still didn't work to integrate Judaism with the new mixed "common ground" religion. Jewish people mistreated for millennia. A new religion was formed to accommodate them, as is normal Roman practice, and they (understandably) didn't cooperate. However, momentum in place, and the new religion became the religion of non-Jewish people in the Roman empire.
I'm confused. Where did you state the reason for anyone wanting sacrifices to end? I don't see them.
 
Back
Top