Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?

[muhammad_isa]

One could argue Christianity evolved, but Rome had a great deal of trouble, and never fully succeeded, in bending Christianity to its will. Hence schisms and disputes the authorities always tried to shut down... This is old ground, well-trodden between @juantoo3 and me.

Isaac Newton "recognized Christ as a divine mediator between God and man, who was subordinate to the Father who created him." He was especially interested in prophecy, but for him, "the great apostasy was trinitarianism."
- Wikipedia -

In other words, he agreed with the Arian view, and was considered a heretic. Several Roman Emperors
persecuted the Arians, and deemed them heritics.
It wasn't until 1813 in the UK, when non-trinitarians were legally allowed to gather for worship.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Isaac Newton "recognized Christ as a divine mediator between God and man, who was subordinate to the Father who created him." He was especially interested in prophecy, but for him, "the great apostasy was trinitarianism."
- Wikipedia -

In other words, he agreed with the Arian view, and was considered a heretic. Several Roman Emperors
persecuted the Arians, and deemed them heritics.
It wasn't until 1813 in the UK, when non-trinitarians were legally allowed to gather for worship.

What does Sir Isaac Newton have anything to do with the Church? He was a scientist. It feels like you are just plucking historical figures out and basing your arguments on their opinions. I much more admire men like Martin Luther for the Protestant Reformation but even he was flawed in his views on Judaism.

I suggest reading the letters to the seven churches in Revelation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What does Sir Isaac Newton have anything to do with the Church? He was a scientist..

He was an intellectual

Along with his scientific fame, Newton's studies of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers were also noteworthy. Newton wrote works on textual criticism, most notably An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John.
- Wikipedia -

In England in the 17th. century, the study of Christianity was mandatory..

In April 1667, Newton returned to the University of Cambridge, and in October he was elected as a fellow of Trinity. Fellows were required to take holy orders and be ordained as Anglican priests, although this was not enforced in the Restoration years, and an assertion of conformity to the Church of England was sufficient. He made the commitment that "I will either set Theology as the object of my studies and will take holy orders when the time prescribed by these statutes [7 years] arrives, or I will resign from the college." Up until this point he had not thought much about religion and had twice signed his agreement to the Thirty-nine Articles, the basis of Church of England doctrine. By 1675 the issue could not be avoided, and by then his unconventional views stood in the way.
- Wikipedia -

I attended school in the 1960's, and the study of Christianity and the Bible was mandatory in secondary education. The 'Master' in Divinity had a degree from Cambridge Uni.
We now live in a multicultural society, and education laws have changed.

It feels like you are just plucking historical figures out and basing your arguments on their opinions..

I was merely using the example of a well-known intellectual, whose opinion was not orthodox,
in order to show how the state enforced creeds on their subjects, up until relatively recently.
i.e. Christendom enforced a particular creed on its subjects

"the church" therefore, had to conform.

 

[Faithfulservant]

He was an intellectual

Along with his scientific fame, Newton's studies of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers were also noteworthy. Newton wrote works on textual criticism, most notably An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John.
- Wikipedia -

In England in the 17th. century, the study of Christianity was mandatory..

In April 1667, Newton returned to the University of Cambridge, and in October he was elected as a fellow of Trinity. Fellows were required to take holy orders and be ordained as Anglican priests, although this was not enforced in the Restoration years, and an assertion of conformity to the Church of England was sufficient. He made the commitment that "I will either set Theology as the object of my studies and will take holy orders when the time prescribed by these statutes [7 years] arrives, or I will resign from the college." Up until this point he had not thought much about religion and had twice signed his agreement to the Thirty-nine Articles, the basis of Church of England doctrine. By 1675 the issue could not be avoided, and by then his unconventional views stood in the way.
- Wikipedia -

I attended school in the 1960's, and the study of Christianity and the Bible was mandatory in secondary education. The 'Master' in Divinity had a degree from Cambridge Uni.
We now live in a multicultural society, and education laws have changed.


I was merely using the example of a well-known intellectual, whose opinion was not orthodox,
in order to show how the state enforced creeds on their subjects, up until relatively recently.
i.e. Christendom enforced a particular creed on its subjects

"the church" therefore, had to conform.

You hold the intellect of men in high regard. The bible has a lot to say about intellectuals and gives instruction on wisdom.as being preferred. Because someone is so smart what they say must be true? I think that's silly and dangerous. I can think of many intellectuals in history that are atheists.

Proverbs 26:12 See that man who thinks he's so smart? You can expect far more from a fool than from him.

Peter was a fisherman yet he was set up to lead the early church. Paul was an intellectual that persecuted Christians until his calling by Jesus.

You think by simply studying the bible that it will give a person authority on truth. I say the enemy knows scripture better than anyone and his lies deceive many. The enemy uses scripture against all of us as he did Jesus in the wilderness and even Eve in the beginning.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You think by simply studying the bible that it will give a person authority on truth..

No, I don't .. he was a believer.

I say the enemy knows scripture better than anyone and his lies deceive many..

I prefer to see Jews, Christians and Muslims as believers.
satan seeks to divide, with his arrogance.

 

[Faithfulservant]

No, I don't .. he was a believer.


I prefer to see Jews, Christians and Muslims as believers.
satan seeks to divide, with his arrogance.

There's a fundamental difference in our beliefs though. You post so many things that deny my very fundamental beliefs trying to argue that I'm wrong about this or that. There's a great lack of respect. I don't feel the need to do that in regards to Islam. I don't expound on the lies I find in the Quran because it's your book and your belief. I respect you and your belief in what I consider lies.

I've been accused of not respecting interfaith dialogue and it seems to me it's just an example of double standards.

 

[Thomas]

Isaac Newton "recognized Christ as a divine mediator between God and man, who was subordinate to the Father who created him." He was especially interested in prophecy, but for him, "the great apostasy was trinitarianism."

OK. Just because he is Isaac Newton doesn't make him infallible.

In other words, he agreed with the Arian view, and was considered a heretic.

Yep. He kept is quiet.

Several Roman Emperors persecuted the Arians, and deemed them heritics.

Other Roman Emperors supported the Arians and persecuted the Orthodox.

It wasn't until 1813 in the UK, when non-trinitarians were legally allowed to gather for worship.

This is to do with the Anglican Church and UK law, rather than Catholicism or Rome ...

 

[Thomas]

We now live in a multicultural society, and education laws have changed.

I was merely using the example of a well-known intellectual, whose opinion was not orthodox,
in order to show how the state enforced creeds on their subjects, up until relatively recently.
i.e. Christendom enforced a particular creed on its subjects

"the church" therefore, had to conform.

Historically Christianity is not the only religion to enforce its credo, and in fact we're far more tolerant of other faith now, than some I could mention

You're entitled to post your anti-Trinitarian views here, but do note, as @Faithfulservant said, we're not taking sides in Islamic schisms.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is to do with the Anglican Church and UK law, rather than Catholicism or Rome ...

Correct .. but the Anglican church based its creed on the Catholic church.
..and you know very well that its creed was enforced.

That means that other creeds were suppressed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There's a fundamental difference in our beliefs though..

That's the thing, though .. it seems you would rather accentuate the differences,
than celebrate that which we have in common.
i.e. the belief in G-d to whom we pray

I'm not saying that Muslims might not do the same .. it's something that satan likes.
i.e. divide and rule

I don't expound on the lies I find in the Quran..

You don't have to .. you believe that its all lies.
..whereas I was raised with the Bible, and continue to believe and respect it.

I've been accused of not respecting interfaith dialogue..

..if that's how you see my statement. I can't help having the view that Jews, Christians and Muslims
are all believers .. that's my opinion. If you think otherwise, then all I can say is that we all
have to answer to G-d .. He will judge us on what we differ on the day of resurrection.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Historically Christianity is not the only religion to enforce its credo..

..not relevant to the OP

 

[Faithfulservant]

That's the thing, though .. it seems you would rather accentuate the differences,
than celebrate that which we have in common.
i.e. the belief in G-d to whom we pray

I would like to point out again that it is you that finds issue with our differences. Only you.

I'm not saying that Muslims might not do the same .. it's something that satan likes.
i.e. divide and rule

So why are you continuously doing it?

You don't have to .. you believe that its all lies.
..whereas I was raised with the Bible, and continue to believe and respect it.

I never said it's all lies. Please don't put words in my mouth.

..if that's how you see my statement. I can't help having the view that Jews, Christians and Muslims
are all believers .. that's my opinion. If you think otherwise, then all I can say is that we all
have to answer to G-d .. He will judge us on what we differ on the day of resurrection.

I agree. We all answer to God and we all have the same judgement day. I am responsible for what I do with what Jesus gave me.

 

[Faithfulservant]

I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this but a few of us only respond when we feel like our faith is being misrepresented. @RabbiO has even said that he makes sure Judaism is not being wrongly misrepresented and for some reason not many are allowed to post freely on their subforum without the guard dogs attacking.

I'm also not sure why the anti trinity threads get put under Abrahamic Religions since it's specifically a Christian belief? Does that make it a free for all on the anti Trinity folk?

It's ok for people to question the belief. People can ask questions.. that's the purpose of dialogue but to have the same people attacking it and gaslighting it's believers with misinformation without the respect that is allowed the other faiths on this forum. The anti Catholic posts bother me because even though I don't agree on everything they believe they are still my brothers and sisters in the faith.

We all deserve respect and tolerance especially here where we can freely express our faiths and find commonality without forcing others to conform to our views. There is a culture of unconscious bias here. We all should be aware of when we have them. When I first started posting here in 2004 I had tons of them. I like to think that I have grown and recognize my own unconscious biases.

Ok getting off my soapbox now.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I agree. We all answer to God and we all have the same judgement day..

Indeed .. that's the main thing, imo.

 

[iBrian]

I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this but a few of us only respond when we feel like our faith is being misrepresented. @RabbiO has even said that he makes sure Judaism is not being wrongly misrepresented and for some reason not many are allowed to post freely on their subforum without the guard dogs attacking.

I'm also not sure why the anti trinity threads get put under Abrahamic Religions since it's specifically a Christian belief? Does that make it a free for all on the anti Trinity folk?

It's ok for people to question the belief. People can ask questions.. that's the purpose of dialogue but to have the same people attacking it and gaslighting it's believers with misinformation without the respect that is allowed the other faiths on this forum. The anti Catholic posts bother me because even though I don't agree on everything they believe they are still my brothers and sisters in the faith.

We all deserve respect and tolerance especially here where we can freely express our faiths and find commonality without forcing others to conform to our views. There is a culture of unconscious bias here. We all should be aware of when we have them. When I first started posting here in 2004 I had tons of them. I like to think that I have grown and recognize my own unconscious biases.

Ok getting off my soapbox now.

When I saw him come in and raise a whole string of Trinity threads I wondered whether I'd need to act, but then read your post encouraging them to try and keep it to one thread so I thought I'd see how it went. So far it seems to have petered out except for one or two threads as excepted.

As for the Abramic board - the original idea was always that this could be a place where Jews, Christians, and Muslims could discuss specific issues especially shared across them, without getting on each others' toes the way they might in a dedicated subforum, ie, Christianity. However, it is an ideal, and inevitably on a forum such as this people end up posting across various different areas. I could move all the Trinity threads to the Christian section, but I suspect they might be better kept out it to keep that area more peaceful.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Thanks @iBrian that makes sense!

 

[harmonicat]

What does Sir Isaac Newton have anything to do with the Church? He was a scientist. It feels like you are just plucking historical figures out and basing your arguments on their opinions. I much more admire men like Martin Luther for the Protestant Reformation but even he was flawed in his views on Judaism.

I suggest reading the letters to the seven churches in Revelation.

I'll take the non-trinitarian Newton over the murderer Luther any day!

 

[harmonicat]

No, I don't .. he was a believer.


I prefer to see Jews, Christians and Muslims as believers.
satan seeks to divide, with his arrogance.

And Trinity is the most divisive doctrine in Christianity today!

 

[harmonicat]

...Christians of my acquaintance are either not aware of, or manage to belittle or dismiss, that fact, as you are doing here.

Not correct. The Church has taken that upon itself with no right to do so. Burn me at the stake, my answer will not change.

not anything that even remotely resembles Greek logic

it is bait and switch

Yeppir....and guess who was behind a great many of those occurrences?

So it just happened to line up with a Pagan Spring Fertility Festival? And we just so happen to still chase Easter bunnies and hot crossed buns? It's all a coincidence...? I don't buy it.

Word salad sidestep...since the Catholic Church does not recognize Jesus as the *Paschal* Lamb, it is disingenuous to lay claim now when the Church refuses to even recognize the Holy Day, let alone significance thereof! (Or are you disagreeing that the shift from Passover to Easter was specifically on the docket at Nicea? which is easy enough to prove)

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with b.s....and if that don't work, riddle 'em with bullets. That has been the standard operating methodology of the Church since at least the time of Justinian, figuratively speaking. This is what I'm referring to as the 800 pound gorilla.

Until Martin Luthur, any dissent was violently put down. The only put down that failed was against the Muslims during the Crusades, all others up until Martin Luthur were politically expedient challenges that the Church viewed as threatening their stranglehold on power. The only reason you and I are even able to have this conversation is because of the Protestant Reformation, by which time the history of the Church from Constantine on had been whitewashed and mostly hidden from public consumption. I stand by my assertion that Christians remain ignorant of the history of their faith, and frankly I see you attempting to encourage that ignorance though to your credit (and I've credited you before) you are more willing than virtually all Catholics of my acquaintance to even consider the subject.

Martin Luthur only knew the Catholic Church, it was all he knew but he knew it better than most in his day. He was appalled, discouraged, disheartened and had his world turned upside down to visit the Vatican and to see firsthand what the Church had become versus what he believed it was supposed to be. Indulgences were the tip of the iceberg, the rot went to the core. The rot came from all of the Synods and Councils and political scheming behind the scenes that were not based on scripture in any more than the most oblique manner (as you are doing above)...and the common laity had no way to know any different, the teaching there was was in Latin (a foreign language to all but Italians). The poor went to Church, dropped their coins in the box, got a pat on the back from the Vicar and sent on their way believing they had done what was required of them before G!d because that is what they were told to do by those who should have known better.

Luthur is not without fault, but on a scale his faults were miniscule compared to those done in the name of the Church.

Did you know Luther murdered close to 100 people esp. for their rejection of Trinity? Calvin was also a piece of junk.

 

[Faithfulservant]

I'll take the non-trinitarian Newton over the murderer Luther any day!

I can't help but think you have an issue with the Trinity