Where Did the Trinity Teaching Come From?

[Neo-Scholastic]

What am about to say to you is not meant disrespectfully. But I must be frank.

I appreciate that.

You are a perfect example of what happens when people are so desperate to hold onto false religious teachings that they are willing to revert to intellectual dishonesty, defy all logic, and present nonsensical philosophies.

Perhaps. I'm actually rather open to changing my opinion about many things. I'm curious to know specifically where you feel I was dishonest or presented a logical fallacy.

hey showed me from the Bible that those teachings are in conflict with the scriptures...and you're not willing to be corrected by the scriptures.

Have you considered the possibility that the scant references you provided do not support the doctrine you're presenting? I gave you a detailed exegesis drawn from numerous passages and I got back insults. Nevertheless, I remain open to the idea that I could learn something from you and will be ready to listen whenever you feel ready to provide more thoughtful posts.

[Zen Badger]

Awww, isn't it cute when the theists start arguing amongst themselves about the nature of their imaginary friend.

[Godscreated]

Awww, isn't it cute when the theists start arguing amongst themselves about the nature of their imaginary friend.

You're a bit late on this one, seems we're done.

[Minimalist]

The topic will resurrect the next time some batshit crazy jesus freak comes along.

[King_Charles]

From Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities: (p 151-152)

referring to “our God Jesus Christ, [who] is in the Father” (Ign. Rom. 8:3), or as “God come in the flesh” (Ign. Eph. 7:2), or of “the blood of God,” by which he means the blood of Christ (Ign. Eph. 1:1). But he was equally and passionately committed to Christ being human, as is evident in two of his letters, one sent to the Christians of Tralles and the other to those of Smyrna. He knew that in both cities there was opposition to the proto-orthodox view that Jesus was somehow both divine and human; the opponents were docetists, who maintained that Jesus was divine and not at all human.

And so in his letter to the Trallians, Ignatius warns against those who claim that Jesus “only appeared to suffer” (10:1) and insists, in response, that Jesus “was truly born, both ate and drank; was truly persecuted at the time of Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died . . . and was also truly raised from the dead” (9:1–2). So, too, in the letter to the Smyrneans, Ignatius attacks those who claimed that Jesus’ passion was a sham, that he was not an actual flesh-and-blood human being who really suffered (2:1). Ignatius again denies that such persons are “believers” (2:1) and warns his readers not even to meet and talk with them (4:1). In opposition to their views, he insists that Jesus was “actually born” (1:1) and was “actually crucified . . . in the flesh” (1:2), and he “genuinely suffered” and “genuinely raised himself” (2:1). Even after his resurrection he was “in the flesh” (3:1), as evidenced by the fact that his disciples touched him and observed him eating and drinking (3:2–3).

Now if ( and it is a BIG IF ) Ignatius was genuine and writing at the beginning of the first century this would bring the discussion of whether or not Jesus was man or god to well before Tertullian. Of course, if Ignatius is just another fictional character...much like jesus himself...invented to deal with these issues by later writers it means very little. But xtians, such as presumably Alter is, are stuck with the whole shooting match of bullshit put out by the church...so here you go.

Yeah, though the OP is correct in saying it was not until the council of Nicea that the trinity was made formal and even then the next six councils of the Church were still arguing over it, mostly in relation to how-the-fuck-does-it-work-that-Christ-is-fully-God-and-fully-man right up to the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 A.D.

Also, you don't get a clear definition of the trinity in print until Tertullian's Adversus Praxean in the 3rd Century A.D. The quote above simply refers to the doctrine of the incarnation without reference to the holy spirit, and the quote in the second post of this thread is not really a definition of the trinity as is now understood.

OP: you need to distinguish between the concepts of the trinity and the incarnation, then we might get a little further. It's a headache when people conflate the two, although they are very much entwined.

Oh and thanks for trying your hand at Catholic apologetics mini-moo.

---

Also: Alter2Ego. It's actually somehwat gratifying to see Christians questioning things like the trinity and the incarnation. So many trinitarians just accept it as empty Dogma and don't reflet on just hown profound and scandalous the doctrine of the incarnation is in the history of Monotheism.

I alway liked C.S.Lewis's conversion story, he was like you, believing in God, but didn't beleive that God actually became may. Then he re-read Euripidies' play Hippolytus, the story made him realise just what a profound gift to mankinda the incarnation was, as it allowed God to partake of the human experience of suffering and death, but through his faith conquor these things and open the door to our salvation. How can a God who cannot suffer, and even doubt, as Christ did possibly understand humanity? How can a God who cannot understand humanity help us?

[Epimethean]

Now, if the theists would come to understand that it's the whole questioning thing and lack of rational, evidence-based answers, that led to atheism, they might realize why they fail to persuade here.

[BeeDeePee]

Although christian teaching about the Trinity can seem to be the same or similar with some older teachings, I think that the most important fact against that claiming is that teaching in the Holy Trinity appeared very early - in Christian Church of the first century, and we can not find any clue of external influence. At least, I don't know for that. If someone has evidence for such claim - expose it.

[Minimalist]

The implications of this should leave our resident xtian fanatics twisting by their scrotums.

From Ehrman's Lost Christianities. pg. 194-195

Eventually, by the fourth century, the creeds familiar to Christians still today had been developed in rudimentary form, most notably the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. It is worth emphasizing that these are formulated against specific heretical views. Take the opening of the Nicene Creed, “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God.” Throughout the history of Christian thought, such words have been not just meaningful but also deeply generative of serious theological reflection. At the same time we should recognize that they represent reactions against doctrinal claims made by groups of Christians who disagreed with them, Christians, for example, who believed there was more than one God, or that the true God was not the creator, or that Jesus was not the creator’s son, or that Jesus Christ was not one being but two. It is especially worth noting that, as a result of the context of their formulation, many of the views espoused in these creeds are profoundly paradoxical. Is Christ God or Man? He is both. If he is both, is he two persons? No, he is the “one” Lord Jesus Christ. If Christ is God and his Father is God, are there two Gods? No. “We believe in one God.”

The reason for the paradoxes should be clear from what we have seen. Protoorthodox Christians were compelled to fight adoptionists on one side and docetists on the other, Marcion on one side and various kinds of Gnostics on the other. When one affirms that Jesus is divine, against the adoptionists, there is the problem of appearing to be a docetist. And so one must affirm that Jesus is human, against the docetists. But that could make one appear to be an adoptionist. The only solution, then, is to affirm both views at once: Jesus is divine and Jesus is human. And one must also deny the potentially heretical implications of both affirmations: Jesus is divine, but that does not mean he is
not also human; Jesus is human, but that does not mean he is not also divine. And so he is divine and human, at one and the same time.
And thus the proto-orthodox paradoxical affirmations embodied in the creeds, about God who is the creator of all things, but not of the evil and suffering found in his creation; about Jesus who is both completely human and completely divine and not half of one or the other but both at once, who is nonetheless one being not two; about the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as three separate persons and yet comprising only one God.

Xtians would not be stuck with the ridiculous notion of the trinity were it not for heresies which had to be battled by the eventual winning side and which thus inherited for itself an impossible pile of horseshit which could only be enforced by death and torture in the name of 'god's fucking love.'


The trinity reminds me of the old song...."Bullshit makes the flowers grow."

[Epimethean]

For a crosslover, Arius was so much more reasonable, and we know what that earned him.

[Minimalist]

This whole question of the gnostics v. the proto-orthodox is a fascinating one.

The gnostics were about knowledge and thought while the proto-orthodox were a regimented hierarchy of enforced belief and punishment.