Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
January 19, 2021 at 10:51 am (This post was last modified: January 19, 2021 at 11:25 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Those are all reasons that a much later proto-orthodoxy would refer to when they arrived at trinitarian beliefs - but they're not representative of proto-christian belief as we understand it, and we understand it largely from the works of the proto-orthodox against the various heresies rife in the proto-christian community.
Even imagining jesus to be "divine in some sense" is not trinitarian belief. We assume so because of our place in history and familiarity with them - but even a cursory glance would disabuse us of this notion. There were many ideas of how jesus was divine in some way that the proto orthodoxy wfound cause to declare as heresy.
John is a particularly bad example as it's notable for it's fundamental difference from the rest of the gospels. The shape of a later proto orthodoxy being the main reason for it's inclusion. Had another proto-christian sect come out on top in the fight for orthodoxy, john would be apocryphal - as so many other proto (and now contemporary) christian claims to jesus divinity are. I'll let iraneus explain, around 170ad.
Quote:The heretics boast that they have many more gospels than there really are. But really they don't have any gospels that aren't full of blasphemy. There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic. These, besides, are written by Jesus' true followers.
So, that's what we're dealing with. As mentioned in the beginning - it's not a logical puzzle to be solved and resolved to sense..and it's maintained by the doctrine itself to be impossible for man to do so at any rate. I'll repeat and restress this. All of my musings about the history of the idea and the institution which leveraged it are irrelevant if the sense that we're looking for is a rational sense in the doctrine. It makes sense in the context of a social movement - but it is maintained by the doctrine itself to be true that there is no way for man to rationally arrive at this mystery of the faith.
It doesn't and literally can't make sense™ to us, but it is true, and that's yet another demonstration of god's mighty power. A useful rhetorical device, but it has the effect of reducing any attempt to rationalize the concept to a contrary assertion with respect to items declared true by faith. If man could rationally arrive at the doctrine, then the doctrine would be false, you see? It's not non-sense so much as it's explicitly (and intentionally) anti-sense. Today, we hear something like this and come off thinking that the impossible is probably not accurate (which might explain the non trinitarian context of contemporary christian belief) - but back in the day, doing the impossible was a demonstration that something (in this case a god) could evade what we think of as the rules of the universe. A compelling assertion of power and authority.
If you ask a historian, an anthropologist, or a sociologist, they'll explain that christian orthodoxy selected those beliefs it held from the smorgasboard available for their utility to the institution or it's people. Apologists - because it's twue, it's twue, it's twue - for reasons exactly as obvious as Iraneus' reasons above.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
I'll admit, I need to do more research on the history of Christianity, and I agree it is really fascinating to see how it evolved in a historical viewpoint. But as such, I have nothing to really add. I just wanted to chime in that I enjoy this back and forth exchange and thank those participating.
January 19, 2021 at 11:53 am (This post was last modified: January 19, 2021 at 12:16 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
The constantinian dynasty, which began with the first christian emperor and ended with the last pagan emperor, was instrumental in the construction of christian orthodoxy. It was brief but tumultuous, from 305-363, and eleven emperors in between. Trinitarian belief (whatever else it may be) is very much a palace intrigue story specific to that family.
This was set on the backdrop of christian myth and superstition born in the julio claudian and reinforced by the antonine plague.
Christianity as a movement makes alot of sense, and the beliefs that it espouses make sense in the context of asserting moral truths important to the broadest community which could be called christian. Trinitarian doctrine was asserted, for example, to settle internal disputes about the worthiness and nature of the sacrificial act in light of the indivisibility of a monotheistic god. In effect, deciding something like - we're all right, somehow..and it's unknowable, so stop bickering about it and help us fully capture this state. Which is exactly what they did. By 392 Theodosius sat on the throne.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
I haven't read any of the in between pages. So the OP wants to have a discussion on trinitarian beliefs. OK,
St. Patrick used the analogy of the clover. 3 distinct "things" all made up of the same "stuff" and all technically one plant "thing".
If you would like a more human analogy, the family analogy works. There 3 people in a family. The families last name is Smith. They're all sacks of flesh and blood and breath and have similar needs, desires and drives. They each are individuals and yet share a singular focus and purpose, while each has a different role in the family and how that family relates to things outside the family.
Hope that makes sense, quote or mention me if I you'd like to continue.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(January 15, 2021 at 1:11 pm)Five Wrote: If there are any who are willing to explain what the trinity is and who Jesus Christ is, in relation to God "the Father", I'd very much appreciate it. How can they be the same being? I find this concept very contradictory and confusing and it frustrates me to try to do research on it. I'd like the human interaction and to be able to ask questions.
I know, Christians probably get this question a lot and it might be tiresome to explain it yet again, especially when I am not going to be converted. But anyone who is patient and feels up to it, I'd like to discuss it and at least logically understand what the canon lore is. If it is possible.
Useless Background:
After I abandoned Mormonism, I spent a little time on a Christian forum. I felt like I had experiences as a Mormon that were spiritual and I couldn't yet conceptualize my life without a belief in Christ. So, I searched for answers, tried to fill in the holes that Mormonism had left. In the end, I decided I was atheist, mostly because of their open acknowledgement of the history and construction of the Bible, yet they expressed a dependence upon the modern text as the word of God and a literal historical account(possibly there wasn't direct overlap for those who knew the history and authorship of the texts and those who took the text literal, but I find it troubling that these conversations were happening all in the same threads and it didn't shake literal belief in the text). There are many reasons I am an atheist now but that was one of the things that made me finally give up any belief in the Bible or any religion that uses it.
Anyway, Mormons are pantheistic. They think Christ was the literal son of God, a separate spiritual entity as well, and that he holds just as much authority as God. So, when Christians say, the son IS the Father, I don't know how to make the pieces fit.
it's kinda simple if you let go your preconceptions of what is and what is not god.
1st the word God is a title that describes the supreme seat of power and authority, not a deity's name. just like the word president describes the Potus and trump was not born with the name yet we call him MR. President for the rest of his life. 2, in turn if the word God is a title and not a name as in God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit then three individuals (Trump, Obama and Bush) can retain the title (Father Son and Holy Spirit, )and there only be one god. just like there is only one POTUS.
That said because the Father is the dominate deity when ever we say God we refer to him because he is the one in the final seat or has the final say, just like the sitting president is referenced when someone uses the term potus.
Are you aware that you've just described anti-trinitarian belief?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
@tackattack
Of course! Thank you for your reply. What you describe, especially in terms of separate individuals in a family unit working together to represent the same name/purpose, is similar to what the Mormons believe. I don't want to put words in your mouth to say they're the same, because Mormons are strictly in denial polytheistic, saying that Christ is literally the born son of God and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit who never gained a body and acts as the personal messenger for God.
This is a different take on it, so, if there is more, then yes, I would appreciate you continuing.
I don't understand this, I apologize. Do the three individuals of the godhead occupy the seat of "President/God" at the same time, like, simultaneously?
January 19, 2021 at 1:31 pm (This post was last modified: January 19, 2021 at 1:34 pm by Drich.)
(January 19, 2021 at 1:02 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Are you aware that you've just described anti-trinitarian belief?
So? do you know current trinitarian doctrine believes in a illogical paradox? that means any explanation that makes sense will be considered an anti trinitarian belief.
So seems to me the OP has a full understanding of the paradox, but now wanted to reconcile the paradox with how it can all make sense.
(remember only the jews refer to God as a single being this is not OT judaism. Christ refers to 3 deity but one God)
So All i do here is remove the doctrinally incorrect assumption that god is a name that identifies one singular being. then apply what we are taught in the bible about the father being an individual, the son being an individual, and the holy spirit being an individual as well. This is what makes the term God a title not a name as in God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Spirit. So while doctrinally i may violate some religious rule. nothing i said goes against the bible. in fact i pull everything together neatly without violation or contradiction.
(January 19, 2021 at 1:25 pm)Five Wrote: @tackattack
Of course! Thank you for your reply. What you describe, especially in terms of separate individuals in a family unit working together to represent the same name/purpose, is similar to what the Mormons believe. I don't want to put words in your mouth to say they're the same, because Mormons are strictly in denial polytheistic, saying that Christ is literally the born son of God and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit who never gained a body and acts as the personal messenger for God.
This is a different take on it, so, if there is more, then yes, I would appreciate you continuing.
I don't understand this, I apologize. Do the three individuals of the godhead occupy the seat of "President/God" at the same time, like, simultaneously?
god is an office or title like supreme king and creator..
the bible describes three deity that hold this office.
Father
Son
Holy Spirit.
this makes one 'God.' one supreme source of power and authority, verses a pantheon of gods as it is with the hindu or greeks.
January 19, 2021 at 1:36 pm (This post was last modified: January 19, 2021 at 1:38 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
What do you mean so? The explanation you've offered for how trinitarian belief makes sense... is that trinitarian belief is wrong.
It's firmly in keeping with the current of american protestantism and the aftermath of disagreements and diaspora from the 16th-19th centuries, that's not at issue - I mentioned it a few pages back in comments about functional non-trinitarianism.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(January 19, 2021 at 1:31 pm)Drich Wrote: god is an office or title like supreme king and creator..
the bible describes three deity that hold this office.
Father
Son
Holy Spirit.
this makes one 'God.' one supreme source of power and authority, verses a pantheon of gods as it is with the hindu or greeks.
I was with you in your answer to The Grand Nudger, understanding that indeed, pieces have to be moved or taken out to make it make sense. But now you've lost me again.
How is three separate beings holding the supreme position not a pantheon of dieties?
