Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Reply to topic
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Tue May 31, 2016 12:13 pm
Reply
Historical development of the Trinity

Like this post (3): Elijah John, tigger2, onewithhim
It seems this forum has many debates upon on the doctrine of the trinity... Perhaps one must start from the beginning to understand the issues/debate!

Most people who believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity claim that at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, all the church did was to officially declare a doctrine that had always been the teaching of the church. But if this is true, ask yourself why? Why would the church have to make any kind of official declaration about a doctrine that was supposed to be established from the beginning? There is no doctrine on whether Jesus resurrected or not. It was an established teaching. The idea that Jesus was God, was not. This is why the church required an official declaration to formally establish this as orthodox. It was a developing idea. It was not a teaching of the early church that had been established by the apostles. An important thing to note in support of this fact is that even at Nicaea when with Emperor Constantine’s help, they rammed this doctrine through as orthodox, they did not include the Holy Spirit as part of the formula. Again, why not? How could they forget that the trinity included the Holy Spirit? Because it was a developing idea, and at this point in time (Nicaea), all the church was willing to concede to was a binity. It would have to wait until the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to include the Holy Spirit in their formula and thus complete the trinity.

An excellent proof that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not an established teaching of the early Christians is in a letter by one of the trinity’s greatest exponents, Tertullian of Carthage. Even though his understanding of it was that the Son was subordinate to the Father, which is contrary to today’s Doctrine of the Trinity, his writings were unfortunately, very influential in the development of this doctrine. He wrote about it profusely.

The fact that he believed the Son to be inferior to the Father can be easily seen in his letter Against Praxeas. In it, he states:

Chap. IX. "Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son."
Chap. VII. "And while I recognize the Son, I assert his distinction as second to the Father."
Again, ask yourself why was his view of the trinity different from today’s view if it has always been taught by the church? The reason is because it was a developing idea.

Tertullian himself gives us the greatest proof of the fact that it was a developing idea in the same letter. He states: Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation" (of the Three in One).

These are incredible statements! Tertullian is acknowledging that the majority of believers did not agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. They accused him of being a polytheist. The Greeks (either Greek Christians or Christians that spoke Greek in different lands) refused altogether to believe him. These statements are probably the best proofs that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by the Apostles. If it had been taught by them, the majority of believers would have known about the Dispensation and would not have been startled by it, neither would they have accused him of worshipping two gods. This doctrine was something new, it was not the established belief of Christianity as you can see. It was starting to work itself out and trying to gain popularity, especially with Hellenized Christians. But it was not in the majority. In fact, it was very much in the minority.

Now back to the subject of Nicaea. For those that think that Nicaea just formalized an already established teaching, think again. Let us now look to the events that followed after the Council of Nicaea. It will shed some light on the matter.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AFTER NICAEA
325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. "of one substance with the Father."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:
"Although this was not Constantine’s first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement." At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.
328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.
335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.
337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.
339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.
341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.
343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.
346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.
351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.
353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.
355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.
356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.
357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.
359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.
361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius’ positions.
380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.
381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any more conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians.

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on which emperor is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.
In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declared Christianity to be the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. What is plainly obvious is that the emperors were dictating the theology of the church. The big difference now being was that there was not going to be any more changing of sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years, it would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up. Yet, Conflicts and debates continued for centuries.

In 529 AD Emperor Justinian revamped the Roman Civil Law and heresy was big on his list of crimes. The two heresies that were now punishable by death were not accepting the Nicene Creed and rebaptism. It is quite interesting.


I have given historical dates and documents that are recorded in time... not opinion! As taken from the works of J Baixeras
Study
Paul

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Tue May 31, 2016 12:45 pm
Reply
Re: Historical development of the Trinity

Like this post (1): tigger2
[Replying to post 1 by Pierac]

Augustine of Hippo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Augustine of Hippo Born 13 November 354

Died
28 August 430 (aged 75)
Hippo Regius, Numidia (modern-day Annaba, Algeria)

Venerated in All Christianity

Title as Saint
Bishop, philosopher, theologian, Doctor of the Church [/b]


So where does this Saint and teacher of the Trinity... get his belief system... From the Prophets of God or the teachings of Plato?
Let's read his own confession....


AUGUSTINE: CONFESSIONS
Book 7 CHAPTER IX
13. And first of all, willing to show me how thou dost "resist the proud, but give grace to the humble,"[184] and how mercifully thou hast made known to men the way of humility in that thy Word "was made flesh and dwelt among men,"[185] thou didst procure for me, through one inflated with the most monstrous pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin.[186] And therein I found, not indeed in the same words, but to the selfsame effect, enforced by many and various reasons that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." That which was made by him is "life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." Furthermore, I read that the soul of man, though it "bears witness to the light," yet itself "is not the light; but the Word of God, being God, is that true light that lights every man who comes into the world." And further, that "he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."[187] But that "he came unto his own, and his own received him not. And as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name"[188]--this I did not find there.

14. Similarly, I read there that God the Word was born "not of flesh nor of blood, nor of the will of man, nor the will of the flesh, but of God."[189] But, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"[190]--I found this nowhere there. And I discovered in those books, expressed in many and various ways, that "the Son was in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal in God,"[191] for he was naturally of the same substance. But, that "he emptied himself and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him" from the dead, "and given him a name above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"[192]--this those books have not. I read further in them that before all times and beyond all times, thy only Son remaineth unchangeably coeternal with thee, and that of his fullness all souls receive that they may be blessed, and that by participation in that wisdom which abides in them, they are renewed that they may be wise. But, that "in due time, Christ died for the ungodly" and that thou "sparedst not thy only Son, but deliveredst him up for us all"[193]--this is not there. "For thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes"[194]; that they "that labor and are heavy laden" might "come unto him and he might refresh them" because he is "meek and lowly in heart."[195] "The meek will he guide in judgment; and the meek will he teach his way; beholding our lowliness and our trouble and forgiving all our sins."[196] But those who strut in the high boots of what they deem to be superior knowledge will not hear Him who says, "Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest for your souls."[197] Thus, though they know God, yet they do not glorify him as God, nor are they thankful. Therefore, they "become vain in their imaginations; their foolish heart is darkened, and professing themselves to be wise they become fools."[198]

Book 7 CHAPTER XIX
25. But I thought otherwise. I saw in our Lord Christ only a man of eminent wisdom to whom no other man could be compared--especially because he was miraculously born of a virgin--sent to set us an example of despising worldly things for the attainment of immortality, and thus exhibiting his divine care for us. Because of this, I held that he had merited his great authority as leader. But concerning the mystery contained in "the Word was made flesh," I could not even form a notion. From what I learned from what has been handed down to us in the books about him--that he ate, drank, slept, walked, rejoiced in spirit, was sad, and discoursed with his fellows--I realized that his flesh alone was not bound unto thy Word, but also that there was a bond with the human soul and body. Everyone knows this who knows the unchangeableness of thy Word, and this I knew by now, as far as I was able, and I had no doubts at all about it. For at one time to move the limbs by an act of will, at another time not; at one time to feel some emotion, at another time not; at one time to speak intelligibly through verbal signs, at another, not--these are all properties of a soul and mind subject to change. And if these things were falsely written about him, all the rest would risk the imputation of falsehood, and there would remain in those books no saving faith for the human race.
Therefore, because they were written truthfully, I acknowledged a perfect man to be in Christ--not the body of a man only, nor, in the body, an animal soul without a rational one as well, but a true man. And this man I held to be superior to all others, not only because he was a form of the Truth, but also because of the great excellence and perfection of his human nature, due to his participation in wisdom.
Alypius, on the other hand, supposed the Catholics to believe that God was so clothed with flesh that besides God and the flesh there was no soul in Christ, and he did not think that a human mind was ascribed to him.[218] And because he was fully persuaded that the actions recorded of him could not have been performed except by a living rational creature, he moved the more slowly toward Christian faith.[219] But when he later learned that this was the error of the Apollinarian heretics, he rejoiced in the Catholic faith and accepted it. For myself, I must confess that it was even later that I learned how in the sentence, "The Word was made flesh," the Catholic truth can be distinguished from the falsehood of Photinus. For the refutation of heretics[220] makes the tenets of thy Church and sound doctrine to stand out boldly. "For there must also be heresies [factions] that those who are approved may be made manifest among the weak."[221]

Book 7 CHAPTER XX
26. By having thus read the books of the Platonists, and having been taught by them to search for the incorporeal Truth, I saw how thy invisible things are understood through the things that are made. And, even when I was thrown back, I still sensed what it was that the dullness of my soul would not allow me to contemplate. I was assured that thou wast, and wast infinite, though not diffused in finite space or infinity; that thou truly art, who art ever the same, varying neither in part nor motion; and that all things are from thee, as is proved by this sure cause alone: that they exist.

Of all this I was convinced, yet I was too weak to enjoy thee. I chattered away as if I were an expert; but if I had not sought thy Way in Christ our Saviour, my knowledge would have turned out to be not instruction but destruction.[222] For now full of what was in fact my punishment, I had begun to desire to seem wise. I did not mourn my ignorance, but rather was puffed up with knowledge. For where was that love which builds upon the foundation of humility, which is Jesus Christ?[223] Or, when would these books teach me this? I now believe that it was thy pleasure that I should fall upon these books before I studied thy Scriptures, that it might be impressed on my memory how I was affected by them; and then afterward, when I was subdued by thy Scriptures and when my wounds were touched by thy healing fingers, I might discern and distinguish what a difference there is between presumption and confession--between those who saw where they were to go even if they did not see the way, and the Way which leads, not only to the observing, but also the inhabiting of the blessed country. For had I first been molded in thy Holy Scriptures, and if thou hadst grown sweet to me through my familiar use of them, and if then I had afterward fallen on those volumes, they might have pushed me off the solid ground of godliness--or if I had stood firm in that wholesome disposition which I had there acquired, I might have thought that wisdom could be attained by the study of those [Platonist] books alone.

Book 8 CHAPTER II
3. I went, therefore, to Simplicianus, the spiritual father of Ambrose (then a bishop), whom Ambrose truly loved as a father. I recounted to him all the mazes of my wanderings, but when I mentioned to him that I had read certain books of the Platonists which Victorinus--formerly professor of rhetoric at Rome, who died a Christian, as I had been told--had translated into Latin, Simplicianus congratulated me that I had not fallen upon the writings of other philosophers, which were full of fallacies and deceit, "after the beggarly elements of this world,"[240] whereas in the Platonists, at every turn, the pathway led to belief in God and his Word.
Then, to encourage me to copy the humility of Christ, which is hidden from the wise and revealed to babes, he told me about Victorinus himself, whom he had known intimately at Rome. And I cannot refrain from repeating what he told me about him. For it contains a glorious proof of thy grace, which ought to be confessed to thee: how that old man, most learned, most skilled in all the liberal arts; who had read, criticized, and explained so many of the writings of the philosophers; the teacher of so many noble senators; one who, as a mark of his distinguished service in office had both merited and obtained a statue in the Roman Forum--which men of this world esteem a great honor--this man who, up to an advanced age, had been a worshiper of idols, a communicant in the sacrilegious rites to which almost all the nobility of Rome were wedded; and who had inspired the people with the love of Osiris and "The dog Anubis, and a medley crew Of monster gods who `gainst Neptune stand in arms `Gainst Venus and Minerva, steel-clad Mars,"[241]
whom Rome once conquered, and now worshiped; all of which old Victorinus had with thundering eloquence defended for so many years--despite all this, he did not blush to become a child of thy Christ, a babe at thy font, bowing his neck to the yoke of humility and submitting his forehead to the ignominy of the cross.

So... from whom will you get your truth... Plato or the Prophets of God?
Study
Paul

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
MPG Recipient Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Tue May 31, 2016 1:22 pm
Reply
Re: Historical development of the Trinity

Like this post (3): Elijah John, tigger2, onewithhim
[Replying to post 1 by Pierac]

More documented history...

THE FIRST LETTER OF CLEMENT OF ROME TO THE CORINTHIANS
(1 CLEMENT)

Clement of Rome was the bishop of Rome, or pope, from AD 92 - 101. This letter to the Corinthians is considered the earliest piece of Christian literature other than the New Testament writings. The high esteem in which Clement was held is evident from the fact that until the 4th century his letter was accepted by some as Scripture. (Reading The Apostolic Fathers, pg.98)

This letter was composed probably between AD 81 - 96. It was written in Rome.
1:3 "To them which are called by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

This implies a clear separation between God and Jesus. Notice that it says, "the will of God," not Father. This is important to note because in this sentence, Jesus is not included in the term "God." It is the equivalent of someone saying, by the will of the President through an act of Congress. You can see that Congress is not considered to be the President, and just as Congress is not the President, Jesus is not God.

1:4 "Grace and peace from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied."
There is a clear separation between Almighty God and Jesus Christ. Same conclusion as for verse 1:3.
14:6 "The good shall be dwellers in the land, and the innocent shall be left on it; but they that transgress shall be destroyed utterly from it."
This verse indicates Clement’s view on where the kingdom of God will be. Right here on the land, not in heaven.
16:2 "The scepter of God, our Lord Jesus Christ came not in the pomp of arrogance or pride..."
It states that Jesus is the scepter of God, not God. The scepter of royal authority has symbolized the power of earthly rulers since antiquity. In the mind of Clement, Jesus as the scepter of God represents the power and authority of God. But a representative is not the same person as the one he represents, or else he would not be called a representative.
18:18 "Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me."
Clement believes that the Holy Spirit is the presence of God. This is correct. There is no indication of him believing it to be a separate person of a triune God.
19:4 "And let us look steadfast unto the Father and Maker of the whole world."
Clement is specific on creation. The Father is the Maker of the world. Jesus had absolutely nothing to do with creation, either directly, or as an agent. In Genesis 1:1 it says when God created the heavens and the earth. To Clement, Father = God.
26:1 "Do we think it to be a great and marvelous thing, if the Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection of them that have served Him with holiness in the assurance of a good faith."
The author believes in the resurrection of the dead, not in going to heaven. Resurrection means to be raised from the dead. If your soul is in heaven, then you are not dead and you cannot be resurrected.
2:5-6 "By a word of His Majesty He compacted the universe; and by a word He can destroy it."

Read this passage several times. The definition of word (logos) was discussed in other threads. This is the correct usage of this word before its meaning was corrupted. Clement has no idea whatsoever that logos is a reference to Jesus, because it is not supposed to be. That idea came out of Egypt in the next century. Clement considers "word" to be an expression of thought.
36:6 "through him (Jesus) the Master willed that we should taste of the immortal knowledge."
One can see that the Master and him are not the same being. Same concept as 1:3-4. 36:11-12 "Thou art My Son, I this day have begotten thee. Ask of Me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession." Clement is quoting Psalms 2:7-9 that is a description of the Messianic kingdom. That Messianic kingdom is just as it says in Psalm 2:7-9, on earth. Clement believes in the kingdom of God here on earth. 42:2-3 "Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ."

This is an excellent verse in order to see that to Clement, Jesus is by no means God. If you somehow force the implication that Clement thinks that Christ is God, then in this verse it stands to reason that Clement must also think that the Apostles are Christ. Not very Biblical.


42:6-7 "They (Apostles) went forth with glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town."
This verse not only shows that he believes in the kingdom of God, but it proves that the kingdom of God is a kingdom that will come in the future, and not a kingdom of the heart. He says that the Apostles went forth preaching the kingdom of God should come. The Apostolic journeys took place after Pentecost. If Pentecost was the arrival of the kingdom of God, then why are the Apostles after Pentecost preaching that the kingdom should come?

46:9 "Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us?" One God and one Christ. You cannot get much more separation between two individuals than this.
Obviously, the one Christ is not considered to be the one God.
49:13 "For the love which He had toward us, Jesus Christ our Lord has given His blood for us by the will of God."
Here again, Jesus is not considered in the term God. Jesus gave his blood by the will of someone other than himself, which is God. If Jesus is God, then this sentence should end as, Jesus Christ our Lord has given his blood for us.
50:4-8 "All the generations from Adam unto this day have passed away: and they shall be made manifest in the visitation of the kingdom of God. For it is written; Enter into the closet for a very little while, until Mine anger and My wrath shall pass away, and I will remember a good day and will raise you from your tombs."
Clement believes that when a person dies, he dies completely. He believes that the dead will be raised from their tombs in the visitation of the kingdom (when the kingdom of God comes). People will be raised from their tombs, they will not come back from heaven. The kingdom also is a thing of the future, it has not come yet.
50:13 "This declaration of blessedness was pronounced upon them that have been elected by God through Jesus Christ."
Again, Jesus is not considered in the term "God."
59:28 "Let all the Gentile know that Thou art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture."
Jesus is the Son of the being who is God alone. If you try to include Jesus in the term "God," then by rule, you will also have to include Thy people in the term "God." Doesn’t work, does it?
62:4 "Even as our fathers, of whom we spake before, pleased Him, being lowly-minded towards their Father and God and Creator and towards all men."
This author considers the Father = God = Creator. Jesus is nowhere considered in this equation. He is neither God nor the Creator. Only the Father is. This verse agrees perfectly with 1 Corinthians 8:6 – "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father."

Conclusion- One can see why this letter until the 4th century was considered by some to be Scripture. It is completely in agreement with the New Testament. Clement does not believe Jesus to be anyone but the Son of the only God. He does not consider Jesus to be God. On the contrary, he distinguishes between them completely. He believes in the dead being dead until the coming of the kingdom of God in the future. I find absolutely no evidence at all of any Trinitarian concept in his theology, which would have been evident had he believed in that doctrine. At this stage in time, Jesus’ Christianity was still intact in this historical pre Roman Church doctrine

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Tue May 31, 2016 9:34 pm
Reply
Re: Historical development of the Trinity

Like this post
[Replying to post 3 by Pierac]

Excellent research, Pierac. I had read much of the same things, including the writings of Clement and Ignatius (who has had two versions applied to his epistles). It is plain to see that the early disciples did not think of Jesus as God.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians: "Our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son." (Chapter VII)

"Do ye all come together in common, and individually, through grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and 'the first-born of every creature.' (Chapter XX)

Pretty clear! God = the Father; Jesus is the begotten Son.



Your findings on Constantine are right on the money. He was a pagan to the end, and I found that historian Will Durant had some interesting things to say about him.

"Was his conversion sincere---was it an act of religious belief, or a consummate stroke of political wisdom? Probably the latter....The Historia Augusta quotes him as saying, 'it is Fortuna that makes a man emperor.' In his Gallic court he had surrounded himself with pagan scholars and philosophers. After his conversion he seldom conformed to the ceremonial requirements of Christian worship. His letters to Christian bishops make it clear that he cared little for the theological differences that agitated Christendom---though he was willing to suppress dissent in the interests of imperial unity. Throughout his reign he treated the bishops as his political aides; he summoned them, presided over their councils, and agreed to enforce whatever opinion their MAJORITY would formulate. A real believer would have been a Christian first and a statesman afterward; with Constantine it was the reverse. Christianity was to him a means, not an end." (Caesar and Christ, Will Durant, pp.655,656)

The truth of it should cause us to pause and reflect. He was a pagan emperor and he called the shots concerning what Christians were to believe. Hello! There's much more in Durant's book, and it's all eye-opening. Again, I appreciate all your work, Pierac. In fact, I printed it out.

Study

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:25 pm
Reply
Re: Historical development of the Trinity

Like this post
[Replying to post 1 by Pierac]

I am astounded that no one else has bothered to comment on these posts. Are people afraid that they will learn something??

All that information is well-known to historians. It is just up to us to apprise ourselves of the knowledge.


icon_yes

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:58 pm
Reply
Re: Historical development of the Trinity

Like this post
[Replying to post 4 by onewithhim]

Thanks for the reply, I need to look into (Caesar and Christ, by Will Durant) I do not have a copy... I have more data to present here but that Septuagint thread has my attention... It's kinda of a pet peeve of mine...

so little time!
Study
Paul

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 7: Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:20 am
Reply

Like this post
Pierac wrote:

So... from whom will you get your truth... Plato or the Prophets of God?
Study
Paul


Moderator Clarification

Very informative Paul.

So, is this quote from your 2nd post the question for debate? If not, please clarify or formulate a point of debate for us. Else the thread may be moved.

Thank you.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 8: Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:13 pm
Reply

Like this post
Well done Paul, and even more evidence that the Biblical assertion that the Father alone is God was indeed what the earliest Christians believed.

Aditional evidence can be found in the Dicache. Primitive Christianity was all about believing Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, who was to have been a specially annointed of God, and not God himself. Completely, but exceptionally human devoted entirely to his God.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 9: Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:31 pm
Reply
Re: Historical development of the Trinity

Like this post (1): onewithhim
onewithhim wrote:

[Replying to post 1 by Pierac]

I am astounded that no one else has bothered to comment on these posts. Are people afraid that they will learn something??

All that information is well-known to historians. It is just up to us to apprise ourselves of the knowledge.


icon_yes


There is a lot of material here, both in the OP and his subsequent posts. My guess is that the implications of the information presented is more of a threat to comfortable Trinitrian assumptions than many are ready to confront, much less refute.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 10: Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:46 pm
Reply
Re: Historical development of the Trinity

Like this post
Pierac wrote:

So... from whom will you get your truth... Plato or the Prophets of God?
Study
Paul


I'm considering this your OP question. My answer? I believe the Prophets of God. And it is noteworthy that even Paul with his VERY high Christology states, in effect, that the "Father alone is God".

Quote:
1 Corinthians 8:6 – "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father."

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version