Historical development of the Trinity

[Pierac]

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

Paul

[Elijah John]

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

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".

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

[Pierac]

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

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.

Sorry,
It was a rhetorical question... I was using Augustine's Confessions in Book 7 Chapter IX to show that he came to his belief from the writings of Plato and not from a biblical source.

Paul

[Pierac]

Agency

The foundation of our Bible is the OT. It contains the first three-quarters of our Bible. It stands to reason that if we misunderstand this Hebrew foundation then we construct a system of error. The art of successful reading is generally to let the last quarter of a book agree with the first three-quarters. As the grand finale of the Bible, the NT agrees with and is consistent with its OT heritage. It might sound like an over-simplification to say that the Bible is a Hebrew book and must be approached through "Hebrew eyes;" however, it was written within the culture and thought-forms of the Middle East. In order to understand its message we must become familiar with the thought-forms, the idioms, the culture and the customs of those who lived in Biblical times. Every sincere reader of the Bible understands this. Doing it is the challenge.

H. N. Snaith in his book, "The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament," writes "Christianity itself has tended to suffer from a translation out of the Prophets and into Plato." (p161) "Our position is that the reinterpretation of Biblical theology in terms of the ideas of the Greek philosophers has been both a widespread throughout the centuries and everywhere destructive to the essence of the Christian faith." (p187.). Snaith also makes this remark that if his "thesis" is correct: "then neither Catholic nor Protestant theology is based on Biblical theology. In each case we have a denomination of Christian theology by Greek thought We hold that there can be no right (theology) until we have come to a clear view of the distinctive ideas of both Old and New Testaments and their differences from the pagan ideas which have so largely dominated Christian thought." (p188.).

With the passing of many centuries since Scriptures were written much of the original intent has been buried under the accretions of generations of human tradition.According to Mr. Deuble a lot of Bible confusion can be cleared up by understanding "The Principle of Agency."

A common feature of the Hebrew Bible is the concept (some even call it the "law") of Jewish agency. All Old Testament scholars and commentators recognize that in Jewish custom whenever a superior commissioned an agent to act on his behalf, the agent was regarded as the person himself. This is well expressed in the Encyclopedia of the Jewish religion.
Thus in Hebrew custom whenever an agent was sent to act for his master it was as though that lord himself was acting and speaking. An equivalent in our culture to the Jewish custom of agency would be one who is authorized to act as Power of Attorney, or more strongly one who is given Enduring Power of Attorney. Such an agent has virtually unlimited powers to act on behalf of the one who appointed him.

Let's look at one of the stories in the Old Testament with this new mindset. In the story of Moses and the burning bush in Exodus 3, "who" is it who appears to Moses and talked to him? My answer once was typical of the vast majority in the Church. Of course it was God himself, Yahweh, who spoke to Moses. After all, the text states that "'God' called to him from the midst of the bush and 'said', 'Moses, Moses!'" (v4).
Verse 6 is even more convincing when the same speaker says, "'I am' the 'God' of your father, 'the God' of Abraham, 'the God' of Isaac, and 'the God' of Jacob.' Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at 'God'." Surely it was Jehovah God himself who appear to Moses and who personally spoke? But what do we make of verse 2 that prefaces this narrative by stating that "'the angel of the LORD' appeared" to Moses from the midst of the brush? Many scholars have declared this angel to be God himself, even the pre-existing Christ. They make much of the definitive article and point out that this was a particular angel not just any angel.

This is a fancy bit of footwork that disregards the Hebrew text as we shall see. If we turn to the New Testament's commentary on this incident, we will see how Hebrews understood their own Scriptures.

Let us now turn to answer our question: Who is it who appears to Moses and talks to him? The martyr Stephen was a man "filled with the Holy Spirit." Let's listen to his commentary on the burning bush incident. He clearly states that it was "an angel who appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush" (Acts 7:30) As Moses approached this phenomenon, "there came the voice of the Lord: I am the God of your father. The Lord said to him, 'Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. (31-33).

Quite clearly this is an example of agency. It is an angel who appears to Moses and it is the angel who speaks. But note that this angel evens speaks for God in the first person. The angel of the Lord says, "I am God." The angel is distinguished from God yet identified with him. In Hebrew eyes, it is perfectly natural to consider the agent as the person himself. In Hebrew thought, homage given to God's agent or representative is homage ultimately given to God Himself.

Let's look at just one more example. In Acts 12, the apostle Peter is in jail about to be executed. But while he was asleep, "behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared, and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter's side and roused him, saying, 'Get up quickly.' And his chains fell off his hands. And the angel said to him, 'Gird yourself and put on your sandals and follow me'" (Acts 12:7-8). Peter thought he was dreaming. As he followed the angel past the guards, out through the iron gate which "opened for them by itself," Peter "did not know what was being 'done by the "angel"' was real, but thought he was seeing a vision"(v.9). Now the Church was meeting in a house and praying for Peter's release. Peter started banging on the house door and Rhoda, the servant girl went to open the door Once Peter was eventually inside you can imagine the stir in that place. Peter motions with his hand for everyone to be quiet. He told them his incredible story. And what did he say? "He described to them how 'the LORD' had led him out of prison" (v.17).

So who really did get Peter out of jail? The angel or the Lord? The text says both did. But we know that the Lord sent the angel to do the actual work. To the Hebrew mind, it was really the Lord who rescued Peter.

There are many such OT examples. An agent of God is actually referred to as God, or the Lord himself. In Genesis 31:11-13 Jacobs said to his wives, "'The angel' of God 'said' to me in a dream'I am the God' of Bethel." Here is an angel speaking as though he was God Himself. He speaks in the first person: "I am the God of Bethel." Seems Jacob was comfortable with this concept of agency.
In the next chapter, Jacob wrestled with "a man" until dawn, but he says he had "seen God face to face" (Gen 32:24-30). So was at this time when God appear to Jacob as a man? Perhaps as some have suggested it was actually the Lord Jesus himself, as the second member of the triune God, who wrestled with Jacob.

Not at all according to Hosea 12:3-4 which says, "As a man he [Jacob] struggled with God; he struggled with "the angel" and overcame him. So the one who is called both "a man" and "God" in Genesis is identified as an angel in Hosea. This is a perfect example of Jewish agency where the agent is considered as the principal.

There is another instance of agency in Exodus 7. God tells Moses he will make him "God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet" (Exodus 7:1). Moses is to stand before the king of Egypt with the full authority and backing of heaven itself. Then God says, By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, I will strike the water that is in the Nile with the staff that is in "My hand", and it shall be turned to blood" (v.17). But observe carefully that just two verses later the LORD says to Moses, "Say to Aaron, take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt that they may become blood" (v.19). God says He Himself will strike the waters with the staff in His own hand. Yet, it was Aaron's hand that actually held the rod. Aaron is standing as God's agent in the very place of God himself. There is identification of the agent with his Principle. In Biblical terms, Moses and Aaron are "God" (Heb. elohim) to Pharaoh!

Sometimes this concept of agency has caused the translators of our Bible difficulties. The Hebrew word for "God"(elohim) has a wide range of meanings. Depending on context, it can mean the Supreme Deity, or "a god" or "gods" or even "angels" or human "judges." This difficulty is reflected in verses like Exodus 21:6

The KJV reads "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges;"
The NIV reads "then his master must take him before the judges."
But
The NASB reads "then his master shall bring him to God"
So too the RSV "then his master shall bring him to God"

Clearly, because the judges of Israel represented God as His agents, they are called "God," elohim. As the slave gave his vow before these representatives of God, he was in fact making a binding vow before Jehovah. The agents were as God.

Another example that we have time for in this brief overview, is in Judges 6:11-22. "The angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak tree while Gideon was threshing wheat". As 'the angel of the LORD appeared to him,' he greeted Gideon with the words, "The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior." We can hear Gideon's disbelief when he says to the angel, "Oh my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us?" Now notice a change in the text at Judges 6:14: "And the LORD looked at him and said, 'Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have not I sent you?" At this point Gideon murmurs and throws up excuses as to why he could not rescue Israel from their enemies. "But the LORD said to him, 'Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man.'" Notice how the angel who is speaking on God's behalf actually uses the first person personal pronoun. And the text clearly says that when the angel looked at Gideon it was God himself who looked at him: And the LORD looked at him." Gideon is not confused regarding who he is looking at or who is speaking to him. For as "the angel of the LORD vanished from his site," he exclaimed, "I have seen the angel of the LORD face-to-face." (V.22). We know that the angel of the LORD is the agent and not literally God, because the Scriptures are absolutely clear that no one has ever seen God himself (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16; 1 John 4:12). Many scholars have failed to take this very Hebrew way of looking at things into account. They have literally identified the angel of the LORD with God Himself. All confusion is dissipated when we understand the Jewish law of agency: "a person's agent is regarded as the person himself."

There is one very clear OT example of Hebrew Principle of Agency. It comes from Deuteronomy 29. Moses summons all of Israel and says to them, "You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders" (v.2-3).

Moses continues to recite for the people all that God has done for them. But notice that in verse 6, while still reciting all God's wonders, Moses suddenly changes to the first person and says, "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God." It is obvious that God himself is not personally speaking to the people. Moses is preaching. But Moses as the agent of God can speak as though he is the Lord himself. What is happening here? God is speaking through His man, His appointed representative. Therefore, he can move from speaking in the third person, "the LORD did this and that for you" to the first person: "I am the LORD your God doing this and that."

Knowing this principle helps us with other apparent difficulties, even seeming contradictions through the Scriptures. Lets look at one New Testament example. The story that has created a problem to many minds is the one concerning the healing of the Centurion's servant. In Matthew's account (Matt 8:5-13), it is the Centurion himself who comes to Jesus and begs him to heal his servant. The Centurion himself says, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain" (v.6).

However, the parallel account in Luke (Luke 7:1-10) states that the Centurion did not personally go and speak to Jesus. He actually sent or commissioned as his agents "some Jewish elders." These Jewish elders pleaded with Jesus on behalf of the Centurion saying, "He is worthy for you to grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue" (v.4-5)

So who actually went to Jesus here? Did these gospel writers get confused? Are the detractors perhaps right to say that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions? Not at all! The difficulty is cleared up when we understand the Hebrew mind behind these Scriptures. The answer to who actually stood before Jesus is the elders. They had been sent by the Centurion. Matthew in typical Hebrew idiom has the Centurion himself there and speaking in the first person before Jesus. The agent is as the principal himself.

Jesus claimed to represent God like no other before or after him. He claimed to be the unique spokesman for God his Father and to speak the ultimate words of God. He claimed to act in total accord and harmony with God like no other. He claimed to be the Son of God, the Christ or Messiah, and the agent of the Father. The NT claims that he who sees Jesus sees the Father. He who hears Jesus the Son hears the words of God Himself.

The New Testament puts this theory about the angel of the Lord being Jesus in his preexistence to rest in Hebrews 1: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son" (v 1-2). So, the Son of God "did not speak" in the Old Testament days! Back in those days God spoke in various ways and only in "portions," whether by vision or by prophet or by angel. It is only since Jesus Christ was brought into existence at birth and appeared "in these last days" that we have heard God speak "in his Son." This is axiomatic. Jesus Christ was not God's messenger before his appearance as a man, born of Mary in history. Look at the scriptures:

Act 7:38 "This is the one (Moses) who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you.

Act 7:53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."

Gal 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,

Just note, Jesus who came to fulfill the Law, was not the one in the O.T. who gave the law, as seen by these three verses!

Now let's review one last example and look at Exodus 23:20-23. Notice 'my name is in him!' (agency)

"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way ... Take ye heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not (be not rebellious against him): for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him" "But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. "For My angel will go before you… (Exodus 23:20-23).

In this passage the angel was to be for Israel in the place of God; he was to speak God's words, and judge them. In fact the angel expressed God's name; he was God for them. Now if this was true of an angel of the Lord, how much more of the Son of God himself? Hence these sayings:

"This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ... I (Jesus) have manifested thy name unto (the disciples) ... Holy Father, keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:3,6,11).

"I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).

Jesus, then, enjoyed a unity of mind and Spirit with the Father, so that he could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). For the disciples Jesus was in the place of God; he spoke God's words, proclaimed God's truth, and pronounced His judgements.

Hebrews 1:1 makes more sense now:
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (ages).

[The Net bible adds… The temporal (ages) came to be used of the spatial (what exists in those time periods). See Heb_11:3 for the same usage.]

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds (ages) were prepared by the word (�ημα G4487) of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Jesus had every right to claim to be the son of God because God was in Him doing His works.

"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through (dia) him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).

FYI discussing lost historical understandings in this post... no new questions or thoughts being presented... just lost historical data...


Paul

[Pierac]

Historical Spirit or Flesh?

Many prophecies indicated that the Coming One would arise from the "seed," the stock of humanity, in a particular from Abrahamic and Davidic stock. The Messiah would be from the biological chain within the human family, specifically of Jewish pedigree: "The Lord your God will rise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your own countrymen [literally, brothers]; you shall listen to him" (Deut.18:15). In this passage, Moses predicts that the coming Messiah would be a person "like me," raised up from "among" the people of Israel, and that God would not speak to the people directly, because they were afraid that if God spoke without a mediator they would die (V16). The coming "prophet" would be a man of whom it is said that God would "put his word in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And it shall come about whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him� (v. 18-19). To say that the Messiah is God Himself is to contradict the whole point of this prophecy. For it announces that the ultimate spokesman for God is expressly not God but a human being. The New Testament says that Jesus is the one who fulfilled this prophecy (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Understandably, no Jew who believe theses Scriptures ever imagined that the baby born in Bethlehem was going to be Jehovah himself come as a human baby. In addition, Jehovah God says clearly that he is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Job 9:32). The converse is therefore true: if a person is a man, then he can not be God.

Let's review a previous post... On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that you could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

INCARNA'TION, n. The act of clothing with flesh.

1. The act of assuming flesh, or of taking a human body and the nature of man; as the incarnation of the Son of God.

Can God take on the nature of man? What did Paul say?

Romans 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

However, we know that Jesus was begotten. Yet, not eternally begotten! Which is un-scriptural!

BEGOT', BEGOT'TEN, pp. of get. Procreated; generated.

Now let's look at John 1:10 regarding, the world was made through(dia) Him (Jesus).

Joh 1:10 In the world He was, and the world came into being through(dia) Him, and the world knew Him not." 11 To His own He came, and those who are His own accepted Him not."

To be a Christian means you know that our Lord Jesus is the diameter, the purpose of the universe. His kingdom is coming! This is God's purpose and it will not be frustrated. Another verse saying the same thing is Hebrews 1:2. It says God has “appointed� His son to be the “heir of all things� and that it was “through him that he made the world'(s). Here our translations are not quite accurate, what the author wrote was not that through Jesus God made the world(s) but ages. God planned to complete His purpose for all creation through the agency of his son Jesus. The preposition that is used in relation to Jesus and the world, or the ages, is “through� (Greek dia from which you will see comes our English word diameter).

Dia is the “preposition of attendant circumstances" and signifies instrumental agency. Put simply, this means that dia denotes the means by which an action is accomplished. And Scripture tells us that God the originator is bringing His purpose, His logos to fulfillment through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Agent, the Mediator of God's master plan. Jesus is always seen as secondary, or subordinate to the Father. There are occasional exceptions to this general use of the preposition dia. Sometimes blessings are said to come to us through God (e.g. 1 Cor 1:9; Heb.2: 10). But usually there is a clear distinction made between God’s initiating activity and the means through which God brings that activity to pass. The prepositions used of God's action are hypo and ek which point to primary causation or origin. Let's cement this idea in our minds by looking at one or two verses that highlight the difference: “yet for us there is but one God, the father, from [ek, ‘out from’ ] whom are all things, and we exist for [ eis, ‘to’ ] Him; and one lord, Jesus Christ, through [dia] him� (1Cor.8:6). Prepositions are the signposts that point out the direction of a passage. Ek indicates something coming out from its source or origin, and indicates motion from the interior. In other words, all things came out from the loving heart of God, or God's “interior�, so to speak.

This agrees with Genesis 1:1 which says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth�. Both verses say that the source of “all things� is the one true God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. In contradistinction to this "one God and Father" out of Whom all things originate, the "one Lord, Jesus Messiah� is giving the preposition dia which means "through." In other words, Jesus is God's agent through whom God accomplishes His plan for our lives. This is a consistent pattern all the way through the N.T. God the Father is the source, the origin of all blessings, and Jesus His Son brings those blessings of salvation to us:

"Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ" (2 Cor.5:18).

"God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ… has blessed us… in Christ. He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself� (Eph.1:3-5).

"For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess.5:9).

"God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus� (Rom. 2:16).

"For God… has saved us, and called us... according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Tim 1:9).

"Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has caused us to be born-again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3).

"To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 25).

"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Paul tell us in 1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through (dia) whom we exist.


Always God the Father is the source and origin of all works, deeds and salvation which come to us through the mediatorship of his son. From Him comes all to us through our Lord Jesus Christ so that to God the Father made all the praise be directed. The Father is the sole origin and Creator of "all things." In contrast, Jesus is the Father's commissioned Lord Messiah through whom God's plan for the world is coming to completion. The whole Bible from cover to cover categorically states that God created the universe and all the ages with Jesus Christ at the center of his eternal purpose. Jesus is the diameter running all the way through. Are you seeing the previous Hebraic concept of agency in action yet?


Paul

[Pierac]

The historical Jewish "Ideal" Preexistence

In the English language, and certainly the way young people speak, we often speak about something that happened in the past as though it is happening in the present. For instance, a witness to a bank robbery might say, “And here I am standing in line minding my own business, when bursting through the door comes as a hooded bank robber. He tells us all to get on the floor. He waves his gun around and threatens us. Then he goes up to the teller and yells, ‘Give me the money!’� We understand the events described occurred in the past, even though the narrative is in the present. Speaking of past events in the present is a peculiarity of the English language.

Most languages have peculiarities. The Hebrew mind and language has a peculiarity that English speakers are not accustomed to. They do the opposite of what I have just described. They often use the past tense or the present tense to speak of events yet future. The reason is that the Jews believed that whatever was determined in the mind of God existed before it came to be in history. God is the God who calls the things which do not exist as (already) existing (Rom. 4:17). God promised Abraham that He would give him the promised land and that he would be the father of many descendents. So sure is the fulfillment that sometimes the predictive language is in the past tense, as though it were already accomplished: “To your descendents I “have given� this land� (Gen 15:18). It came to be a common feature of Hebrew thinking that whatever God had decreed already preexisted (in plan and purpose) before it materialized on earth. “When the Jews wished to designate something as predestined, he spoke of it as already existing in heaven.

Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ “was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times� for our sakes who believe in God's word (1Pet. 1:20). This does not mean that Jesus personally preexisted his appearance on earth, because in the same chapter we find that Christians have also been in the “foreknowledge of God the Father� (1Pet. 1:2). The words “foreknowledge� and “foreknown,� noun and verb, are exactly alike. Peter uses precisely the same idea to refer to both Christians and Jesus. Christians do not preexisted heaven before our birth on earth nor did Jesus.

Similarly, the Bible speaks of Jesus as the Lamb of God who was crucified before the world began (Rev.13:8). Every Bible reader of course knows that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate in Palestine in the first century. But God ordained his crucifixion to happen before he even created the universe. Therefore, in God's mind, and in the Hebrew understanding, that which came to be had already been. The prophetic future was spoken of in the past tense. What God has decreed, He says is as good as done.

In John 17, Jesus prays just before his arrest in the garden, “I glorify You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given me to do. And now, glorify me together with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.� (v.4-5) If ever there was a statement that proved the personal preexistence of Jesus with the Father in heaven before he came to earth, surely this is it. Once again, we must caution against haste, for “In Biblical ways of speaking and thinking one may ‘have’ something which is promised in God's plan before one actually has its.� We have already seen this principle in operation, where God's plan of promises are spoken in the “prophetic past tense.� God promised Abraham, “I have given you this land.� God says to Christians, “You are seated with Christ in the heavenlies; you are already glorified (Eph. 2:6; Rom.8:30).

We have these things already in the plan and purpose of God -- even though we do not (yet) have them! Scripture tells us that we have eternal life as a present possession, even though clearly we await the day of our entrance into the life of the Age to come, whether by resurrection for those already dead, or the rapture of the living, when Christ returns. God calls the things that are not as though they already exist (Rom. 4:17). Clearly, in Hebrew thinking, the glory which Jesus had “with� God before the world was, it is the glory that it was present in God's mind and purpose from the beginning.

When we examine the rest of Jesus's prayer, it becomes quite clear that the glory Jesus claimed to have had “with the father before the world was� is a glory in prospect. Jesus is using the peculiar Hebrew way of thinking and speaking by which the past tense is employed to speak of the future. To confirm this all we need to do is follow Jesus’ prayer through. Jesus speaks as though he has already accomplished his work: he says I have “accomplished a work which you have gave me to do� (v.4). Quite obviously he has not actually finish the work because his crucifixion has not yet happened, and his cry from the cross, “It is finished,� has not yet been uttered. Next, Jesus speaks as though the disciples have already fully glorified him (through their preaching ministry) even though the resurrection has not yet happened: he prays, “I have been glorified in them� (v.10).

Jesus also says “I am no more in the world� (v.11) even though he clearly is still in the world. In his own mind, he is already, by faith in the father's promise, sitting in heaven having been resurrected. Jesus says he has already sent the disciples into the world to preach: he prays, “I have sent them into the world� (v.18), even though this did not fully happen until after the resurrection. Jesus prays for his disciples, and “for those also who[will] believed in me through their word� (v.20). That is, he prays for subsequent generations of Christians who will come to faith in Christ down the track. He prays that “the glory which You have given me I have given to them (v.22). He prays that all these believers “which you have given me� (the whole future community of faith) may behold my glory, which You have given me; for You did love [choose] me before the foundation of the world (v.24).

One day the Lord Jesus at his second coming will say to his own people, “Come, you who are blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world� (Matt 25:34). In Paul’s language this hope is “laid up for you in heaven� which means it is in God’s promise and plan and is certain of fulfillment (Col. 1:5). This hope is so certain that Paul can even speak of Christians as already glorified (Romans 8:29–30, noting the past tense). Indeed, this plan hatched in God’s mind “according to His own purpose in grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity� (2 Tim 1:9). Dunn, in his book, Christology in the Making p238 adds: “The gift was purposed ‘ages ago,’ unless we are to take it that the actual giving and receiving, ‘us’ and ‘Christ Jesus’ were all alike preexistent.� This hope of Christians entering into the age to come was “promised long ages ago� (Tit 1:2).
Dunn continues p238.
“Here it is even clearer that what is thought of as happening “ages ago� is God’s promise; and it is that promise of eternal life which has been manifested. Indeed, the text says it is his word that he has manifested - that is, not Christ the Logos, but the word of promise, fulfilled in Christ and offered now back in the kerygma [ message]. In other words, we are back where we started – Christ as the content of the word of preaching, the embodiment of the predetermined plan of salvation, the fulfillment of the divine purpose.�



Paul

[Pierac]

Replying to post 14 by Pierac]

Psalms 110:1

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

Psalms 110:1 is a unusual verse. It is referred to in the New Testament 23 times and is thus quoted much more often than any other verse from the Old Testament. It is a psalm that tells us the relationship between God and Jesus.

It’s importance must not be overlooked. Psalms 110:1 is a divine utterance although poorly translated if your version leaves out the original word "oracle". It is “the oracle of Yahweh� (the One God of the Hebrew Bible, of Judaism and New Testament Christianity) to David's lord who is the Messiah, spoken of here 1000 years before he came into existence in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

I want to bring attention to the fact that David's lord is not David's Lord. There should be no capital on the word "lord." The Revised Version of the Bible (1881) corrected the misleading error of other translations which put (and still wrongly put) a capitol L on lord in that verse.

He is not Lord God, because the word in the inspired text is not the word for Deity, but the word for human superior- a human lord, not a Lord who is himself God, but a lord who is the supremely exalted, unique agent of the one God.

The Hebrew word for the status of the son of God and Psalms 110:1 is adoni. This word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to God. When God is described as "the Lord" (capital L) a different word, Adonai, appears. Thus the Bible makes a careful distinction between God and man. God is the Lord God (Adonai), or when his personal name is used, Yahweh, and Jesus is his unique, sinless, virginally conceived human son (adoni, my lord, Luke 1:43; 2:11). Adonai is found 449 times in the Old Testament and distinguishes the One God from all others. Adonai is not the word describing the son of God, Jesus, and Psalms 110:1. adoni appears 195 times and refers only to a human (or occasionally an angelic) lord, that is, someone who is not God. This should cut through a lot of complicated post Biblical argumentation and create a making which in subtle ways that secures the simple and most basic Biblical truth, that God is a single person and that the Messiah is the second Adam, "the Man Messiah" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Let's have a look at a few Old Testament verses that show us the clear distinction alluded to here. In Genesis 15:2, Abraham prays to God and says, "O LORD, God [Adonai Yahweh], what will you give me, since I am childless?" In another prayer Abraham's servant addresses God: "O LORD, God of my lord Abraham, please grant me success today" (Gen. 24:12). The second word for "my lord" here is adoni which according to any standard Hebrew lexicon means "Lord," "Master," or "owner." Another example is found in David's speech to his men after he had cut off the hem of King Saul's robe and his conscience bothered him: "So he said to his men, far be it from me because of the Lord [here the word is Yahweh, Lord God] that I should do this thing to my lord [adoni].�

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 157. states… "The form Adoni (‘my lord’), a royal title (Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title Adonai (‘Lord’) used of Yahweh. Adonai the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adoni [with short vowel] = ‘my lords.’� Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, page 137. States… “lord in the Old Testament is used to translate Adonai when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word… has a suffix [with a special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction... between divine and human appellative.� Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, p. 22. states…
“The form ‘to my lord,’ I’adoni, is never used in the Old Testament as a divine reference… the general excepted fact is that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine reference (adonai) from human references (adoni).�

“The Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the Old Testament…Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen 44:7; Num 32:25; 2 Kings 2:19, etc.). We have to assume that the word Adonai received it’s special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e. adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as Adonai [with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from other human Lord's.� from
Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, p. 531.

If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would not have used "my lord" (adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah- Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.

Occasionally, it will be objected that this distinction between Adonai and adoni was a late addition to the Hebrew text by the Mesorites around 600 to 700 AD and therefore is not reliable. This objection needs to be considered in the light of the fact that the Hebrew translators of the Septuagint (the LXX) around 250 B.C. recognize and carefully maintained this Hebrew distinction in their work. They never translated the second “lord� of Psalm 110:1 (“my lord,� kyrios mou) to mean the Deity. The first LORD of Psalm 110:1 (the LORD, Ho Kyrios) they always reserve for the one God, Jehovah.

Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah. Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's “lord� (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus. Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament!

Paul

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Pierac]

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.

If it was a developing idea, then its origin of development began somewhere--a plant is developing, but it still begins with a seed.

So when is the inception of this idea if not in the early church? It should be noticed that the primary concern of all (whether Tertullian or Arius) was the protection of monotheism; none were willing to support tritheism, merely a reduced form of polytheism. These were Greek in culture and had imbibed Greek philosophy.

We can present two lines of development:

1) The idea that Jesus was divine just "sprang up" amidst Greeks who were all overly concerned with protecting monotheism. That is, the Greek thinkers created a problem for themselves which was historically unnecessary.

This is historically odd. Why allow to "spring up" a problem to Greek monotheism? The very fact that Arius preached "there was a time when he was not" testifies that there was data (the N.T.) indicating there was no such time.

I turn to another possibility:

2) The N.T. is written primarily by Jews and therefore used Jewish categories of thought. To a 2nd T. Jew, the language was obvious (that is, the language of the four gospels and Paul)--Jesus was divine. But the Christian movement attracted few Jews, though it was successful among Greeks/Romans. But this meant that, over time, the conceptual language required changing--Greek idioms were different from Jewish.

Now, flat monotheism already had an established language/conceptualization; trinitarianism did not, for it was, to a Greek, absolutely unique. The question was to split with the conceptual language of the N.T. and establish a respectable Greek theology, or attempt to honor the N.T. by rendering it as best it could into Greek thought, though this meant revising Greek language and creating new categories of thought.


I go with number two. It makes better sense of a) the Jewish categories of the N.T. and b) the philosophical turmoil of the early church when devising a philosophical language to encapsulate what they believed the N.t. actually taught.

[Pierac]

[Replying to post 1 by Pierac]

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.

If it was a developing idea, then its origin of development began somewhere--a plant is developing, but it still begins with a seed.

So when is the inception of this idea if not in the early church? It should be noticed that the primary concern of all (whether Tertullian or Arius) was the protection of monotheism; none were willing to support tritheism, merely a reduced form of polytheism. These were Greek in culture and had imbibed Greek philosophy.

We can present two lines of development:

1) The idea that Jesus was divine just "sprang up" amidst Greeks who were all overly concerned with protecting monotheism. That is, the Greek thinkers created a problem for themselves which was historically unnecessary.

This is historically odd. Why allow to "spring up" a problem to Greek monotheism? The very fact that Arius preached "there was a time when he was not" testifies that there was data (the N.T.) indicating there was no such time.

I turn to another possibility:

2) The N.T. is written primarily by Jews and therefore used Jewish categories of thought. To a 2nd T. Jew, the language was obvious (that is, the language of the four gospels and Paul)--Jesus was divine. But the Christian movement attracted few Jews, though it was successful among Greeks/Romans. But this meant that, over time, the conceptual language required changing--Greek idioms were different from Jewish.

Now, flat monotheism already had an established language/conceptualization; trinitarianism did not, for it was, to a Greek, absolutely unique. The question was to split with the conceptual language of the N.T. and establish a respectable Greek theology, or attempt to honor the N.T. by rendering it as best it could into Greek thought, though this meant revising Greek language and creating new categories of thought.


I go with number two. It makes better sense of a) the Jewish categories of the N.T. and b) the philosophical turmoil of the early church when devising a philosophical language to encapsulate what they believed the N.t. actually taught.

When John disciples asked Jesus, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" Jesus replied by naming some miracles that were not being done in the first century (Matthew 11:3 -5). For example, the cleansing of lepers and the raising of the dead were not common in that day. From the time of the completion of the Mosaic Law, there are no records of any Jewish persons who had been cleansed of leprosy. Miriam, the sister of Moses, was healed before the completion of the Law. Naaman, who was also healed, was a Gentile. The Jews considered leprosy to be "the finger of God" or "the stroke," and anyone afflicted by it had to be cleansed, as well as healed.

This was such a significant issue that Leviticus 13 and 14 give detailed instructions as to what must be done when a healing did occur. First, the priest had to establish that the person had actually been a leper. Second, he had to establish that the person had really been healed. Third, he had to establish who had done the healing. Because note you have been healed of leprosy in such a long time, the Jews believed that an ordinary rabbi could not do such a miracle. Only Messiah, when he came, would be able to do it. This is borne out at Luke 4:27, where the Bible notes that there were many lepers in Israel as far back as Elisha, but none were healed except Naaman.

The verification of miracles

The action really began with Jesus healed the leper and told them to take the required offering to the priests, in fulfillment of the Levitical Law. The priest was then required by the law to verify these persons actually been lepers, that they had actually been healed, and then, to investigate how or by whom this healing had been done. The practice of the Sanhedrin was to send a delegation to investigate many serious Messianic candidates. This investigation involves two steps: the first was to simply observe. If there was convincing evidence, they proceeded to interrogate.

We can see this first step in Luke 5:17 and Mark 2:5-7, where the scribes and Pharisees who had come from Jerusalem simply sat and observe Jesus come reasoning in their hearts. It was after the healing of the lepers had been verified that the Sanhedrin began to take Jesus seriously. Then, when he began to do other uncommon miracles, they went to the second stage and began interrogating him.

The second messianic miracle Jesus did was the casting out of a demon of dumbness (see Matthew 12:22). Although Matthew 12:27 tells us that other rabbis were able to cast out demons, history tells us that they used a Pharisaic formula which required the exorcist to first ask the demon his name. They then use the demon's name to cast it out. Even Jesus use this technique in Mark 5:9. But using this methodology that the rabbi powerless against demons of dumbness since they could not give their name. It was this kind of demon that the disciples could not cast out in Mark 9:17-18. It was when Jesus began doing miracles that no one else could do that the people started asking, "Is not this the son of David [the Messiah]?" (Matthew 12:23).

The third Messianic miracle was the raising of the dead. Although there were examples of people dying and being brought back to life in the Old Testament, the case of Lazarus was an exception to the norm. John 11:39 tells us that Lazarus had been dead already for four days. The Pharisees believed that a deceased person’s spirit hovered over his body for three days, and during that time there remained the possibility of resuscitation. This may be why Jesus intentionally waited until the fourth day to do the miracle.


From reading John 3:1 we get an understanding of what the Pharisees believed Jesus to be…. Not God in the flesh but exactly what Acts 2:22 teaches…
Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--

Joh 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 3:2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

Now in ACT 28:3 we see just how easy it is to become a GOD… outside of Israel in the 1st century!

Act 28:3 But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another, "Undoubtedly this man is a murderer, and though he has been saved from the sea, justice has not allowed him to live." 5 However he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 But they were expecting that he was about to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But after they had waited a long time and had seen nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and began to say that he was a god.

Then again…
Act 14:8 At Lystra a man was sitting who had no strength in his feet, lame from his mother's womb, who had never walked. Act 14:9 This man was listening to Paul as he spoke, who, when he had fixed his gaze on him and had seen that he had faith to be made well, Act 14:10 said with a loud voice, "Stand upright on your feet." And he leaped up and began to walk. Act 14:11 When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have become like men and have come down to us." Sound familiar? Act 14:12 And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. Act 14:13 The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds.

This is how Jesus became God outside of Israel … no one said these things about Jesus whom did so many more and greater miracles among men in Israel.

Yet… Jesus slowly became a God among men... when the message came to the gentiles just like they tried to make Paul and Barnabas many years earlier! Scripture documents this sad progress with the first gentiles converts!


Paul

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 17 by Pierac]

I think you make a lot of good points here Paul, and to Liam's point, the inception of the idea of the Trinity seems to have been with John and Paul's extremely high Christology.

With John, "The Word" was eternally pre-existent, and the Word was God, and the Word was Jesus.

With Paul, Jesus is the "firstborn of all Creation, pre-existent but not eternally so as with John, and through Christ, "all things were made".

If that ain't Divine, it is darn close* Not too hard to see that the early Church had to come to terms with these seed ideas which seemed to challenge Jewish Shema.

The developing idea of the Trinity was it's solution.

(*don't mean to imply that John and Paul were right about these things, only that teachings may have been the inception of developing Trinitarian thought.)

[catnip]

[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?

Paul

By and large, I agree with what you have written here. Or rather, it matches what I have found. I will say that Plato (and the Greeks) had already effected the Jewish faith (Plato preceded Christ by 300 years) and Alexander the Great had conquered the Levant causing the influence of Greeks and Greek thought and even language in the region. Jesus preached in the region of the Sea of Galilee where five of the ten cities of the Decapolis were located. It is difficult to sort out just how much of an effect the Greeks had on the Jewish population, but historically conquered peoples tend to be heavily influenced by their conquerors. What I am getting at is that the fear that Plato has effected Christian thought at a later date may not be the only influence. I see influence in Paul's Epistles of Greek philosophy. And also some in John--GoJ Ch. 1 introducing the concept of the Logos, for example.

Fear of Neoplatonism is not necessarily well founded and we need to research carefully to sort out what is and is not Neoplatonism. It was very influential in the whole region from the 4th Century through the 6th during a very formative time for the Christian church.

But I am not speaking here of the doctrine of the Trinity which was contrived and created heretics of any earlier versions of Christianity that, like the Jews, believed that a man could not be God and were probably more accurate. And some of these we do not know too much about. St. Augustine of Hippo himself persecuted these groups, that was his main preoccupation.