The Trinity and the Incarnation

[Peterlag]

So you will promote a doctrine that says your little clan has the only truths and that everyone else is wrong. That is narrow indeed.

I did not bring up the majority subject. You did.

 

[360watt]

Paul, writing to churches .. included the equality of Jesus with the Father and the Holy Spirit before catholicism was heard of.

You go around 300 years after Jesus before catholicism gets going.

 

[Peterlag]

Paul, writing to churches .. included the equality of Jesus with the Father and the Holy Spirit before catholicism was heard of.

You go around 300 years after Jesus before catholicism gets going.

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I see a paradox in modern day Christianity in regard respectively to God and Christ…

How does one get around the fact that no one succeeds in stating the doctrine which they can explicitly defend without implicitly dissolving some essential element of the Trinity.

Good post. Rory.
In my opinion, the most striking paradox, is that for some few Christians, the adherence to this doctrine they can’t explain is required by God as a condition to save people.
Otherwise I have no problem with the Trinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity was introduced early in Christianity as an attempt to reconcile polytheistic and monotheistic views of the world.
I respect that, as an intellectual exercise led by theologians.
What I don’t respect is placing this doctrine as the cornerstone of faith and a condition for salvation… as a barrier among Christians and between Christians and believers of other religions. I’m at full war with that.

 

[mikesw]

Good post. Rory.
In my opinion, the most striking paradox, is that for some few Christians, the adherence to this doctrine they can’t explain is required by God as a condition to save people.
Otherwise I have no problem with the Trinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity was introduced early in Christianity as an attempt to reconcile polytheistic and monotheistic views of the world.
I respect that, as an intellectual exercise led by theologians.
What I don’t respect is placing this doctrine as the cornerstone of faith and a condition for salvation… as a barrier among Christians and between Christians and believers of other religions. I’m at full war with that.

So Pancho, you do not see why the shiny used corvette you bought should have had an engine in it?
A person does not need to know and confess that a car has an engine in it, but that engine is vital to having a functioning car. When you do not respect the provision for justification by the hand of God, how can you claim to accept that justification and have peace with God? The fallen nature of man puts him at enmity with God. Nothing that men do of their own design cures them of that enmity. In fact, man's own cures affirms that enmity.

 

[Dizerner]

It is strange when non-Christians want to be the expert on Christianity.

But the Trinity, like all major Biblical truths, only comes by revelation from God.

 

[civic]

It is strange when non-Christians want to be the expert on Christianity.

But the Trinity, like all major Biblical truths, only comes by revelation from God.

Plus in the very early church the deity of Christ was under attack and we see His deity defended by all those who knew the apostles, were their disciples and carried on their teachings. From that time until the 3-4th centuries it shifted to the Plural Godhead under attack hence the official formation of the Trinity was established. They really don’t know their church history at all. Just what they have been told by others.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Who, then, was God loving before he created everything? That's where the fellowship of the trinity comes in

This can be answered in at least two ways.

1. For those who believe in a single act of creation, then there is no “before”, since God created time. So, since there was not time before time, we shouldn’t think in God sitting in solitude for trillions of “years” doing nothing and loving nobody.
2. For those who believe in infinite acts of creation, God has always been a Creator and has always had somebody to love. This is the position more aligned to theology of the Bahai Faith. Bahá’u’lláh taught that God has always been a Creator. The notion of previous universes, parallel universes or future universes that start and end an infinite number of times is compatible with science. Also the idea of an eternal universe, with focal singularities of expansion of the time-space fabric.

 

[Peterlag]

A Good Read...

 

[mikesw]

Regarding Rubenstein's When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome, a guy that gave the book a two-star rating says this at the end of his assessment:

But I have to say that I would not recommend this book. There is only a little value in his portrayal of early church history that can be better seen in other works on the subject.

Instead, I do recommend Larry Hurtado's book, "How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?" You will enjoy this book much more and get more of a true perspective of the early church and NT times. Grace & Peace https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/253881.When_Jesus_Became_God#CommunityReviews

Larry Hurtado's book, "How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?"
I have not read this other book, but it sounds like a more enlightened view.

 

[Keiw1]

Its 100% undeniable fact that for the first time ever the holy spirit was added to a godhead in 381 ce at the council of Constantinople.
Its 100% fact, no trinity god exists. All serving it are being mislead into not entering Gods kingdom-you best think on that.

 

[Peterlag]

Regarding Rubenstein's When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome, a guy that gave the book a two-star rating says this at the end of his assessment:


Larry Hurtado's book, "How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?"
I have not read this other book, but it sounds like a more enlightened view.

I looked at some of it as it looks like the whole first chapter is online. He does not give just the facts as Rubenstein does. He gives more about what others thought. I think he comes to the same conclusion that Jesus is not God.