Steven Avery

Since that is 5th century, c 450, and the Athanasian Creed is considered around 500 AD "probably originated in Gaul around 500" (Wikipedia) you have my reference to 5th and 6th century creedalism. Is either one true Biblical Christian orthodoxy ? I trow not.

Shalom,
Steven

Equinox

It crossed my mind that this evolution of the trinity may also explain why we don’t see much of the trinity in the Bible. It’s not that early Christians didn’t want to change the Bible – we can see that they obviously did on a repeated basis (Ehrman’s “Orthodox corruption of Scripture” or more recently “Misquoting Jesus” are good sources for dozens of examples). Looking over some of these changes, many of them directly relate to the trinity – some make Jesus more human, or more divine, or whatever is needed at the time.


If this competitive evolutionary source for the trinity is what happened, then a bible that doesn’t explicitly describe the trinity is what we’d expect, because a separate aspect of the trinity is argued at any time. Thus if arguing against a Gnostic, change the scripture to make Jesus more human, and quote that. If arguing against an Ebionite, change the scripture to make Jesus more divine, and quote that.

You never need to have a section that describes the trinity, and more importantly, you really don’t want one anyway. That would call attention to the idea of 3=1=3=1, and that could make an opponent realize the silly game you are playing. Much better to have verses that say each that can be called upon when needed, and no vulnerabilities that will call attention to the trinity before you are ready to bring it up yourself – which will be only after the person is well into the fold of your chosen Christianity, and isn’t wavering on the borderline of becoming a Marcionite or whatever. Otherwise, the convert won’t accept the idea of a “divine mystery”, which really won’t cut it in a debate situation, but will work fine if the person is learning from you in submission. :notworthy:


Take care-

-Equinox

Steven Avery

As I pointed out earlier in this thread this concept has some Mack-Truck-size holes.

First and foremost none of the Trinitarian catchwords (Trinity, three persons in the Godhead, coequal, coeternal, etc) are in the Bible. So the problem with the supposed editing is ... it ain't there.

Another problem is that "high Christology" verses are presumed to be "Trinitarian". Suffice to say that on this one can take all sorts of doctrinal positions but without Trinitarian lingo they are pretty much irrelevant to the claim of Trinitarian text tampering. To put it simply, YMMV.

As for Ehrman .. I strongly suggest you first read Dean John Burgon on the
"Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text" to have a far more sensible overall view. Ehrman is weak in so many ways, and writes so inaccurately, that it is amazing that folks would recommend his book.

Granted, many of the critiques of Ehrman, while properly pointing out many errors and confusions and inconsistencies in his books, are from folks who themselves actually are pretty much in the Ehrman conceptual camp of the NT text as unknown and unknowable.

Shalom,
Steven

gstafleu

But where does one god manifesting him/herself in various forms contradict monotheism? It is still the one god. It seems to me we have a bit of "humankind created god in its own image" going on here: humans can't manifest themselves in different shapes (costumes and disguises excepted of course), hence god cannot do so either. Only with such a human-derived god do we run into trouble, a really divine god takes it all in his stride.

Gerard Stafleu

stuart shepherd

One of the amazing things that I discovered about the Trinity is that although it is one of the key features of Christianity, no place in the Bible is this doctrine explained. If the Trinity were so important you would expect that someplace in Paul's letters he would explain it to the Gentiles who could never figure it out on their own using just the Scriptures, would understand it.
The Trinity explains the Christian God.
See what Paul says about God.
Romans 1:19-20 (King James Version)
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Do you think what Paul wrote at Romans 1:19-20 is a true statement if God is really a Trinity?
I don't think so. It took everyone until the 4th or 5th century before they figured out the Christian God was a Trinity.
I don't think that I would have understood anything about God being a Trinity unless someone showed me and I still don't find it logical.

Something is rotten in Christendom.

stuart shepherd

gstafleu

I wonder if it isn't more the case that something is rotten in/with BC&H, at least in the way it often seems to be viewed. Any religion is an evolving entity, and Christianity didn't stop evolving once the last book of the NT was written. That makes BC&H a rather narrow snapshot. In this case it leads to the strange situation that something that is central to Christianity cannot be explained from what purports to be (now where did I put my flame suit?) a study of its origins.

The reason for this strange situation is probably good old Luther. He was pissed off at the Roman Church and noticed that this church had added all kinds of stuff since the days of the NT. So he decided to throw out any and all Roman additions, using as slogan "sola scriptura" (scripture only). Sounds nice, until you run into things like the trinity.

Gerard Stafleu

charley63

Just a few comments by an ex-Trinitarian.

One of the issues that gets missed often is the conflict with Roman state religion. All of the Caesars claimed to be "sons of god." By elevating Jesus to a unique eternal divine status, the emperor cult was doctrinally abolished. This was the key point of the Arian controversy and united the earthly and heavenly authority of the church.

Judaism denied both the divine sonship of the Caesars and of any human being for that matter. In the end, the Christian approach won, in part by revamping Roman Imperialism.

The Trinity was a sort of apologetic clean-up in the aftermath of the incarnation doctrine. Each new doctrine was ratified at the expense of a heretical sect or divergent tradition. It's the ideas of the ruling elite becoming the ruling ideas.

There are some interesting metaphysical implications of the Trinity and Incarnation, which in theory are inseparable. The Incarnation did away with the classic dualism of body and soul in favor of a new duality of resurrection eschatology. No longer was the ultimate afterlife a chamber of disembodied spirits, but rather a miraculously altered earth and humankind.

The Trinity is about the ultimate nature of reality. It wipes out monism by claiming that the divine is eternally plural. It modifies dualism by promising an eternal embodiment. Modern trinitarians, such as Jurgen Moltmann make much about the Trinity as an organic communion, a society that metaphysically models the eschatological destiny of humankind.

Such elaborations are ex post facto. The real reason why Jesus had to be co-equal with God was political, not religious, imho.

peace! Charley

Equinox

praxeus wrote:

Right, I think that says the same thing – that there aren’t clear references to the trinity in the Bible. That was my point.

Some of the criticisms of Ehrman I’ve read had a point, others were little more than standard apologetics. I’ll put Burgon on my reading list. Have a good day-


Equinox

Clivedurdle

It sounds like a co-evolutionary arms race occurred, with a lot of symbiosis.

Heresy does sound like it was very important in driving creeds - which may be understood as reactions, and it sounds like we probably have layer upon layer of edits of the new testament as various parties tweaked things to their ever changing perspectives.

Which makes me wonder what is the word heresy doing in Acts? Does that not help with dating it?

A thread on the evolution of heresy?

stuart shepherd

I think that I agree with you but I am not familiar with the meaning of "BC&H"

stuart shepherd