Steven Avery

You do realize, I hope, that there is no term Trinity in the New Testament ? Or coequal ? Or coeternal ? Or consubstantial ? Or three persons ? Or three persons in the Godhead ?

So if the NT was "well and truly edited" in that direction
.. why did they forget to do the editing ?

Shalom,
Steven

Roger Pearse

It's an easier heresy to slip into than you might think. Preachers can get so involved in the idea that God is involved in the world that they slip into patripassianism. I've seen it happen, quite by accident, in a modern pulpit from a sound Christian preacher. I see no reason to suppose that it could not happen in antiquity.

Heresy, like sin, is something that rarely presents itself as a clear choice. On the contrary, it's fudged, clouded, made grey. Only after committing yourself is it made clear -- often brutally so -- that you *have* committed yourself. Like a man who takes drugs and lends some to a friend now and then, who suddenly finds that he's a dealer.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Avery

Hi Roger,

Would you share from your excellent knowledge and background what are the 1st-person writings, especially from any time in the first five centuries, where a writer really sounds like he believes that "God the Father died on the cross". You are much more familiar with the source material than I am so this would be of assistance. (Actual quotations of their beliefs would be good too, but not someone, an opponent, simply saying "they believe that".)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse Heresy, like sin, is something that rarely presents itself as a clear choice. On the contrary, it's fudged, clouded, made grey.

However it is not either/or. Often heresy and false doctrines are a clear choice. Often they are fudged and grey. Sometimes they are a cloud of ignorance more than an underlying rebellion, without necessarily a conscious understanding. Iin which case there is more hope and expectation that the light of God's word will remove the veil of darkness.

And lest we forget, not every accusation of heresy is valid.

Acts 24:14
But this I confess unto thee,
that after the way which they call heresy,
so worship I the God of my fathers,
believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

It is difficult to reconcile the solid sharing of Paul here with the dissonance and tension between later creedal doctrinal understandings, especially the 5th-6th century creeds, and the Hebraic understandings of one God. On the other hand the early "Apostle's Creed" in its various formats fits quite well.

Shalom,
Steven

Roger Pearse

No idea; sorry! It's not something that I have ever looked into.

I don't disagree at all. But I think you supposed that this particular heresy must always be a deliberate decision, and I merely wished to indicate from personal experience that in fact it might not be.

Not least those made by heretics.

No-one in the west accepts any creed later than Chalcedon, and I have a feeling that we might not accept Chalcedon either if Pope Leo I hadn't been foolish enough to get involved. That said, much may be forgiven a man up to his ears in Huns who has some damn Greek blathering about the theotokos at him every five minutes.

As far as I can see, 5th century Eastern councils onwards consist merely of politics in long dresses. Church politics seem no different to me to worldly politics, except for the extra dollop of hypocrisy.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gstafleu

I've never quite understood the difficulty. In many religions it is quite normal that a god can manifest him/herself in various forms. Zeus e.g. took the shape of a bull, a golden shower and a mortal, at various times. But he was still just the one Zeus, no "Zeus trinitism" (or quaternitism, or generally N-ism) was thought necessary.

Now why did early Christians think it necessary for their god? Couldn't they just see Jesus and the holy ghost as manifestations of the one god? It is only when you come up with attempts at logic, like Roger mentioned, that you run into problems. But, given the Zeus and countless other examples, such logic is unnecessary. So why screw up in that way?

Gerard Stafleu

Chili

Because they are not one God in a living faith where humans are at least partially in charge of God as co-creator of their own destiny, which must be obvious by the raising of the son to [finally] become one with the father.

It is only when God is stale dated in history that the holy trinity becomes a problem. For those of us who accept it as an inspired concept that is beyond human understanding the God of our fathers will be with us and be our craftsman and delight day by day, playing before us all the while, playing on the surface of the earth and finding delight is us as sons of men (from Proverbs 8:30-31).

Magdlyn

As well, many Hindu dieties have innumberable avatars.

B/c of that whole sticky Jewish attempt at Yahwistic monotheism. You just can't have that big guy running around in various skins all over the place. Bad enough earlier Hebrews tried to marry him off to Asherah! Bad enough Persian influence got the ball rolling with all the angels, good and bad, and increasing the status of Satan. It got quite crowded up there in heaven. I think the Trinity was an attempt at streamlining. Of course, it didn't work. B/c then you had all those pesky martyrs and saints popping up all over the place, with all kinds of magical powers, and the biggest saint of all, Mary Virgin, a goddam woman, no less, Mother of GOD?? Horrors. So much for the patriarchy.

stuart shepherd

I hope this helps. It is from the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm


(2) However, the imperial successors of Constantine soon began to see in themselves Divinely appointed "bishops of the exterior", i.e. masters of the temporal and material conditions of the Church. At the same time they retained the traditional authority of "Pontifex Maximus", and in this way the civil authority inclined, frequently in league with prelates of Arian tendencies, to persecute the orthodox bishops by imprisonment and exile. But the latter, particularly St. Hilary of Poitiers (Liber contra Auxentium, c. iv), protested vigorously against any use of force in the province of religion, whether for the spread of Christianity or for preservation of the Faith. They repeatedly urged that in this respect the severe decrees of the Old Testament were abrogated by the mild and gentle laws of Christ. However, the successors of Constantine were ever persuaded that the first concern of imperial authority (Theodosius II, "Novellae", tit. III, A.D. 438) was the protection of religion and so, with terrible regularity, issued many penal edicts against heretics. In the space of fifty seven years sixty-eight enactments were thus promulgated. All manner of heretics were affected by this legislation, and in various ways, by exile, confiscation of property, or death. A law of 407, aimed at the traitorous Donatists, asserts for the first time that these heretics ought to be put on the same plane as transgressors against the sacred majesty of the emperor, a concept to which was reserved in later times a very momentous role. The death penalty however, was only imposed for certain kinds of heresy; in their persecution of heretics the Christian emperors fell far short of the severity of Diocletian, who in 287 sentenced to the stake the leaders of the Manichæans, and inflicted on their followers partly the death penalty by beheading, and partly forced labor in the government mines.


stuart shepherd

Equinox

The many different, contradictory Christianities of the first few centuries may have resulted in the final dogma containing many paradoxes.

They are purposefully contradictory because that is what works best to keep people in the church. I don’t think someone thought “hey, if I make this contradictory, it’ll keep people in the church” – no, instead I think that these contradictory statements were selected for, and hence are with us today.

There are tons of examples. Here are some:

Do unbaptized babies go to hell?
Is Jesus a man, or a God?
Does 3=1?
Are the sacraments needed?
Do people have free will, or is God omnipotent?

It’s easy to see how some of these evolved:

Think of a dozen forms of Christianity competing in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. They all have different scriptures, different numbers of gods, different everything. Say that Church E has a view that Jesus was a man, that Church G that Jesus was a god, and Church R that he was both somehow. Now they compete for converts. When E attacks G, saying “your view is wrong”, G can only attack back, since their views are clear and clearly disagree. Since E and G are attacking each other, they both suffer from the exchange. E can’t attack R very well, because R agrees that Jesus was a man. R is similarly safe from G. R, on the other hand, can attack either, saying their view is incomplete. R defends their own nonsensical position by saying that “it’s a divine mystery, beyond human comprehension”. Simply try to accommodate the mention of the Holy Spirit from the scripture, and you have the trinity. :devil1:

Politically, R’s stance has even more benefits. When addressing a crowd sympathetic to E and hostile to G, R can emphasize Jesus’ human qualities, and win converts. When addressing a crowd (or a person) sympathetic to G and hostile to E, emphasize Christ’s divine qualities. Simply adjust the message to win the convert, since a contradictory stance says both. Need to convert people who have local deities? Make them into saints, and keep their holidays as feastdays.


From the example above, it’s no surprise that whatever church happens to win after the 2nd and 3rd centuries, you can be sure it’ll have a contradictory view of Jesus’ nature, just as you can be sure that after both vascular and non-vascular plant compete on land, after a while vascular plants will be dominant – it just competes better.

The same goes for the RCC stance that “there is no salvation outside of the Church except for invincible ignorance”. If someone is a loving person, the RCC can emphasize that some non-Catholics can be saved anyway through ignorance of the church. This works well to keep kind people contributing time and money. For others, the RCC can refer back to the first part “there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church” – this is done for people considering leaving, for Catholics wondering if they should baptize their kid or send him to Catholic school, or for people wondering if it’s good to evangelize in third world countries. The contradictory stance has been selected for over the past 1800 years, because that’s what works – just like how a 4-chambered heart has been selected for, because that’s what works.

The trinity is not an invention by one person, nor an intelligent design - it evolved out of competition over time, just as many things do.

Just my two cents. Have a fun day-

-Equinox

stuart shepherd

What you wrote makes sense to me.
It's like "Survival of the Fittest"
The dogma which was able to adapt the best to criticism was able to survive.
The Trinity covers all the bases.
The Father is God.
Jesus is God. But he is also 100% human.
The Holy Spirit is God.
But yet there is only ONE God.
But nobody has to explain it because it is a mystery.
God is ineffable.

There are men on all the bases. Bases loaded.

stuart shepherd