spin

Jn 17:22 doesn't allow you to come to such an idea.


spin

mountainman

In 1697 Thomas Aikenhead, an eighteen-year-old student
charged with denying the Trinity, was hanged at Edinburgh, Scotland.

Spin, I dont know where this thread is aimed, but I am interested
whether or not it already encompasses or in any manner references
the published work of Isaac Newton on the trinity, specifically
concerning the references 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16.

Are you tracking the emergence or non-emergence of
trinity-like-thoughts in all their literary vagueness?



Pete Brown

spin

There were a few reasons for the thread, including the way verses got misused in religious literature (which was a reflection on the discussion on the insertion of the Johannine Comma) and the way ideas evolve to meet the exigencies of later religious thought (as trinitarianism is a course which avoids numerous now considered heresies and is thus as political as it is religious in its development).

Cyprian was clearly on that road to trinitarianism, as seen in his reinterpreting of the spirit, the water and the blood as the father, son, and holy ghost, then immediately saying they are one without any mitigating of the notion of being one. He had unwittingly added fuel to the fire which led to the insertion of the comma, a passage which apparently was still being inserted a millenium later, given -- Metzger notes that of the relatively few Greek manuscripts that had the comma about half had it as marginalia, ie not in the text proper.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Pete, good question. One point you might find interesting. The support for the Johannine Comma has a strong non-Trinitarian component. The usage by Priscillian in early days. In more recent times Ben David (John Jones LLD) around 1800 wrote one of the most impassioned defences of the early authenticity of the Johannine Comma while sharing the non-Trinitarian views of Sir Isaac

And many folks have seen the Johannine Comma as difficult for the Trinitarians in the early centuries "and these three are one" even if the view today is the public dialog is different. Folks tend to assume that modern doctrinal debating positions (which themselves vary wildly, if you consider that Karl Barth and Hank Haanegraf are both Trinitarians) are the same as the debates of the first centuries.

With both verses the early usages mitigate against a lot of the Ehrmanesque theories. You might want to read Cyprian on the Comma with any glasses as far off as possible and share away. His reference had a lot to do with my dropping my opposition to the Comma as a late insertion.

On 1 Timothy 3:16 we have a large number of 2nd and 3rd century references making the late church insertion theories untenable. The verse has little to do directly with the Trinity debate except that it does supply a problem to any one of a number of low-Messiahology viewpoints such as ebionite or Arian. A Sabellian would likely use
"God was manifest in the flesh..."
as an argument against the Trinitarian doctrine.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

hatsoff

There is yet this also, my brethren; if the Lord endured to suffer
for our souls, though He was Lord of the whole world, unto whom God
said from the foundation of the world, "Let us make man after our
image and likeness," how then did He endure to suffer at the hand
of men?
--Barnabas 5:5, c. 80-120 AD

The Son of God is older than all His creation, so that He became the Father's adviser in His creation. Therefore also He is ancient." "But the gate, why is it recent, Sir?" say I.
--Hermas 12:2, c. 140-154

From these two quotes it seems the doctrine of the Trinity arose very early indeed. Neither GJohn nor 1 John explicitly endorses it, but they are close enough that I tend to believe the author probably had it in mind. However, I agree with Spin insofar as neither work is conclusive on the matter.

judge

What do you make of the verse following John 10:30 ?

In this passage the jews seems to equate his claim with "being God". they seem to think he said he was god not that he was in accord with god.

Jesus then seems to say that men are gods anyway.

And then that he is not God but Gods son.

He seems to have a different idea of what god is than is common today.

spin

These two references relate strongly to the Hebrew tradition in which personified Wisdom was present at the beginning of creation and it was through her that the world was created. Before everything there was Wisdom. he underwent a sex change when she passed into the Greek idea of the Logos. Christianity made the Logos into Jesus. We are now directly in the tradition of John 1:1: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was divine. (Of course, the verse has been a little tendentiously translated to say that "the word was god", which also adds to the confusion which was resolved with the trinitarian concept.)

It is along the road to trinity, yes, but I think there was still a long way to go. They had to go past the "he was just this guy, you know?" phase, and the "likeness of a man" phase, and the "three aspects of the one thing" mode, till we get to the "well, he was still created" phase, to which the reaction was basically full-blown trinitarianism.


spin

spin

I think the response by Jesus is helpful, "I said, you are gods". The thought was not that Jesus was being equated to be YHWH, but because he claimed to have a special agreement with YHWH he was putting himself on the level of god, ie he was "a god", which is pretty blasphemous, wouldn't you agree?


spin

Chili

Born again Christians claim to be children of god and all they need is to be crucified in the confrontation to mature and be fully God.

spin

Aren't they so FITH that they wouldn't care what Jews would have to say anyway?