How did the Trinity doctrine develop in the early church?

[GodsGrace]

No that is a teaching of the Catholic Church.......The 3 in 1 formula is false and the perpetual virgin is false and the doctrine of Original Sin is false.

I believe that Miriam was not a virgin after conception.

I didn't mention anything about AFTER.

I said that Jesus was born of a virgin.
It's a MIRACULOUS birth.

Do you also not believe in the miracle birth of Jesus?

IF you can believe in that...
why not the Trinity?

It's the same concept.
We cannot understand everything about God.

But some understood it better than some today....

Do you really understand why Jesus had to die for our sins?

So much we don't REALLY understand and just accept by defining it the best way we can.

This is how it is for the Trinity.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Hocus pocus comes out of a hat.

Understanding comes out of a mind.

Nope.
Faith is BEYOND THE MIND.
The human mind will lead you out of faith.
Not good

 

[Lambano]

Because some things about God were revealed and we should not deny them.

Yeah !!

Thank you, @GodsGrace. This video aptly illustrates what I had in mind. We think we understand what was revealed - and yet, when we try to explain it as a coherent doctrine, we inevitably deviate into heresy, whether it's Arianism, Modalism, Partialism, or Polytheism. And when we flatten it out to just "Jesus is God", we not only endorse the Modalism heresy by obscuring the individual persons of the Trinity, but also the heresy of Docetism, which denies the humanity of Christ in the Incarnation as a mere illusion.

And yet this demonstrably unstable doctrine is supposed to be one of the sine qua non beliefs that define who is a brother or sister in Christ and who is not?

 

[rebuilder 454]

LOL You will not control what I say and I am not going to phrase it like each denomination phrases it. So hocus pocus Alakazam! You are normal. Do you feel better?

It is better than may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your crotch.

I disagree with you but have to admit that made me laugh.
Bless your day friend

 

[MonoBiblical]

I gave this to AI to fact check your post and the verdict is:

"Summary judgment — Mostly false or misleading."

So, I think I will ignore what you created and I will just repeat that Bible itself teaches the preexistence of Christ and His deity.

If Anthony Buzzard says the council of Nicea was about Origenism, yet the Arians are targeted; it is hard to think it was a sidenote. I didn't use a worthless AI, but you did.

 

[St. SteVen]

New topic:

SHANG DI - Did God reveal Himself to the ancient Chinese?

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Grailhunter]

If you are either lazy or unable to learn to understand the doctrine of Trinity, you are only embarrassing yourself with your "hocus pocus" childishness.

I have corrected you several times. If you will continue with your mocking of the Trinity, without any serious attempt to have a normal discussion about it, I will start reporting your mocking. Because it is against the rules. And we do not need to tolerate mockers and trolls, here.

I am Theologian, formal college and schools in five countries. I have taken your insults with humor I see it all the time from the ignorant. I have posted enough on this thread if you want to learn. If not that is on you. God bless

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank you, @GodsGrace. This video aptly illustrates what I had in mind. We think we understand what was revealed - and yet, when we try to explain it as a coherent doctrine, we inevitably deviate into heresy, whether it's Arianism, Modalism, Partialism, or Polytheism. And when we flatten it out to just "Jesus is God", we not only endorse the heresy of Partialism by obscuring the individual persons of the Trinity, but also the heresy of Docetism, which denies the humanity of Christ in the Incarnation as a mere illusion.

And yet this demonstrably unstable doctrine is supposed to be one of the sine qua non beliefs that define who is a brother or sister in Christ and who is not?

I've said this several times now...
I used to teach our faith to kids (10 - 13) and I knew that whenever I used any kind of example to explain the Trinity it was, as you've stated, wandering off into some heresy or other.

I do believe that the Trinity is a sine qua non belief to be considered/defined as Christian.
There aren't too many conditions, but I'd say this is one of them.

I happen to have started a thread on this earlier today,,,but I doubt it'll see any movement.
Most believe that they can be defined as Christian -- no matter what they believe.

 

[Grailhunter]

I didn't mention anything about AFTER.

I said that Jesus was born of a virgin.
It's a MIRACULOUS birth.

Do you also not believe in the miracle birth of Jesus?

IF you can believe in that...
why not the Trinity?

It's the same concept.
We cannot understand everything about God.

But some understood it better than some today....

Do you really understand why Jesus had to die for our sins?

So much we don't REALLY understand and just accept by defining it the best way we can.

This is how it is for the Trinity.

God Bless I hope you are doing well.

As a Theologian I mostly take the scriptures for what they say. I do not think the world is flat with corners on an immoveable foundation with the sun and moon and stars revolving around the planet….but as a whole I take it for what it is.

Anything that involves Yahweh is miraculous. Exactly how He impregnated Miriam is not described in detail. But the words that are used do not include words like miracle or miraculous or manifested. Nothing to describe a pre-existing Christ making Himself an infant and beaming Himself in her womb, by passing her hymen.

The words that are used are begotten….conceive….impregnate….birth….born….bear a son…the Son of God. The term virgin confuses people, Miriam had not known a man by her own testimony to the Angel. But the term virgin in this time period can also mean a woman that has not had a baby yet. Isaiah’s wife was a virgin, back then you had to have sex to be married….no platonic marriages. Miriam was not a virgin in the clinical sense after conceiving Yeshua.

Either way with the descriptions in the scriptures of the process of procreation given…..the words used….it describes procreation in the normal way….sex. Shock! Shock! If Yahweh produced Yeshua in any other way He would not be the actual Son of God. If it was a miraculous manifestation Yeshua would be a creation. If the pre-existing Yeshua made Himself an infant and put Himself in Miriam’s womb….again He would not be the Son of God.

It is important that Yeshua was the Son of Yahweh and people are good with that but not good with the process of procreation when it involves Yahweh. And with people thinking that sex is dirty and nasty and sinful and of the Devil, they can not accept the process described in the scriptures.

Now was every step of the process just like two humans procreating? Did Miriam receive Yahweh seed? Did Yahweh’s seed merge with Miriam’s egg? We have what the scriptures describe and I have to leave it at that. I can speculate or guess that it was not exactly how humans procreate. But then I would be adding to the scriptures and changing the story. And that is what most people do….create the story they like. And exactly what was the Holy Spirit’s involvement with this?

As you might suspect some of the students in college were shocked when they heard how the Bible described Yeshua’s conception. So the Professors would ask them to put it their own words how Yeshua was conceived. LOL Without exception their descriptions were nothing like what was in the scriptures.

The apostles learned the hard way that if you have the courage to tell the truth you are going to step on some people’s toes and as a Theologian boy do I know that.
When Christ told people about the Bread and Wine ritual that if they did not drink His blood and eat His body they would not have any life in them, He knew it would offend some then and now but it was the truth. His Apostles were shocked and He lost a lot of His disciples. Drinking blood and eating a person body was sacrilegious to Jews. But that did not stop Yeshua from insisting on it.

Bottom line Yeshua was the real Son of Yahweh and a full-fledged God.

Why did Yeshua have to die for our sins? That is a long story, we can talk about that some time. But His death did more than provide forgiveness of sins…..a lot more.

Johnny Appleseed of Truth
Be good and do good.

 

[Hiddenthings]

You insist that it solely a literal application, but fail in any attempt to attach any literal understanding to the king's presence in Eden or his role as a covering cherub.

It is symbolic, pointing us to the real and literal truths that center on the King. If you could see how far away you are from proving context for your mythological creature you would show much more respect for those symbols.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Jude disagrees with you.
“Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. ”
Jude 1:9 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

You are able to quote the verse but unable to provide an interpretation.

Let me ask you this:

How many people does Jude allude to the letter?

 

[Hiddenthings]

And you're applying that to Jesus?

He was tempted in all points as you are! Have you not read the Apostles teaching on the nature of Christ?

 

[Hiddenthings]

@RLT63 @Brakelite

If you both cannot recognize that the lament is addressed to the King, which neither of you has acknowledged in these discussions because of an out of context, fictional story, how can I possibly explore the deeper meaning of the lament when the central message of the chapter is not even being admitted?

There is so much more in that chapter that remains hidden from you, yet you seem more interested in a ‘choose-your-own-adventure’ approach than in submitting your will to learn.

Here is your problem.

Here is how it starts:

Ezekiel 28:12 “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre…

Here is how it finishes:

Ezekiel 28:19 “…you have become a horror and shall be no more forever.”

Everything between those verses is unknown to you, and not only that, but you also do not understand to whom it is addressed or how it is fulfilled.

Your response shows the same willing ignorance I saw in @Aunty Jane, who understood the interpretation of this lament yet offered nothing in return except her own, and her group’s preconceived ideas.

Now I have an SDA, a JW, and I’m not even sure what RLT considers himself, all rejecting the true meaning of the chapter.

Why not simply move on to Isaiah 14 and impose your fallen-angel theology there? The pattern is entirely predictable

 

[Lambano]

Not because Christianity requires Wes Huff to explain its belief system...
It's been there all along - from the beginning.

I think it may be more correct to say that Christianity has always attributed some form of deity to Christ, but it may have started out as more a Subordinationist divinity rather than co-equality with the Father. That's what I think I see in the writings of Paul. I would have to study the writings of the Western Early Church Fathers to see how it evolved. It also doesn't help that records of Jewish-Christian sects such as the Ebionites have not survived except when quoted by the ECFs.

 

[HealthyShape]

I am Theologian, formal college and schools in five countries. I have taken your insults with humor I see it all the time from the ignorant. I have posted enough on this thread if you want to learn. If not that is on you. God bless

Everybody here is a theologian. But if you will continue mocking the standard Christian understanding of Trinity, you will be reported.

And because you misrepresent the doctrine of Trinity on such basic level (claiming it means three persons in one person or three Gods and other absurd things), you are either a poor theologian or an unethical one.

 

[HealthyShape]

Thank you, @GodsGrace. This video aptly illustrates what I had in mind. We think we understand what was revealed - and yet, when we try to explain it as a coherent doctrine, we inevitably deviate into heresy, whether it's Arianism, Modalism, Partialism, or Polytheism. And when we flatten it out to just "Jesus is God", we not only endorse the Modalism heresy by obscuring the individual persons of the Trinity, but also the heresy of Docetism, which denies the humanity of Christ in the Incarnation as a mere illusion.

And yet this demonstrably unstable doctrine is supposed to be one of the sine qua non beliefs that define who is a brother or sister in Christ and who is not?

I think the attitude "no analogy from our physical world works, therefore the doctrine is unstable and we should not try to defend what was revealed in the Bible"
is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Grailhunter]

Everybody here is a theologian. But if you will continue mocking the standard Christian understanding of Trinity, you will be reported.

And because you misrepresent the doctrine of Trinity on such basic level (claiming it means three persons in one person or three Gods and other absurd things), you are either a poor theologian or an unethical one.

Have a blast…

And there is more than one definition of the Trinity Einstein.
It depends on the denomination which definition of the false belief they believe in.

The McKenzie Bible Dictionary explains it this way.... “The Trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God there are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly or formally a biblical belief.”

 

[ProDeo]

I didn't mention anything about AFTER.

I said that Jesus was born of a virgin.
It's a MIRACULOUS birth.

Do you also not believe in the miracle birth of Jesus?

IF you can believe in that...
why not the Trinity?

It's the same concept.
We cannot understand everything about God.

But some understood it better than some today....

Do you really understand why Jesus had to die for our sins?

So much we don't REALLY understand and just accept by defining it the best way we can.

This is how it is for the Trinity.

Indeed dear sister, the Trinity can't be understood, it's to be believed. And our intelligence can be an obstacle, but the obstacle can be overcome by faith. Another perplexing story -

God the Father (although He ordered father Abraham) did not want father Abraham to sacrifice the long awaited and miraculous born son Isaac on Mount Moriah (*), father Abraham had to travel to for 3 days.

(*) Mount Moriah is a significant location in the Bible,identified as the site where Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac, and later where Solomon built the first Jewish Temple. This same area is widely believed to be the location of the modern-day Temple Mount in Jerusalem

Note the similarities with Christ. Bottom line of God's rejection, no sinful human can pay the price for sin that needed to be paid, only a blameless Lamb, God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, a part of God the Father Himself.

 

[shepherdsword]

Let's discuss "Trinitarianism as the outgrowth of the early Church’s effort to understand and explain its own experience of the risen Christ in philosophical terms." - @RedFan

Open discussion on the development of the Trinitarian doctrine.

[

This is what we know as Christians
1) The Father is YHVH (יהוה.)
2) The Son is YHVH (יהוה.)
3) The Holy Spirit is YHVH (יהוה.)

These three are one(אֶחָד "echad")

Anything else is conjecture and outside the realm of our understanding.

 

[Lambano]

This is what we know as Christians
1) The Father is YHVH (יהוה.)
2) The Son is YHVH (יהוה.)
3) The Holy Spirit is YHVH (יהוה.)

I don't think I would agree with that formulation of the Trinity*. The reason? Names identify Persons, and YHVH (יהוה.) is the Personal Name of the Father*. Jesus is the Personal Name of the Son. The Holy Spirit is not identified by a personal name.

The orthodox expression of the Trinity is

1) The Father is God
2) The Son is God
3) The Holy Spirit is God

Please note: We need to be very precise with our language when we use the word "God". We commonly use it as a name for the Supreme Being, but in the Nicaean formulation, "God" is used to mean an "ousia"; a "substance" or "nature". One "ousia"; three "hypostases". This which is why English formulations of the Trinity prefer to use the word "consubstantial".

* But I could be wrong.