How did the Trinity doctrine develop in the early church?

[Grailhunter]

But you're paying more attention to a WORD than to the concept it represents.

Hell exists...no matter what it's called and no matter if some believe it or not.

Some calling themselves Christian also do not believe in hell.
It just is getting worse and worse.

Must go.

I have explained this so many times....you are wearing me out!
Yes there is a real Hell of eternal fiery punishment!
Yes there is a real Hell of eternal fiery punishment!
Yes there is a real Hell of eternal fiery punishment!
Yes there is a real Hell of eternal fiery punishment!
Yes there is a real Hell of eternal fiery punishment!
Yes there is a real Hell of eternal fiery punishment!
Yes there is a real Hell of eternal fiery punishment!
Yes there is a real Hell of eternal fiery punishment!
Yes there is a real Hell of eternal fiery punishment!
Yes in the 1st century there was not a word for a eternal fiery punishment so they used descriptions and examples and used the Greek word Hades and changed its definition;

 

[St. SteVen]

Take a look at 2 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:15-16. As Ehrman (and God’sGrace) said, the Chuch has always believed in a pre-existent Christ who was instrumental in Creation. This is one reason I have to take it seriously. ( Even if it doesn’t make sense.)

I agree that Jesus, God the Son pre-existed, but not as Jesus, God the Son.
The Elohim was from the beginning, but was not yet a Trinity as we define it.

Who was God talking to in these scriptures?

Genesis 1:26 NIV
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,
so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky,
over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a]
and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Genesis 3:22 NIV
And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,
knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand
and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

 

[Grailhunter]

Explain what the english word BEGOTTEN means.
But later...

@Jack is making short, but absolutely correct statements.

There probably dozens of examples of the word begot in the Old Testament......people can try to twist things around but "only begotten Son" is clear.

 

[Jack]

Genesis 1:26 NIV
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,

Trinity indeed!

 

[Grailhunter]

You're repeating GH.
I posted many statements by the Early Church Fathers (those taught by the Apostles) stating that Jesus is God.

THIS is what was taught in the early church.

I don't have a filter...I just go by scripture and the writings of those the Apostles taught are also very interesting when they agree.

The Trinity was CONFIRMED at the Council of Nicea in 325AD due to arianism..the belief that Jesus was a man.

He was either a man
or God.

And there is only one God....
so we have to reach an understanding of WHO or WHAT Jesus was.

It has already been established and we should not be unestablishing it...as Christians.

Good post of the ECF's but again and again..
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.” Which hold true to the fact that the word Trinity does not occur in the Holy Bible.

 

[Lambano]

I agree that Jesus, God the Son pre-existed, but not as Jesus, God the Son.
The Elohim was from the beginning, but was not yet a Trinity as we define it.

Ooo, that’s getting into some deep philosophical questions. Was the pre-existent Son the same ontological being as the man we called “Jesus” during the Incarnation? Is Jesus still Jesus in his current exalted and ascended state?

Are you the same “Steven” you were as a child? If not, where is the continuity between you and that child?

 

[St. SteVen]

Ooo, that’s getting into some deep philosophical questions. Was the pre-existent Son the same ontological being as the man we called “Jesus” during the Incarnation? Is Jesus still Jesus in his current exalted and ascended state?

I would say, No.
The Logos was not the same ontological being as the man we call “Jesus”.
The Logos became the flesh we recognize as Jesus, God the Son.
I question whether the Logos was a person at all.
More like a thought/plan/conclusion.
In His current exalted and ascended state, He is Jesus, God the Son
seated at the right hand of God the Father.

But I can certainly see how this could be argued both ways. Something like this:
Jesus before Jesus was the Logos, therefore the Logos was Jesus pre-existent.
But you end up with a "Jesus" BEFORE Jesus.

Are you the same “Steven” you were as a child? If not, where is the continuity?

I have aged considerably. - LOL
But I have been Steven since I was named at birth.
I was this fully developed person in God's eyes,
known fully before one of my days came into being.
The soul identity of a human is eternal in the limited sense.
From the moment of conception going forward.
That is when the life of Steven began.

 

[St. SteVen]

But I can certainly see how this could be argued both ways. Something like this:
Jesus before Jesus was the Logos, therefore the Logos was Jesus pre-existent.
But you end up with a "Jesus" BEFORE Jesus.

It seems that the "pre-existent Son" aspect of the Trinity doctrine was reverse engineered.
I agree with the connection, but not the conclusion.

And I don't bow to orthodox doctrine that I disagree with.

 

[Lambano]

I question whether the Logos was a person at all.
More like a thought/plan/conclusion.

I agree. The Logos is the Principle that orders Creation, not necessarily a Person. If The Logos is personified in John 1 prior to the Incarnation, it could be considered a literary device similar to the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8. But in the Incarnation, The Logos became literally, not literarily, “personified”.

However, Paul also seems to believe in a pre-existent Christ. Philippians 2:6-11 could be dismissed as a known doxology (autocorrect turned “doxological” into “sexologist”, so I had to correct autocorrect there) to Christ which Paul uses to make a point about humility, but the 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:16-17 references indicate Paul definitely believes Christ was somehow instrumental in Creation.

 

[St. SteVen]

I agree. The Logos is the Principle that orders Creation, not necessarily a Person. If The Logos is personified in John 1 prior to the Incarnation, it could be considered a literary device similar to the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8. But in the Incarnation, The Logos became literally, not literarily, “personified”.

However, Paul also seems to believe in a pre-existent Christ. Philippians 2:6-11 could be dismissed as a known doxology (autocorrect turned “doxological” into “sexologist”, so I had to correct autocorrect there) to Christ which Paul uses to make a point about humility, but the 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:16-17 references indicate Paul definitely believes Christ was somehow instrumental in Creation.

Yes, two things can be true simultaneously.
1) Christ was instrumental in Creation.
2) The Logos BECAME flesh. (Christ)

What it doesn't mean to me is that Christ was present in creation.
Christ remembers being there, but not as Christ.
It seems that He remembers being there as the Elohim. (plural)

We didn't have the necessary data to conclude that there is a Trinity until
the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

As noted, this was revealed in Christ's water baptism.
God the Son being baptized by John the Baptizer,
God the Father giving approval, and God the Holy Spirit
descending on God the Son. (Spirit Baptism)

 

[Lambano]

As noted, this was revealed in Christ's water baptism.
God the Son being baptized by John the Baptizer,
God the Father giving approval, and God the Holy Spirit
descending on God the Son. (Spirit Baptism)

There's another heresy (Adoptionism) that says Jesus didn't become the Son of God until his Spirit Baptism.

See, we're learning all about heresy!

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
As noted, this was revealed in Christ's water baptism.
God the Son being baptized by John the Baptizer,
God the Father giving approval, and God the Holy Spirit
descending on God the Son. (Spirit Baptism)

There's another heresy (Adoptionism) that says Jesus didn't become the Son of God until his Spirit Baptism.

LOL
What I said was that Christ's baptism revealed the needed (biblical) data for the Trinity doctrine.
Jesus BECAME the Son of God at His conception/birth. Is there a name for THAT heresy?

Matthew 3:13-15 NIV
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.”
Then John consented.

See, we're learning all about heresy!

I need to get a book on heresies.
Subtitled: Know what you believe.
LOL

 

[Lambano]

I need to get a book on heresies.
Subtitled: Know what you believe.
LOL

Or,

HERESY
Know What You DON'T Believe​

 

[St. SteVen]

Or,

HERESY
Know What You DON'T Believe​

LOL
or,

HERESY
Know What You
may-or-may-not
Believe​

 

[Lambano]

LOL
or,

HERESY
Know What You
may-or-may-not
Believe​

HERESY
Why What You Believe is
Totally Wrong​

Which pretty much describes every interaction in this forum.

​

 

[St. SteVen]

HERESY
Know What You DON'T Believe

Are you actually concerned about heresy?

It occurred to me one day that it was just a shaming term that Christians like to throw around.
Based on the actual definition, Jesus was heretical.

 

[Lambano]

Are you actually concerned about heresy?

I gave up heresy hunting years ago. Too stressful.

 

[St. SteVen]

I gave up heresy hunting years ago. Too stressful.

What a shame. - LOL
You seem to be reasonably good at it.
But to what end... ???

 

[Lambano]

It occurred to me one day that it was just a shaming term that Christians like to throw around.
Based on the actual definition, Jesus was heretical.

Jesus was executed for heresy (and sorcery; that "He casts out demons by Beelzeboul" thing).

"Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray" - Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 107b.

Yep, that's heresy.

 

[Lambano]

What a shame. - LOL
You seem to be reasonably good at it.
But to what end... ???

I thought I needed to straighten out everybody's bad doctrine. Definitely an underappreciated talent.