RLT63
Well-Known Member
It changed from what Tertullian wrote about to what became widely accepted
Did Christians invent the Trinity-2
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
It did. His concept of the Trinity isn’t anything like later orthodoxy.
It also changed later, when trinitarians began abandoning orthodoxy but still called what they believed trinitarianism. That’s what Dr. Harold O.J. Brown spent his life combatting.
“Hear O Israel, Jehovah our Gods is one God.” - the trinitarian OP, in “Did Trinitarians invent the Trinity - 1”
A sincere mistranslation of Deuteronomy 6:4; the Messiah’s unitarian creed.
The Messiah’s response? Corrected.
“I believe in three Gods and they are one God.” - another trinitarian member of the forum
New school trinitarianism. It fits with the sincere mistranslation.
What about orthodox trinitarianism? It doesn’t fit with the historical teaching of trinitarianism; it contradicts it.
“We do not believe in three Gods. We believe in one God.”
Old school trinitarianism.
Old school, new school. They say it doesn’t matter.
On the trinitarian side of the house, men like Dr. Brown thought it matters.
On the Jewish unitary monotheism side of the house, the Messiah thinks it matters.
Life goes on.
A sincere mistranslation of Deuteronomy 6:4; the Messiah’s unitarian creed.
The Messiah’s response? Corrected.
“I believe in three Gods and they are one God.” - another trinitarian member of the forum
New school trinitarianism. It fits with the sincere mistranslation.
What about orthodox trinitarianism? It doesn’t fit with the historical teaching of trinitarianism; it contradicts it.
“We do not believe in three Gods. We believe in one God.”
Old school trinitarianism.
Old school, new school. They say it doesn’t matter.
On the trinitarian side of the house, men like Dr. Brown thought it matters.
On the Jewish unitary monotheism side of the house, the Messiah thinks it matters.
Life goes on.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
RLT63
Well-Known Member
That’s not what I wrote. You removed my punctuation mark, which changed the meaning.
Why did you do that?
The living God, his God, is the Father.
The living God is Yahweh.
“His” is referring to Jesus, not Yahweh.
The living God, Jesus’ God, is the Father.
Yahweh is Jesus’ God and Father.
Yahweh isn’t Yahweh’s God and Father.
Why did you change my sentence? What were you trying to accomplish? Did you accomplish what you had hoped to?
The Trinity isn’t the living God, in scripture. The Trinity is the living God, in post-biblical trinitarian theology.
Jesus isn’t the living God, in scripture. Jesus is the living God, in post-biblical trinitarian theology.
Yahweh (the Father) is the living God, in scripture. Yahweh (as later thought of in the Church as Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is the living God, in post-biblical trinitarian theology.
P.S.
The issue is always the same.
The Church gradually shifted over the course of 4 centuries from Jewish unitary monotheism [the monotheism of Israel, and Jesus] to trinitary monotheism.
How do we know this is true?
We know this is true by reading Church history; by reading the early Church Fathers.
We also know that it’s true without reading the early Fathers for ourselves.
Scholars, both trinitarian and non-trinitarian, have read the early Church Fathers and have written about them. We know it by reading them.
The issue is simple. The question is Dr. Brown’s: Is it valid?
Jesus isn’t the living God, in scripture. Jesus is the living God, in post-biblical trinitarian theology.
Yahweh (the Father) is the living God, in scripture. Yahweh (as later thought of in the Church as Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is the living God, in post-biblical trinitarian theology.
P.S.
The issue is always the same.
The Church gradually shifted over the course of 4 centuries from Jewish unitary monotheism [the monotheism of Israel, and Jesus] to trinitary monotheism.
How do we know this is true?
We know this is true by reading Church history; by reading the early Church Fathers.
We also know that it’s true without reading the early Fathers for ourselves.
Scholars, both trinitarian and non-trinitarian, have read the early Church Fathers and have written about them. We know it by reading them.
The issue is simple. The question is Dr. Brown’s: Is it valid?
Last edited:
RLT63
Well-Known Member
I've never really thought about praying to a Trinity. I pray to the Father in Jesus' name or to Jesus. I am filled with the Spirit. I've never really thought about praying to the Trinity.
I doubt that you would be interested in hearing my thoughts on that. I’ll confine my comments here to what happened in scripture.
No one who lived in biblical times prayed to the Trinity. They prayed either to idols or to the God of Israel.
When Jesus prayed, he prayed to the God of Israel.
The God of Israel - Yahweh - is the God and the Father of Jesus of Nazareth.
When Jesus taught his disciples a model prayer, he didn’t teach them to pray to anyone other than the God of Israel, the God whom they had always prayed to, though less intimately.
The living God doesn’t have a God.
The living God never had a God in the past, doesn’t have a God in the present, and will never have a God in the future.
“The adoption of the Nicene Creed in 325 and the Chalcedonian Creed in 451 stabilized the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ for over one thousand years. They made use of Hellenistic categories and thinking to do so. The important question to ask is not whether orthodox theology betrays Hellenistic influence. Nothing else was possible in the cultural climate of the time. The important question is whether this orthodoxy represents a proper and correct interpretation of New Testament Christology or whether it seriously distorts it.”
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, p. 105)
Bold is mine.
What about those Christians who lived before “the adoption”?
What about Christians who lived after “the adoption” and reject it? - as more and more trinitarians are doing.
And then there is the matter - no small matter - of Nicaea not defining who or what the Holy Spirit is. The Church would shortly do so, at the Council of Constantinople in 381.
381 - 325 = 56 years of further unclear and not agreed upon teaching in the Church about the Holy Spirit. (One college professor wryly referred to this interim period as “the Binitarian delight”.)
*
“Even among adherents of the Nicene orthodoxy an uncertainty still for a time prevailed respecting the doctrine of the third person of the Holy Trinity. Some held the Spirit to be an impersonal power or attribute of God; others, at farthest, would not go beyond the expressions of the Scriptures. Gregory of Nazianzen, who, for his own part believed and taught the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, so late as 380 made the remarkable concession: ‘Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence, others a creature, others God himself, and again others know not which way to decide, from reverence, as they say, for the Holy Scripture, which declares nothing exact in the case. For this reason they waver between worshipping and not worshipping the Holy Ghost, and strike a middle course, which is in fact, a bad one.’”
(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, §128 The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit)
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
Bold is mine.
This is very easy to deal with - as long as we are willing either to remain ignorant of Church history or to ignore it.
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, p. 105)
Bold is mine.
What about those Christians who lived before “the adoption”?
What about Christians who lived after “the adoption” and reject it? - as more and more trinitarians are doing.
And then there is the matter - no small matter - of Nicaea not defining who or what the Holy Spirit is. The Church would shortly do so, at the Council of Constantinople in 381.
381 - 325 = 56 years of further unclear and not agreed upon teaching in the Church about the Holy Spirit. (One college professor wryly referred to this interim period as “the Binitarian delight”.)
*
“Even among adherents of the Nicene orthodoxy an uncertainty still for a time prevailed respecting the doctrine of the third person of the Holy Trinity. Some held the Spirit to be an impersonal power or attribute of God; others, at farthest, would not go beyond the expressions of the Scriptures. Gregory of Nazianzen, who, for his own part believed and taught the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, so late as 380 made the remarkable concession: ‘Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence, others a creature, others God himself, and again others know not which way to decide, from reverence, as they say, for the Holy Scripture, which declares nothing exact in the case. For this reason they waver between worshipping and not worshipping the Holy Ghost, and strike a middle course, which is in fact, a bad one.’”
(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, §128 The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit)
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
Bold is mine.
This is very easy to deal with - as long as we are willing either to remain ignorant of Church history or to ignore it.
Last edited:
Where in history does orthodox trinitarianism become the “official” teaching of the Church?
381 A.D.
The Church was founded as a sect of Judaism ca. 30 A.D.
By 381 A.D. if you weren’t an adherent of orthodox trinitarianism then you weren’t in the Church. (“Binitarians, out of the pool!” shouts the theological lifeguard.)
381-30 = 350 years.
From the unitary monotheism of Israel and Jesus to the trinitary monotheism of the Church.
And even then, Chalcedon was still necessary in 451 A.D.
451-381 = 70 years.
Historical orthodox trinitarianism was challenged during those years, but historical orthodox trinitarianism itself doesn’t date there. It was already the established doctrine of the Church, fending off challenges. Refinements, yes. Sharpening the focus, yes. Clarifying what is meant, yes. Beginning, no.
*
The Council of Chalcedon: October 1 - November 1, 451 A.D.
We’re in the season, for those who are interested and find value in celebrating such things.
2022-451 = 1,571 years.
P.S.
Happy Anniversary, Chalcedonian Christianity.
From: Someone outside looking in.
381 A.D.
The Church was founded as a sect of Judaism ca. 30 A.D.
By 381 A.D. if you weren’t an adherent of orthodox trinitarianism then you weren’t in the Church. (“Binitarians, out of the pool!” shouts the theological lifeguard.)
381-30 = 350 years.
From the unitary monotheism of Israel and Jesus to the trinitary monotheism of the Church.
And even then, Chalcedon was still necessary in 451 A.D.
451-381 = 70 years.
Historical orthodox trinitarianism was challenged during those years, but historical orthodox trinitarianism itself doesn’t date there. It was already the established doctrine of the Church, fending off challenges. Refinements, yes. Sharpening the focus, yes. Clarifying what is meant, yes. Beginning, no.
*
The Council of Chalcedon: October 1 - November 1, 451 A.D.
We’re in the season, for those who are interested and find value in celebrating such things.
2022-451 = 1,571 years.
P.S.
Happy Anniversary, Chalcedonian Christianity.
From: Someone outside looking in.
Last edited:
It’s a beautiful thing; a sight for sore eyes. Thank you Dr. Brown for extending a helping trinitarian hand.
“f. The ‘New’ Orthodoxy
“The year 381 marks the beginning of a new epoch of Christian history. … what Theodosius established was not simply early catholicism - embracing a moderate diversity of opinion - but an explicit, Nicene orthodoxy. Thus Christianity and orthodoxy were officially established at the same time, in the years 380-81. Prior to Theodosius, the concept of ‘church’ was broader, and despite all the conflicts, Arians could still be considered part of the church. After Theodosius, the church consisted only of the Nicene orthodox; all others were heretics or sectarians.”
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, p. 138)
Bold is mine.
381 A.D. - the “new” orthodoxy; “Christianity and orthodoxy were established at the same time, in the years 380-81.”
“An explicit Nicene orthodoxy,” not the inexplicit Nicene Creed.
They never told me that in the Baptist Church. A minor detail? Not hardly.
“f. The ‘New’ Orthodoxy
“The year 381 marks the beginning of a new epoch of Christian history. … what Theodosius established was not simply early catholicism - embracing a moderate diversity of opinion - but an explicit, Nicene orthodoxy. Thus Christianity and orthodoxy were officially established at the same time, in the years 380-81. Prior to Theodosius, the concept of ‘church’ was broader, and despite all the conflicts, Arians could still be considered part of the church. After Theodosius, the church consisted only of the Nicene orthodox; all others were heretics or sectarians.”
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, p. 138)
Bold is mine.
381 A.D. - the “new” orthodoxy; “Christianity and orthodoxy were established at the same time, in the years 380-81.”
“An explicit Nicene orthodoxy,” not the inexplicit Nicene Creed.
They never told me that in the Baptist Church. A minor detail? Not hardly.
“…we receive all who wish to leave them and embrace orthodoxy as we do Greeks. On the first day we make Christians of them, on the second catechumens, on the third we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and and their ears, and thus we catechise them and make them spend time in the church and listen to the scriptures; and then we baptize them.”
(A Letter of The Bishops Gathered In Constantinople)
First Council of Constantinople 381 - Papal Encyclicals
The letter is from 382.
How about the exorcisms (!) they’re performing on and the (re-) baptizing they’re doing to some of the “Christians” when they embraced the “new” orthodoxy?
These weren’t men, nor was this the Church, that would say, “It doesn’t matter.”
381 or Bust.
(A Letter of The Bishops Gathered In Constantinople)
First Council of Constantinople 381 - Papal Encyclicals
The letter is from 382.
How about the exorcisms (!) they’re performing on and the (re-) baptizing they’re doing to some of the “Christians” when they embraced the “new” orthodoxy?
These weren’t men, nor was this the Church, that would say, “It doesn’t matter.”
381 or Bust.
Jesus says he is the "God of the living" in fact ! and that is what Jesus is about, so that you will have a fruitful life !
The life of the Jews was dead but for the true Israelites who were worthy of God, the Jews were not worthy of God because they were not worthy of Israel in fact, big difference between a Jew and one worthy Israelite in fact.
The Jews were not bearing fruit but only an Israelite was worthy to that, as we see in Nathaniel and Jacob, because they Served God in fact !
A Jew can never Serve God, only an Israelite can, big difference !
Just as with one who claims to be a Christian does not make one worthy of being truly born again does it, because just like the Jew is not worthy of God, nor is the water baptised worthy of being Saved ! They are much like only a Jew ? religious ! that's all ! Faith does not mean Saved in fact ! Because Oh you of little Faith does not cut it ? but what of the Faith that can move Mountains ? that's the Born again Faith with Grace ?
No Jew has the Grace of God !
No water baptised Christian has Grace of God ! only one who is truly born again has the Grace of God, because such is Saved, they know and serve Christ Jesus because they are his body and he is their Head in fact.
The other Christians etc are only religious carnal !
The truly born again are not religious ? they have come out from them. such do not need religion, for they have Christ Jesus and once truly Saved always Saved ! such a one can not go back to the vomit ! and if they did they were never saved in the first place in fact, but only religious.
Religion does not Save, it never did.
Everyone is religious and not one is not regardless of what they may say or claim, even an atheist is religious and even Communism is the greatest religion of all !
Simple people serve religion ?
Big difference to serving Christ Jesus !
Religion does not know Christ Jesus. just look at the Churches they have all failed and are to weak to stand up to this world in fact nowadays, for they fear the gods of this world !
Jesus pointed out what this world was, full of deceptions and delusions in fact ! but in Christ Jesus their is no such, because such is Life in abundance in fact ! and the Fruit their of in fact. Abiding in the Vine ! Who does not abide in the Vine is dead to Salvation !
The Truly born again are of the Kingdom of God ! not this world but we are sent back into this world and it's wolves.
There’s too much to respond to in your post in one post, so I’ll pick one.
Jesus didn’t say that he himself is the God of the living, nor does he say that the Trinity is the God of the living.
The God of the living is his God.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
If there had been no Jews there would be no Christians. We owe everything to them. They are God's chosen people we are only grafted on. Why do you think I would endorse something like that?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
