Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:For those who wish to read about the history of the Trinity both within Scripture and in Church History, here is a link that goes into it in great detail. Much of what is claimed in this thread is countered there very effectively tracing the Trinity's understanding and practise both in scripture and in outside writings by early Patristic Fathers and outside writings. The decisions of the early Church were not new. They were a maturing and codification of that which the Church had taught and understood from the very beginnings of the faith.

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-history.htm

It specifically addresses the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses but it is applicable within this thread.

It's a useful page, because they admit that the doctrine of the trinity is a later development and is inferred from the Bible (not revealed in the Bible). They helpfully provide a long list of quotes from academics who say that the doctrine of the trinity was a post-1st century development which took a couple of centuries.

This is ironic, because the site itself explicitly denies that doctrinal development is valid.

Ah, nevermind, I didn't realizing you were denying the deity of Christ. Ok then . . .

Fortigurn wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:For those who wish to read about the history of the Trinity both within Scripture and in Church History, here is a link that goes into it in great detail. Much of what is claimed in this thread is countered there very effectively tracing the Trinity's understanding and practise both in scripture and in outside writings by early Patristic Fathers and outside writings. The decisions of the early Church were not new. They were a maturing and codification of that which the Church had taught and understood from the very beginnings of the faith.

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-history.htm

It specifically addresses the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses but it is applicable within this thread.

It's a useful page, because they admit that the doctrine of the trinity is a later development and is inferred from the Bible (not revealed in the Bible). They helpfully provide a long list of quotes from academics who say that the doctrine of the trinity was a post-1st century development which took a couple of centuries.

This is ironic, because the site itself explicitly denies that doctrinal development is valid.

That's your take on it. I suspect those writing would take issue with your slant upon it.

Canuckster1127 wrote:That's your take on it. I suspect those writing would take issue with your slant upon it.

Well they called that particular page 'Development of Trinity from 100 - 325AD', so you tell me.

Look at what they quote:

* 'In the immediate post New Testament period of the Apostolic Fathers no attempt was made to work out the God-Christ (Father-Son) relationship in ontological terms'

* 'By the end of the fourth century, and owing mainly to the challenge posed by various heresies, theologians went beyond the immediate testimony of the Bible and also beyond liturgical and creedal expressions of trinitarian faith to the ontological trinity of coequal persons "within" God'

* 'By the close of the fourth century the orthodox teaching was in place: God is one nature, three persons (mia ousia, treis hupostaseis)'

* 'At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the a strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in apostolic the NT and other early Christian writings. Nor was it so even in the age of the Christian apologists'

* 'In any case the orthodox doctrine in its developed form is a Trinity of essence rather than of manifestation, as having to do in the first instance with the subjective rather than the objective Being of God'

* 'Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, John Henry Newman'

* 'As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity'

* 'At the same time, however, there are in the New Testament the rudiments of a concept of God that was susceptible of further development and clarification'

You tell me if you see development there or not. This is a matter of historical fact.

Fortigurn wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:That's your take on it. I suspect those writing would take issue with your slant upon it.

Well they called that particular page 'Development of Trinity from 100 - 325AD', so you tell me.

Look at what they quote:

* 'In the immediate post New Testament period of the Apostolic Fathers no attempt was made to work out the God-Christ (Father-Son) relationship in ontological terms'

* 'By the end of the fourth century, and owing mainly to the challenge posed by various heresies, theologians went beyond the immediate testimony of the Bible and also beyond liturgical and creedal expressions of trinitarian faith to the ontological trinity of coequal persons "within" God'

* 'By the close of the fourth century the orthodox teaching was in place: God is one nature, three persons (mia ousia, treis hupostaseis)'

* 'At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the a strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in apostolic the NT and other early Christian writings. Nor was it so even in the age of the Christian apologists'

* 'In any case the orthodox doctrine in its developed form is a Trinity of essence rather than of manifestation, as having to do in the first instance with the subjective rather than the objective Being of God'

* 'Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, John Henry Newman'

* 'As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity'

* 'At the same time, however, there are in the New Testament the rudiments of a concept of God that was susceptible of further development and clarification'

You tell me if you see development there or not. This is a matter of historical fact.

Fortigurn. This is getting tedious.

Yes, the Trinity as a formal doctrine developed along with the development of the cannon.

That very fact stands in opposition to those who claim it just suddenly "appeared" in the 4th century. It was present and forming as a formal doctrine based upon the deity of Christ and seeking to reconcile it with the monism of the Old Testament. That's the point. It was present and forming all throughout until Nicene put an exclamation point on what a preponderance of Christian leaders and Churches were already accepting and teaching.

Hence the significance of this find regardless of your displeasure at it and its implications.

Now, please get over it. Refer to the Discussion Guidelines and the main board for the beliefs and purpose of this board and if you wish to argue ad nauseum against the trinity, I respectfully suggest you take it elsewhere.

Your disagreement is duly noted.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Yes, the Trinity as a formal doctrine developed along with the development of the cannon.

Thank you (but please note the canon was not a developed doctrine).

That very fact stands in opposition to those who claim it just suddenly "appeared" in the 4th century.

I have never said that it just suddenly 'appeared' in the 4th century. Certainly it was the result of development over time, though it is true to say that the formal doctrine did not appear until the 4th century. This is a matter of historical record.

It was present and forming as a formal doctrine based upon the deity of Christ and seeking to reconcile it with the monism of the Old Testament. That's the point. It was present and forming all throughout until Nicene put an exclamation point on what a preponderance of Christian leaders and Churches were already accepting and teaching.

If by 'it was forming as a formal doctrine' you mean 'it was gradually developed over the centuries', you're correct. But it certainly was not taught from the 1st century onwards. It didn't exist from the 1st century onwards. It was a doctrine which coalesced in the 4th century as a result of numerous debates over the relationship between God and Christ.

Hence the significance of this find regardless of your displeasure at it and its implications.

As I've already pointed out, there is nothing in this find which provides the witness to the trinity which you claim. The trinity is the doctrine that there are three persons in one God. This inscription says no such thing. It could have been written by a Modalist for all you know.

Now, please get over it. Refer to the Discussion Guidelines and the main board for the beliefs and purpose of this board and if you wish to argue ad nauseum against the trinity, I respectfully suggest you take it elsewhere.

If you read my posts, you wil note that I have not been arguing 'against the trinity'. I have been disputing your claims regading the significance of this archaeological find, and I have been disputing the claim that the doctrine of the trinity existed all along from the 1st century onwards, and that it was not developed over time.

and I have been disputing the claim that the doctrine of the trinity existed all along from the 1st century onwards, and that it was not developed over time.

Developed or Crystallized?

FFC wrote:

and I have been disputing the claim that the doctrine of the trinity existed all along from the 1st century onwards, and that it was not developed over time.

Developed or Crystallized?

What would you define as a meaningful distinction? Either it was taught from the 1st century onwards, or it was not. The evidence is that it was not. It was developed over time. Its precursors included monotheism, bitheism, Logos Christology, and Modalism.

Fortigurn wrote:

FFC wrote:

and I have been disputing the claim that the doctrine of the trinity existed all along from the 1st century onwards, and that it was not developed over time.

Developed or Crystallized?

What would you define as a meaningful distinction? Either it was taught from the 1st century onwards, or it was not. The evidence is that it was not. It was developed over time. Its precursors included monotheism, bitheism, Logos Christology, and Modalism.

A meaningful distinction would be that the trinity, and the deity of Christ in particular, was firm from before the crucifixion and became clearer and clearer as time went on until it became a formal doctrine (crystallized). As opposed to 'developed' which implies that it originated at some point in the 1st century then grew with time.

It wasn't 'taught' because it wasn't clear enough; there were clouds all around it. The evidence is that monotheism, bitheism, Logos Christology, and Modalism were not precursors to the trinity as you erroneously claim, but rather contemporaries that were rejected as heresies as the true doctrine shone through the clouds and crystallized.

There is a work available online that is accurate and provides a history of the theological war started by the Athanasians with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is called The Unitarian/Trinitarian Wars

I've read it several times and highly recommend it.

R7-12

R7-12 wrote:There is a work available online that is accurate and provides a history of the theological war started by the Athanasians with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is called The Unitarian/Trinitarian Wars

I've read it several times and highly recommend it.

R7-12

I don't recommend it. It promotes heresy that was addressed and rejected by the early Church.

Here's an interesting article that addresses the deity of Christ as promoted within the writings of the Church Fathers in the second century.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html

For those wishing to continue this discussion in terms of promoting this heresy, I refer you to the Statement of Belief for this site on the main page as well as the Discussion Guidelines.

Those wishing to review the topic of the trinity are referred to this thread which addressed it thoroughly.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... sc&start=0

Byblos wrote:A meaningful distinction would be that the trinity, and the deity of Christ in particular, was firm from before the crucifixion and became clearer and clearer as time went on until it became a formal doctrine (crystallized).

What do you mean 'firm from before the crucifixion'? It it was 'firm', how could it become 'clearer and clearer'? What is very clear is that your model here states that it was not a formal doctrine in the 1st century.

As opposed to 'developed' which implies that it originated at some point in the 1st century then grew with time.

Well no, 'developed' doesn't even imply that it originated at some point in the 1st century.

It wasn't 'taught' because it wasn't clear enough; there were clouds all around it.

Thank you. It wasn't taught. And the reason why it wasn't taught is because it didn't exist. How could you claim that the supposedly foundation belief of Christianity 'wasn't clear enough' to the Divinely inspired apostles?

The evidence is that monotheism, bitheism, Logos Christology, and Modalism were not precursors to the trinity as you erroneously claim, but rather contemporaries that were rejected as heresies as the true doctrine shone through the clouds and crystallized.

I suggest you do some reading. They were early models which were widely accepted at various stages, but lost favour as different factions rose and fell in influence (and power). They were early attempts to comprehend the relationship between God and Christ, and they led to later beliefs, including the trinity.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Here's an interesting article that addresses the deity of Christ as promoted within the writings of the Church Fathers in the second century.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html

* First up we have a string of quotes from Ignatius, mainly from the forged epistles or quotes of the later interpolations (not Ignatius' own words), so this is not an accurate representation of Ignatius

* Secondly we have a quote from an Athenian philosopher, who is reporting secondhand (or perhaps thirdhand - we don't know), what he thinks Christians believe (he is therefore not a primary source)

* Thirdly we have an allegd quote from Polycarp, which is preserved only in the 4th century writings of Eusebius (and therefore unverifiable), so we do not have Polycarp's own words in the form of a primary source

* Fourthly we have an alleged quote from Polycarp preserved in a letter from the church of Smyrna, which is again secondhand (and therefore unverifiable), so we do not have Polycarp's own words in the form of a primary source here either

* Fifthly we have a quote from Justin Martyr, who ascribes to Logos Christology (though he did believe that Jesus was a Divine being, he certainly did not believe in the trinity)

* Sixthly we have a quote from Tatian, concerning which the site itself says 'The words 'Jesus' and 'Christ' do not appear in this work. In fact not even the word 'Christian' appears. The term 'Logos' does appear as the first-born of the Father, but that is it', so I wonder why on earth they even bothered quoting it

* Seventhly we have Miltiades, concerning which the site itself says 'Miltiades cannot be cited in evidence since his works are lost. [...] Miltiades will not be considered'

* Eighthly we have Melito of Sardis, who says ' he was by nature God and man', but says nothing of the trinity

* Ninethly we have Athenogoras, who uses the term ' God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit', which is finally getting somewhere, but we're at the end of the 2nd century already

* Tenthly we have Irenaeus, concerning which the site says 'Irenaeus describes Jesus as the Son of God, as the Word of God, by whom all things were made, who descended from above, became flesh, was crucified, and quotes John 1,1-2 that the Word was God', but we do not have the trinity

* Eleventhly we have Theophilus, concerning which the site says 'Theophilus cannot be cited in evidence of opinions about Jesus since his anti-heretical works are lost, and his apology does not even mention Christ', and although it is true that he refers to some kind of 'trinitas', it is uncertain how he defined it

* Twelfthly we have Minucius Felix, concerning which the site says 'Minucius Felix does not discuss any theology at all', and acknowledges that 'His rebuttal of pagan accusations might be a statement denying the incarnation'

* Finally we have Tertullian, concerning which the site says 'The words 'Jesus' and 'Christ' do not appear in this work. The word 'Christian' appears many times. Likewise Tertullian does not discuss any christology at all in this work.', and although we know that Tertullian believed in some form of incarnation, it is also clear that his Christological views were heretical

This is not exactly overwhelming me.

For those wishing to continue this discussion in terms of promoting this heresy, I refer you to the Statement of Belief for this site on the main page as well as the Discussion Guidelines.

No one here is 'promoting this heresy'. The discussion is being kept to an assessment of the historical data regarding the development of the doctrine, not whether it is true (Scripture is not even being quoted).

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:A meaningful distinction would be that the trinity, and the deity of Christ in particular, was firm from before the crucifixion and became clearer and clearer as time went on until it became a formal doctrine (crystallized).

What do you mean 'firm from before the crucifixion'? It it was 'firm', how could it become 'clearer and clearer'? What is very clear is that your model here states that it was not a formal doctrine in the 1st century.

As opposed to 'developed' which implies that it originated at some point in the 1st century then grew with time.

Well no, 'developed' doesn't even imply that it originated at some point in the 1st century.

It wasn't 'taught' because it wasn't clear enough; there were clouds all around it.

Thank you. It wasn't taught. And the reason why it wasn't taught is because it didn't exist. How could you claim that the supposedly foundation belief of Christianity 'wasn't clear enough' to the Divinely inspired apostles?

The evidence is that monotheism, bitheism, Logos Christology, and Modalism were not precursors to the trinity as you erroneously claim, but rather contemporaries that were rejected as heresies as the true doctrine shone through the clouds and crystallized.

I suggest you do some reading. They were early models which were widely accepted at various stages, but lost favour as different factions rose and fell in influence (and power). They were early attempts to comprehend the relationship between God and Christ, and they led to later beliefs, including the trinity.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Those wishing to review the topic of the trinity are referred to this thread which addressed it thoroughly.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... sc&start=0