A Rational Explanation of the Trinity

[LittleLes]

A Brief History of the Creation of the Dogma of the Trinity

(1) The theological proof from "tradition" is claimed for this doctrine, but the claim that this teaching has existed "from the earliest times" is invalid, as can be shown.

(2) From the Acts of the Apostles we know that the first Christians were "jealous for the law," ie., the Torah and monotheism.

(3) But in the latter part of the first century, the Christians began to regard the honorific expression, Son of God, as being literally true, and they began, under Paul's influence, to reject some of the provisions of the Torah.

(4) These early Christians were formally declared heretics by the Jewish leadership and excluded from the synagogues. John's gospel (c95-105 A.D.) reports this. At this point there were two Christian Gods, God, the Father, and God, the Son.

(5) God, the Holy Spirit was added later. Tertullian is sometimes credited for the first use of the term "trinitas" in about 150 A.D., but others credit Theophilus of Antioch for introducing the term about 180 A.D. By the third century, the term was in common use.

(6) But the status of the various persons in the Trinity was unclear. For example, Origen, writing between 200 and 232 A.D. (Con. Cela, VIII, XV) claimed: "We declare that the Son is not mighter than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground in the sayings of Jesus Himself, " The Fahter who sent me is greater than I."

(7) But perhaps the most controversial early church father was Arius of the early fourth century who taught that God, the Father ,and God, the Son, were not always contemporary, and that Jesus was created by and therefore was inferior to God, the Father. Arius's teaching became widespread and were the basis of the first major doctrinal dispute in the Church.

...to be continued.

LittleLes

[Myles Domini]

Les you're a funny guy

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 2 2005, 08:15 AM']RESPONSE:

That's the "traditional" way of explaining a contradiction when apologists have just run out of creativity!

Behod! Another mystery!
[right][snapback]708675[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No, you still misunderstand.

Perhaps modern apologists want to show that the paradox isn't all that paradoxical, but in Byzantine theology the paradox is the revelation, and so one does not try to rationalize it away.

Byzantine theology embraces the antinomy as essential to the apophatic nature of theology.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Myles' date='Sep 2 2005, 11:44 AM']Les you're a funny guy 
[right][snapback]708746[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

I'm glad you appreciate my humor.

But I also hope you appreciate my scholarly diligence!

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 2 2005, 12:10 PM']No, you still misunderstand. 

Perhaps modern apologists want to show that the paradox isn't all that paradoxical, but in Byzantine theology the paradox is the revelation, and so one does not try to rationalize it away. 

Byzantine theology embraces the antinomy as essential to the apophatic nature of theology.
[right][snapback]708769[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Flights of fancy, even when claimed to be "theology," still remain flights of fancy, however they are labeled.

I believe I'm better off sticking with reality!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 2 2005, 10:29 AM']RESPONSE:

Flights of fancy, even when claimed to be "theology," still remain flights of fancy, however they are labeled.

I believe I'm better off sticking with reality!
[right][snapback]708782[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ah, the hubris of thinking that you comprehend reality.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 2 2005, 01:12 PM']Ah, the hubris of thinking that you comprehend reality.
[right][snapback]708803[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes perhaps

But I think it beats "the antinomy as essential to the apophatic nature of theology" and "theology the paradox is the revelation."

But some of us insist on dwelling in the real world. Not so, some others.

[Paladin D]

Littleles' arguments are irrevelant, he does not understand the theological basis of the Trinity, nor can he properly comprehend the reasoning of such. At this point of time, it's as useless as explaining to a 1-month old baby why you really don't disappear while doing the peek-a-boo.

Nonetheless, his posts are entertaining, but he's no Bob Hope.

[Paladin D]

I'm expecting a witty and sarcastic come back, let's see if I'm proven wrong.

[Myles Domini]

Lets not be so hard on LittleLess. He understands our positions perfectly he just doesn't wish to accept them. However, perhaps if we show him some Christian charity he might still convert yet. LittleLess may pretend that he doesn't care about Catholicism but if he thought so little about our religion he wouldn't insist on posting here. I dont have any interests in pebbles so as I walk down the streets I dont stop to take note of their size and shape. Likewise, if Less really didn't have at least a latent interest in Truth he'd not let his eyes be transfixed by the stone that the builders rejected even to scowl at it. There is something about the capstone that is Christ that LittleLess just cant prize himself away from and thus we should continue to show love to him and bless him though he may curse us.

The otherday I was listening to the recordings of 'Life is Worth Living' and in them Archbishop Sheen told the story of a man who he called not bad but evil. A man who didnt just sin but took delight inspiring disobidience and debacuhery in others. He was proffessionally anti-Catholic (as most lapsed Catholics are) and even handed out pamplets for the perversion of young believers. Anyways his concerned sister tried to get him to talk to a number of priests as he lay terminally ill slowly dying but he wouldn't have it and Bishop Sheen was the last resort. Bishop Sheen spoke to this man for a month never mentioning religion until his condition deteriorated. Finally at the last hour Bishop Sheen tried to get him to make a confession and accept extreme unction but He rejected even the presence of Our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist. He demanded Bishop Sheen 'GET OUT!' and Bishop Sheen had to even fake going once so as to stop him pressing the alarm. So Bishop Sheen said finally that He would go on the condition that after he left the man say 'My Jesus mercy' and He prayed to our Lord that he'd build a church for Christ in the south for the poor if he would convert this man.

Finally, at 4am in the morning Bishop Sheen got a phonecall from the hospital saying that the man had died. The nurse though wanted to know what Bishop Sheen had done to him? Bishop Sheen was confused. The nurse explained that about 30 seconds after Bishop Sheen left the hospital the man began saying 'My Jesus mercy' and didnt stop until he died.

Between kindness towards this unrepentent man and trust in the Divine Mercy even to work upon the hearts of those who would otherwise reject Him Bishop Sheen was able to win a convert for the Kingdom of God. It would be wrong of us not to show LittleLess the same courtesy so lets not be so volitile, k? Less I'm praying for you and even if its upon your last breath I am confident that Our Lord will turn your heart wholly to Himself and in the meantime Phatmass will be happy to continue catechesising you

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Sep 2 2005, 01:45 PM']Littleles' arguments are irrevelant, he does not understand the theological basis of the Trinity, nor can he properly comprehend the reasoning of such.  At this point of time, it's as useless as explaining to a 1-month old baby why you really don't disappear while doing the peek-a-boo.

Nonetheless, his posts are entertaining, but he's no Bob Hope.
[right][snapback]708834[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I've examined it tenets and found it wanting on the logical plain. But then
perhaps I don't "properly comprehend" nonsense.

But I've mainly studied the conventional Catholic explanation, and there are, of course, others like the variant belief Ap was telling us about.

For example the "filioque " variation in dogmas was one of the causes of the split between the Roman and the Orthodox church. Again, different dogmas for different folks.

"The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son."

[LittleLes]

I'm somewhat surprized that no one has challenged the brief history that I'm giving on the creation of the dogma of the Trinity. I would have expected somebody, who isn't familiar with the history or for doctrinal reasons cannot accept it, to challenge why the early Christians were allowed to remain a sect within Judaism but then anathmatized from the synagogues.

But in case somebody wants more of the story:


(1) From CIZ, the on-line magazine of Catholic Ireland:

"However, when the Johannine Christians spoke of Jesus in terms of his pre-existence with the Father and as the incarnate Word of God who revealed the Father to humanity (Jn. 1:1-2), there were fierce debates with those Jews who thought that the followers of Jesus were abandoning the Jewish belief in the one, true God by making Jesus a second God (Jn.5:18).

In the end, the Jewish leaders had the Johannine Christians expelled from the synagogue (Jn.9:22). The invective against 'the Jews', that runs through John's gospel, arose out of this conflict situation."

(2) And from the Jewish-Christian website there is this:

"John 9.29 describes how 'the Jews had agreed that if anyone confessed Jesus as the Christ or messiah they were to be excluded from the synagogue'. Most scholars would now agree that this assertion probably reflects the time not of Jesus but of the writing of the Gospel, perhaps in the 90s of the first century. The verse implies that then those who confessed Jesus would find themselves excluded from membership of or participation in the life of the synagogue – however we understand that – and that it was the Jewish authorities who orchestrated this, thus, some would say, creating the split between Judaism and Christianity."

(3)And finally, from Rabbi Moshe Reiss on the Christianity - a Jewish Perspective, there is this:

"A prayer called ‘birkat ha’minim’ was written under the auspices of Gamaliel II who presided over the Sanhedrin between 85-115, by Samuel Ha’katan (the little). We do not why it was written or exactly what it said. Was it written because the leadership of Rabbinic Judaism believed that some believers-in-Jesus were telling Jews that did not have to observe Moses’ laws? Perhaps, after all that is what James believed Paul was doing. How much did the newly founded Rabbinic Jews know about the diverse groups of people calling themselves believers-in-the-Messiahship-of Jesus; some of whom followed the theology of Paul, some the theology of law in Matthew and some the Christological theology of John? "

[Noel's angel]

Could you provide a link to 'CIZ' please?? I've never heard of it lol

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='Sep 2 2005, 02:44 PM']Could you provide a link to 'CIZ' please??  I've never heard of it lol
[right][snapback]708894[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Sure, but since I don't entirely trust URLs, let me give both the URL and the "search" title.

URL [url="http://www.catholicireland.net/pages/index.php"]http://www.catholicireland.net/pages/index.php[/url]

or

catholicireland.net

Enjoy,
LittleLes

[White Knight]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Sep 2 2005, 01:50 PM']I'm expecting a witty and sarcastic come back, let's see if I'm proven wrong.
[right][snapback]708838[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

lol.