A Definition of the Trinity

Post up on thoughts that are not related to the other forums in THEOLOGY.

A Definition of the Trinity

Postby Paidion » Wed Dec 30, 2015 4:21 pm

TRINITY—In the multiplex theism of certain Christian churches, three entirely distinct deities consistent with only one.
Subordinate deities of the polytheistic faith, such as devils and angels, are not dowered with the power of combination, and must urge individually their claims to adoration and propitiation. The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the instance of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case,we believe the former as part of the latter. (From the Devil's Dictionary)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 3311
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: A Definition of the Trinity

Postby DaveB » Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:23 pm

:lol:
I really have lived in books. Books are friends. They are some of the friends that make you who you are.
stanley hauerwas
DaveB
 
Posts: 3172
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: A Definition of the Trinity

Postby newnature » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:10 pm

Basic structures are part of any kind of Greek city in the Ancient World. And what Alexander the Great and his successors did was they took that basic Greek structure, and they transplanted it all over the Eastern Mediterranean, whether they were in Egypt or Syria or Asia Minor or anyplace else. 


One can travel right now to Turkey or Syria or Israel or Jordan or Egypt, and one can see excavations of towns, and it’s remarkable how they all look so much alike, because they’re all inspired by this originally Greek model of the city. 


Alexander the Great and his successors Hellenized the entire eastern Mediterranean, and that meant, every major city would have a certain commonality to it. It would have a certain koine to it; that is, a Greek overlay, over what may be also be there, the original indigenous kind of cultures and languages. 



Alexander the Great also used what is called ‘religious syncretism,’ Alexander took this tendency of syncretism, of mixing together different religious traditions from different places, and he used it as a self-conscious propaganda technique. Alexander even started claiming divine status for himself. Alexander went around passing out rumors that his mother had actually been impregnated by the god Apollo, when he appeared as a snake in her bed. So, Alexander is putting himself forward as divine. Why? This is not a Greek tradition, but it’s very much a tradition in the East for kings to be considered by their people to be gods.

Alexander says, “Well, if they can be gods, I can be a god.” So Alexander starts spreading rumors that he is divine himself. Alexander probably even believed it; and so he had a god father, he had a human mother, and so then he would identify himself with whoever was a god in the different places. So Alexander would identify himself as a Greek god with a Persian god. Alexander would identify the goddess Isis with some Greek goddess; and so all the time these different gods from different places were basically all said to be simply different cultural representations, different names, for what were generally the same gods all over the place.

Also, though, what they would do is sometimes they wouldn’t try to simply say these gods are the same. What they would just do is add on more gods. They’d get to Syria, “Look at all these god that the Syrians worship. Well, we’ll just add those into our pantheon of gods too.” And this is part of what ancient religion was like, is that people were not exclusive.

You didn’t have to worry. Just because you worshiped one god, doesn’t mean you couldn’t worship another god or several gods or five gods or a hundred gods. Gods knew who everybody was-they weren’t particularly jealous, in that sense. So this is the way people did it. But what Alexander and his successors did, was they made sort of a conscious, propagandistic decision to use religious syncretism to bind together their kingdoms.

The Romans, when they came on the scene, in the East, and they gradually became more and more powerful, they destroyed Corinth in a big battle in 144BC. Pompey was the Roman general who took over Jerusalem in 63BC. So the Romans were in charge of Judah from 63BC on. And this is very important, because the Romans, as their power grew in the East, they simply moved increasingly into the eastern Mediterranean and they adopted the whole Greek system, the Greek world, and they didn’t even try to make it non-Greek. 


So Romans didn’t go around trying to get people in the East to speak Latin. They might put up an official inscription in an Eastern City in Latin, but they’d almost always, if it was an official inscription, it would also be listed in Greek, So Romans who ruled in the East were expected to speak Greek. And by this time all educated Roman men were expected to be able to speak Greek, well if possible. 



So the Romans didn’t try to make the East Roman, in that sense, culturally, nor did they try to change the language. Greek language, culture, and religions, different religions and the syncretism, Greek education, the polis structure-all of these things remained in the East throughout the Roman rule of the East, all the way up until the time you had a Christian emperor with Constantine and later.

Here is the history that lead to the Nicene Creed. The early Christians who chose the human and divine route, though they had to spilt this up. Some believed Jesus was always divine; others believed Jesus became divine. 


If Jesus became divine, then when did he become divine, at his birth, at his baptism, or at his resurrection? Other Christians say, no, he always was divine, but even they believed in different choices too, because some believed Jesus was divine but also fully human. 


Other Christians believed Jesus was fully divine but not fully human. They believed Jesus was so divine he was God, so that when Jesus walked along on wet sand on the beach, his feet did not leave footprints, that is how divine he was, but this belief became declared as a heresy. 


Out of all these choices, only one of them is considered Orthodox by the later church, so that what Christians end up with is the Nicene Creed, or the Creed of Chalcedon, which is what Christians came to believe? There were lots of complexities in early Christianity that finally got whittled down into a more united consensus view on Christology.
newnature
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 11:49 am

Re: A Definition of the Trinity

Postby Geoffrey » Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:14 pm

My favorite from Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary:

Universalist n. One who forgoes the advantage of a Hell for persons of another faith.
Bill Maher asked, "So how do you convince people of the truth?"
Father Reginald Foster answered, "You don't. Forget it. You just have to... You just have to live and die with their stupid ideas. I'm sorry. What are you going to do?"
Geoffrey
 
Posts: 921
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: A Definition of the Trinity

Postby DaveB » Mon Apr 04, 2016 6:30 pm

:lol: :lol:
I really have lived in books. Books are friends. They are some of the friends that make you who you are.
stanley hauerwas
DaveB
 
Posts: 3172
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm


Return to General Theology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests