Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Uh... no. Not based on strict exegesis. You're making some theological leaps here that need both explanation and scholastic support.
I think you made a wrong theological turn at Albuquerque...
मैत्रावरुणिः;3429736 said:opcorn:
opcorn:
That's patently not what the Trinity is, though. The Trinity is one Being, and one God. The Trinity is also three distinct Persons. "Distinct" =/= "100% separate." "Distinct" = "identifiably unique." IOW, we identify the Son as distinct from the Father, but not substantially separate from the Father, for the two enjoy a unity of Being. Nothing illogical about it, unless you're conflating terms -- as you're doing here.
This is why Substitutionary Atonement doesn't work -- and why it wasn't "adopted" as a doctrine until the Reformation.
Yes they did. It wasn't as developed as the doctrine that came out of Nicea, but the concept was there. Where do you think the classic heresies came from?? Some groups thought Jesus was fully divine. Some groups thought that Jesus didn't really die on the cross. All of these developing ideas were addressed by the institutional formalization of the Doctrine of the Trinity as the "orthodox" teaching, agreed upon by the ecumenical council of bishops.
Which shows the tragic stubbornness that came to grip the church so long ago, that it actually thought it could create unity by having a trial about these things. In my opinion this decision foreshadowed the huge divisions that came later such as between the east and western traditions and more recently the Reform movements and divisions over all kinds of things. Today the council of Nicea continues to be a talking point for anyone who wants to start their own harem of Christians.sojourner said:
We've never seemed to "get it" that unity does not necessarily mean uniformity.
That is putting it mildly. What ever happened to the Holy and Catholic church? The only comfort is that the apostles and Jesus may have predicted this would happen. They did predict the influence of anti-Christ and a falling away, so there is still a legitimacy available should a holy and catholic church resurface. You can still come back, maybe.Sojourner said:
There you go. Now there are just six hundred million other Christians to convince of that.
Oh, it's still there. We far-flung members of the family just haven't learned how to work and play well together, choosing instead to stomp off to our respective rooms and slam the doors.
Ingledsva said:
Valentinus was a notable Gnostic theologian. he lived circa 100 c.e. to 150. That's less than 100 years following Jesus. Gnosticism deals with Jesus' divinity.
James 5:17 "Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years." James does not mention Jesus here, even though Jesus made many prayers. Why would he mention Elijah and not Jesus? This alone would be enough to make people start to wonder whether Jesus was simply a man. There wouldn't need to be 300 years for that. Suppose on the other hand that Jesus is Elijah to those who can accept it. It creates an entire other reality in which Jesus is the restorer of Israel (call it hyper-space-Israel). Therefore he is God in that reality. Either way James is enough to start people talking about duality and trinity from the beginning.Sojourner said: