The Trinity = A Gnostic Concept???

[Halcyon]

Specifically the concept of God as three persons (hypostases).

"Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons — father, son, and holy spirit."

Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.

Did Valentinus bring to Christendom the Trinity as it is currently understood?

(Quotes taken from this wikipedia article)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ha! That's a riot!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm not sure where the trinity concept came from. I'm not sure if it was from the Greeks, the Romans, The Egyptians or all of the above.

From a biblical stance, I don't believe the concept is there. I look to this biblical verse.

KJV
Numbers 23:19
For God is not a man that he should sin neither is God the son of man that he shall have to repent.

Then I think about Jesus and if he exceeded these criteria. Well as far as we can tell he didn't sin.

But on the second part I'm not so sure about.

Matthew 26:39
And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Mathew 26:42
He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

Mathew 26:44
And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My Elohim, my Elohim, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My Elohim, my Elohim, why hast thou forsaken me?

This is my view on it. Tell me what you think.....

 

[UnityNow101]

Didn't Valentinus almost become Bishop of Rome?

 

[Halcyon]

Didn't Valentinus almost become Bishop of Rome?

That's a possibility, Tertullian says that Valentinus broke with the orthodox Church after being passed over for the position by another (which according to the timeline would have been either Pious I or Anicetus) apparently because this other had the distinction of having suffered persecution under his belt.

However, it is difficult to trust these early adversaries of the Gnostics to give accurate accounts. Epiphanius for example, tells us that Valentinus left orthodoxy because he went mad after a ship wreck, but if you believe anything that dude says, well... :areyoucra

 

[Grian]

I think the original concept of the trinity comes from observing the moon and other cycles of nature. Lunar myths predate all other myths in most cultures, so to me this makes some sense.

 

[Halcyon]

Are there no Trinitarians (other then A_E's insightful comment ) who would like to comment?

 

[Doodlebug02]

The Trinity is certainly not a Gnostic concept. The Trinity is thoroughly Biblical.

Matthew 28:19 DRB Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

2 Corinthians 13:14 DRB (13:13) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen.

1 John 5:7 DRB And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

 

[Halcyon]

Thanks for the reply;

The Trinity is certainly not a Gnostic concept. The Trinity is thoroughly Biblical.

Matthew 28:19 DRB Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

2 Corinthians 13:14 DRB (13:13) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen.

1 John 5:7 DRB And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

I would like to point out that the first two quotes you give are not explicitly Trinitarian, the could just as easily be Modalist. And the third quote is from the Comma Johanneum, a later Trinitarian interpolation to the epistle.

Ignoring that for the moment, how do you reconcile the belief that the Trinity is biblical when Marcellus of Ancyra, an early Church bishop present at both the councils of Ancyra and Nicaea, declares Valentinus to be the originator of the Trinity of hypostases concept?

 

[James the Persian]

Thanks for the reply;


I would like to point out that the first two quotes you give are not explicitly Trinitarian, the could just as easily be Modalist. And the third quote is from the Comma Johanneum, a later Trinitarian interpolation to the epistle.

Ignoring that for the moment, how do you reconcile the belief that the Trinity is biblical when Marcellus of Ancyra, an early Church bishop present at both the councils of Ancyra and Nicaea, declares Valentinus to be the originator of the Trinity of hypostases concept?

My response is that you should have quoted a little more from that article as doing so would have answered the question for you.

In a text known as Pseudo-Anthimus, Valentinus is quoted as teaching that God is three hypostases (hidden spiritual realities) and three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:
Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato. (Source: AHB Logan. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).

This is not the Trinity teaching. It appears that you are being confused by the term Hypostasis. Originally hypostasis and ousion had identical meanings, both basically being substance. The Fathers chose to use ousion for the Divine essence and hypostasis for the personal essence (Person, however ubiquitous is a poor translation). It is quite evident that the Valentinian use of Hypostasis is not the same as the Patristic use of it and his use of prosopon is thoroughly heretical and not something that can be used in the context of the Trinity. In short then, Valentinus neither believed in nor could be the originator of the Trinity, he merely borrowed the same Greek terms for his theology that the Fathers used for theirs.

Since Valentinus had used the term hypostases, his name came up in the Arian disputes in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra, who was a staunch opponent of Arianism but also denounced the belief in God existing in three hypostases as heretical (and was later condemned for his views), attacked his opponents (On the Holy Church, 9) by linking them to Valentinus:
"Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons — father, son, and holy spirit." [1]

And this quote clearly shows that any Trinitarian Christian is right to question any statement of Triadology from Marcellus of Ancyra. His condemnation for Triadological errors is sufficient to dismiss his views. In any case, his is very much a minority view and utterly unrepresentative of the Patristic concensus (and was almost certainly an overreaction to the use of a term, albeit in a different manner, famously used by a heretic. We have similar overreactions to this very day when certain terms are used in a heretical manner by other churches - it's not an uncommon attitude for certain ultra-traditionalist Orthodox towards Orthodox use of RC terms, for instance).

James

 

[Halcyon]

I'm confused.

"Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons — father, son, and holy spirit."

Are you saying that, although Valentinus is speaking of God as a trinity, using the terms hypostases and persons (although slightly different word variants) that it is a different trinity to the Trinity, and that Marcellus saying "he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons" is talking about something else entirely?

Why would Marcellus reject the Trinity and declare it as a Valentinian creation, when his fellow bishops also held a Trinitarian view? Do you think he (Marcellus) believed the Trinity to be a false doctrine, a Gnostic doctrine, and that's why he did not accept it?

 

[James the Persian]

I'm confused.


Are you saying that, although Valentinus is speaking of God as a trinity, using the terms hypostases and persons (although slightly different word variants) that it is a different trinity to the Trinity, and that Marcellus saying "he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons" is talking about something else entirely?

Pretty much. What Valentinus describes is not the Trinity (it doesn't even seem to be a trinity to me) and what he means by the term hypostasis is radically different to what the word means in the Triadological sense. He doesn't even use it to mean person at all, for that he uses prosopon which, as I said, is utterly heretical. I actually have a hard time understanding exactly what he does mean, but it certainly is not one Divine Ousion in three Hypostases - not even close.

Why would Marcellus reject the Trinity and declare it as a Valentinian creation, when his fellow bishops also held a Trinitarian view? Do you think he (Marcellus) believed the Trinity to be a false doctrine, a Gnostic doctrine, and that's why he did not accept it?

He doesn't seem to have rejected the Trinity. He agreed with the Council of Nicea and was a staunch opponent of Arianism (which posited three separate gods that made up a Godhead, rather like the modern LDS do). That speaks rather loudly of the fact that he actually agreed with the Trinity but disagreed with the use of the term Hypostasis because it had been coopted by a heretic to mean something else. In doing so he went overboard and actually espoused a position which looks heretical himself, but it seems pretty clear that he misunderstood the Orthodox use of the term hypostasis to mean what Valentinus meant by it, even though it meant no such thing. Such was common. There were many rather bloody fights over semantic issues and the worst (in my opinion) is that which engendered the schism after Chalcedon. We used terminology that looked Nestorian to the opposing party and they used language which looked Monophysite to us but you'll never convince me that the schism was over anything more than some misunderstood terminology - we believe precisely the same thing.

James

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Specifically the concept of God as three persons (hypostases).





Did Valentinus bring to Christendom the Trinity as it is currently understood?

(Quotes taken from this wikipedia article)

The Romans incorporated this pagan ideology into it. the concept itself is not new.

 

[Muffled]

My response is that you should have quoted a little more from that article as doing so would have answered the question for you.



This is not the Trinity teaching. It appears that you are being confused by the term Hypostasis. Originally hypostasis and ousion had identical meanings, both basically being substance. The Fathers chose to use ousion for the Divine essence and hypostasis for the personal essence (Person, however ubiquitous is a poor translation). It is quite evident that the Valentinian use of Hypostasis is not the same as the Patristic use of it and his use of prosopon is thoroughly heretical and not something that can be used in the context of the Trinity. In short then, Valentinus neither believed in nor could be the originator of the Trinity, he merely borrowed the same Greek terms for his theology that the Fathers used for theirs.

And this quote clearly shows that any Trinitarian Christian is right to question any statement of Triadology from Marcellus of Ancyra. His condemnation for Triadological errors is sufficient to dismiss his views. In any case, his is very much a minority view and utterly unrepresentative of the Patristic concensus (and was almost certainly an overreaction to the use of a term, albeit in a different manner, famously used by a heretic. We have similar overreactions to this very day when certain terms are used in a heretical manner by other churches - it's not an uncommon attitude for certain ultra-traditionalist Orthodox towards Orthodox use of RC terms, for instance).

James

As long as you aren't saying that there are three personal essences, I have no problem with it. If it is three spiritual realities, I doubt that it will wash because Eph 4:4 says there is one spirit.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Obviously I agree with James.

 

[James the Persian]

As long as you aren't saying that there are three personal essences, I have no problem with it. If it is three spiritual realities, I doubt that it will wash because Eph 4:4 says there is one spirit.

But there are three personal essences. God is three in one. One divine essence (Ousion) common to all Hypostases. The distinction I was making is that person has a further connotation that Hypostasis does not have - that of an individual. Hypostasis actually just refers to that which makes the Three unique, whilst Ousion refers to that which makes them one. I'd guess, but am not clear on this, that from what you wrote you favour some sort of Monism and discount the Trinity then?

James

 

[michel]

The Catholic Encyclopedia(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm)
has this to say:- (you will need to click on the link for the full details).

II. PROOF OF DOCTRINE FROM SCRIPTURE

A. New Testament


The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step.
First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.
The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of essence is not merely postulated by the strict monotheism of men nurtured in the religion of Israel, to whom "subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:19, and, in regard to the Father and the Son, expressly asserted in John 10:38. That the Persons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the doctrine of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son is taught in the discourse of the Lord reported by St. John (14-17) (see H[SIZE=-2]OLY[/SIZE] G[SIZE=-2]HOST[/SIZE]).

 

[Mr Cheese]

Specifically the concept of God as three persons (hypostases).





Did Valentinus bring to Christendom the Trinity as it is currently understood?

(Quotes taken from wikipedia article)

no. No1 the trinity is ancient, its thousands of years old.

Pre Gnostic trinity= isis osiris horus

mother father child...

classical Gnosticism isnt really trinitarian at all, but it doesnt reject it. Sophia is after all Yeshu's consort...they are 2 halves of one being. It is Sophia/Christ that is the serpent in eden....

but it depends there is no definative answer, unless someone knows better.

If we look to mandaeanism of course we see mother father and child...hibil ziwa is the child.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Hypostasis: Means 'reality' as in "Hypostasis of the Archons," Reality of the Rulers." (See; II.4 of the Nag Hammadi Lib.)

 

[Aqualung]

I was in the library on saturday and noticed my religion teacher had ordered a book that I think was about this very same topic. I say think because it was in German, so I don't know, but still, it's a nice coincidence.