I just finished a book called "The Lost Christianities" by a Professor at one of the huge divinity schools.
It was a very thorough, objective look at all of the different types of Christianity that appeared in the first and second centuries, from manuscripts that have been found - scholarly, but a layman can easily understand. You can read about Paul fighting all of these different types, some quite large, in his epistles. It was fascinating. It looked at the Marcionites, ebonites, gnostics, proto-orthodox (what we are today), and other groups. Also, other things.
I found the trinity interesting. The church found it necessary to describe who Christ was because you had several influential groups saying many and various different things about Christ and who he was.
One group said he was a phantom - he appeared real, but was not, he was more a spirit in bodily form; one group said he was totally human and the "Christ" spirit came in at his baptism by John and left during the crucifiction (can you imagine the horror of the poor guy who's body was "borrowed" by the Christ spirit coming to his senses on the cross, wondering - how did I get here?!); one group said he was totally divine; one group said he was an emanation; plus various other beliefs, there were a lot of differing opinions on who he was.
We think Christians today are divided - the first and second centuries were amazing.
Anyway, the leadership had to decide who Christ was in order to combat these heresies. He wasn't a "god", yet he wasn't just a "person" invaded by spirit, nor just a perfect person. On the whole, I think they came up with a pretty good way of explaining who he was that effectively combated the heresies.
Most ex-twiers erroneously think trinitarians think Christ is God. This is wrong. They do not believe that. We can thank VP for this.
They believe the ESSENCE of God was in Christ reconciling men to God. Therefore, he was human, yet had the essence of the Father in him.
To think of the essence concept, think of a block of silver (God). Think of the corner being chipped off and living on earth. God and Christ were of the same essence. Christ was not bigger than God or God.
Trinitarians tend to use the term, or say that Christ was God. What they mean is Christ had God's essence - its a shorthand term, just as TWI had many they use that others go, what?.
I finally understood why though, they call Christ the "incarnation" (note, I did not say "reincarnation").
So, many may dislike the trinity concept, but imagine how Christianity and society would have been different today if the other views had won out.
Most ex-twiers erroneously think trinitarians think Christ is God. This is wrong. They do not believe that. We can thank VP for this.
Sunesis erroneously thinks NO trinitarian thinks Christ IS God. This is wrong.
SOME of them believe that. I've listened to them say it OUTRIGHT.
quote:
They believe the ESSENCE of God was in Christ reconciling men to God. Therefore, he was human, yet had the essence of the Father in him.
I've no doubt SOME trinitatians believe that, but I know of some that do NOT.
Just as there were multiple opinions in the early centuries, there's differences
of opinion even among trinitarians.
quote:
To think of the essence concept, think of a block of silver (God). Think of the corner being chipped off and living on earth. God and Christ were of the same essence. Christ was not bigger than God or God.
Trinitarians tend to use the term, or say that Christ was God. What they mean is Christ had God's essence - its a shorthand term, just as TWI had many they use that others go, what?.
SOME of them do, some of them mean it LITERALLY and SPECIFICALLY.
quote:
I finally understood why though, they call Christ the "incarnation" (note, I did not say "reincarnation").
As far as I'm concerned, whether a Christian believes in the pre-Trib, mid-Trib
or post-Trib position, he is still a Christian.
If a Christian believes in charismata, "gifts" or "manifestations" present now,
or is a cessationist, he is still a Christian.
If a Christian believes salvation can be lost, or in OSAS, he is still a Christian.
If a Christian is a trinitarian or not, he is still a Christian.
I've heard numbers of Christians of different positions declare categorically that
all Christians whose doctrines (these or others) are different from theirs are not
TRULY Christians. I've heard it, and I shall hear it again.
I consider it overly simplistic and incorrect.
Therefore, all those who dismiss other Christians are themselves not Christian.
(That was a joke.
As I see it, they're ALL Christians.)
Please note I'm not saying there aren't things that exclude one from being a
Christian-just that the things most people call "deal-breakers" are nothing of the
kind.
P.S. Sunesis- I meant no insult by disagreeing with you-I just disagree.
I just finished a book called "The Lost Christianities" by a Professor at one of the huge divinity schools.
It was a very thorough, objective look at all of the different types of Christianity that appeared in the first and second centuries, from manuscripts that have been found - scholarly, but a layman can easily understand. You can read about Paul fighting all of these different types, some quite large, in his epistles. It was fascinating. It looked at the Marcionites, ebonites, gnostics, proto-orthodox (what we are today), and other groups. Also, other things.
I found the trinity interesting. The church found it necessary to describe who Christ was because you had several influential groups saying many and various different things about Christ and who he was.
One group said he was a phantom - he appeared real, but was not, he was more a spirit in bodily form; one group said he was totally human and the "Christ" spirit came in at his baptism by John and left during the crucifiction (can you imagine the horror of the poor guy who's body was "borrowed" by the Christ spirit coming to his senses on the cross, wondering - how did I get here?!); one group said he was totally divine; one group said he was an emanation; plus various other beliefs, there were a lot of differing opinions on who he was.
We think Christians today are divided - the first and second centuries were amazing.
Anyway, the leadership had to decide who Christ was in order to combat these heresies. He wasn't a "god", yet he wasn't just a "person" invaded by spirit, nor just a perfect person. On the whole, I think they came up with a pretty good way of explaining who he was that effectively combated the heresies.
Most ex-twiers erroneously think trinitarians think Christ is God. This is wrong. They do not believe that. We can thank VP for this.
They believe the ESSENCE of God was in Christ reconciling men to God. Therefore, he was human, yet had the essence of the Father in him.
To think of the essence concept, think of a block of silver (God). Think of the corner being chipped off and living on earth. God and Christ were of the same essence. Christ was not bigger than God or God.
Trinitarians tend to use the term, or say that Christ was God. What they mean is Christ had God's essence - its a shorthand term, just as TWI had many they use that others go, what?.
I finally understood why though, they call Christ the "incarnation" (note, I did not say "reincarnation").
So, many may dislike the trinity concept, but imagine how Christianity and society would have been different today if the other views had won out.
Sun
I am ex-twier who now believes in the trinity. I believe Jesus is God in the flesh. See John 1.
I believe he was fully God and fully man.
As for the question. I believe when we accepted Jesus as Lord, none of us knew him for who he really was at the time. If we surrended to his lordship, then he will bring us closer to him and we will know the Truth.
I find it interesting how Christ reveals himself to those in cultures other than our westernized Judeo/Christian one.
In India, you will see colorful pictures of Christ dressed just at Krishna with flowers, etc.
He appeared to Black Elk (see Black Elk Speaks), as an Indian with the great Eagle feather in his hair.
There are other examples, but these are the two I can think of right now.
He is who he is to other peoples and cultures, that maybe, had Tertillian and others had lived today, they would find heretical.
I think it does not matter to God if one is a trinitarian or not, or is of one denomination or the other - the main question, is, have you accepted him as your Lord?
I too am went "trinitarian" a few years after I left TWI. There are varieties of Trinitarians too.
I was just saying, I understand the great need there was back in the 1st and 2nd centuries to solidify who Christ was - or Christianity would have become and small footnote in history.
Do you mean that trinitarians don't really know that they don't believe in the trinity? I was raised to believe in the trinity and never heard your definition before. I would guess I'm not alone. Essence never entered "three persons in one God" discussions. Mystery, however, always entered the definition.
It seems a mystery to me how one would know Christ was dressed as Krishna, as opposed to Krishna being dressed as Krishna, or Eagle-feather, etc. Jesus Christ wasn't hanging at airports banging a tamborine. He wasn't smoking peyote to give people peace. Seems the only way to know him is to read him; i.e., the Word.
Personally, no I can't say in my heart of hearts that I believe Jesus was God. But, I do believe I am a Christian and it doesn't matter to God if I believe in the trinity, true or not. I think all of this bothers us more than it bothers God.
We think Christians today are divided - the first and second centuries were amazing.
Yes indeed. It's good to see others appreciating this fact.
quote:
Anyway, the leadership had to decide who Christ was in order to combat these heresies.
Who's to assume that "the leadership" that ultimately determined "who was Christ was" in their doctrinal conception was correct - while all others which did not march in step with their scope of opinion - "heresies"?
Anyway, the leadership had to decide who Christ was in order to combat these heresies.
Who's to assume that "the leadership" that ultimately determined "who was Christ was" in their doctrinal conception was correct - while all others which did not march in step with their scope of opinion - "heresies"?
Danny
Obviously, the leadership determines that.
For that, you can thank Constantine, the father of
orthodoxy. He decided to use Christians as a political
lever, and to do that he needed to found orthodoxy.
For that, you can thank Constantine, the father of
orthodoxy. He decided to use Christians as a political
lever, and to do that he needed to found orthodoxy.
Now that just has little or nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. Theophilus, Novatian, Tertullian, and Origen (all of whom explicitly used the word "trinity" in their writings) lived long before Constantine converted to Christianity and published the Edict of Milan in 313.
Interestingly, if you actually look at the FACTS of the situation, you'll find that there was "tolerance" of Christianity under Constantine. Domination of Christianity and supression/persecution of other beliefs (particularly paganism) didn't start until Theodosius (even though we learned through TWI that it was Constantine to blame). See here (again, from the Medievel Sourcebook) for more.
Ah Danny - to the victor goes the spoils! - and rewriting history and cohering the church and deciding which books would make up the canon.
The leadership who "won" in this case was the fellowships of Rome. Why? All roads led to Rome. Rome was the center of the empire and everything emanated from there. People had money, power, contacts, networks of people, etc. Things naturally spread out from Rome. There were also large conflicts about, should there, or shouldn't there, be elders over the fellowship.
In the very early church, the only recognized "leaders" were ones who had been in direct contact with one of the 12 apostles, or travelled with him - someone who could be directly traced to the apostles or Christ. Why? Because they did not have the written word or epistles like we have now. There was no "Word" or Bible in the early fellowships. There were letters were sent from not only Paul, Peter, but people like Barnabus, Thomas and many others that are not in the Bible today. They'd read and copy it and pass it on.
Because there was no Bible to speak of, it became very important that those over the fellowships had had direct contact with Christ, or the apostles who had been with him. When that elder grew old, the person who worked closely with him was appointed, so the "lineage" was kept constant and close to the source.
There was a big hubub in some of the ancient letters and writings because the church of Corinth had gotten rid of some of their elders and replaced them with new ones who had not been with an apostle, and the large Roman fellowship, said, whoa - not so fast, put back the old ones who have personal experience with the apostles and can keep the message of Christ pure. That's why "Apostolic Succession" became so important. There was no Bible, you had to hope whoever was teaching you knew what he was talking about and not adding or taking away from the doctrine.
But there were many copies of the letters and the Gospels. Most of those were written before 70 A.D. (None mention the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
Awesome facts about carrying on the Word by mouth. It's a wonder we have anything accurate when you think of the game of "telephone." Of course, I think there was the spirit of God at work also.
Sorry for being so argumentative last night.
My brother had been on the verge of dying for a few days and he did in fact die early this morning. After my Mom called, I made a cup of tea and opened up my Bible to Psalms and just happened to go to Psalm 116. "Precious in the sight of God is the death of one of his saints." It is the little things in life that sometimes take care of the big.
But there were many copies of the letters and the Gospels. Most of those were written before 70 A.D. (None mention the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
The cute "little apocalypses" in the Synoptics do.
No problem Irish eyes. I can understand how you feel. This month my father fell, spent a week in the hospital, two weeks in rehab, at the end of that time his wife, my stepmother, was dying - we all spent last week at viewing and funeral. Been a rough last few weeks.
But there were many copies of the letters and the Gospels. Most of those were written before 70 A.D. (None mention the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
The cute "little apocalypses" in the Synoptics do.
Danny
Sorry Danny, you'll have to be more specific. I found passages where Jesus prophesied about the Temple's destruction but that doesn't speak to the fact.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
14
6
21
6
Popular Days
Sep 13
11
Sep 15
11
Sep 17
11
Sep 26
8
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 14 posts
Sunesis 6 posts
markomalley 21 posts
irisheyes 6 posts
Popular Days
Sep 13 2005
11 posts
Sep 15 2005
11 posts
Sep 17 2005
11 posts
Sep 26 2005
8 posts
ckeer
I'll go with #3, but thats just my own guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
I think both are true
it's a double edged sword
and God is no respector persons
Nothing is impossible for Him
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I just finished a book called "The Lost Christianities" by a Professor at one of the huge divinity schools.
It was a very thorough, objective look at all of the different types of Christianity that appeared in the first and second centuries, from manuscripts that have been found - scholarly, but a layman can easily understand. You can read about Paul fighting all of these different types, some quite large, in his epistles. It was fascinating. It looked at the Marcionites, ebonites, gnostics, proto-orthodox (what we are today), and other groups. Also, other things.
I found the trinity interesting. The church found it necessary to describe who Christ was because you had several influential groups saying many and various different things about Christ and who he was.
One group said he was a phantom - he appeared real, but was not, he was more a spirit in bodily form; one group said he was totally human and the "Christ" spirit came in at his baptism by John and left during the crucifiction (can you imagine the horror of the poor guy who's body was "borrowed" by the Christ spirit coming to his senses on the cross, wondering - how did I get here?!); one group said he was totally divine; one group said he was an emanation; plus various other beliefs, there were a lot of differing opinions on who he was.
We think Christians today are divided - the first and second centuries were amazing.
Anyway, the leadership had to decide who Christ was in order to combat these heresies. He wasn't a "god", yet he wasn't just a "person" invaded by spirit, nor just a perfect person. On the whole, I think they came up with a pretty good way of explaining who he was that effectively combated the heresies.
Most ex-twiers erroneously think trinitarians think Christ is God. This is wrong. They do not believe that. We can thank VP for this.
They believe the ESSENCE of God was in Christ reconciling men to God. Therefore, he was human, yet had the essence of the Father in him.
To think of the essence concept, think of a block of silver (God). Think of the corner being chipped off and living on earth. God and Christ were of the same essence. Christ was not bigger than God or God.
Trinitarians tend to use the term, or say that Christ was God. What they mean is Christ had God's essence - its a shorthand term, just as TWI had many they use that others go, what?.
I finally understood why though, they call Christ the "incarnation" (note, I did not say "reincarnation").
So, many may dislike the trinity concept, but imagine how Christianity and society would have been different today if the other views had won out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Sunesis erroneously thinks NO trinitarian thinks Christ IS God. This is wrong.
SOME of them believe that. I've listened to them say it OUTRIGHT.
I've no doubt SOME trinitatians believe that, but I know of some that do NOT.
Just as there were multiple opinions in the early centuries, there's differences
of opinion even among trinitarians.
SOME of them do, some of them mean it LITERALLY and SPECIFICALLY.
As far as I'm concerned, whether a Christian believes in the pre-Trib, mid-Trib
or post-Trib position, he is still a Christian.
If a Christian believes in charismata, "gifts" or "manifestations" present now,
or is a cessationist, he is still a Christian.
If a Christian believes salvation can be lost, or in OSAS, he is still a Christian.
If a Christian is a trinitarian or not, he is still a Christian.
I've heard numbers of Christians of different positions declare categorically that
all Christians whose doctrines (these or others) are different from theirs are not
TRULY Christians. I've heard it, and I shall hear it again.
I consider it overly simplistic and incorrect.
Therefore, all those who dismiss other Christians are themselves not Christian.
(That was a joke.
As I see it, they're ALL Christians.)
Please note I'm not saying there aren't things that exclude one from being a
Christian-just that the things most people call "deal-breakers" are nothing of the
kind.
P.S. Sunesis- I meant no insult by disagreeing with you-I just disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Sun
I am ex-twier who now believes in the trinity. I believe Jesus is God in the flesh. See John 1.
I believe he was fully God and fully man.
As for the question. I believe when we accepted Jesus as Lord, none of us knew him for who he really was at the time. If we surrended to his lordship, then he will bring us closer to him and we will know the Truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I find it interesting how Christ reveals himself to those in cultures other than our westernized Judeo/Christian one.
In India, you will see colorful pictures of Christ dressed just at Krishna with flowers, etc.
He appeared to Black Elk (see Black Elk Speaks), as an Indian with the great Eagle feather in his hair.
There are other examples, but these are the two I can think of right now.
He is who he is to other peoples and cultures, that maybe, had Tertillian and others had lived today, they would find heretical.
I think it does not matter to God if one is a trinitarian or not, or is of one denomination or the other - the main question, is, have you accepted him as your Lord?
I too am went "trinitarian" a few years after I left TWI. There are varieties of Trinitarians too.
I was just saying, I understand the great need there was back in the 1st and 2nd centuries to solidify who Christ was - or Christianity would have become and small footnote in history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Sunny,
Do you mean that trinitarians don't really know that they don't believe in the trinity? I was raised to believe in the trinity and never heard your definition before. I would guess I'm not alone. Essence never entered "three persons in one God" discussions. Mystery, however, always entered the definition.
It seems a mystery to me how one would know Christ was dressed as Krishna, as opposed to Krishna being dressed as Krishna, or Eagle-feather, etc. Jesus Christ wasn't hanging at airports banging a tamborine. He wasn't smoking peyote to give people peace. Seems the only way to know him is to read him; i.e., the Word.
Personally, no I can't say in my heart of hearts that I believe Jesus was God. But, I do believe I am a Christian and it doesn't matter to God if I believe in the trinity, true or not. I think all of this bothers us more than it bothers God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Your typical "man on the street" Christian couldn't tell you why he believes what he believes, or explain any inconsistancies; Jesus = God or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Yes indeed. It's good to see others appreciating this fact.
Who's to assume that "the leadership" that ultimately determined "who was Christ was" in their doctrinal conception was correct - while all others which did not march in step with their scope of opinion - "heresies"?
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In some cases, he may not even know that much.
Back in my twi days, I had a Roman Catholic agreeing with the twi
position and surprised that there was a position like the one
mentioned earlier-with Jesus co-equal with his Father.
Part of the reason is the phrasing. I asked him things in plain
English, and answered in plain English. He answered from his
understanding. If I employed "buzz words", his answers would have
been rote, and not from understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For that, you can thank Constantine, the father of
orthodoxy. He decided to use Christians as a political
lever, and to do that he needed to found orthodoxy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Now that just has little or nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. Theophilus, Novatian, Tertullian, and Origen (all of whom explicitly used the word "trinity" in their writings) lived long before Constantine converted to Christianity and published the Edict of Milan in 313.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
By the way, more on the Edict of Milan:
Wikipedia article
Interestingly, if you actually look at the FACTS of the situation, you'll find that there was "tolerance" of Christianity under Constantine. Domination of Christianity and supression/persecution of other beliefs (particularly paganism) didn't start until Theodosius (even though we learned through TWI that it was Constantine to blame). See here (again, from the Medievel Sourcebook) for more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It doesn't relate SPECIFICALLY to that one doctrine, and I never said it DID.
The question I was answering was
"Who's to assume that 'the leadership' that ultimately determined 'who Christ was'
in their doctrinal conception was correct-while all others who did not march in
step with their scope of opinion-'heresies'?
Constantine pushed for a single unified doctrine in order to have a political base.
Under Constantine, minority opinions-including Jews-faced the first step of many
that led to death or marginalization.
If twi taught THAT, I didn't hear it.
I was reading "Constantine's Sword" earlier this year.
If twi happened to get a detail correct here or there, then they did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Ah Danny - to the victor goes the spoils! - and rewriting history and cohering the church and deciding which books would make up the canon.
The leadership who "won" in this case was the fellowships of Rome. Why? All roads led to Rome. Rome was the center of the empire and everything emanated from there. People had money, power, contacts, networks of people, etc. Things naturally spread out from Rome. There were also large conflicts about, should there, or shouldn't there, be elders over the fellowship.
In the very early church, the only recognized "leaders" were ones who had been in direct contact with one of the 12 apostles, or travelled with him - someone who could be directly traced to the apostles or Christ. Why? Because they did not have the written word or epistles like we have now. There was no "Word" or Bible in the early fellowships. There were letters were sent from not only Paul, Peter, but people like Barnabus, Thomas and many others that are not in the Bible today. They'd read and copy it and pass it on.
Because there was no Bible to speak of, it became very important that those over the fellowships had had direct contact with Christ, or the apostles who had been with him. When that elder grew old, the person who worked closely with him was appointed, so the "lineage" was kept constant and close to the source.
There was a big hubub in some of the ancient letters and writings because the church of Corinth had gotten rid of some of their elders and replaced them with new ones who had not been with an apostle, and the large Roman fellowship, said, whoa - not so fast, put back the old ones who have personal experience with the apostles and can keep the message of Christ pure. That's why "Apostolic Succession" became so important. There was no Bible, you had to hope whoever was teaching you knew what he was talking about and not adding or taking away from the doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
But there were many copies of the letters and the Gospels. Most of those were written before 70 A.D. (None mention the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Sunny,
Awesome facts about carrying on the Word by mouth. It's a wonder we have anything accurate when you think of the game of "telephone." Of course, I think there was the spirit of God at work also.
Sorry for being so argumentative last night.
My brother had been on the verge of dying for a few days and he did in fact die early this morning. After my Mom called, I made a cup of tea and opened up my Bible to Psalms and just happened to go to Psalm 116. "Precious in the sight of God is the death of one of his saints." It is the little things in life that sometimes take care of the big.
IE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You know, I was going to do up a post refuting some of the allegations, but, then I thought, why bother?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
"Why not?"
Let your voice be heard.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
The cute "little apocalypses" in the Synoptics do.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penguin
Irish eyes,
I am sorry to hear that. Hang in there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
No problem Irish eyes. I can understand how you feel. This month my father fell, spent a week in the hospital, two weeks in rehab, at the end of that time his wife, my stepmother, was dying - we all spent last week at viewing and funeral. Been a rough last few weeks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Thanks, Penguin.
And thanks, Sunny. Sorry to hear of your losses. Thank you for understanding.
IE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Sorry Danny, you'll have to be more specific. I found passages where Jesus prophesied about the Temple's destruction but that doesn't speak to the fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.