How did the Trinity doctrine develop in the early church?

[David in NJ]

I have some topics at over 20k views. But I didn't want to rub it in. Hers may get there at the current trajectory.

[

i going to charge both you and Rita since my 'contentions' draws a crowd by which you & Rita benefit - lol

 

[Lambano]

Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ,
Who are you? What have you sacrificed?
Jesus Christ, Superstar,
Do you think you're what they say you are?
(Lyrics by Tim Rice, music by Andrew Lloyd Weber)

Those are damned good questions.

Who and what is Jesus Christ?

 

[David in NJ]

Who and what is Jesus Christ?

Those are damned for good, questions.......if you come to the wrong answer
But damn GOOD questions if you come to Salvation thru the RIGHT answer

Only two choices are presented to us, therefore choose wisely.

 

[Wick Stick]

It's not a difficult word to translate Wick.

The dictionary definition you copy/pasted suggests otherwise.

It gives this word (φανερόω) a meaning beyond the normal sense one would expect based on the root and Attic Greek. It also gives it different meanings in different books of the Bible, suggesting that Paul uses the word differently from John, whose use is different in his gospel than in his epistle, which is still different from that in the book of Revelation. That does seem difficult.

As compared with the few examples before and outside NT Greek, it is striking how common the verb is in the NT and early Christian writings. 1. Mk. 4:22 has the sound of a proverbial saying, cf. the Q version in Lk. 12:2 and par., which also influenced Lk. 8:17 (→ 3, 11). In the present context of Mk. 4, however, the statement has in view the hidden meaning of parables (cf. 4:11). 2. Paul uses φανερόω and ἀποκαλύπτω synonymously. This may be seen especially in a comparison of R. 1:17 and 3:21. Only in 1 C. 4:5, an apocryphal quotation (→ VII, 442, 10 ff.), and R. 1:19 do we detect in the usage the sense “to make visible.” In the other references the main point is revelation in the Gospel. The reflexive is never used; specific things are always revealed. R. 3:21 repeats 1:17, but with the perfect πεφανέρωται for the present ἀποκαλύπτεται. Yet this does not denote a specific time in the past; the reference is to a once and for all: the justification grounded in the Christ event (cf. R. 3:24–26; 1:3 f.) is now a reality for πίστις. The frequent use of φανερόω in 2 C. is surprising (9 times). It occurs in the polemical sections. Paul is perhaps adopting here a term of his opponents. He uses it for revelation as this takes place in his preaching (2 C. 2:14; 11:6) and indeed his very existence (4:10 f.). In spite of the eschatological qualification (cf. 5:10) this revelation is definitive, 5:11. 3. Elsewhere in the Pauline corpus the situation is the same: ἀποκαλύπτω and φανερόω are used synonymously (cf. Eph. 3:5 with Col. 1:26), and we also find γνωρίζω (→ I, 718, 4 ff.). Revelation takes place in proclamation (Col. 1:25 f.; 4:4; R. 16:25–27). But now the connection with light categories plays a bigger part (Eph. 5:13 f., cf. 3:9), and we also find the antithesis revelation/concealment (Col. 3:3 f.), especially in the form of the revelation schema. This schema, which derives from pre-Pauline tradition in which apocalyptic and Gnostic elements are intermingled, becomes the sustaining theologoumenon (Col. 1:26 f.; Eph. 3:4 f., 9 f.; R. 16:25–27). It speaks of the salvation-bringing mediation of proclamation by specific bearers of revelation. In a free form we find it in the Pastorals (2 Tm. 1:10 → 10, 4 ff.; Tt. 1:2 f.) and also in 1 Jn. 1:2 → line 18 ff. The schema is understood christologically in 1 Pt. 1:18–20. With the hymn in 1 Tm. 3:16 this passage is the only one in the Pauline tradition in which φανερόω is applied to a past revelation that has taken place in Christ. 4. In the Johannine writings ἀποκαλύπτω (→ III, 587, 36 ff.) does not occur until the OT quotation from Is. 53:1 in Jn. 12:38, but φανερόω is very common, and as in the later Pauline corpus (→ 4, 23 f.) γνωρίζω is a synon., cf. Jn. 17:6 with 17:26. A difference from Paul (→ 4, 10 ff.) is that the derivation from φανερός is now more significant. There is a manifestation before all eyes (Jn. 7:4). Jesus discloses the divine reality, the name of God (17:6) and the works of God (3:21; 9:3). According to John all Jesus’ work may be called revelation (cf. 2:11), as the Prologue shows already even though φανερόω is not used (but cf. φαίνω in 1:5 → 1, 23 f.). Indirectly the divine reality is also revealed in the witness, e.g., of John the Baptist, 1:31. In the supplementary chapter (21:1, 14) φανερόω refers to the appearances of the Risen Lord; the only other instance of this is in the secondary Marcan ending, 16:12, 14. The work of Jesus is described as revelation in 1 Jn. 3:5, 8. It is the revelation of God’s love in 4:9, cf. Jn. 3:16. If the goal is that we may have life (4:9), the whole revelation can also be summed up in ζωή, 1:2. It is also the content of the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, 1:1. If the introduction to 1 Jn. clearly echoes the Prologue to the Gospel, λόγος here (→ IV, 127, 20 ff.) means—or at least includes—proclamation or the tradition in which the revelation of the divine reality continues as a possibility of participation in it. Finally 1 Jn., in contrast to the Gospel, can also use the verb for a revelation which is yet to come, 2:28; 3:2. 5. In Rev. the pass. of φανερόω occurs twice: “to become visible” with no theological significance at 3:18, and in a hymn: ὅτι τὰ δικαιώματά σου ἐφανερώθησαν at 15:4.

Rudolf Bultmann and Dieter Lührmann, “Φαίνω, Φανερός, Φανερόω, Φανέρωσις, Φαντάζω, Φάντασμα, Ἐμφανίζω, Ἐπιφαίνω, Ἐπιφανής, Ἐπιφάνεια,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–) 4–5.

Manifestation not incarnation is the method God chooses to reveal Himself.

You could say God Willed a Son to be raised up out of Sins Flesh (Word made flesh) for the reason of God Manifestation.

F2F

I haven't done this word study before, but going down the list of verses that use this word, there aren't many that speak of God revealing Himself. Most of these talk about new teaching, or new interpretation of old teaching. It seems very much to be interwoven with the idea of mystery religions. That is, that there is hidden knowledge that is being given to initiates of the religion.

Would you say that the revelation of doctrine is tantamount to a revelation of God? (and the Word was God?)

 

[RedFan]

No human genitals were used in the Coming of MESSIAH

Well, not external ones anyway. Mary's ovaries may have played a role. If we compared her DNA to Jesus's, I wonder what we'd find.

 

[RLT63]

That's an odd response RLT as the echo is super clear!

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, Luke 1:32

Is it the future tense which concerns you? Jesus didn't pre-exist, only in the prophetical utterences of those God moved by the HS.

F2F

That was only in his manhood, the Word was in the beginning with God and was God and then the Word became flesh on the first Christmas

 

[face2face]

Trinitarian (or at least binitarian) theology was a necessary development because of the remarkable first century claims attributing to Jesus Christ characteristics normally associated with God:

1. Pre-existing from the beginning and being "God" or "a god" and "with God" (John 1:1-2, 15; John 17:5)
2. Pre-existing and having the "form" of God (Philippians 2:6)
3. Having God's "fullness" (Colossians 1:19)
4. Creator of all things (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16)
5. Holding together all things (Colossians 1:17)
6. Having authority over all things (Colossians 1:18)

So what are we seeing here? a couple of references in John, Col 1 and Phil 2

And what if T believers are ones attributing these things?

Having the correct understanding of those passages is not that difficult if you read them in context...you will need the OT though!

F2F

 

[face2face]

That was only in his manhood

Talk about shifting sands

 

[St. SteVen]

New topic.

Do you have a guardian angel? - testimonies

Open topic for testimonies about guardian angels. - Do you think you have a guardian angel? - Have they made themselves aware to you? - What did they do? [

www.christianityboard.com

[

 

[Brakelite]

Do you believe that Jesus was already in Heaven and then came down in the form of sperm to conceive in Mary? Sounds crude, but I need to ascertain exactly what notions exist in your mind and if this is what you believe there may well be no convincing you of anything in this discussion.

Sperm? And create a straw man? We aren't told how the Son of God became a human being. We just know that He was born of a virgin, and lived without sin.
“Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. ”
John 8:42 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

 

[face2face]

Sperm? And create a straw man? We aren't told how the Son of God became a human being.

Agree - the point was being made that Jesus the person did not transform himself into the ovary of Mary to become a man - what is more likely?

We just know that He was born of a virgin, and lived without sin.

Agree

“Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. ”
John 8:42 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

However conception happened - it happened, end of story

F2F

 

[Brakelite]

Agree - the point was being made that Jesus the person did not transform himself into the ovary of Mary to become a man - what is more likely?

Agree

However conception happened - it happened, end of story

F2F

Further to the above...
And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou has sent. John 17:3
Everywhere in the NT, it is explicitly taught that God sent His Son...that the Son came forth from the Father... that being the case, it is simply stupid to think that God did not have a Son to send.

 

[St. SteVen]

We aren't told how the Son of God became a human being.

This all we have. (to my knowledge) Not sure what it means.

Luke 1:35 NIV
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God.

[

 

[Lambano]

I was wondering if Jesus Christ might be something totally unique, something that doesn't fit our neatly defined categories.

The question would still remain, "How should we relate to Him?"

 

[St. SteVen]

I was wondering if Jesus Christ might be something totally unique, something that doesn't fit our neatly defined categories.

The question would still remain, "How should we relate to Him?"

It seems that in physical appearance he was quite ordinary. Which seems strange.
But the difference was in his interactions with others. That was noteworthy.

Isaiah 53:2 NIV
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

Luke 2:46-49 NIV
After three days they found him in the temple courts,
sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.
47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.
48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him,
“Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”[a]

[

 

[Behold]

Sperm? And create a straw man? We aren't told how the Son of God became a human being.

Jesus was created inside Mary's womb, by the Holy Spirit.

God creates humans 4 different ways..

1.) Out of Dirt = Adam

2.) Out of Adam = Eve

3. ) By sexual intercourse = You

4.) Inside a Virgin's womb = Jesus the God Man

 

[Lambano]

3. ) By sexual intercourse = You

Except for you guys who were conceived by artificial insemination.

 

[St. SteVen]

Except for you guys who were conceived by artificial insemination.

Wouldn't that be strange if the result was artificial people? - LOL




[

 

[Lambano]

This is where I find the whole Trinitarian debate is quite off-putting, as it tends to confuse the persons of God and Jesus, ....

If you had substituted "the Father" for "God", you would have just enunciated one of my biggest issues/peeves, not with Trinitarian theology itself, but how it is commonly understood and put into practice.

Personhood is relational. The Father is not the Son; it says so right in the diagram. We normally relate to different persons differently, but here praxis tends to want to relate to the Father and the Son as the same Person, which is wrong. Different roles and responsibilities.

 

[Lambano]

Personhood is relational. The Father is not the Son; it says so right in the diagram. We normally relate to different persons differently, but here praxis tends to want to relate to the Father and the Son as the same Person, which is wrong. Different roles and responsibilities.

A lot of the back-and-forth arguments for- and against Trinity fall into the same ditch.