Trinity and Protestantism

[Duvduv]

It is more than likely that the trinity entered the picture together with the rest of the religion during Constantinian 4th century, the century of which scholars speak so regularly and the century of the apologists, under a new regime that had the means, motive opportunity to establish a new religion that did not exist previously.

 

[Afra]

It is more than likely that the trinity entered the picture together with the rest of the religion during Constantinian 4th century, the century of which scholars speak so regularly and the century of the apologists, under a new regime that had the means, motive opportunity to establish a new religion that did not exist previously.

Are you seriously arguing that Christianity did not exist until the 4th century? I don't know if there are any serious historians (Christian, Jewish, or otherwise) who take that view.

 

[apogee]

It is more than likely that the trinity entered the picture together with the rest of the religion during Constantinian 4th century, the century of which scholars speak so regularly and the century of the apologists, under a new regime that had the means, motive opportunity to establish a new religion that did not exist previously.

I think as has already been pointed out on more than one occasion, there is already a sub-forum, for opinionated people to attempt to pick holes at, and undermine a religion they don't understand, but this isn't it.

I can't promise that anyone apart from maybe the resident Atheists, will take you any more seriously there, but by all means go for it.

 

[Duvduv]

Are you seriously arguing that Christianity did not exist until the 4th century? I don't know if there are any serious historians (Christian, Jewish, or otherwise) who take that view.

Ironically even the most secular scholars (I didn't say all) hold fast to the traditional Church narrative of the emergence of Christianity without demanding the same rigorous critical analysis they demand in other areas of historical research. They do not demand rigor for corroborative and empirical evidence for the existence of any of the NT figures, or even people such as Marcion. Indeed whenever it is said that Marcion collected the epistles and wrote his own gospel of Luke, no one demands to have evidence for this collection or gospel, or for the claim that his father was a "bishop." But that's only the tip of the iceberg. No one points to the fact that the Dialog of Justin Martyr based on a single manuscript from a 14th century monastery and is actually only a monologue, even explains in his appeals to the emperor his origins, or the location of alleged Christian communities in the second century.

 

[HypnoToad]

It is more than likely that the trinity entered the picture together with the rest of the religion during Constantinian 4th century

I'm curious how Christianity supposedly didn't exist until the 4th century when we have a fragment of John's Gospel that dates to the early to mid 2nd century (it's known as the p52 manuscript). And most consider John to be the last of the Gospels written. Add to this that most consider Paul's writings to predate all the Gospels. So, we should think that Constantine invented what existed a couple centuries before he did? Really?

 

[Duvduv]

We both know that carbon dating is never precise. And certainly a fragment cannot establish an entire history. Furthermore, thrre is no mention of the four gospels until the writings of Iraeneus of Lyon, and Justin Martyr refered to texts called Memoirs of the Apostles. So there is some confusion somewhere. Especially when Christianity cannot be successfully based on archeology.

 

[Afra]

Ironically even the most secular scholars (I didn't say all) hold fast to the traditional Church narrative of the emergence of Christianity without demanding the same rigorous critical analysis they demand in other areas of historical research. They do not demand rigor for corroborative and empirical evidence for the existence of any of the NT figures, or even people such as Marcion. Indeed whenever it is said that Marcion collected the epistles and wrote his own gospel of Luke, no one demands to have evidence for this collection or gospel, or for the claim that his father was a "bishop." But that's only the tip of the iceberg. No one points to the fact that the Dialog of Justin Martyr based on a single manuscript from a 14th century monastery and is actually only a monologue, even explains in his appeals to the emperor his origins, or the location of alleged Christian communities in the second century.

Well, for those of us without hundreds of hours of free time on our hands to do this research ourselves, I think most of us would defer to people who specialize in those matters rather than ceding to skepticism by an unknown person on a web forum (this person being you of course).

 

[Duvduv]

Ok, so your view is that discussion on a forum is a waste of your time since It's preferable to just "defer" to selected others....,

 

[HypnoToad]

We both know that carbon dating is never precise. And certainly a fragment cannot establish an entire history. Furthermore, thrre is no mention of the four gospels until the writings of Iraeneus of Lyon, and Justin Martyr refered to texts called Memoirs of the Apostles. So there is some confusion somewhere. Especially when Christianity cannot be successfully based on archeology.

Ah, yes, you must be correct and the vast majority of professional scholarship on the subject is wrong. Thanks for setting us straight.

 

[dreadnought]

Things which cannot be proven empirically are to be accepted as a matter of pure faith. This is the bottom line of religion. But at least in the Jewish tradition there are more ancient sources who discuss it, as compared with none who discuss one Paul/Saul, the alleged communities in the 1st century, etc. Take a look at Acts, which refers to the Christians, but only discusses Stephen, and never enumerates any communities in Judea at all.

But I believe you erroneously believe that all Protestants view the Trinity in the same manner. Some think there is one fellow up there who is simultaneously a Father. Son, and Holy Spirit. Others believe there are there fellows up there, apparently.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I find it interesting that Protestants never understood that the concept of the Trinity as a doctrine had no basis in the New Testament at all and did not reject it. Even Catholicism admit it isn't sourced in the NT. Maybe on this point the Oneness groups and Jehovah's Witnesses have a point.
This would also make sense if the whole religion only emerged under the new Constantinian regime of the 4th century, and therefore Christians used it if Christianity did not exist before then.

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 299, (1967)

Protestants didn’t object to it because the saw evidence of it in the scriptures.

 

[Starcomet]

We must remember that the gospels were likely written for specific communities at first and there were hundreds of them. Only after they began to spread from communities to communities through copies did they become popular and church fathers in he second century began to mention them. The fact is all of the Christian writings we have were many years after Jesus' death and based on oral tradition.

 

[Hawkins]

Why ants have to understand the anatomy of humans. When talking about His Trinity is more or less analogue to this. He doesn't need reveal that part in full to humans as understanding the full anatomy of God isn't a requirement of human salvation.

It's more like an acknowledgement to those who can stay closer to Him.

 

[Radagast]

The divinity of Christ is found in all books of the New Testament. However, only the Gospel of John specifically identifies Jesus as YHWH of the Old Testament (John 1:1).

Actually, that's not true. Paul, for example, quotes OT passages about YHWH and applies them to Jesus.

 

[Radagast]

It is more than likely that the trinity entered the picture together with the rest of the religion during Constantinian 4th century, the century of which scholars speak so regularly and the century of the apologists, under a new regime that had the means, motive opportunity to establish a new religion that did not exist previously.

That one paragraph is so utterly full of nonsense that I'm not sure where to begin.

Christians believed Jesus was God from the very start. It's in the New Testament. The word "Trinity" is from about the year 200.

The most famous apologists, like Justin Martyr, were from around the year 150.

And Constantine did not "establish a new religion."

 

[Duvduv]

That can be your opinion. However, there is no empirical evidence that there was any Christianity before the 4th century. Not even a shred of a reference in the historical Jewish texts that record events from the 1st century, such as the Talmud and Midrashim. There is no evidence of the existence of the communities referred to in the Epistles, or that such letters were even written or received by anyone. It was under Constantine and his loyal assistant Eusebius with access to many archives and library material that apologetics and dogma became clearly identified. On the other hand, given the record of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals of the 9th century forgeries, backdating to the first century is not hard to believe at all....

 

[HypnoToad]

However, there is no empirical evidence that there was any Christianity before the 4th century.

Manuscript evidence *IS* empirical evidence. The manuscript evidence is that the entire New Testament existed long before the 4th century. The idea that there was a New Testament but no Christianity is laughable.

 

[Duvduv]

If manuscript "evidence" was so unequivocal then scholars would not debate them, whether the 2nd or 3rd or 4th century. But most of the material is usually identified as 3rd-4th century, for what it's worth. In any case we both know that there is no evidence of any of the communities referred to in the Epistles for the first century, no evidence that someone named Paul wrote them, outside of the Church dogma, that is.

 

[Hawkins]

If manuscript "evidence" was so unequivocal then scholars would not debate them, whether the 2nd or 3rd or 4th century. But most of the material is usually identified as 3rd-4th century, for what it's worth. In any case we both know that there is no evidence of any of the communities referred to in the Epistles for the first century, no evidence that someone named Paul wrote them, outside of the Church dogma, that is.

It's moot. What other documents humans can keep for more than 2000 years? What evidence do you have for any human document written 2000 years ago, especially under the circumstance that you don't have the original manuscripts.

Dead Sea Scroll is more like a fluke. It only says religious documents can be kept in a way better than secular documents. That's part of the reason why God chose a religion for His message to pass on.

 

[Albion]

If manuscript "evidence" was so unequivocal then scholars would not debate them, whether the 2nd or 3rd or 4th century. But most of the material is usually identified as 3rd-4th century, for what it's worth. In any case we both know that there is no evidence of any of the communities referred to in the Epistles for the first century, no evidence that someone named Paul wrote them, outside of the Church dogma, that is.

Find us any historian of that period who thinks there were no Christians in the first three centuries of the common era.