Discussion:
Relativistic raising of the Djed-pillar
(too old to reply)
Roger Pearse
2011-01-21 23:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Hammond]
Baloney, Christianiy didn't discover the Trinity until
500 years after Jesus was dead for chrissakes.
The "trinity" was declared as a dogma 325 CE at the
1st council of Nicaea. There's no such thing in any
other religion on this planet.
This seems to be a private argument, but I wonder if I can contribute a comment or two on some matters of fact?

The Trinity was defined with that word (trinitas) ca. 215 AD by Tertullian in "Adversus Praxean". But he believed it was apostolic; and it is implicit in the New Testament teaching. The NT says (a) there is one God only, the Father (b) that Jesus is God (prayed to, worshipped, one with the Father) and (c) Jesus is not the Father. From that, I would have thought some formula like the Trinity was pretty much inevitable.

The Council of Nicaea did not discuss the Trinity, since everyone there believed in it. Rather they discussed whether the Second Person of the Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First Person, or of like substance.
The Egyptians knew about it and it was a central symbol
of Egyptian religion for thousands of years before
Christianity.
Please prove this claim. It is not backed up by any
facts. Trinity was the fabrication of Origenes (185
- 254 CE).
I don't know whether Origen discusses the question.
His writings influenced Silvester I. and
Ossius von Cordoba, who wanted to ban Arianism from
the body of the "true" church. Obviously, they won.
Arianism denied "trinity" completely.
Arius did not deny the Trinity, tho, or at least he didn't think he did, but rather the consubstantiality of the persons.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Geopelia
2011-01-22 03:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Hammond]
Baloney, Christianiy didn't discover the Trinity until
500 years after Jesus was dead for chrissakes.
The "trinity" was declared as a dogma 325 CE at the
1st council of Nicaea. There's no such thing in any
other religion on this planet.
This seems to be a private argument, but I wonder if I can contribute a
comment or two on some matters of fact?

The Trinity was defined with that word (trinitas) ca. 215 AD by Tertullian
in "Adversus Praxean". But he believed it was apostolic; and it is implicit
in the New Testament teaching. The NT says (a) there is one God only, the
Father (b) that Jesus is God (prayed to, worshipped, one with the Father)
and (c) Jesus is not the Father. From that, I would have thought some
formula like the Trinity was pretty much inevitable.

The Council of Nicaea did not discuss the Trinity, since everyone there
believed in it. Rather they discussed whether the Second Person of the
Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First Person, or of
like substance.
The Egyptians knew about it and it was a central symbol
of Egyptian religion for thousands of years before
Christianity.
Osiris, Isis and Horus?
Please prove this claim. It is not backed up by any
facts. Trinity was the fabrication of Origenes (185
- 254 CE).
I don't know whether Origen discusses the question.
His writings influenced Silvester I. and
Ossius von Cordoba, who wanted to ban Arianism from
the body of the "true" church. Obviously, they won.
Arianism denied "trinity" completely.
Arius did not deny the Trinity, tho, or at least he didn't think he did, but
rather the consubstantiality of the persons.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Loading...