ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
The Trinity & The Early Church (Senior Paper) -
May 18th, 2012, 12:08 AM
Hey All - long time no see!
I am graduating tomorrow with my double major in Computer Science and Religious Studies!!!! For my Senior Project in Religious Studies I decided to do a research project on the Trinity and The Early Church, wherein I compare the traditional doctrine of the Trinity with the views of Justin Martyr & the Greek Logos Theologians, Tertullian and the Latin Trinitarians, and the Modalistic Monarchianism brought to Rome from Asia Minor by Praxeas.
I'll probably continue to refine this paper, as I plan to use this when I submit to graduate schools to get my doctorate in Theology/Church History someday. Nevertheless, several years of research has gone into this and I think it will be helpful and interesting to many here!
I welcome corrections (*I know there's some spelling issues I have to go through and fix*) and any constructive criticisms you may have. If anyone knows of some good sources on Modalistic Monarchianism during the Ante-Nicene period I would greatful as well
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Last edited by csuguy; May 18th, 2012 at 01:51 AM.
If you are going to state that Tertullian was said to coin the term "trinity" I would definitely quote the source, which is apparently Against Praxeus, Chp 3.
Do you find it ironic that Tertullian would have been anathemitized by the church under the creed of Nicea, since he declared there was a time when the Son didn't exist?
If you are going to state that Tertullian was said to coin the term "trinity" I would definitely quote the source, which is apparently Against Praxeus, Chp 3.
Ack! I thought I had put in the source for that already. Thanks - I'll make sure I update that. I've still got to go through and make some other small corrections here and there too.
Quote:
Do you find it ironic that Tertullian would have been anathemitized by the church under the creed of Nicea, since he declared there was a time when the Son didn't exist?
I found it more ironic that Tertullian was never considered a saint while Justin Martyr, a polytheist, was.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
I don't have the notes, so it is possibly in source 34, but what I guess I meant is to discuss the source a bit. Maybe quote the use from Tertullian.
I find it quite amazing that modern protestants so strongly defend the doctrine of the trinity when it is clear that it evolved over time, was not given by God, and in fact destroys of the very purposes of God in the creation - to be led to him in Jesus.
Jesus knew that there would be misconception down through the Ages of exactly what the Comforter/Holy Spirit was.
--------------------------------------------------
You wrote :
"The Father is the Son, who is the Holy Spirit.
All three are equivalently and fully God, fully
divine, without distinction or hierarchy of persons."
4. In what manner are Jesus and the Father “one?”
----------------------------------------------------------
You have not understood what the Comforter is
because you have not considered the Purpose
of Jesus visit to the Earth. That Purpose was to show
human beings how to build Resistance to the Temptations
around them and to take that Absolute Mental Character Development
back to the Father and send it down to Humans as the Comforter
to mark them and help them develop Godly Character and
Purify their minds and prepare them to Rule in the Kingdom of God.
Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity,
and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As usual, I have you on ignore for a reason. What is that reason?
Because you, a student believed this before you ever started school, purposefully choosing who might agree with you rather than who might truly challenge you. As such, your paper is a work of propoganda rather than a academic treatise. Unfortunately, these don't tend to get graded or you'd receive the grade you deserve (from me, a flunk, simply because it doesn't deal with one argument I or others on here ever gave you).
Thus, it is a work of religious indoctrination rather than something I'd accept for academic acceptance as your academic advisor.
And oh yes, I read it: Your Augustine and boy story was slanderous and nothing more.
C.S. Lewis exerpt? Not dealing with anything to do with your paper, no direct quote of the triune nature of God (trinity nowhere mentioned).
The Athanasian Creed is of 'dubious' origin? Look up 'dubious.'
"Doubtful?" Yes. Dubious? No. Athanasius certainly influenced its ideas, which might be why it holds his name. One could have written it to summarize Athanasius' thoughts. Regardless, such doesn't matter for your point so simply change dubious to 'doubtful' and move along.
The rest to page 7 -
Page 8 - footnote 16, - would prefer a primary source possibly with the given as a secondary note of your own findings
Page 9 as I told you previously and one of many reasons you are on my ignore (because you do not listen) you selectively quote Justyn for your own uses. Remember this?
Quote:
Chapter LIX.—God distinct from the Father conversed with Moses.
When I had spoken these words, I continued: “Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same One, who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and man, and who appeared in human form to Abraham and Isaac, Some conjecture “Jacob,” others insert “Jacob” after “Isaac.” The Jehovah-angel was seen no doubt by Isaac, as well as by his father.] appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and conversed with Moses.”
As I told you back then, I'd flunk you for this if I was your advisor. You continue to academically ignore counter-evidence though I appreciate some fairhandedness you offer prior, it unfortunately doesn't carry and thus this work is a hodge-podge of propoganda, agendizing, and the product of your own indoctrination against what may or may not be true (it doesn't seem concerned with either contrary).
Last page: "safe to conclude"
I'm sure you 'feel' safe in your conclusion but it is a hasty conclusion. Rather: "I conclude" or "evidence suggests" etc.
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
I am graduating tomorrow with my double major in Computer Science and Religious Studies!!!! For my Senior Project in Religious Studies I decided to do a research project on the Trinity and The Early Church, wherein I compare the traditional doctrine of the Trinity with the views of Justin Martyr & the Greek Logos Theologians, Tertullian and the Latin Trinitarians, and the Modalistic Monarchianism brought to Rome from Asia Minor by Praxeas.
I'll probably continue to refine this paper, as I plan to use this when I submit to graduate schools to get my doctorate in Theology/Church History someday. Nevertheless, several years of research has gone into this and I think it will be helpful and interesting to many here!
I welcome corrections (*I know there's some spelling issues I have to go through and fix*) and any constructive criticisms you may have. If anyone knows of some good sources on Modalistic Monarchianism during the Ante-Nicene period I would greatful as well
Great friend. I knew you could do it. Keep going now. You seem to be a great promoter of God's truth.
God bless you.
Psalm 1[/color] and Job 28:28
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Joh 4:23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Oh God of Truth, deliver us.
~ Ancient Prayer
As usual, I have you on ignore for a reason. What is that reason?
Because you, a student believed this before you ever started school, purposefully choosing who might agree with you rather than who might truly challenge you.
Don't talk as if you know me Lon. For your information I was once upon a time a devote Trinitarian and actively promoted it. It was about my Senior year of High School that I truly started to question it, and I have spent the past six years going back and reading the writings of the early Church Fathers - the entire Ante-Nicene Father Series and then some - to reach my current view points. The views I express aren't like yours - I didn't simply inherit them or blindly accept what the preacher said- I put forth lots of effort, studying, debate, and prayer to reach where I am today. And to tell you the truth - I had a hard time letting go of the Trinity, because that is what I was raised to believe.
Quote:
As such, your paper is a work of propoganda rather than a academic treatise. Unfortunately, these don't tend to get graded or you'd receive the grade you deserve (from me, a flunk, simply because it doesn't deal with one argument I or others on here ever gave you).
You misunderstand the nature of this paper if you think I should be addressing the "arguments" of random people online. First off, your "arguments" usually lack substance and amount to "just accept what I say cause I have a degree." Secondly, this paper doesn't put forth a particular Christology as being superior to any of the others. It merely objectively goes through and shows that there were several conflicting Christologies in the early church and thus that what ultimately became the orthodox view of the Trinity was not always the common belief among Christians.
Quote:
Thus, it is a work of religious indoctrination rather than something I'd accept for academic acceptance as your academic advisor.
You would only accept a work that parroted your views. You are anything but objective. If anything this a work of anti-indoctrination and is based upon years of research of the early church.
Quote:
And oh yes, I read it: Your Augustine and boy story was slanderous and nothing more.
C.S. Lewis exerpt? Not dealing with anything to do with your paper, no direct quote of the triune nature of God (trinity nowhere mentioned).
Both those excerpts are completely relevant to the section of the paper in which they appear: explaining the Trinity and its importance. Those quotes reflect the traditional approach to dealing with the difficulty in trying to understand the Trinity: it is beyond our comprehension.
Quote:
The Athanasian Creed is of 'dubious' origin? Look up 'dubious.'
"Doubtful?" Yes. Dubious? No. Athanasius certainly influenced its ideas, which might be why it holds his name. One could have written it to summarize Athanasius' thoughts. Regardless, such doesn't matter for your point so simply change dubious to 'doubtful' and move along.
Yes - Athanasius' ideas are very much present in the doctrine, which is why it was originally accredited to him. Nevertheless, it is generally agreed amongst scholars that it is actually a 6th century work - not a fourth century work - and we have no clue who truly wrote it. So yes: it is of dubious origin.
Just so you know, here are synonyms of dubious: equivocal, ambiguous, obscure, unclear. undecided, uncertain, hesitant, fluctuating. see dictionary.com
Quote:
Page 8 - footnote 16, - would prefer a primary source possibly with the given as a secondary note of your own findings
I was purposefully trying to get more secondary sources into this paper. Using primary sources is important, and I did plenty of it, but so is using secondary sources.
Quote:
Page 9 as I told you previously and one of many reasons you are on my ignore (because you do not listen) you selectively quote Justyn for your own uses. Remember this?
As I told you back then, I'd flunk you for this if I was your advisor. You continue to academically ignore counter-evidence though I appreciate some fairhandedness you offer prior, it unfortunately doesn't carry and thus this work is a hodge-podge of propoganda, agendizing, and the product of your own indoctrination against what may or may not be true (it doesn't seem concerned with either contrary).
Your whole criticism is simply a misguided personal attack and has nothing to do with the quality of what has been presented.
Quote:
Last page: "safe to conclude"
I'm sure you 'feel' safe in your conclusion but it is a hasty conclusion. Rather: "I conclude" or "evidence suggests" etc.
Not at all, I have demonstrated three major conflicting Christologies in the early church. Even the early Trinitarians like Tertullian aren't compatible with what became orthodoxy - and he points out that his position was in the minority. In order for such major conflicting Christologies to exist, it necessarily follows that what is now considered the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity was not considered orthodox back then.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Great friend. I knew you could do it. Keep going now. You seem to be a great promoter of God's truth.
God bless you.
Thank you
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Don't talk as if you know me Lon. For your information I was once upon a time a devote Trinitarian and actively promoted it. It was about my Senior year of High School that I truly started to question it, and I have spent the past six years going back and reading the writings of the early Church Fathers - the entire Ante-Nicene Father Series and then some - to reach my current view points.
High school even. A prodigy but I don't think a trinitarian. Not at 16, or 18 or whatever. Indoctrinated? Yes. Same as now. Yet 6 years hasn't taught you that yet, apparently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
The views I express aren't like yours - I didn't simply inherit them or blindly accept what the preacher said- I put forth lots of effort, studying, debate, and prayer to reach where I am today. And to tell you the truth - I had a hard time letting go of the Trinity, because that is what I was raised to believe.
Sheer delusional arrogance. "I didn't just blindly...this." "Not like you...that." I told you, you didn't take into account any serious question you were given on TOL in your paper. Your paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
You misunderstand the nature of this paper if you think I should be addressing the "arguments" of random people online. First off, your "arguments" usually lack substance and amount to "just accept what I say cause I have a degree." Secondly, this paper doesn't put forth a particular Christology as being superior to any of the others. It merely objectively goes through and shows that there were several conflicting Christologies in the early church and thus that what ultimately became the orthodox view of the Trinity was not always the common belief among Christians.
Says the man that was afraid to go to 'said' institution. I gave the quote already. It is there for all to see and you didn't touch it in your paper. For that, I would flunk you. Reading the fathers and having a few things stick with you are apparently two different things.
Regardless, if you don't want my input, just say so. You kind of linked here from where I was posting... Did you only want positive reviews from your fellow arians? I can leave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
You would only accept a work that parroted your views. You are anything but objective. If anything this a work of anti-indoctrination and is based upon years of research of the early church.
No, I just told you - dealing with actuals/factuals. I just gave you one of several quotes. Your ignoring them was the exact reason I put you on iggy. You aren't interested in them. That's not honest academics to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
Both those excerpts are completely relevant to the section of the paper in which they appear: explaining the Trinity and its importance. Those quotes reflect the traditional approach to dealing with the difficulty in trying to understand the Trinity: it is beyond our comprehension.
I think they are amature digs on your part. Why? Because Lewis was not a theologian and your story about a child having an inkling is obviously satire. So, in fact, you quoted no credible source to propogate your agenda. "F" in my book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
Yes - Athanasius' ideas are very much present in the doctrine, which is why it was originally accredited to him. Nevertheless, it is generally agreed amongst scholars that it is actually a 6th century work - not a fourth century work - and we have no clue who truly wrote it. So yes: it is of dubious origin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
Just so you know, here are synonyms of dubious: equivocal, ambiguous, obscure, unclear. undecided, uncertain, hesitant, fluctuating. see dictionary.com
I was purposefully trying to get more secondary sources into this paper. Using primary sources is important, and I did plenty of it, but so is using secondary sources.
Yes. It is my preference to have secondary sources alongside primary ones, not to the exclusion of them. Believe it or not, I am an educator so have actually tried to give you a few solid pointers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
Your whole criticism is simply a misguided personal attack and has nothing to do with the quality of what has been presented.
▲▲ Is it a personal attack? Not really, other than seeing your whole life as a propoganda venture to this point. But we were talking about your paper and my academic problems with it. Yes some of them also happen to be orthodox issues as well, but I'm telling you it is a veneer paper. It doesn't really do anything for me but perpetuate this TOL debate into a 30 page long paper with not a lot. I could reproduce this paper in an hour simply by cutting and pasting arian propoganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
Not at all, I have demonstrated three major conflicting Christologies in the early church. Even the early Trinitarians like Tertullian aren't compatible with what became orthodoxy - and he points out that his position was in the minority. In order for such major conflicting Christologies to exist, it necessarily follows that what is now considered the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity was not considered orthodox back then.
The first arians were not persecuted. They died out from infighting amongst themselves. Arians on here fight with one another all the time about christology. You guys only get along when you are 'attacking' trinitarian people and views. If we were ever suddenly gone, you'd implode, having no other to attack but yourselves.
Personally? I see most arian agenda as spiteful (simply attacking triune believers). I don't know if they were picked on as kids, always outcast that they enjoy being there, or what makes many tick but I don't believe it really has a lot to do with the scriptures other than hunting and pecking for supportive agendized truth.
I'll leave you be. It seems you just want a few pats on the back and to just get through the assignment.
I'm sorry I'm the only one that actually seemed to go through your paper.
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Look up 'dubious.'
Linear Mode
