Trinity question about worship...

[LittlePerson]

Why is it in Christianity that Christians worship, Jesus, the son part of the trinity over the Father or head part of the trinity? Why is just the Father, who should be superior never worshipped, prayed to, sung about, or thought of separate from Jesus even once? He is superior isn't he? I might just think of being christian again if the Godhead was treated as superior and better. What makes Jesus superior to his Father to whom he even prayed during the garden story and when in the desert? Is it all because of the nicene counsel making their creed which made him superior? Isn't that unfair to the godhead who is supposed to be the creator?
I get that people who are blind followers say that Jesus was always God, always there before the creation and will be there long after "armageddon". But that doesn't do it for me as to why the Godhead or Father isn't superior to the son or Jesus figure. Help me wrap my mind around this train of thinking.

[BlackMagicalCat]

Well,I sing to Jesus cause he paid a tremendous price for my salvation,the bible says that we are to honor the Son as we honor the Father,if you honor not the Son,then you are not honoring the Father.

God loves Jesus and has given him all power and authority over all,That at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,and every tongue shall confess ,that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the Glory of God the Father.The 2 are inseperable,To honor God,you must honor the Son,to reject the Son,you reject the Father.No man comes unto the Father,but by me.To aproach God you need an atonment for your sins,and that was provided by Christ. And thats the basic gospel mesage by the way,incase you were wondering.

[Theognome]

Why is it in Christianity that Christians worship, Jesus, the son part of the trinity over the Father or head part of the trinity? Why is just the Father, who should be superior never worshipped, prayed to, sung about, or thought of separate from Jesus even once? He is superior isn't he? I might just think of being christian again if the Godhead was treated as superior and better. What makes Jesus superior to his Father to whom he even prayed during the garden story and when in the desert? Is it all because of the nicene counsel making their creed which made him superior? Isn't that unfair to the godhead who is supposed to be the creator?
I get that people who are blind followers say that Jesus was always God, always there before the creation and will be there long after "armageddon". But that doesn't do it for me as to why the Godhead or Father isn't superior to the son or Jesus figure. Help me wrap my mind around this train of thinking.

That's a good question, and many folks have spun little cults because of it.

The doctrine of Trinity is impossible to grasp. We can state what it is, but it just doesn't make complete sense. I'm fine with that, for I couldn't worship a God so small that my tiny little intelligence could understand Him.

But one thing we do know for sure- the idea of superiority/inferiority doesn't work at all. That is called 'subordinationalism', and is the mother of all heresies, dating back to the first century AD. 'Christian' Gnosticism grew from this.

There are no simple terms for this, but in Christian doctrine, God is One. And three persons. All completely equal, all completely God. And, of course, there is only one God.

[LittlePerson]

Well,I sing to Jesus cause he paid a tremendous price for my salvation,the bible says that we are to honor the Son as we honor the Father,if you honor not the Son,then you are not honoring the Father.

God loves Jesus and has given him all power and authority over all,That at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,and every tongue shall confess ,that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the Glory of God the Father.The 2 are inseperable,To honor God,you must honor the Son,to reject the Son,you reject the Father.No man comes unto the Father,but by me.To aproach God you need an atonment for your sins,and that was provided by Christ. And thats the basic gospel mesage by the way,incase you were wondering.
To honor God,you must honor the Son,to reject the Son,you reject the FatherHow can that be? Why can't we (anybody not just christians but christian and non-christian) worship God the father separate and then God the Son separate in the same belief system? Hmm? So you think that all Jews are doomed to damnation because they honor the father without the son? Didn't the father make the son? Or is it supposed to be the whole egg and the chicken dillema? I thought that the son Jesus came from the father (as in the birth story), worshipped the father, talked to and prayed to the father, was baptised in his father's name not his own, treating him as part of him in spirit but separate in being also superior to him.
Also, I was raised Christian so I know the message of the "good news" already.

[equinox2]

History may help out a little.

The doctrine of the trinity was developed in the early years of Christianity, and wasn't very solid until the end of the third century.

All of the early Christianities were centered around Jesus – so he had to be divine or at least special. But they needed to tie to the old testament to gain respectability (as any Wiccan knows, claiming antiquity helps credibility). But the OT said over and over and over that there was only 1 God to be worshipped. Plus you had that darn holy spirit flying around. What to do, what to do????

The Roman church solved it by developing the trinity idea between the years of 150 and 300 CE. That’s why the trinity isn’t mentioned in the Bible, which is made up of books all written by 150. That’s also why the Gospels contain so many things that contradict the trinity (like the baptism and Jesus/Father conversations). There would be even more, but the early church altered many places in the Bible to help fight the non-trinitarian Christians. They were labelled as "separationists" and called heretics. Here is a good book that documents dozens of these alterations:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195102797/qid=1115759055/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/104-0540825-1594355?v=glance&s=books

Many of the earliest forms of Christianity don't have the trinity. Ebionites (probably the closest in belief to what Jesus actually taught) believed in One God, no trinity. Marcionites believed in two gods. Gnostics believed in anything from 3 to hundreds of gods. Arians believed that Jesus was human, not divine. In fact, many of the views held by "heretics" were held by the founders of Traditional Christianity, but at the time they weren't considered heretical. It was only later that the details of the trinity were worked out, by the time of Constantine in the 4th century. The important historical detail to remember is that the church that won (the Roman Catholic Church) was the only church that could preserve it's writings, so those are most of the scriptures we have. They then made up a different history, where they claimed to be traced back to Jesus, when in fact nearly all of the early Christianities also claimed at the time that they could be traced back to Jesus. All of the early Christianities also called all the other Christianities "heresy".

Littleperson, I know you know about this class. I'm mentioning it again in case others are interested - especially people who spend a lot of time on the road - it is easy to listen to these tapes then. This class explains the development of the trinity well. I highly recommend it, and it isn’t expensive ($35 for cassette – that’s like less than dinner & a movie for two). It is by a world expert on early Christianity.
http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/coursedescriptions/6577.asp

Even today there is growing departure from the trinity. As you pointed out, many evangelical churches focus more on Jesus than on the trinity. Jehovah's witnesses reject the trinity, pointing out that it contradicts the old testament idea of 1 god. They instead see Jesus as God's instrument - thus solving many of the discussions between Jesus and God recorded in the gospels. The LDS church also rejects the trinity, sort of. They have a trinity, but it is unequal, with God being the supreme member. The Pentecostal Church rejects the trinity - again because it contradicts the idea of 1 god, and isn't literally supported by the Bible, in their view (http://www.upci.org/about/index.asp#oneness). Many of those churches (especially the pentecostal church) are growing extremely rapidly, while Christianity as a whole is either growing very slowly or shrinking, depending on who you listen to. So as a result, a smaller and smaller proportion of Christians still hold to the trinity, though it is certainly still a majority of Christians today.

Like almost any other issue, if we are going to talk about "Christian" doctrine, we have to be more specific, like Catholic doctrine, Calvinist Doctrine, etc - since there is very little that all Christians agree on. Examples include Divorce, Evolution, Baptism, Jesus, Communion, Faith vs works, etc.... When a disagreement comes up, each Christian will usually say that only their doctrine is "Christian" and that the other Christian's doctrine "isn't Christian" and pretty soon the conversation collapses into a "Christianer than thou" shouting match, where the other views are "heresy".

Take care-

[BlackMagicalCat]

Well blessed one,hi, Jesus is the Jews passover Lamb,to aproach the God of Israel,you need an atonment for your sins(Christ)You cannot aproach God any other way. An example would be when moses told the children of Israel to put lambs blood on the doorpost of their houses,otherwise judgment would come in and slay the first born,there was no other way,,,,,,,it had to be the way the God of Isreal said it.It had to be lambs blood.

Also when the children of Israel murrmered and complained against God and moses,God sent serpents to bite them and they were dying,so they cried to moses and God told him to make a brass serpent and put it on a pole,those who looked on this serpent after having been biten,lived,those who refused,died.

That was Gods plan to save them at that time and his instructions were clear,look at the brass serpent and you will live,refuse and you will die.That brass serpent was symbolic of Christ becoming a curse for us,those who look to him live,those who dont,die.Christ is your passover lamb,your atonement for your sins,only his blood can take away your sins,the bible says there is no other way.

Jesus is the Jewish messiah and passover lamb.Thats what I believe.

[BlackMagicalCat]

Also,im not a theologin,,so I could be wrong,but I believe God will never forsake his people ever,they are his beloved and gentiles are adopted children,I am an adopted child,Jews are Gods chosen,I love the God of Isreal,he is my God and I love his people,If im wrong then im sorry.God will find a way to bring his people back to himself and turn thrier hearts back to hi,.Christ.

[LittlePerson]

Many of the earliest forms of Christianity don't have the trinity.Can I find them in the yellow pages today? I thought the pentacostals believed in Jesus's divinity and in the trinity. I will have to look into that more. Are there any arians around today?

Azz- you never fully answered my second post where I indicated that Jesus had shown his separateness from his Father. If Jesus was God and the Father and the spirit why would he need to be baptised? Why did he get down on his knees and pray to God the Father instead of just talking to himself instead of God. Why did he say things about in My father's kingdom to his diciples? Why did he teach the Lord's prayer as it was a prayer to the father, why not say pray to me?

[Theognome]

Rather than quote Equinox2's post, I hope you don't mind if I make a comment or two...

There wasn't much theological work at all done in the first century and a half of the Christian faith, for obvious reasons- they were running for their lives much of the time. The first theological stand that the early Church made was against Syncretism, which put them in direct combat with the Roman empire. Until that enemy was overthrown, the high-brow theological work had to wait.

At about the same time as the council of Dort (which you refer too) was the split of the Roman and Eastern churches, both of which maintained historical records. Also, by the sixth century the monastic orders had gain some prominence, who's influence on preserving the historical documnets cannot be overemphasized.

As a doctrine, the Trinity didn't come under any serious attack until the 19th century, but that's another story entirely.

[Morr]

Well blessed one,hi, Jesus is the Jews passover Lamb,to aproach the God of Israel,you need an atonment for your sins(Christ)You cannot aproach God any other way. An example would be when moses told the children of Israel to put lambs blood on the doorpost of their houses,otherwise judgment would come in and slay the first born,there was no other way,,,,,,,it had to be the way the God of Isreal said it.It had to be lambs blood.

Also when the children of Israel murrmered and complained against God and moses,God sent serpents to bite them and they were dying,so they cried to moses and God told him to make a brass serpent and put it on a pole,those who looked on this serpent after having been biten,lived,those who refused,died.

That was Gods plan to save them at that time and his instructions were clear,look at the brass serpent and you will live,refuse and you will die.That brass serpent was symbolic of Christ becoming a curse for us,those who look to him live,those who dont,die.Christ is your passover lamb,your atonement for your sins,only his blood can take away your sins,the bible says there is no other way.

Jesus is the Jewish messiah and passover lamb.Thats what I believe.



Actually no, Judaism has an entirely different concept of the Messiah.

[Darkdale]

There wasn't much theological work at all done in the first century and a half of the Christian faith, for obvious reasons- they were running for their lives much of the time.

Actually, I disagree. Outside of Nero's persecution of the Christians (who were seen as being nothing more than radicalized jews *it was the jews Nero disliked*) Christians were pretty much left alone. Christians were not allowed to register with government because they would not pay homage to the Empire and its' authority, as the hundreds of registered pagan cults did. They were not allowed to use their religion to accumulate wealth and they were not allowed to have priests, because, as I said, they were an unregistered cult who spoke of a greater authority than that of the Empire. It was their choice not to register with the government, so their poverty and decreased economic position was their fault, not the Empires. Of course, they didn't follow the laws, so many Christians were arrested. So, while they had their hands full with the government at the time, it wasn't illegeal to be a Christian and they were not persecuted for being Christian. They were punished for breaking the law.

[equinox2]

Theognome worte:


There wasn't much theological work at all done in the first century and a half of the Christian faith, for obvious reasons- they were running for their lives much of the time.

I don't think that's accurate. There were very few government persecutions until the 3rd and 4th centuries. Before that, they were local affairs, usually caused by people pissed off that their friends stopped partying with them. Persecutions were few, small, and scattered in the first 200 years of Christianity. Even Neo's famous persecution (which inspired the book of Revelation) wasn't due to theological problems. Neo tried to pin the arson of Rome on the Christians only because they were an easy target. He didn't persecute them "because they were Christian", but as a scapegoat for the fire he himself set, to distract from his own guilt. Of course, even small persecutions aren't fun if you are there (read 2nd Peter, for instance).


As a doctrine, the Trinity didn't come under any serious attack until the 19th century, but that's another story entirely.

You've got to be kidding. The internal fights over the idea of the trinity as it was worked out in the 2nd and 3rd centuries were enormous. They were so bad that Constantine had to call a whole council over it (Nicea 325 CE), and the resulting Nicene creed was made specifically to shore up the idea of the trinity. It focusses on the issue of the day - the trinity. That's why it doesn't mention abortion or homosexuality - those are issues of today. To Christians today, it can seem to belabor obviously true points. Not to it's writers - to them, this was a strong statment on a controversial subject. It's practially all about the trinity - note the 3 fold structure (plus a concluding paragraph). Here it is:



The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

A good resource is the university class on tape I mentioned back on my last post:

http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/coursedescriptions/6577.asp

If you are interested in the formation of Christianity, these are worth you time, and are cheap (imagine what you'd pay to take this class at NC state, where it's taught.)

As with anything, it is important to get information from many sources, compare and challenge all of it, and not to accept anything without being critical. That class is only a good place to start. Of course, many people find it easier not to test their beliefs, and instead to just assume what they've been told is correct. Please feel free to challenge me if I seem to be doing that, either on this thread or some other thread.

Littleperson wrote:

Can I find them in the yellow pages today? I thought the pentacostals believed in Jesus's divinity and in the trinity. I will have to look into that more. Are there any arians around today?

Though these groups were pretty much wiped out after the Catholic church took over in the 4th century, non-trinitarian Christians can indeed be found today, and appear to be growing - maybe because many Christians are focussing more on the Bible, which was written before the idea of the trinity was developed.

Pentecostals - Just use the weblink I provided on my last post - it links directly to where they state that the trinity is incorrect. Note "Pentecostal" covers a range of denominations, many of which are traditional trinitarians. Some Pentecostal denominations are not trinitarian, including the huge "United Pentecostal Church International". That's kinda like asking if Protestants believe in evolution.

Some other small non-trinitarian denominations that may be in the phone book, depending on where you are. Some that are easy to find are the LDS church (Mormons) - they believe in a trinity, but a non-equal trinity. LDS churches are in most medium sized town in the US.

The Jehovah's witnesses are very similar in Christology to the ancient Arians. They believe in 1 God, with no hemming or hawing. To them, Jesus was created by God to serve God, and is not in any way another god. So they are clearly non-trinitarian, and are very easy to find.

Unitarians used to be a Christian denomination, and that denomination still holds a good number of Christians, most of whom are Unitarian in the old sense (i e - not trinitarian).

Some larger cities have Christian Churches that are Gnostic, Ebionite, or other of the
Christianities that were destroyed when the Catholic church gained government power in the 4th centrury. Many of these are now being restarted. They have to do so without much of their gospels, however, since Theodosius, in the 4th century outlawed all religions in the Roman Empire that weren't Roman Catholic. Their books were then burned.

Here are links for Ebionite and Gnostic churches:
http://ebionite.org/
http://www.gnosis.org/gnostsoc/gnostsoc.htm

Others are probably out there too. If you are interested, just do searches on the dozensof names of some of the early Christianities.

I hope that helps! Have a fun day-

[Paracelsus]

Equinox is bang on with the christology & totally right about Nicea - it all comes down to "Houmosion" - "of the same substance"!

[Theognome]

My apologies, I didn't flesh out my statement very well.

Syncretism was the big issue of the early church. You are correct concerning Nicea, and by this time the Syncretism issue had been resolved, and the Trinity issue was being addressed. The Trinity didn't come under any new major theological attack for another 1500 years afterwards.

My reference was to the period prior to the 3rd century. Nero was a player during that period, but Trinity was not being discussed. Theologically, Syncretism caused the early persecutions (Where applicable), and once those persecutions were over, the theological work was primarily dealing with the Gnosticism that had grown from it. Clement wrote some good letters around 110AD on the topic.

Wherever the Church resisted Syncretism, they were persecuted, through to the late 2nd century. However, once Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire (and later the official religion) in the early third century, the theologians finally turned their attention elsewhere.

[LittlePerson]

The Jehovah's witnesses are very similar in Christology to the ancient Arians. They believe in 1 God, with no hemming or hawing. To them, Jesus was created by God to serve God, and is not in any way another god. So they are clearly non-trinitarian, and are very easy to find.
So, equinox, when you say one god, does that mean that they don't believe in divinity of Jesus or do they? And do they worship Jehovah and Yahweh separately? Or do they just worship Jehovah and consider Jesus like a prophet the same way that muslims do? I always thought that they were trinitarian.

[LittlePerson]

They are trinitarian:
"The UPCI teaches that the one God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament as Jehovah revealed himself in His Son, Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus Christ was and is God. In other words, Jesus is the one true God manifested in flesh, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (John 1:1-14; I Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9)."


This to me is what I learned is the trinity. That Jesus is god and always was god and always will be god. This is so not what I'm looking for. To place Jesus equal to or above God because he is God is still trinitarian. I want to see the Godhead above Jesus in superiority and separate from him. But at the same time see Jesus as an exemplar or avatar of the Holy Spirit (the third part). I say want to see, as in to see if it exists. This clearly isn't that.

"He was both God and man"
And this is the paradox. Because to be man at all God would have to give up part of himself to become man and be present at the same time in heaven wouldn't he? And that's why I cannot understand the things I said before about how Jesus acted as though God still being a part of him as he is a part of everyone was not really him but separate still because he prayed to him in the third person, and talked to him and about him in the third person, ect. Would it have not been more clear for Jesus to just tell his parents when they found him in the temple to say that he was in his own house instead of his father's? It's things like that that indicate opposition to the oneness or God in Jesus as both father and son being one.

[Theognome]

"He was both God and man"

And this is the paradox


Yup.

[equinox2]

Theognome worte:

My reference was to the period prior to the 3rd century. Nero was a player during that period, but Trinity was not being discussed.

I guess I don’t quite understand. Nero died in the middle of the 1st century, so I’m not sure what you mean by “a player in the period before the 3rd century”. The trinity certainly was discussed prior to the 3rd century – it was discussed and worked out mainly between 150 and 300, so that’s 2nd through 3th centuries. The major trinity related controversies that lead to changes in the Bible to support the various views happened largely in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I suppose we agree that major trinity discussions and fine-tuning happened in the 3rd century, so maybe our disagreement is minor.


Wherever the Church resisted Syncretism, they were persecuted, through to the late 2nd century. However, once Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire (and later the official religion) in the early third century,…

Christianity wasn’t “illegal” most of the time, and was never declared illegal in the whole Roman empire until the middle of the 3rd century under Decius. Local persecution often happened because Christians removed themselves from society, and refused to join in celebrations and other community events, because these were often on a god’s birthday or some such. Local government persecutions often happened because Christians refuse to offer sacrifices to the governor or emperor, who were seen as minor gods, so that was a political offense – like declaring oneself a communist and opposed to the United States. Thankfully, we don’t (usually) attack people for political offenses anymore. In either case, the persecutions were rarely because anyone considered Christianity “illegal” – the Romans allowed you to believe whatever you wanted as far as religion goes – as long as you still did the actions that showed that you were a good citizen with allegiance to the emperor. This was often in the form of burning some incense or lighting a candle in front of a statue of the emperor, which Christians wouldn’t do, hence the friction. It's kinda like how we treated Jehovah's witnesses during WWII. JW wasn't "illegal", but their religion prevented them from being soldiers, so when they were drafted, they refused, and we threw them in prison. Of course, our prisons are much nicer than being killed, and at times Christianity was illegal, but not most of the time. So yes, I agree that wherever the church resisted syncretism, they were persecuted.

I see two major phases of syncretism that probably should be viewed separately.

The first is when the many different Christianities started, such as the Montanists, the Gnostics, the Thomasines, the Proto-Orthodox, the Theodotans, the sybellians, etc. Each of those had to put together a theology, and they all did so, often taking parts from other religions. This started before the books of the Bible were written. Because that kind of syncretism goes back to the roots of any of these various Christianities, it applies to all of them. That’s part of the reason why the Catholic faith contains so many elements from other religions. After that, each of them accused the other of being heretics, while claiming that their type of Christianity is the one that was the original form, that their scripture was the only inspired scripture, and that their line of leaders went back to Jesus.
The second phase of syncretism is when these different Christianities vied for power in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Only one type could win, and the winner needed to be able to counter each of the others. Thus, it makes sense that one filled with paradoxes would develop.

For instance, how could a Christianity oppose the Gnostics, who said Jesus was a divine being? Well, by saying that Jesus was a human. But wait! Now that same group has to oppose the Theodotans, who say Jesus was a human – so now they have to say he was a God. How to oppose both? By claiming the paradoxical position that Jesus was both, now they could fight both groups. What about the number of Gods? The Marcionites said there were two, so to fight them, claim 1 god – but the Arians say there is only 1 God – so to fight them, claim that both Jesus and God are divine. How to do both – make a paradox, the trinity. This is part of the reason why the different books of the Bible describe such different religions – some were originally used by groups with different views.

The many different, contradictory Christianities of the first few centuries caused the final dogma to contain many paradoxes**.

Littleperson wrote:

So, equinox, when you say one god, does that mean that they don't believe in divinity of Jesus or do they?

Not as God. They see Jesus as on par with an angel. Perhaps as a special or primary angel type thing (like, say, a special angel like Michael or Gabriel), but not more than that.

You mentioned that the Pentecostal stuff sounded Trinitarian. It does. But they also say this:
From that same Pentecostal website:


In distinction to the doctrine of the Trinity, the UPCI holds to a oneness view of God. It views the Trinitarian concept of God, that of God eternally existing as three distinctive persons, as inadequate and a departure from the consistent and emphatic biblical revelation of God being one.

The Pentecostal view seems to be similar to the early form of trinitarianism called Modalism, where God is one, but can manifest himself in 3 modes or ways: God mode, Jesus mode, or Spirit mode – just as I can be in Father mode, Employee mode, car-driver mode, husband mode, sone mode, or fisherman mode, etc. Later on, this view was condemned at heretical.

That fits the pattern we see often, where an early view of someone in the church that became dominant (the Roman Catholic Church) is fine at first, but is later condemned as a heresy. Theognome mentioned Clement’s letters – those are another good example. Clement had a Docetic Christology (he thought Jesus didn’t have a human body like ours, but instead was a divine manifestation). That view was fine when he wrote near the year 100, but was attacked as a heresy later.

Theognome wrote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by LittlePerson
"He was both God and man"
And this is the paradox


Yup.

Yep, see my note above**.


Interesting discussion! Anyway, have a fun day everyone-

[Theognome]

Aye, you've given a good play-by-play. Being on a different side of the Christian fence, my interpretation of events will differ with yours, but you've already pointed that out, and I agree, the point is not one readily reconcilable or really needing to be argued.

Cornelius Van-Til once wrote that 'Subordinationism is the mother of all heresies', and this thread demonstrates this. The very first documented heresy (or new doctrine, if you prefer) in the early Church was Subordinationalism, or at least an early form of it. Every single one of the various groups that you mentioned in your lengthy post can be derived from that source, first manifesting in the first century. It reared up so early in the Church's development that several apostolic epistles are found in the NT addressing this schism.

[equinox2]

Theognome worte:


Being on a different side of the Christian fence, my interpretation of events will differ with yours, but you've already pointed that out, and I agree, the point is not one readily reconcilable or really needing to be argued.


Yeah. You mentioned on another thread something about "let's talk about what we agree on instead of arguing about what we disagree on". Good point. My other Calvinist friend and I have to rely on that approach now and then too. :wave:

Subordinationalism is indeed present in many of those I mentioned, but it's not clearly present in Gnosticism, Marcionism, or the Proto-orthodox. With many Gnosticisms, the entire theological structure is so different that it's hard to even evaluate it as far as how subordinationist it is. Kinda like saying "is Hinduism Subordinationalist?". Kinda doesn't make sense to even ask, do ya think?

May you never thirst-

[Theognome]

Theognome worte:




Yeah. You mentioned on another thread something about "let's talk about what we agree on instead of arguing about what we disagree on". My other Calvinist friend and I have to rely on that approach now and then too.

Subordinationalism is indeed present in many of those I mentioned, but it's not clearly present in Gnosticism, Marcionism, or the Proto-orthodox. With many Gnosticisms, the entire theological structure is so different that it's hard to even evaluate it as far as how subordinationist it is. Kinda like saying "is Hinduism Subordinationalist?". Kinda doesn't make sense to even ask, do ya think?

May you never thirst-

Gnosticism, Marcionism, etc... grew from it. Acorns don't look anything like a mature tree, and thus these groups don't look a lot like classic Subordinationalism, but their genesis can be found there. I'll use Gnosticism for an axample:

Gnosticism in the Christian Church was developed from Docetism. Docetism taught that Christ only appeared to have a physical body, but did not actually have a physical presence. Docetism developed from a blend Subordinationalism, which taught that the Father was superior to the Son and Stoicism, which sought to reduce the significance of the particulars.

[equinox2]

I'm not sure we are using terms the same. Docetism to my knowledge is simply the idea that Jesus' body wasn't real - it applies to any Christianity that has a Docetic Christology, a generic term like "trinitarian", which applies to any Christianity that uses a trinitarian Christology. As such, I'd guess that Docetic Christianities probably grew from several different places, and a common ancestor may or may not have been the case.

It is hard to map out direct lineages, of course, with the sketchy data we have. I don't think all Docetic Christianities require Stoic ancestry. Do you think they do? It seems to me that Docetic Christianities could spring up independantly given verses like John 8:59, 20:19, and others could inspire docetism by themselves, since different Christianities used different gospels in the early church. Just a thought.

Take care-

[Theognome]

Francis Shaeffer wrote at length on the topic, and fleshes out the details well.

Docetism was not too hard to trace, actually. Follow the gentile congregations of Corinth and Philipi and you'll be on the right track. The Subordinationalism and Stoicism are very evident.

Stoicism may not be a requirement for every incarnation of Docetism, but the 1st century evidence currently available points that direction extremely strongly.

[equinox2]

Theognome wrote:

Francis Shaeffer wrote at length on the topic, and fleshes out the details well.

Everything deserves a skeptical approach, and the writings by Francis Shaeffer are no different. Being that Shaeffer is writing from a clear position of assuming the entire Bible is true (you know better than I do how many books Shaeffer has on this), I’d be sure to compare the picture presented with that found by historians. Reading one extreme and not the other is a good way to ensure a distorted worldview, and reading Shaeffer without reading, say, Pagels is an example of that. I haven’t read Shaeffer’s books (nor Pagels’), but if Shaeffer says that Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, and other stories really happened, which all available evidence disagrees with, then Shaeffer should be read carefully.
Too often, I’ve seen sources with a literal belief in the Bible distort things to fit their presuppositions. This is sometimes done in response to small, non-traditional-Christian religions. A few examples are here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ccm2.htm

Anyway, this is getting off-topic. We could have a separate thread on some of these other early Christianities, or not – we both are pretty busy. It also might lead to too much animosity – which I don’t want to happen. You have been very respectful, and I appreciate that. Our worldviews are so different that things either of us says as a matter of course can be offensive to the other. I’m sure that I’ve said some things that have made you wince, and vice-versa. I guess it is a tricky balance to have an open discussion on one hand, and keep things friendly on the other.

Take care-

[Theognome]

Theognome wrote:


Everything deserves a skeptical approach, and the writings by Francis Shaeffer are no different. Being that Shaeffer is writing from a clear position of assuming the entire Bible is true (you know better than I do how many books Shaeffer has on this), I’d be sure to compare the picture presented with that found by historians. Reading one extreme and not the other is a good way to ensure a distorted worldview, and reading Shaeffer without reading, say, Pagels is an example of that. I haven’t read Shaeffer’s books (nor Pagels’), but if Shaeffer says that Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, and other stories really happened, which all available evidence disagrees with, then Shaeffer should be read carefully.
Too often, I’ve seen sources with a literal belief in the Bible distort things to fit their presuppositions. This is sometimes done in response to small, non-traditional-Christian religions. A few examples are here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ccm2.htm

Anyway, this is getting off-topic. We could have a separate thread on some of these other early Christianities, or not – we both are pretty busy. It also might lead to too much animosity – which I don’t want to happen. You have been very respectful, and I appreciate that. Our worldviews are so different that things either of us says as a matter of course can be offensive to the other. I’m sure that I’ve said some things that have made you wince, and vice-versa. I guess it is a tricky balance to have an open discussion on one hand, and keep things friendly on the other.

Take care-

Schaeffer is a Christian, but he's a pretty good historical analyst. He uses tons of reference texts; from Josephus to the writings pulled from the library of Herculanium. But yes, you are correct- it's a long study. When you get involved with the Trinity discussion, you would need to be prepared for the long haul. The paths are extremely divergent.

When I look at the world today, I see a greater need to understand each-others core beliefs. Understanding does not mean agreement, but if any of the parties come to the table for the purpose of judgement, the discussion will simply never take place.

This is a tall order. When belief is involved, defenses go up, and getting to the core issues is difficult under such conditions. Many if not most folks simply won't discuss their beliefs unless they are amongst like-minded persons.

Speaking of literal beliefs in the Bible, that is unfortunately prevelent in the modern evangelical Church. Darby and Schoffield are prominent founders of the movement known as Dispensationalism, which relies on literal interpretations of the Bible, regardless of the context. The link you gave is rife with this teaching. It's a (comparitively) very new development in Protestantism, and has unfortunately taken it by storm. A lot of modern Christian goofiness can be traced to it.

[equinox2]

Theognome wrote:


When I look at the world today, I see a greater need to understand each-others core beliefs. Understanding does not mean agreement, but if any of the parties come to the table for the purpose of judgement, the discussion will simply never take place.

Big agreement here. Speaking of that, I’ve found that a lot of times small differences in the deepest, most basic beliefs are what lead to major differences in worldviews. What do you think of this short story/essay? :

http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~leta/TREATISE/tjbassump.htm

Take care-

[Theognome]

Theognome wrote:



Big agreement here. Speaking of that, I’ve found that a lot of times small differences in the deepest, most basic beliefs are what lead to major differences in worldviews. What do you think of this short story/essay? :

http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~leta/TREATISE/tjbassump.htm

Take care-

Interesting tale, as well as analysis. I'm familiar with Covey's work as well. I'm staring at a copy of 7 habits right now.

The story, in a nutshell, points out intolerance vs tolerance vice acceptance. Covey does this at length too.

I think that you'll find some agreement in This (http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Research_Center/Apologetics/Presuppositional_Apologetics/cornelius_van_till.htm)article by Dr Phil Fernandes regarding the work of Van Til. Where you'll see them intersect is where Promethius and the Crab first meet. Their own personal presuppositions on the essence of being (ie- they are living beings) were assumed when the two of them met on the beach. A common cognitive reasoning had already existed that allowed them to communicate.

But of course, you would need to go through a process before you'll reach a place where that crucial point of question can be asked. The tale and analysis do well in describing this process.

[equinox2]

Good Discussion! Theognome, we can pick this up again next week - I'll be offline over the weekend.

Take care-

[EponaCapaill]

Why is it in Christianity that Christians worship, Jesus, the son part of the trinity over the Father or head part of the trinity? Why is just the Father, who should be superior never worshipped, prayed to, sung about, or thought of separate from Jesus even once? He is superior isn't he? I might just think of being christian again if the Godhead was treated as superior and better. What makes Jesus superior to his Father to whom he even prayed during the garden story and when in the desert? Is it all because of the nicene counsel making their creed which made him superior? Isn't that unfair to the godhead who is supposed to be the creator?
I get that people who are blind followers say that Jesus was always God, always there before the creation and will be there long after "armageddon". But that doesn't do it for me as to why the Godhead or Father isn't superior to the son or Jesus figure. Help me wrap my mind around this train of thinking.


In the Catholic Mass, Jesus is called upon much. But, during the Eucharist the Holy Spirit and God the Father are both called upon. The Holy Spirit is called down during the Epiclesis and during the Remberance, the Offering, the Intercessions and the Doxology God the Father is called upon and prayed to with and through Jesus. But it is God The Father that is being worshiped.

IF anyone is interested in learning more about the Catholic Mass a good book to read is 'The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth.' by Scott Hahn.
The book is specifically about the Mass and how it is taken from the Book of Revalations. A very interesting read.

Bright Blessings!
EC

[janifarrellroberts]

I have been intrigured by the discussion of Trinity here - one really does need to go back to roots - years ago I went on pilgrimage to the middle east to see a particular ancient church where the Holy Spirit is depicted as Sophia, as a woman. This was the really early understanding of it - and mirrored the understanding in Egypt - where a Sacred Family of Three, Father, Mother and Child- was seen as at the heart of religion...
Around 100 certain philosophers decried the idea of seeing Sophia as a woman - and so she became a Ghost, the Holy Ghost... they said female is inferior to male so it was wrong to depict the Spirit as female..
Three-Persons in One deities were common in the ancient world - including in Ireland...
It was a way of showing how male and female, young and old, were one in the Godhead.
As for Gnosticisim, gnostic means 'wisdom', and it meant a person who looks to their inner wisdom, to the God dwelling in our heart, -- rather than to an external authority. it was common throughtout the middle east in the earliest days of Christianity - some scholars now say it was the commonest form of Chrisitanity and that St Paul was Gnostic.
there is a highly interesting attack by the Catholic Bishop of Lyon on a Gnostic Christian priest, Marcos --- he says how can Marcos delude women to think they have a part in the sacred ministry, that they can prophesy and preach? At that time the Catholics were far authoritarian than the Gnostics - with the later much more tolerant...when the Catholics came to power under Constanatine, they were quick to ban Gnostics, Jews and Pagans - and to launch persecutions... the Gnostic Christion gospels were ordered burn- unfortunately, the Catholics of that time then wrote the history books - saying that the Gnostics were heretics
Jani

[LittlePerson]

In the Catholic Mass, Jesus is called upon much. But, during the Eucharist the Holy Spirit and God the Father are both called upon.Ok, but is the Father part called upon with the same concept that the Jews have of God? I mean I have gone to catholic and anglican mass a lot so I'm only asking because I want an answer from your point of view.
It seems to me that after the arrival of Jesus into the Judaic history of God that Christians seemed to "tone" down the atrocities that God did like all the slaying of people asking abraham to sacrifice Isaac, ect, as if those things were little things or that they weren't as destructive as they were because having Jesus around "softens" the hand of God. -God side tracked there but wanted to bring that up.
Anyway, where else can we find prayers, songs, or even call and response that is only addressed soley to the Fatherhead rather than the son? If it's only in the eucharist and part of it, to me that isn't enough. Why can't we find a prayer that's just for the Father without bringing Jesus into it.
When my husband and I got married I intentionally had a Jewish prayer read because it addressed the Fatherhead soley. To me he was the most important thing in the trinity and the son being subordinate to Him. Though I'm not Christian anymore this believe in heirarchy hasn't changed. I mean I think of Jesus as coming into being with his birth, and into being as God with his death, not as God from the start or before creation like most people and that may be where I differ and want the heirarchy. I just think that God the Father deserves just as much praise/worship, if not more, as God the son. So, find me a place that does that and I honestly could consider changing beliefs. I don't believe that God just handed all his power and kingdom over to his son just like that. If God being immortal as he is biblically, doesn't need to worry about death, why should he hand everything over to Jesus? That doesn't make sense to me at all.
Anyhow, I don't know of any church that will worship the Fatherhead over the Son or even give him separate praises. Hmmph.

[equinox2]

Littleperson-

I think Theognome and others knowledgeable about Christianity will agree with me that all major branches of Christianity firmly reject the subordinationalism you desire. Forget about Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses are openly subordinationalist, but are very conservative, and I don’t think you’d fit there.

You might fit with Gnostics or Ebionites (links given earlier), and of course a non-creedal church like UU won’t mind if you have a Christology as you’ve described.

Other than that, I think you are out of luck. :whatgives I hope you find a home that satisfies you-

[Theognome]

Littleperson-

I think Theognome and others knowledgeable about Christianity will agree with me that all major branches of Christianity firmly reject the subordinationalism you desire. Forget about Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses are openly subordinationalist, but are very conservative, and I don’t think you’d fit there.

You might fit with Gnostics or Ebionites (links given earlier), and of course a non-creedal church like UU won’t mind if you have a Christology as you’ve described.

Other than that, I think you are out of luck. :whatgives I hope you find a home that satisfies you-

Equinox is quite correct. You'll have a hard time finding a mainsteam Christian fellowship that subordinates within the trinity. If you cannot reconcile Trinitarian thought, then Equinox's list of groups is a good place to start looking for fellowship.

[EponaCapaill]

Ok, but is the Father part called upon with the same concept that the Jews have of God? I mean I have gone to catholic and anglican mass a lot so I'm only asking because I want an answer from your point of view.

Well, I myself am just begining to study other religions, so I cannot say whether or not it is the same concept as the Jews have of God, but I would wager a guess and say probably not since the Jews do not believe in the Trinity.

(MOSTLY, I am just lurking here in the Theology and Philosophy forum, reading, observing, learning.)


Anyway, where else can we find prayers, songs, or even call and response that is only addressed soley to the Fatherhead rather than the son? If it's only in the eucharist and part of it, to me that isn't enough. Why can't we find a prayer that's just for the Father without bringing Jesus into it.

Well...
During the Rememberence, God renews His covenant.

During the Offering we call to mind Jesus' sacrifice for our salvation and offer God thanks for this sacrifice.

During the Intercessions we pray WITH Jesus TO God for the living, the dead, the Church and the world.

And finally during the Doxology, we say "Through Him, with Him, in Him [Him being Jesus], all glory and honor is Yours, almighty Father, forever and ever. Amen"

While it IS God that we are worshiping, we cannot leave out Jesus, for we believe that not only is he the Son of God, he IS God as is the Holy Spirit.

I just found this in the 'The Essential Catholic Handbook' (yes there is a handbook! :) )


Holy Trinity: The most sublime and central doctrine of the Christian faith, namely, that there are three Persons-Father, Son, Holy Spirit-in one God. This doctrine is indicated in the Scriptures and expressed in all Christian Creeds.


As for songs, I don't attend church very often, so I would have to do some research.

And we do have a prayer that is only to God, a very big one, The Our Father.

I don't know if that helps your understanding at all, but I thought I would give it a go.

Bright Blessings!
EC

[EponaCapaill]

As for songs, I don't attend church very often, so I would have to do some research.


Ok, did a tiny bit of Googling, jogged my memory. While there are numerous songs that are sung only to God, these are the ones that I love.

'This is the day the Lord has made'
'Amazing Grace'
'Be not afraid'
'Eternal Father, Strong to Save'
and my favorite
'On Eagles Wings', it always chokes me up no matter how distant I feel from the Catholic Church.

Anyway, I don't want to sound like I am pushing Catholicism (far from it) so I will stop pointing things out. Its a bad habit I have. Must learn to stop! :eyez:

Bright Blessings!
EC

[Luminessence]

When I was a Christian, I prayed to God a lot more than I prayed to Jesus. But then, when I was a Christian, I really couldn't get my brain around the whole trinity concept. I didn't really think Jesus was divine, and I couldn't see the difference between the Father and the Holy Spirit.

[LittlePerson]

When I was a Christian, I prayed to God a lot more than I prayed to Jesus. But then, when I was a Christian, I really couldn't get my brain around the whole trinity concept. I didn't really think Jesus was divine, and I couldn't see the difference between the Father and the Holy Spirit. I feel the same way about the last part with the spirit.

[orgtigger]

:bumpsmili

[LittlePerson]

Well, Just the other night I felt the need to pray to Jesus. Not Jesus the son or Jesus the God, just Jesus in the same way a christian or polytheist would. I have come to realize that I see Jesus as half god half man when mortal, born from a human and a god. He came into being here on earth as such and when he died became a full god among many including his father who is the Jewish god. I've reconciled my old beliefs with this new one and it is suiting me just fine.

I just prayed to Jesus, but that doesn't mean that I have stopped praying to the other deities that I pray to. That is what really separates me from most christians is that I will not call myself christian though I will pray to Jesus, because I see him as a polytheist does not as a monotheist does. I don't believe that he is the god, just a god. And I've realized that is good enough for me. I don't feel a need for a church or a denomination or even a label anymore. What I wanted was just to pray to Jesus and for goodness sake I did, without a church!

(That doesn't mean though that when I was christian I only prayed to him in church, because I did pray to him all the time outside of church too, but my beliefs about the church and about him have changed and I no longer feel I need to be a part of a church or fit in there with christians. I'm comfortable now with my new beliefs.)

[Darkdale]

Good for you. Feel better now do we?

[LittlePerson]

Haha, Asa you're a trip, you know that? Yes, feeling comfortable with my beliefs does help one feel better.

[Darkdale]

Haha, Asa you're a trip, you know that? Yes, feeling comfortable with my beliefs does help one feel better.

:) That's good. Feeling good about one's beliefs is only the first step toward happiness though. Acting out your beliefs is where the real happiness is found.

[LittlePerson]

That is true. I feel real good practicing love and compassion as those are the things I feel are my purpose in life other than to just enjoy life. Even to practice kindness upon those who may hurt you makes you feel better because you know you do not have to return meanness. I know it's wierd. But one day I had decided to go out of my way to give something to someone who really hurt my feelings and is continually just not real nice to me. It felt good to me to know I could still be kind to those who have been mean to me, that I had it in me not to be petty and mean to those who are mean to me but practice love and compassion instead. That is action to me.

I know our beliefs are different Asa. For you it is honor. But alas our beliefs are what sustain us and make us unique. Different colors of a beautiful rainbow. :)