Re: A Little Note About Theology

On Jul 9, 6:30=A0pm, hedr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Note that I'm not trying to prove the Trinity, just to respond to
the claim that "it's a clear fact seen by a majority of mainkind" that
it's three gods.

What "everybody knows" doesn't impress me; many non-Christians believe
a fair amount of malarky about Christianity. I've found that many
non-Christians tend to be just as credulous about criticisms of
Christianity as many Christians are about arguments for it.

But you're not an average non-Christian. Presumably you know the
background of the Trinity. That background is Jewish speculation,
which hypostasized the Logos and similar things. The background of the
NT passages is Philo, Proverbs, and similar type of thought. No Jew
intended this to challenge the unity of God, nor did any Christian.
The Logos was an attribute, function, role, or whatever of the one
God.

I think one can reasonably criticize the standard formulation. I
actually think in its original context it was an understandable
choice, but reasonable people can certainly maintain that the
terminology is badly chosen, because it sounds too much like three
gods. But there's a difference between saying that the terminology is
badly chosen and saying that Christians believe in three gods. The
former is a matter of judgement, and can be debated, but the latter is
simple misrepresentation.

On Jul 8, 2009, at 8:50:28 PM, DKleinecke wrote:

DKleinecke <dkleine...@xxxxxxxxx> writes

Proof by vigorous assertion?
Nope - rebuttal by vigorous assertion. It was the Trinitarians who
first started using the vigorous assertion technique. They had to.
They had nothing else to use.

I am delighted that you finally admitted you consider me a non-
Christian. I don't admit to being a non-Christian. I say I am a
Christian and that nobody has the authority to read me out of
Christianity.

Do you consider ALL Unitarians non-Christians?

You have to take my comments in context. It is my belief based on
unsystematic observation that almost all people who claim to be
Trinitarian Christians are, in fact, modal Monarchists. The test is to
ask them to explain what they mean by the Trinity. I would guess that
about 70-80% will answer that in ways equivalent to "they are three
different names for God". Which is the precise meaning of modal
monarchism.

It is a tempest in a teapot. Nothing depends on what name you use for
God. As I pointed out most polytheism is disguised monotheism - same
God, different name.

You will perhaps argue that I should place no value on the average
Christian's opinions because they are not informed about theology. You
have already excluded the opinions of all the non-Christians. You are
turning Christianity into a sect dominated a "trained" priesthood.

I agree that Logos speculation lies behind the Trinity - but it is not
the same as the theory of the Trinity. The logos and other similar
reified attributes such as Sophia were not separate entities - they
were aspects, facets, names, ... The crucial point is "the logos
became flesh". The crucial objection is that the Logos, as it was then
understood, was not susceptible to "becoming".

It is the Incarnation that is causing trouble - not the Trinity.
Without the Incarnation Christianity would have stayed Unitarian. But
the early churchmen felt that Jesus was separate from the Father - but
nevertheless divine. It is my belief that we have a Trinity rather
than a Duality because Matthew ended his gospel in a neat rhetorical
flourish. I have not seen a better presentation of Trinitarian theory
that Tertullian's. And Tertullian was a specialist in vigorous
assertion. As I read him, all of his serious arguments hinge on the
fact that Jesus was separate from God. How such a separation can be
made compatible with a single god eludes me.

On the matter of whether Jesus was divine we are never going to reach
consensus. It all depends on what one means by divine. Is it enough to
believe that Jesus was a normal man who became filled by one version
of the Holy Spirit - the one called the Logos? Up until about 175 CE
the Ebionites (as we know from Justin) were accepted as part of
mainstream Christianity. And the Ebionites fairly clearly denied Jesus
was divine. The Trinity is not a very important dogma of Christianity
and is certainly not a Biblical doctrine.

---

[My comment on non-Christian beliefs was because you were talking about
what "the majority of mankind" believes about Christianity. It wasn't
a comment about you specifically. There are certainly Christian Unitarians,
although the few Unitarians I've known probably aren't best described as
Christian.
--clh]
.

Loading