Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

by joey jojo 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ukpimo

  The very fact in the early times there were 2 sides in the debate, non trinitarian and those who leaned towards what would develop into the trinity doctrine, and that if you weren't allowed to express belief that Jesus was essentially God then you would be tortured, even killed, was testimony to the fact that Christians prior to this time did not equate Christ with God himself. However it seems apparent that if a Christian did express a viewpoint about the divinity of Christ contrary to the majority of non trinitarian Christians in the first century, he wasn't necessarily removed from the congregation. It was in fact Paul who identified them as "antichrists" and introduced a new concept to the church that such individuals were to be "marked", treated with caution. These Christians who had a different view regarding the divinity of Christ were still viewed as "brothers", but from Paul's point of view they were "false brothers", still not subject to "removal", unless they disagreed with one fundamental doctrine: the resurrection of Christ. This doctrine was the only one that had to be believed in every Christian church. The Trinity was not and never should have been a fundamental doctrine. It should have been allowed as an alternative viewpoint, subject to correction.

  The fact that Trinitarian Christians demonise their members for having different viewpoints reveals that they are no better cults than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True Christianity encompasses all viewpoints on doctrine. Sad to say that all Christian religions, as well as other religions, are more concerned about money than anything else.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  First, while it is true that various factions within early Christianity wrote against their opponents, the claim that the survival of works like those of Justin Martyr or Irenaeus is due only to Nicene favoritism is misleading. These writings predate the Nicene Council by over a century and reflect a consistent belief in the divinity of Christ and a proto-Trinitarian theology. For instance, Justin Martyr repeatedly refers to Christ as “God” (e.g., First Apology, Chapter 6), a sentiment echoed by other early church fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, who explicitly speaks of Jesus Christ as “our God” (Epistle to the Ephesians, 7:2). This undermines the claim that Trinitarianism was a late development or a post-Nicene imposition.
  

  Second, while some Gnostic writings, such as the Tripartite Tractate, also addressed heresies, this comparison is flawed. Gnosticism represents an entirely separate theological framework, often fundamentally incompatible with the beliefs of mainstream Christianity. The Gnostics’ rejection of material creation and their elaborate cosmologies bear little resemblance to the biblical monotheism embraced by both pre- and post-Nicene Christians. Furthermore, many Gnostic texts were preserved precisely because they were not systematically suppressed in the way you suggest—several were hidden or preserved by their own communities, not burned by the orthodox Church.

  Third, the assertion that Origen’s writings were systematically altered to align with later Trinitarian theology misrepresents historical evidence. While Rufinus did edit Origen’s works, Origen’s theology often shows a clear subordinationist tendency that was debated but not erased. His writings reflect the diversity of thought in pre-Nicene Christianity, but they also confirm the widespread acknowledgment of Christ’s divinity. For example, Origen explicitly states that “the Word was God” and that worship of Christ is appropriate (De Principiis, 1.2.1, 1.3.6). These views undermine the claim that early Christians did not regard Christ as divine.

  Fourth, the suggestion that first-century Christians overwhelmingly rejected the deity of Christ is contradicted by New Testament texts. John 1:1 unequivocally calls the Word (Jesus) “God,” and Thomas explicitly addresses Jesus as “My Lord and my God” in John 20:28. Paul’s writings, such as Philippians 2:6-11, present Jesus as preexistent and divine, using language that applies Old Testament Yahweh imagery to Christ. This evidence demonstrates that the divinity of Christ was not a later invention but part of early Christian belief.

  Fifth, the claim that Trinitarian Christians resorted to torture and killing to enforce orthodoxy is anachronistic. The Nicene Council itself was not a coercive body but a gathering of bishops to resolve theological disputes. While political power later became intertwined with church authority, this occurred centuries after the early debates over Christology and cannot retroactively redefine first-century or even Nicene-era Christianity.

  Finally, the assertion that all Christian denominations are primarily concerned with money and that the Bible is a work of fiction lacks any substantive evidence and detracts from the credibility of your argument. It conflates theological criticism with ad hominem attacks and personal bias.
• 

  Anony Mous

  @SeaBreeze, my point you did not understand: People are missing the point entirely.

  The question was about the trinity at the Nicene Council, the one Arian participated in, he lost the argument, but did not argue there was no trinity, he believed there was one supreme god in the beginning that then created and made himself into the triune god as his first creation. This isn’t too crazy in the eyes of a people that largely came from polytheism.

  As far as the arguments of a trinity being pagan: yes, that is an argument I have made prior to the fact many religions have come to the same conclusion about deities and their connection to humanity, both influenced and independent, you can find references to various trinity even in cultures that did not have influence from Christians or Greeks and Romans. Therefore my claim is that scientifically speaking there is a basic symbolic “truth” to it, for stable societies to exist people should understand that a God is not disconnected but has progressive human (youth, vigor, sons) properties and a logos (spirit, word, teachings) and a father (wisdom, knowledge) property that needs to be balanced and influence each other for humans to thrive.
• 

  joey jojo

  The point I was trying to make is simply that this whole event and outcome was man-made and politically motivated. If you believe that you can see God's hand involved then you are delusional.

  Claiming that those that disagree with the majority are heretical outcasts based on how something is interpreted is exactly the same as believing that the GB in New York has the right to govern your life.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  If you believe that you can see God's hand involved then you are delusional.

  Unless you saw a man predict his own sacraficial death and self resurrection from the dead. That's the point to all this and what is missing from history deniers' narrative.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Anony mous....I think you are correct. What was called Arianism was essentially a logos theology. An attempt to bridge the Logos of Philo et al with a historized understanding of the Jesus of the Gospels. I also liked your comment regarding the psychological underpinnings of the Trinity. It makes sense to understand your a singular deity as all things, Wise and Fatherly, Vital and powerful, and pervasive and omnipresent. Giving faces to those aspects is how humans understand things. We make models and symbols to conceptualize intangibles.

  JWs unknowingly have done the same, they just dumbed it down. Either, or should I say any, conceptualization of deities will suffer from scrutiny and rational analysis, because they are the product of poets and diviners, not scientists.
• 

  Earnest

  aqwsed12345 : while some Gnostic writings, such as the Tripartite Tractate, also addressed heresies, this comparison is flawed. Gnosticism represents an entirely separate theological framework, often fundamentally incompatible with the beliefs of mainstream Christianity.

  The Tripartite Tractate was certainly a second- or third-century Christian treatise. Elaine Pagels writes in The Gnostic Gospels :

  What distressed Irenaeus most was that the majority of Christians did not recognize the followers of Valentinus as heretics. Most could not tell the difference between Valentinian and orthodox teaching; after all, he says, most people cannot differentiate between cut glass and emeralds either! But, he declares, "although their language is similar to ours," their views "not only are very different, but at all points full of blasphemies."

  aqwsed12345 : Furthermore, many Gnostic texts were preserved precisely because they were not systematically suppressed in the way you suggest—several were hidden or preserved by their own communities, not burned by the orthodox Church.

  They may have been hidden or preserved by their own communities, as at Nag Hammadi, but those who described them as heretics certainly encouraged the destruction of their texts. Due to this, most evidence for the Valentinian system comes from its critics and detractors, most notably Irenaeus, since he was especially concerned with refuting Valentinianism. Obviously an unbiased source.

  The point is that what you call orthodox in the second and early third century was nothing of the sort. Each group considered themselves to be "orthodox", or "true Christians". At a stretch you may be able to describe them as proto-orthodox but that is only in hindsight.
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  The claim that Arius argued for a triune god who created himself as his first creation misrepresents Arian theology. Arius did not believe in a triune god. He held that the Son was the first and greatest of God’s creations but was not co-eternal or consubstantial with the Father. This is fundamentally different from Trinitarian theology, which asserts the co-eternity and co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Arius’s theology was sharply at odds with the Nicene Creed, which explicitly affirmed the full divinity of the Son.

  The suggestion that the Trinity doctrine is merely a human construct influenced by political motives at the Nicene Council is a common but inaccurate portrayal. The Council of Nicaea was convened to address theological disputes about Christ’s nature, specifically the Arian controversy, and its conclusions were based on the theological consensus of early Christian teachings, not political expediency. Historical evidence shows that the Nicene Creed aimed to preserve apostolic teaching and scriptural truth rather than create a new doctrine.

  The assertion that “trinity” concepts in pagan religions suggest a shared symbolic truth is problematic. While various triads exist in ancient pagan cultures, these triads typically represent separate gods with distinct roles, unlike the Christian Trinity, which uniquely posits one God in three persons sharing the same divine essence. Drawing parallels between the Trinity and pagan triads ignores these fundamental theological distinctions and oversimplifies both Christian doctrine and the beliefs of other cultures.

  The idea that early Christian orthodoxy was indistinguishable from Gnostic teachings is inaccurate. While some Gnostic groups used Christian terminology, their theological frameworks diverged significantly from orthodox Christianity. For example, Gnostics often denied the material world’s goodness, rejected the bodily resurrection, and embraced a dualistic cosmology, which is incompatible with Christian teachings on creation, incarnation, and redemption.

  The claim that orthodox Christians encouraged the destruction of Gnostic texts and that orthodoxy was not established in the second and third centuries requires nuance. While some Gnostic texts were indeed suppressed, many survived because of preservation by Gnostic communities, as seen at Nag Hammadi. Moreover, “orthodoxy” was not arbitrarily imposed; it was rooted in the apostolic tradition and the consensus of early Christian communities. Figures like Irenaeus sought to safeguard this tradition against theological deviations, not to suppress intellectual diversity for its own sake.

  Finally, describing all theological systems, including Trinitarianism, as products of “poets and diviners” is dismissive and overlooks the rigorous philosophical and theological analysis underpinning such doctrines. The early Church Fathers engaged deeply with Scripture, reason, and tradition to articulate doctrines like the Trinity, aiming to remain faithful to the biblical witness and the experience of the Christian community.
• 

  Longlivetherenegades

  Ray Franz wrote......

  As with the earlier quotations, I do not present this as a form of “proof” on a particular side of the issue of the validity of the trinity doctrine. The real proof rests with inspired Scripture not scholarly views. I present it because it is so often claimed that reluctance to accept what may be called orthodox or traditional trinitarianism is simply due to the person’s ignorance of the original languages of Scripture (Hebrew and, particularly, Greek), or due to having been indoctrinated with a biased, one-sided view of religious history, or due to the person’s understanding of certain texts being warped by a biased translation or interpretation of those texts. This Swiss Protestant theologian’s command of the Biblical languages, the depth of his knowledge of religious history, of the writings of the Ante-Nicene period and of following centuries are beyond question. The same is surely true of his knowledge of the various arguments, pro and con, regarding the Biblical texts that figure in the trinitarian dispute. Yet he makes evident that his acceptance of the “mystery” of the triune-God doctrine is as a product of theological thought, not because of belief that the teaching is itself actually present in Scripture. Even as other quotations coinciding with Brünner’s could be made, so could quotations contrary to his. I do not agree with all of his viewpoints. Verse-by-verse discussion of relevant Scriptures could be made and claims pro and con could be presented. That is not my purpose here. My intent here is not to argue against certain doctrines but against the dogmatism and judgmentalism that all too often accompanies them. What I have quoted is solely to demonstrate that there are highly respected scholars who, though in no sense supportive of Watch Tower claims, do not view the questioning of the Scriptural foundation of this doctrine in its traditional, orthodox form as the result of either ignorance or a cultlike mentality. Of greater seriousness to me, it illustrates why I cannot sympathize with those who take a judgmental attitude toward others because such ones’ view does not coincide with their own, with those on each side of the issue categorically denying that those on the other could possibly be Christian. I find it notable that, in contrast to the degree of moderation, caution and balance expressed by the sources already cited, often persons whose academic credentials are immensely inferior are among those most insistently dogmatic and judgmental on these same topics. I have no question that some of the arguments and reasonings they employ would be viewed as completely unworthy of consideration by those same scholarly sources. Whether we are learned or unlearned, I believe we must guard against dogmatism and judgmentalism, as indicative, not of wisdom and discernment, but of both smallness of mind and smallness of spirit and heart.