Sir,

I have no doubt that you are unaware of what I am referring to in regards to the change around 70 AD. I have gone through my logic with more then one scholar and noticed their jaws dropping in amazement. As for the roots of the Trinity, one need not look any further then the historic Indo-European belief system which held to a triune godhead. Especially since it is thought that one of the preferred offerings to the second person of this godhead was a human sacrifice.

As for writings that support my position, you are actually probably aware of them, but do not view them in the same light I am seeing them. However, additional, latter works that I would appeal to include Eusebius and Bede. Additionally there were several councils that firmly supported the Arian position, and further this position was well supported outside the Roman Empire. A final point would be that in even accepting the Council of Nicea, the anti-Arians conceeded some points to the Arians.

However, as I noted, I am currently engaged in research that would appear to lie outside the biblical/theoplogical realm. However, as the research is an outgrowth of my biblical/theological studies, I find it essential to give my attention to it. I regret that I do not have the proper time at present to pursue this discussion with you, but perhaps by late spring I will again be free. Of course there is also a distinct possibility that by this time you will be aware of just how radical, but sound, my ideas can be, as I hope to be rocking a portion of the scientific community.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill:

I have no idea what you’re talking about with the A.D. 70 date or what writings you could possibly refer to that would fall outside the NT and Apostolic Fathers. My own dissertation, “Second Century Incarnational Christology and Early Catholic Christianity” makes the argument of a high incarnational Christology that was early, widespread, and foundational in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Achaia, and Rome by A.D. 100. This distinctive incarnational narrative—the backbone of trinitarian reflection—could not have popped up overnight at the year 100, and must find its origins in the midst of the apostolic period (c. A.D. 50).

I also don’t know what you could possibly be referring to in an alliance with the Roman State in A.D. 70, especially the recent persecutions of Nero a few years earlier, the Jewishness of the Church in Judea and their need to flee from Jerusalem, the text of Barnabas and its discussion of Rome as the end-times confederacy, and the persecutions under Domitian at the end of the first century.

In any case, you say, “why did the Roman government feel the need to enforce this belief by decree?” I hope you’re aware that after Nicaea the ROman government actually turned AGAINST the trinitarian theology of Nicene Christians, and they were actually banished and their churches were given BY DECREE OF THE STATE to the Non-Trinitarian ARIANS! It wasn’t until A.D. 380 that Nicene Christians actually were able, against all odds, to demonstrate that their view of God and Christ really was the original and enduring doctrine of Christ. Only then did they regain their churches taken away by the Roman government. Where are you getting your information?

Svigel,

Actually I have been engaged in a study of the doctrine of the trinity and other doctrines for years, and have gone back even further then you have, back to roughly 70 AD. It is about this time that there seems to be a watershed change in Christianity, with a distinctive move to ally with the Roman state, over against what appears to have been earlier Christianity. I hope to be able to present this evidence in my PhD thesis, assuming I can find a way to present a narrow enough topic with sufficient scholarly debate to get it approved. But it seems now that this might be delayed, as I have just this morning been advised that a measuring device that I proposed has its blueprints finished, and a prototype should be available within two weeks for field testing. I think it will verify that discernment of spirits is a scientifically possible ability, as the gift of healing has already been shown to be. Thus my time will be diverted in that direction for a while.

However, on the doctrine of the Trinity, if it was so widely accepted in the church of the 4th and 5th centuries, why did the Roman government feel the need to enforce this belief by decree? Further, why were so many mostly forgotten councils coming up with doctrines that would argue against it, especially since some of these councils were more representative then councils now accepted as authoritative?

Bill

[...] You’re right that later councils, and especially the endless councils and synods of the Western Roman Church eventually would become, in my opnion, so narrow and dogmatic that they would actually end up condemning themselves (e.g., medieval soteriology stands condemned by the forgotten pronouncements of the Synod of Orange II). But if we limit our examination to the period of the testing and maturing of early “catholic” theology in the patristic period (to about A.D. 500), we’ll see a period in which both the canon (Scripture) and creed (consensual doctrine that had been believed generally everywhere, always, and by all) come to maturity and become a functional standard for later definitions of “orthodoxy.” So, from this perspective, it is possible to identify an agreed-upon orthodoxy that is consistent with both the New Testament teachings, the early post-aposotolic proclamation, and the unbroken confession of the ancient church.
To be sure, there were other views about God and Christ that differed from those of the orthodox catholic communities of the first, second, and third centuries… but this doesn’t change that fact that the orthodoxy articulated at the councils represented the earliest, most widespread, and most foundational core of Christianity, which had enjoyed the what you call a “groundswell” of support for centuries.
Again, I encourage you to begin in the earliest post-New Testament writings and read through to the fourth century to see that in spite of their rich diversity (even disagreement!) on many issues, the early church fathers shared a basic Trinitarian theology and incarnation Christology as the heart of the Christian faith. You’ll quickly realize that the idea that Trinitarian doctrine was “established by decree of the Roman State” simply isn’t true. That’s a myth, birthed in a misunderstanding of the difference between formulating doctrine and enforcing dogma. The former isn’t true. The latter is, but only after the Roman Emperors themselves (beginning with Constantine!) had turned against the theology agreed upon at Nicaea and actually PERSECUTED and EXILED the orthodox bishops who had signed the formula of Nicaea.
—Svigel

William:
I think you’re confusing conciliar “dogma” with orthodox doctrine. Much of this overlaps, but they are not exactly the same. The example you choose—the doctrine of the trinity—was not establisehd by decree of the Roman state. I think you’ve been a bit misled by popular and uninformed treatments of this issue and recommend you read the primary sources yourself in chronological order, beginning with the Fathers of the second century and simply reading forward to the fourth, when the first ecumenical council of Nicaea (325) occurred. This is an illuminating study. It will take several months, if not years, but will give you a basis for critically engaging secondary sources that don’t always present the facts as they actually were. Let me clear up the confusion. The full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ is found variously expressed from the first century forward, and the concept of the “triados” of God is found already in the Fathers of the second century as they reflect on the implications of the confession of the deity of Christ within the presupposed monotheism of Judaism. The result—already seen in second century literature—is a simple, rudimentary, but fully intact doctrine of the trinity. In fact, by the year 200, Tertullian of Carthage is found using the terms “one nature, three persons” of the Christian Trinity, and “one person, two natures” of Christ—language later utilized in the councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) to more clearly and definitively articulate these doctrines. The ecumenical counsils did not invent doctrines; they re-articulated them using unambiguous terms (some of which they had to actually invent to communicate their theology). So, if we allow for certain basic ideas regarding the Trinity and Christology to be articulated in different ways, the basic ideas themselves had already been the common “catholic” view for centuries prior to the councils to which you refer.
So, with regard to the apostolic teachings regarding God and Christ, these had always been viewed as central, identity-founding doctrines of the Christian faith. And deviation from these basic confessions was always regarded as “heresy” or “false teaching.” You’re right that in its root “heresy” means “choice,” but as it was used among the earliest fathers, it meant far more than merely “different opinions.” That word was “heterodox” or “heterodidaskalos”—different opinions or different teachings. “Heresy” implied certain people separated themselves from the apostolic churches over the centeral doctrines of God and Christ.
As far as not being able to say much without becoming heretics, this is simply not true. When we focus on the primary councils I mentioned above, every Christian tradition—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant (even free church evangelical protestant) can find unity in these articulations, at least in the meaning if not…

This was an interesting blog. I have only one problem with it, and that lies in the definition of “orthodoxy”. Much of our “orthodox” theology was set by early church councils that excluded all churches that did not reside within the Roman Empire. Further, some of the central doctrines were established by decree of the Roman state, not from the groundswell of the church, here I refer to the doctrine of the Trinity. Further, “heresy” originally implied only different, not dangerous, and if we review what has been declared heretical over the years we find ourselves unable to say much in theology without being heretics by the pronouncements of one church council or another.

(continued)

This is vitally important for salvation. The eternal Son of God took on a human nature exactly like ours (except without the guilt of sin), in order to redeem it. And that which is not taken on in the incarnation is not saved. The nature of Christ’s humanity, though sinless, was still weak and susceptible to the limitations and conditions of the fall. If this were not true, then He could not have been harmed . . . nor could He have been crucified. By taking on the human nature contributed by Mary’s egg, Jesus truly took on the humanity that was under the curse in order to redeem it and raise it up out of the curse. If Jesus had been a specially-created human created out of nothing in the womb of Mary, He would not have been a descendent of Adam, or of David, and He would not have taken on the actual humanity that needed redemption. Rather, He would have been a completely different human creature with no relationship to humanity.
So, the Christian view has always been and will always be that Mary contributed her “seed” (egg) to the humanity of Jesus Christ, who is both fully God and fully human—of the same divine essence with the Father as far as is deity is concerned, and of the same human essence with us as far as His humanity is concerned, except without the guilt and stain of sin.

Actually, your idea is not new. In fact, that belief was a hallmark of some forms of docetism in the first and second centuries… as well as a few people during the Reformation. The idea was that Mary didn’t contribute anything to Jesus—but that He just passed through Mary like water through a pipe. She was merely the carrier of Christ’s body. Docetists believed this mostly because they believed his “body” was of a different nature than physical matter. They believed in the fundamental evil of matter itself. But some other false teachers used the same belief to defend Jesus’s sinlessness—believing that the origin of Jesus’s material body from Mary (or Joseph, too, of course) would necessarily result in the guilt and sinfulness of Jesus.
So, historically, the view that an egg of Mary did not contribute to Jesus has always been regarded as a false teaching. Christians have always valued the essential physical connection of Jesus with humanity through His essential physical connection with Mary.
But there are also exegetical reasons for maintaining this that I find to be clear and compelling. We are told, for instance, in Romans 9:3–5, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever.” Here we see Paul aligning himself physically with Israelites, his “kinsmen according to the flesh,” emphasizing the fleshly relationship to that people group. Then he says that Jesus came from the fathers “according to the flesh,” indicating that He, too, had that same kind of physical relationship to them.
Similarly, Paul refers to Abraham as “our [the Hebrews’] forefather according to the flesh,” emphasizing their physical, genetic relationship to Abraham. Paul’s statement of the dual natures of Christ (human and divine) makes sense only if Paul himself was teaching that Jesus was truly physically related to humanity through Mary’s “egg.” In Romans 1:3 he says that the Gospel was regarding God’s Son, “who was a descendent of David with reference to the flesh” (NET). The Greek text uses the term spermatos, “seed,” for “descendent,” which emphasizes here the physical relationship. It does not necessarily mean male “seed,” but can refer to that which is descended physically from a woman, too (as in the prophecy of the “seed of the woman” in Genesis 3:15). In fact, Paul links this association of the physical (sperma) relationship with David’s line in 2 Timothy 2:8, when he writes, “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant [sperma] of David, according to my gospel.” Again, the real, physical, genetic relationship with humanity in…

I recently listen to Trinity class from theology program.
In that the instructors assert that it is at least interesting to think about sin nature coming from man’s seed and with seed coming from Holy Spirit in the case of the virgin birth and therefor Christ did not have sin nature. This kind of implies Mary supplied the egg. Does the Greek support this? May expectation (before this study ) was is that neither egg nor seed is provided by humanity(mary and Joseph). Christ seems like he could be fully human even if he had neither egg nor seed was from his earthly parents. Has anyone thought of this? Studied this?

The Internet Monk thinks your proposal has much in common with what he has been trying to articulate as “post-evangelical,” and he is encouraged by what you’re saying. Me, not so much

I will gladly admit, however, that renewal movements within evangelicalism, especially those that entail more theological reflection and communication among the laity, is a Good Thing. But developing such virtuous habits will tend, I predict, to cause individuals to gravitate toward established dogmatic faiths (also a Good Thing, imo).