Interesting read

[1gr8bldr]

The change in doctrine. Are we to assume the early church had it wrong? Or the modern church? Was this evolution in doctrine part of the plan all along?

You know my thoughts on the matter, yet it is interesting how convinced the majority is on being right.

 

[JB0704]

You know my thoughts on the matter......

Am I correct in assuming you side with the early church, or your opinion of what they believed (not intended to sound negative....just clarifying before it was jumped on), on the matter? Would that make you closer to "Orthodox?"

 

[Ronnie T]

You know my thoughts on the matter, yet it is interesting how convinced the majority is on being right.

Sometimes, even the Christian majority needs to confront it's beliefs. Too often we believe we're "right" just because we might be in the majority.
I personally think it would be worthy of discussion in the Christian forum.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Many "Church of God" Binitarians believe that their Christology perspective most accurately reflects that of the "original Christians", the Messianic Jews.
Do we have any "Church of God" members on here that would like to elaborate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binitarianism

Binitarians do not believe that Jesus "was fully human and fully God", which is the position held by trinitarians. They believe that Jesus was God (the Word) prior to His incarnation, that He became fully human (finite) yet he was not fully God during the pre-resurrection incarnation as He did not have the powers etc. of God then, and that all authority was restored to Him (as well as his infinite God-status) at or shortly after the resurrection. (end quote)
We've discussed Jesus giving up his diety while on earth previously on this forum. It's all interesting and alot to absorb no matter what you believe.

 

[hobbs27]

Two side notes I would like to make.

1. Constatine is not the creator of the Christian church.He fused Christianity and Paganism to create the Catholic church.The first Christians were persecuted by the Jew and Pagan, later to be persecuted by the Catholic church.
http://m.ccel.org/ccel/foxe/martyrs/home.html

2. Messianic Jews were not the first Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

 

[Artfuldodger]

More on the Binitarian view:
Ignatius, Polycarp, and Melito, all major church leaders in the second century, refer to the Father as God, Jesus as God, but never the Holy Spirit as God. It was only from a heretic that the idea of three hypostasis developed, and even that idea is admitted as to coming from paganism.

http://www.cogwriter.com/binitarian.htm#con
All known early documents by real Christians and those accepted by others that way support the view that early Christians were binitarian and believed that Jesus was not co-equal to the Father.

Biblical scholars and historians can trace the binitarian belief that the Father and Son, but not the Holy Spirit, are separate persons throughout the history of those who profess Christ.

And it is the correct position from the Bible. Those who do not understand it correctly, simply do not understand the Bible correctly.

Ending Comment: While I have read articles from the Jehovah's Witnesses (or other unitarians) correctly arguing that the trinity is false or from the various trinitarians explaining why the unitarian position that Jesus was not God is false, they almost always overlook the binitarian position that the Bible clearly teaches that the Father and Son are God, but does not clearly teach that the Holy Spirit is God. Of course, the truth is that the Bible and the facts of early church history do support the basic binitarian view (the belief that God the Father is supreme in authority to Jesus, God the Son , and that the Holy Spirit is not the third member of the Godhead. ). It is distressing to me that so many will discount the biblical teachings on this subject (as well as others), but sadly most do.

 

[Artfuldodger]

2. Messianic Jews were not the first Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

I guess a better name for the first Christians would be Hebrew Christians or Jewish Christians.

 

[hobbs27]

I guess a better name for the first Christians would be Hebrew Christians or Jewish Christians.

What's wrong with calling them Christians?

 

[Artfuldodger]

What's wrong with calling them Christians?

I'll agree other than for historical reasons. The early Church had many different sects and divisions just like today. It would be hard to say they were all Trinitiarian or not with all the different beliefs of the time.

 

[hobbs27]

I'll agree other than for historical reasons. The early Church had many different sects and divisions just like today. It would be hard to say they were all Trinitiarian or not with all the different beliefs of the time.

Back to the topic at hand.I think there's ample evidence in the Bible that the first Christians thought of Jesus as God, and many times He told them so.Its just a matter of studying what He said, and how they would percieve it.One time of the top of my head is when He said they would see the son of man coming in the clouds.......this is representative as to how God comes to earth....in the clouds.

 

[1gr8bldr]

Am I correct in assuming you side with the early church, or your opinion of what they believed (not intended to sound negative....just clarifying before it was jumped on), on the matter? Would that make you closer to "Orthodox?"

I guess what the early church believed is up for debate. Orthodoxy was won by the majority, yet that in itself does not make one correct. I think the sermon that Peter gave the first converts in Acts carries much weight as to determing what they accepted and was baptized. Many trins I discuss with elsewhere have gone as far as to say that the early church did not know the correct doctrine, that it was only known by the later scriptures.

 

[1gr8bldr]

More on the Binitarian view:
Ignatius, Polycarp, and Melito, all major church leaders in the second century, refer to the Father as God, Jesus as God, but never the Holy Spirit as God. It was only from a heretic that the idea of three hypostasis developed, and even that idea is admitted as to coming from paganism.

http://www.cogwriter.com/binitarian.htm#con
All known early documents by real Christians and those accepted by others that way support the view that early Christians were binitarian and believed that Jesus was not co-equal to the Father.

Biblical scholars and historians can trace the binitarian belief that the Father and Son, but not the Holy Spirit, are separate persons throughout the history of those who profess Christ.

And it is the correct position from the Bible. Those who do not understand it correctly, simply do not understand the Bible correctly.

Ending Comment: While I have read articles from the Jehovah's Witnesses (or other unitarians) correctly arguing that the trinity is false or from the various trinitarians explaining why the unitarian position that Jesus was not God is false, they almost always overlook the binitarian position that the Bible clearly teaches that the Father and Son are God, but does not clearly teach that the Holy Spirit is God. Of course, the truth is that the Bible and the facts of early church history do support the basic binitarian view (the belief that God the Father is supreme in authority to Jesus, God the Son , and that the Holy Spirit is not the third member of the Godhead. ). It is distressing to me that so many will discount the biblical teachings on this subject (as well as others), but sadly most do.

Ignatius letters are forgeries. We could discuss this if you wish. Polycarp has only one place in his writings that seem to say that he calls Jesus God. But what is interesting is that not all of those translating his letter are in agreement. We had a recent thread about this. I could paste the evidence. I don't know who Melito is?

 

[1gr8bldr]

I'll agree other than for historical reasons. The early Church had many different sects and divisions just like today. It would be hard to say they were all Trinitiarian or not with all the different beliefs of the time.

For sure, they were not trinitarian. Creeds were established to define "orthodox" or what is considered "right doctrine". Over time, these creeds were declared in order that they might set a foundation that Christianity is built upon. You can read the creeds, starting with the "Apostles creed", not to imply that the apostles themselves wrote it, but was named that assuming that they were declaring that which the apostles believed. From there, but not limited to, see the Nicene creed, and then, the creed that does have the trinity doctrine....... I can't think of the name of this one.... little help somebody.... creed of 451.......Somebody will show up and help me out. But anyway, you can see it evolve. We gloss right over the amount of time passed. I think of what all has changed in my life. One generation, add another, that is a lot of time passed by before the trinity came to be. Many think it was decided at the nicea council. But the trinitarian belief was not argued for until much later.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Ignatius letters are forgeries. We could discuss this if you wish. Polycarp has only one place in his writings that seem to say that he calls Jesus God. But what is interesting is that not all of those translating his letter are in agreement. We had a recent thread about this. I could paste the evidence. I don't know who Melito is?

Yes I remember that discussion.