Trinity 1/12
theology January 12th, 2009This is the first of an ongoing blog feature where I write out my thoughts on the trinity, because it is such an important part of our faith. This first one is simply a list of unfinished thoughts that I brainstormed a few weeks ago. Don’t look for a pattern or a statement of faith, it is simply a brainstorm.
Jewish prophecy of shared worhsip (somehow God shares worship with a coming person) Where was that? Talmud? Gemara?
Understanding “logos” and “one” in first century context and in septuigint context.
church fathers’ systematic removal of all things Jewish
language of abstract ideas in hellenistic world in relation to hebraic thought/language
political tension between church and empire and its relation to God/Jesus tension
fear of gnostic heresies
if we are we finally willing to rethink patripassionism, why not our presuppositions on trinity?
trinitarian formulas in NT
the blur between the “angel of the Lord” and “the Lord” in the OT
the breakdown of the analogy of father and son before it takes on any meaning.
why did church fathers insist that Jesus could not save that which he did not embody (or assume)? would it matter if our definition of being saved changes?
psalms
John and the Rabbinnic teaching about the 7 things that existed before creation
living into the character of the F/S/S
mathematical impossibility 3=1, 1=3
saying more than the scripture.
my responses as they come, perhaps to be compressed and made intelligible later… Tertullian was not a part of the church as he left to become a Montanist? Montanists seemed like a bunch of wet blankets with their strict application of disciplines, but it’s interesting to see the similarities between them and modern Pentacostals…. other than Matthew 28, where does the Trinitarian formula pop up?… what of the doubts of the quote itself–why does it show up for the first time at the end of Jesus’ physical time on earth, etc…. what about what is considered orthodox right now (unity, coequality, co-eternity of the Trinity) and it’s conspicuous absense from pre-Nicene writings? why did 3 centuries pass? why didn’t the apostles speak in these terms that people demand acceptance of now?
thanks for these thoughts. i think i see some of what you’re saying. oh, and let’s get Lost tonight.
oh. here we go. 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2; Revelation 1:4
Will you elaborate on this one next?
“why did church fathers insist that Jesus could not save that which he did not embody (or assume)? would it matter if our definition of being saved changes?”