Posted on 04/16/2013 8:20:04 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Many historians and religious scholars, some quoted in this publication, attest to the influence of Greek or Platonic philosophy in the development and acceptance of the Trinity doctrine in the fourth century. But what did such philosophy entail, and how did it come to affect the doctrine of the Trinity?
To briefly summarize what was pertinent, we start with mention of the famous Greek philosopher Plato (ca. 429-347 B.C.). He believed in a divine triad of "God, the ideas, [and] the World-Spirit," though he "nowhere explained or harmonized this triad" (Charles Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 1886, p. 249). Later Greek thinkers refined Plato's concepts into what they referred to as three "substances"—the supreme God or "the One," from which came "mind" or "thought" and a "spirit" or "soul." In their thinking, all were different divine "substances" or aspects of the same God. Another way of expressing this was as "good," the personification of that good, and the agent by which that good is carried out. Again, these were different divine aspects of that same supreme good—distinct and yet unified as one.
Such metaphysical thinking was common among the intelligentsia of the Greek world and carried over into the thinking of the Roman world of the New Testament period and succeeding centuries. As the last of the apostles began to die off, some of this metaphysical thinking began to affect and infiltrate the early Church—primarily through those who had already begun to compromise with paganism.
As Bible scholars John McClintock and James Strong explain: "Towards the end of the 1st century, and during the 2d, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to Christianity. These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic ideas and phraseology" ( Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1891, Vol. 10, "Trinity," p. 553).
The true Church largely resisted such infiltration and held firm to the teaching of the apostles, drawing their doctrine from the writings of the apostles and "the Holy Scriptures [the books of the Old Testament] which are able to make you wise for salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15 ).
Two distinct threads of Christianity split and developed separately—one true to the plain and simple teachings of the Bible and the other increasingly compromised with pagan thought and practices adopted from the Greco-Roman world.
Thus, as debate swelled over the nature of God in the fourth century leading to the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, it was no longer a debate between biblical truth and error. Both sides in the debate had been seriously compromised by their acceptance of unbiblical philosophical ideas.
Many of the church leaders who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity were steeped in Greek and Platonic philosophy, and this influenced their religious views and teaching. The language they used in describing and defining the Trinity is, in fact, taken directly from Platonic and Greek philosophy. The word trinity itself is neither biblical nor Christian. Rather, the Platonic term trias, from the word for three, was Latinized as trinitas— the latter giving us the English word trinity.
"The Alexandria catechetical school, which revered Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theologian of the Greek Church, as its heads, applied the allegorical method to the explanation of Scripture. Its thought was influenced by Plato: its strong point was [pagan] theological speculations. Athanasius and the three Cappadocians [the men whose Trinitarian views were adopted by the Catholic Church at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople] had been included among its members" (Hubert Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: an Historical Outline, 1960, p. 28).
"The doctrines of the Logos [i.e., the "Word," a designation for Christ in John 1] and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied" ( The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Samuel Macauley Jackson, editor, 1911, Vol. 9, p. 91).
The preface to historian Edward Gibbons' History of Christianity sums up the Greek influence on the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by stating: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism [basic religion, in this context] of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief" (1883, p. xvi). (See "How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity," beginning on page 18.)
The link between Plato's teachings and the Trinity as adopted by the Catholic Church centuries later is so strong that Edward Gibbon, in his masterwork The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, referred to Plato as "the Athenian sage, who had thus marvelously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries of the Christian revelation" —the Trinity (1890, Vol. 1, p. 574).
Thus we see that the doctrine of the Trinity owes far less to the Bible than it does to the metaphysical speculations of Plato and other pagan Greek philosophers. No wonder the apostle Paul warns us in Colossians 2:8 (New International Version) to beware of "hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ"!
You do quick research. The influence of classical Greek thought on the Trinity is beyond dispute. Even more fascinating is how many modern and post modern philosophers end up in the structure all the while denying Christianity - Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger and even the most extreme of the contemporary era. They are always trying to escape space and time, but feel bound by the prior philosopher’s mythos masquerading as logos. Becoming versus Being. A hopeless cycle of a dog chasing its tail.
When one puts the endless game to bed, only does the One, the Father, truly become clear and in terms that defy words (see the end of Dante’s Paradisio) At least in my spiritual journey. The notion of reconciling the two (time/space and eternity) is a false dichotomy set down by Parmenides 2600 years ago.
I apologize but this article isn't a stand alone article and out of context it doesn't really explain what the author's opinion is of the Godhead. I posted it to complement anothe article...The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine.
You might want to read the entire booklet Is God a Trinity" to understand the context better...thanks!
>>If you think of Alexander spreading Aristotle in particular because of the fact that Aristotle was employed at the Macedonian court and tutored Alexander, there isn’t any discernable Aristotelian influence in the Alexander of the annals. He’s pure conquest.
True. However, Aristotle created a wealth of information that never existed previously in Greek ‘science’. I would argue that you’ve proven that Alexander left an intellectual legacy - Greek culture (well, Macedonia’s at least) spread throughout Africa and Western Asia. Furthermore Demetrius’ (Aristotle’s pupil) organization of the library at Alexandria seems to reemphasize Aristotle’s importance.
Nobody wants to go searching for a bunch of references. If you are so confident in your position, why not just make your case using scripture?
“What does this mean then? Most of Plato’s ideals are easily delineated into beliefs that earth is a translation of a supernatural realm where true forms are mimicked in earthly “realities”. Furthermore, paganism is a completely different genre of beliefs from the inductive reasoning that Plato pursued. Pagans worshiped numerous Gods from mythological or traditional ideals; Plato tried to generalize the spiritual world from what he found on Earth - the two processes are completely different.
If Christ had not mentioned the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit itself had not been involved with Christ’s birth (Luke 1:35), you might have a leg to stand on.”
It’s ironic he would make the argument, considering the UCG is, in fact, polytheistic. Thus, his theology is actually the ‘pagan’ construct. The scripture, on the other hand, stands on its own.
yes...well, there are mistranslations in the bible! Jesus quarreled plenty with the false leaders of his day! And the trinity as taught today is indeed the brainwashing of the church to gullible souls. Apostasy.
No thanks. If Christ says it’s a Trinity, I’ll believe Christ.
The focus of the article is really on the history behind the development of the trinity doctrine, not on biblical proofs that prove or disprove its validity.
Ironically so would I!
I assume the term “pagan” was there used to mean pre-Abrahamic, meaning before Judaism, Christianty, or Islam. Though that usually implies polytheism, all it etymologically means is “folksy” and “rustic.” Peasant religion, in other words. There was such a thing as monotheism prior to Jews. See Amun-Ra in ancient Egypt.
You are correct to emphasize the similarity between Platonic philosophy and Christian theology. Many have commented on the God-like quality of “the Good.” Some theorize one of the reasons Socrates was killed for impiety and corruption of the youth is because he taught monotheism.
>>I assume
Your assumption is wrong because the direction is wrong. If one reads Plato’s Republic/Symposium/Dialogues etc, he uses inductive thinking to try to identify what God is.
Paganism has pre-defined gods that are worshiped in established ways.
The only similarity that Platonic philosophy has with Christianity is the number 3. Well, Plato happens to love the number 3 - there are three elements of the ideal society in the ‘Republic’, there is the tripartide soul, there are his three levels of reality. He loves the number three. Does it have to do with the Trinity? No.
I don’t want to quibble about Aristotle’s importance. Clearly he’s one of the most influential thinkers in human history. But I would add that he owes a great deal to Plato, probably the greater part of his teachings are Platonic rather than sui generis. I say “Platonic” knowing, of course, that he was influenced in turn by countless forerunners, for instance Socrates, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, etc., and for all we know he stole it all from Socrates.
I should also add that the Alexandrian conduit may not be the primary route through which Greek philosophy ended up in Christianity. The Romans conquered Judea, and they had stolen all the best Greek thoughts after conquering them, too. Jesus, as we all know, was burn and died in the imperium. And the church received its biggest boost when an emperor adopted ot as an official religion.
Then again, one of the most influential early Christian philosophers Augustine, was from North Africa. I haven’t researched him enough to know whether he grew up around the remnants of Alexandrian conquest. Rome conquered North Africa, too, however. So it would stand to reason he got his Greekiness from Roman Greekery.
Thread-poster DouglasKC claims "various" as the source for this article, yet when you click on the link source for this piece, it takes you to a United Church of God Web source.
Who is the United Church of God? It's an offshoot of cultist Herbert W. Armstrong. While much of the post- Armstrong era church sect went orthodox after Armstrong's death, the United Church of God has been around a grand total of 18 years...and elected to keep the following cultic elements:
(Source is United Church of God per Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry -- I won't pull a "douglas" here and claim the source is "various"):
The United Church of God is a non-Christian cult that denies the Trinity, the true divinity of Christ, and requires both baptism and obedience to the commandments to be saved. It teaches that there is a "God family" of which we can become members through keeping the Law. Jesus is one of two divine beings, the Father being the other. The Holy Spirit is a force, a power, and is not the 3rd person of the Trinity, and it is received only through the laying on of hands by their church members. It also teaches that their members are obligated to keep the Sabbath and must observe seven festivals. They cannot eat unclean meat. This is a false religious system that teaches a false God, false Christ, and false gospel. Stay away from it. Other Teachings: They teach that the wicked, or unsaved, are not alive in hell but are annihilated.
So this "church" ignores Jesus' clear teaching about an everlasting personal hell endured; it ignores the many clear Biblical passages about the personality of the Holy Spirit...you can't lie to an impersonal force in the Book of Acts, for example...you can't grieve an impersonal force; the UCG is polytheistic in teaching a double divine being...
I said at its root “pagan” means folksy. Whatever Plato was, that’s not it. He was a citydweller, an academic, and had aristocratic airs. Peasants don’t go around dreaming up their own philosophical systems, obviously. But you must admit people use the term in more ways than that. In addition to “pre-defined gods...worshipped in established ways” it also has the connotation of pre-Judeo-Christian-Islamic. Surely you’ve noticed that, even if you consider it ill usage.
I couldn’t say either way whether the mystical threes in Platonic philosophy influenced the Trinity of Christianity. If they did, it would be only in a vague and I direct way. As in, some larger Mediterranean idea motivated both Plato and the later Christians, like how a flood motif can be found both in the Bible and Gilgamesh. I’d be careful here, too. Because I happen to know some of the early Christian philosophers were Platonists, in a manner of speaking, prior to conversion. St. Augustine was a disciple of Plotinus, who in turn was a Platonist.
There are other similarities between Platonic philosophy and Christianity, though they’re all very imprecise. He came close, as I waif, to draping the Good in the clothes of divinity. The Doctrine of the Forms has the same sort of lesser reality way Christians look at created reality. Not that Christian reality isn’t real, but Jesus’ kingdom not of this earth is more real, if that’s the way to put it, than this earth. Tge metaphor of light is big both in Plato and the Bible, and with similar import. I believe he posits an afterlife. He definity conceives of a soul. Learning things, for instance, is like remembering them from before you were incarnate. Which sounds maybe like Hinduism, but it’s the idea of something uniquely you transcending matter which I’m thinking of.
“yes...well, there are mistranslations in the bible!”
Yes ... well, that statement bears all the marks of an unsubstantiated assertion ... and not an uncommon one on these threads. Such statements usually remain just that, unsubstantiated.
Well, DouglasKC, I just took in a couple of randomly selected sermons from your UCG website to get the general flavor of the theology you represent. Having done so, I confirmed my initial inclination, that is, not to expend any further effort delving into the matters you raise here.
Fair enough...thanks for the evaluation.
it’s a fact that there are many different translations from the original...base you faith on a book and you are idol worshiping once again.
Correct. Polytheism.
correct, Doug, the problem with your UCG's "proof to deny the Trinity" is that it is just opinion, with no citation of facts or even of prior speculation.
Without these links, this is just modern day speculation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.