How do you explain the Trinity to kids?

[Waterfall]

Debating what was or wasn't original is an interesting academic exercise but pointless for day to day Christian life.

I agree to a certain extent, Christians have faith, but the world is changing and skepticism is high....so maybe it's good to once again establish a basis for those who question and haven't found a faith to rely on. In fact I would suggest that there are many "faithful" within the churches that are being influenced by outside sources as to the reliability of the sources and while they believe in Jesus many are questioning the resurrection and the "son of god" belief. Isn't it better to be more prepared with an answer?

 

[revsdd]

Which is easy to do when you rely on google because sometimes google is made up of a lot of non scholarly articles that wish to disprove the resurrection.
The more one reads and researches from historically reliable sources it becomes apparent that the resurrection and the trinity seem to appear quite early in the church, long before Constantine.

Revjohn or revsdd, do you happen to know when the "trinity" concept first appeared within the teachings of the church?

It's interesting to me that Jesus always referenced the OT with His teachings, yet the resurrection according to the Jews was not to be considered an individual event, which would seem to me to be something the disciples (being Jewish) wouldn't recognize at first. Is there some sort of explanation why Jesus would present this concept contrary to Jewish thinking? (contrary meaning different)

I believe it was Theophilus of Antioch who first used the word "trinity" and it was before the year 200. Not exactly as we refer to it today, though. I think he referred to the trinity as "Father, Word and Wisdom" or something like that. There had been trinitarian formulations long before that. I know Justin Martyr used a trinitarian formula although not the word "trinity." I believe the first to define the trinity as "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" was Tertullian, in the first part of the 3rd century.

Paul's writings (especially some passages in Romans, where he uses "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ" interchangeably) might be a hint that there was trinitarian thought from the beginning, even if the doctrine hadn't been fleshed out.

 

[Luce NDs]

Imagine Bill Gates closing the dore on false information machines! Is this a'dore Able ... fi indeed wee hadn't forgotten how to mediate and ponder the polity (extremes of the soul)? This appears eternal ...

 

[revsdd]

You also comment on the resurrection, waterfall. Before Constantine? It was there from the beginning. Paul's letters - especially 1 Corinthians - affirm that. There might be debate about exactly what form Jesus was resurrected in, but there's little doubt that from the beginning his first disciples believed he had been resurrected. And Jesus taught many things that were unconventional by Jewish thinking.

 

[redhead]

In order to have some control over community, Jews had a tax and snitch relationship with Romans- I am okay with saying that I am the product of a Christian mom and a Jewish Dad and I have the benefit of some education. Then Christianity was born - and affected both Jewish and Roman communities. Constantine saw that Christianity was growing, so adopted it - in order to control rebellion.- a reluctant alliance at best, in its time

 

[revsdd]

In order to have some control over community, Jews had a tax and snitch relationship with Romans- I am okay with saying that I am the product of a Christian mom and a Jewish Dad and I have the benefit of some education. Then Christianity was born - and affected both Jewish and Roman communities. Constantine saw that Christianity was growing, so adopted it - in order to control rebellion.- a reluctant alliance at best, in its time

Although there may have been (and I stress the may) political advantage to Constantine in his policy of growing tolerance toward Christianity - as I said in my comments on revjohn's thesis, there were both advantages and disadvantages - the argument that Constantine adopted Christianity only as an expedient because Christianity was growing strikes me as weak. It could just as easily be that Constantine was simply among those who sincerely adopted Christianity (his mother was a Christian, after all, and may have influenced him) - which was, after all, growing. Many were becoming Christians. Why couldn't Constantine have been one of them?

 

[revjohn]

Revjohn or revsdd, do you happen to know when the "trinity" concept first appeared within the teachings of the church?

The term "Trinity" is attributed to Theophilus of Antioch who died around 183 AD. Theophilus defined the Trinity as God, His Word (logos), and His Wisdom (sophia). Tertullian is the first on record as defending the doctrine. Tertullian lived from 155 to 240. There is much discussion among the ante-Nicene Fathers about what would later become known as the Trinity. Some of the earliest writings are by Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr.

Ignatius was an early Bishop of Antioch and Theophilus a later successor.

It's interesting to me that Jesus always referenced the OT with His teachings, yet the resurrection according to the Jews was not to be considered an individual event, which would seem to me to be something the disciples (being Jewish) wouldn't recognize at first. Is there some sort of explanation why Jesus would present this concept contrary to Jewish thinking? (contrary meaning different)

Jesus take on how the OT should be interpreted is different but not radically different from some of his contemporaries. NT Wright is probably the best resource on that.

 

[redhead]

this is running way off topic but I suggest that OT and NT were influenced by other religions, especially Zoroastrian - which predates Judaism and Christianity and contains the notions of Heaven and Hell, and monotheism

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

this is running way off topic but I suggest that OT and NT were influenced by other religions, especially Zoroastrian - which predates Judaism and Christianity and contains the notions of Heaven and Hell, and monotheism

That's been established. Also ancient astrology, Roman paganism...I don't think it's a bad thing, just an evolving continuum.

 

[redhead]

explain all of that in Sunday school

 

[redhead]

teachers select what is taught

 

[redhead]

a really decent thoughtful teacher will demonstrate how to question and study, and let the students find the answers to the questions and, hopefully and ultimately, surpass the teacher

 

[redhead]

you cannot teach faith - faith is something someone finds on their own

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

explain all of that in Sunday school

Not me. I can barely explain things coherently to myself sometimes.

 

[Neo]

Constantine wasn't the most honourable or admirable character though wouldn't you say? Would it be beyond belief that he or anyone would add or detract from the gospels after the fact?

I think the only person I would trust less than a Roman Emporer to commission for the canonization of a new Bible would be Steven Harper and his Conservative Party.

Seems the likelyhood of political tampering would be pretty high with a Roman Emporer, they did have history. Let's see, what could they do... how about influencing a Biblical canon that would stand above all other religions? Maybe throw in an eternal hell fire for all those who are not baptized and converted to this new religion...yea, keep 'em ignorant and afraid, that's how you control a nation.. {wink}

 

[revsdd]

I think the only person I would trust less than a Roman Emporer to commission for the canonization of a new Bible would be Steven Harper and his Conservative Party.

Seems the likelyhood of political tampering would be pretty high with a Roman Emporer, they did have history. Let's see, what could they do... how about influencing a Biblical canon that would stand above all other religions? Maybe throw in an eternal hell fire for all those who are not baptized and converted to this new religion...yea, keep 'em ignorant and afraid, that's how you control a nation.. {wink}

That's wonderful mythology (very Dan Brown-ish) except for the fact that there's zero evidence that Constantine (or any other Roman Emperor) influenced the canon. Constantine's major contribution to Christianity was convening the Council of Nicaea, which - as we discussed above - DID NOT deal with the question of canon. It was concerned with the nature of Christ, and especially the dispute over Arianism. Canon was not an issue. Truthfully, most of the New Testament canon was already widely accepted by Nicaea. Some "decisions" were still to be made, but there was never a "Council" which took a vote and magically declared "these are the 27 books of the New Testament." That was the result of a growing consensus and there's no real date that we can say the New Testament came into being. As I said above, as far as I know it was the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa that was the first Christian Council to refer to the 27 books of the New Testament in a way that assumed it was a finished document, but even it didn't declare those 27 books to be the New Testament. It just accepted that they were. And Hippo Regius was after Constantine died. Constantine had little if any influence over the Christian canon, and there's little to no evidence that he cared much about the Christian canon. He was concerned with the christological controversies that were threatening to tear the church apart and given the church's growing influence could have created a major rift in the Empire and he understandably wanted that settled. That was a very different issue from the issue of canon.

The image of an evil Roman Emperor imposing his will on which books were in the New Testament and which were out is quite simply nonsense with no historic foundation. But people keep repeating it as if it happened and most people don't know enough about church history so they swallow it. And, of course, many are suckers for conspiracy theories, especially if they seem to offer reason to call the church and its teachings into question. There are still people who think The Da Vinci Code was real history and either don't realize or won't accept that it's a novel, no more grounded in reality than James Bond.

 

[Neo]

That's wonderful mythology (very Dan Brown-ish) except for the fact that there's zero evidence that Constantine (or any other Roman Emperor) influenced the canon. Constantine's major contribution to Christianity was convening the Council of Nicaea, which - as we discussed above - DID NOT deal with the question of canon. It was concerned with the nature of Christ, and especially the dispute over Arianism. Canon was not an issue. Truthfully, most of the New Testament canon was already widely accepted by Nicaea. Some "decisions" were still to be made, but there was never a "Council" which took a vote and magically declared "these are the 27 books of the New Testament." That was the result of a growing consensus and there's no real date that we can say the New Testament came into being. As I said above, as far as I know it was the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa that was the first Christian Council to refer to the 27 books of the New Testament in a way that assumed it was a finished document, but even it didn't declare those 27 books to be the New Testament. It just accepted that they were. And Hippo Regius was after Constantine died. Constantine had little if any influence over the Christian canon, and there's little to no evidence that he cared much about the Christian canon. He was concerned with the christological controversies that were threatening to tear the church apart and given the church's growing influence could have created a major rift in the Empire and he understandably wanted that settled. That was a very different issue from the issue of canon.

The image of an evil Roman Emperor imposing his will on which books were in the New Testament and which were out is quite simply nonsense with no historic foundation. But people keep repeating it as if it happened and most people don't know enough about church history so they swallow it. And, of course, many are suckers for conspiracy theories, especially if they seem to offer reason to call the church and its teachings into question. There are still people who think The Da Vinci Code was real history and either don't realize or won't accept that it's a novel, no more grounded in reality than James Bond.

Many believe that Constantine marked the fall of the true Christianity, when he turned it into a religion of the sword. My personal beliefs is that he did influence the altering of the Bible, he had the means and the motive. And Dan Brown, btw, has never influenced my belief structures.

Watch this video by Greg Boyd on Constantine's Pagan influence on Christianity. Do you disagree?

 

[Delightful Life]

I think the only person I would trust less than a Roman Emporer to commission for the canonization of a new Bible would be Steven Harper and his Conservative Party.

Seems the likelyhood of political tampering would be pretty high with a Roman Emporer, they did have history. Let's see, what could they do... how about influencing a Biblical canon that would stand above all other religions? Maybe throw in an eternal hell fire for all those who are not baptized and converted to this new religion...yea, keep 'em ignorant and afraid, that's how you control a nation.. {wink}

your politics don't matter here -- your dislike of rulers or Canada's Conservative Party has no bearing at all on what Emperor Constantine did or didn't do, could or couldn't do, thought or didn't think etc?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

That's wonderful mythology (very Dan Brown-ish) except for the fact that there's zero evidence that Constantine (or any other Roman Emperor) influenced the canon. Constantine's major contribution to Christianity was convening the Council of Nicaea, which - as we discussed above - DID NOT deal with the question of canon. It was concerned with the nature of Christ, and especially the dispute over Arianism. Canon was not an issue. Truthfully, most of the New Testament canon was already widely accepted by Nicaea. Some "decisions" were still to be made, but there was never a "Council" which took a vote and magically declared "these are the 27 books of the New Testament." That was the result of a growing consensus and there's no real date that we can say the New Testament came into being. As I said above, as far as I know it was the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa that was the first Christian Council to refer to the 27 books of the New Testament in a way that assumed it was a finished document, but even it didn't declare those 27 books to be the New Testament. It just accepted that they were. And Hippo Regius was after Constantine died. Constantine had little if any influence over the Christian canon, and there's little to no evidence that he cared much about the Christian canon. He was concerned with the christological controversies that were threatening to tear the church apart and given the church's growing influence could have created a major rift in the Empire and he understandably wanted that settled. That was a very different issue from the issue of canon.

The image of an evil Roman Emperor imposing his will on which books were in the New Testament and which were out is quite simply nonsense with no historic foundation. But people keep repeating it as if it happened and most people don't know enough about church history so they swallow it. And, of course, many are suckers for conspiracy theories, especially if they seem to offer reason to call the church and its teachings into question. There are still people who think The Da Vinci Code was real history and either don't realize or won't accept that it's a novel, no more grounded in reality than James Bond.

About a year ago my husband and I got a way too long DVD series documentary out of the library about the Roman Empire - way too long because there were a whole bunch of painful to watch reenactments of Roman battles and conquests and that got a little boring for me - but it did mention that Constantine legalized Christian worship but not without incorporating Sol Invictus - creating kind of a Roman Universalism you could say - but it was a move to unify the people under Roman control. And he converted to Christianity - but with his own take on it - calling on the name of Christ in battle instead of the previous pagan gods. So he may not have influenced canon, but he called the Council together with others of influence - I don't remember all the names of all the rulers but what stood out is that there were a lot of barbaric turf wars, over religion and geography - and since Roman pagan symbolism made its way into the Bible and Christian tradition, it seems quite likely that he or other Roman authorities of his time did have some influence on the NT. Especially if he ruled before Hippo Regius came along, don't you think? It means some of his influence would be laying the groundwork for the acknowledgement of those 27 documents later.

 

[revjohn]

I suggest that OT and NT were influenced by other religions, especially Zoroastrian

Once upon a time this was thought to be a given. There are still some quarters of scholarly thought that refuse to give it up.

There is no hard evidence of influence. There are some similarities but on the whole one has to adopt a very lax approach to make them work.

There is significant scholarly debate about when Zarathustra lived take your pick 6000 BCE or 600 BCE although most recent scholarship seems to support the findings of Bartolomae and Christensen rather that the claims of Plutarch and Diogenes.

If the later date is true then it seems highly unlikely that Zorastrianism was influential on Judaism since Zarathustra would only have been three when the Jews were taken into captivity.