""First mentioned Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180, the Trinity was further defined by Origen in the next century. The Trinity is never referred to in scripture.""
Posted by Priscillian, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 11:59:04 AM

It seems itt was Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (born about 150 A.D. in Carthage, North Africa) who coined the Trinity (before he became a Montanist) -

He did so in one work titled "Adversus Praxean", in which the doctrine of the Trinity comes into clear focus for the first time, in response to a heretic who was twisting the biblical balance between the persons of the Godhead. In this work, he created most of the terminology with which this doctrine was to be referred (and is still), such as Trinitas, etc*

<http://www.tertullian.org/readfirst.htm

* For Trinitas, see "Quasten", vol 2, p286, who gives ch.2 of 'Adversus Praxean' as the first use of Trinitas as a technical term by a Latin writer

I forgot to read the url http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm before posting, where it says

"" The word 'trias' (of which the Latin 'trinitas' is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom" (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time.

" Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. ""

Rhian,

It is interesting you mention a theologian with scientific knowledge, rather than scientists with theological knowledge/qualifications like John Polkinghorne (or Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacocke, George Coyne, Francisco Ayala etc) as that "common ground". Indeed, Torrance might be closer to Peter’s position than Polkinghorne, and the others who seem to be closer to mine, as little difference as there is between the two kinds of approaches. (There is also the Catholic philosopher Mariano Artigas with his “The Mind of the Universe: Understanding Science and Religion, Templeton 2000; reviewed in http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0102/reviews/mcmullin.html). What you wrote would probably be endorsed by all of them.

I have to admit I know very little about Barth and Torrance, however there is a whole Section devoted just to Torrance in Polkinghorne’s “Faith, Science and Understanding” (SPCK 2000, pp. 173-185), where Polkinghorne seems to endorse his theology but is slightly critical of his forays into physics. Nevertheless, he appreciates Torrance’s use of the metaphor of physics and geometry - until Einstein two completely different and unrelated areas of investigation (it caught my attention since I happened to know something about these things): Like mathematics can provide the physicist with an insight into what reality is all about so can also religion/theology provide a believer with an insight, albeit of a completely different kind.

AJ Philips,
I don’t seem to be able to harvest some feedback from those on these threads I think understand what I mean without causing a release of opinions, beliefs and “explanations” from you aimed at me. I have known them for quite a while now, and know that many - though not everybody - accept and share your outlook. So please, just take it easy -nobody is trying to reconvert you into Christian theism, certainly not I.

It is difficult to defend spirituality in that it is difficult to defend anything that does not exist. As to Christianity and its alleged place in society, the earlier comment by Foyle says it all.

You sound very confused, Daviy.

Metaphysics is just the philosophical study of being and knowing. I don’t know of anyone who claims that it conflicts with science - some of the conclusions might though.

Nor do I know of anyone who claims that the concept of god is rubbish just because religion is; just that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of a god...

<<It is a pity that so many see that religion is total garbage and then take that to mean the concept of God is garbage.>>

The criticizing of religion is done because of the harm it does in the name of something for which there is no evidence.

On another note though. The more I read of your posts, the more I’m convinced that you’re one of these people who believe in a god, but don’t believe that we can know who that god is.

Would this be right?

<<There is no correlation between Christianity and Spirituality and definitely nothing to do with God.>>

Your fervent defending of this god that “definitely” has nothing to do with religion would appear a little strange otherwise.

If you are one of these people, has the irony of claiming to not be able to know who this god is, while on the other hand, asserting who this god definitely is not, ever occurred to you?

Pick a religion and you’d make a good sophisticated theologian. They’ll quite happily waffle on all day about what god is not, but try asking them what god is and you won’t get much.

runner,

I never said you hated anyone, just that you’re a hateful person.

George,

Think of it as a compliment...

<<I don’t seem to be able to harvest some feedback from those on these threads I think understand what I mean without causing a release of opinions, beliefs and “explanations” from you aimed at me.>>

These days, I’ll often start to type-up responses to other theists, but then end up scrapping them because the more I type, the more I begin to feel like I’m picking on someone with, shall we say, “special needs”.

<<I have known them for quite a while now, and know that many - though not everybody - accept and share your outlook.>>

Yes, well this is why I try to avoid my personal outlook and focus on logic and reasoning.

<<...nobody is trying to reconvert you into Christian theism, certainly not I.>>

Even as an atheist now, I can still hear baby Jesus cry every time a Christian says this.

My understanding of Christianity and (from my observations) the understanding most Christians have of Christianity, is that it is an obligation of each and every Christian to do as the alleged Jesus allegedly instructed his disciples to do and go and be “fishers of men”.

Since god - for obvious reasons - can’t do this himself, Christians are obliged to spread the word, and considering the eternal consequences for believing or not believing, I would certainly hope that all Christians felt the obligation to convert others. Not doing so would, I’d imagine, be a grave sin and an act of gross negligence.

Boaz’s evangelizing is one of the most irritating aspects of OLO, but to his credit, he is at least doing what Christ instructed - as meaningless as his Bible quoting is.

All that aside though, you make it sound like my responses are a defence mechanism, or a wall I put up because my lack of belief is being threatened.

Continued...