In defense of a Trinity doctrine

Note that I’m saying a Trinity doctrine, not the Trinity doctrine, because I’ve seen more than one Trinity doctrine. This is about the one that is contained in the creed that is mislabeled “the Nicene Creed,” which Christian churches have to say they believe to be considered “mainstream.”

The points of controversy are mostly:
1. The consubstantiality and equality of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
2. The Holy Spirit as a person.

The Nicene Creed doesn’t actually say anything about equality or hierarchy, other than whatever anyone wants to think about the meaning of the words “consubstantial” “begotten” and “proceeds.” The Greek word that is translated as “consubstantial” was negotiated as a way for anyone to think it means whatever they want it to mean. At least one of the bishops interpreted it as having the same attributes and qualities and not as being composed of the same substance. In English the part about the Holy Spirit uses words that imply a person, but it doesn’t say so explicitly. I haven’t searched for information about the Greek.

That is not my defense of the Trinity doctrine in the Nicene Creed. It’s just some background information. My defense of that Creed is that maybe some of the bishops honestly thought that signing that agreement would help stop the feuding between Christians, and honestly did not realize how it might actually be used.

Niatero said:

Note that I’m saying a Trinity doctrine, not the Trinity doctrine, because I’ve seen more than one Trinity doctrine. This is about the one that is contained in the creed that is mislabeled “the Nicene Creed,” which Christian churches have to say they believe to be considered “mainstream.”

The points of controversy are mostly:
1. The consubstantiality and equality of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
2. The Holy Spirit as a person.

The Nicene Creed doesn’t actually say anything about equality or hierarchy, other than whatever anyone wants to think about the meaning of the words “consubstantial” “begotten” and “proceeds.” The Greek word that is translated as “consubstantial” was negotiated as a way for anyone to think it means whatever they want it to mean. At least one of the bishops interpreted it as having the same attributes and qualities and not as being composed of the same substance. In English the part about the Holy Spirit uses words that imply a person, but it doesn’t say so explicitly. I haven’t searched for information about the Greek.

Click to expand...

Niatero said:

That is not my defense of the Trinity doctrine in the Nicene Creed. It’s just some background information. My defense of that Creed is that maybe some of the bishops honestly thought that signing that agreement would help stop the feuding between Christians, and honestly did not realize how it might actually be used.

Click to expand...

Correct.

Plus… the unholy union of Roman belief and wayward Christian doctrine especially as formulated and underwritten by emperor Constantine (A Roman….!)

Niatero said:

My defense of that Creed is that maybe some of the bishops honestly thought that signing that agreement would help stop the feuding between Christians, and honestly did not realize how it might actually be used.

Click to expand...

That is not a defense of a creed. Rather, it's a defense of a tactic.

Jayhawker Soule said:

That is not a defense of a creed. Rather, it's a defense of a tactic.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I changed horses in midstream. It is a halfhearted defense of the creed though, if it did actually help reduce the feuding. Yes, I know that’s an open question, or maybe even controversial.

Niatero said:

Note that I’m saying a Trinity doctrine, not the Trinity doctrine, because I’ve seen more than one Trinity doctrine. This is about the one that is contained in the creed that is mislabeled “the Nicene Creed,” which Christian churches have to say they believe to be considered “mainstream.”

The points of controversy are mostly:
1. The consubstantiality and equality of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
2. The Holy Spirit as a person.

The Nicene Creed doesn’t actually say anything about equality or hierarchy, other than whatever anyone wants to think about the meaning of the words “consubstantial” “begotten” and “proceeds.” The Greek word that is translated as “consubstantial” was negotiated as a way for anyone to think it means whatever they want it to mean. At least one of the bishops interpreted it as having the same attributes and qualities and not as being composed of the same substance. In English the part about the Holy Spirit uses words that imply a person, but it doesn’t say so explicitly. I haven’t searched for information about the Greek.

That is not my defense of the Trinity doctrine in the Nicene Creed. It’s just some background information. My defense of that Creed is that maybe some of the bishops honestly thought that signing that agreement would help stop the feuding between Christians, and honestly did not realize how it might actually be used.

Click to expand...

Niatero said:

It is a halfhearted defense of the creed though, ...

Click to expand...

Rather, it's a halfhearted defense of (unprincipled?) compromise.

Niatero said:

Note that I’m saying a Trinity doctrine, not the Trinity doctrine, because I’ve seen more than one Trinity doctrine. This is about the one that is contained in the creed that is mislabeled “the Nicene Creed,” which Christian churches have to say they believe to be considered “mainstream.”

The points of controversy are mostly:
1. The consubstantiality and equality of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
2. The Holy Spirit as a person.

The Nicene Creed doesn’t actually say anything about equality or hierarchy, other than whatever anyone wants to think about the meaning of the words “consubstantial” “begotten” and “proceeds.” The Greek word that is translated as “consubstantial” was negotiated as a way for anyone to think it means whatever they want it to mean. At least one of the bishops interpreted it as having the same attributes and qualities and not as being composed of the same substance. In English the part about the Holy Spirit uses words that imply a person, but it doesn’t say so explicitly. I haven’t searched for information about the Greek.

That is not my defense of the Trinity doctrine in the Nicene Creed. It’s just some background information. My defense of that Creed is that maybe some of the bishops honestly thought that signing that agreement would help stop the feuding between Christians, and honestly did not realize how it might actually be used.

Click to expand...

It didn't stop the controversy. Those who believed Athanasius still believed in a three person God which is not what the Trinity says.

Muffled said:

It didn't stop the controversy. Those who believed Athanasius still believed in a three person God which is not what the Trinity says.

Click to expand...

Yes, because wrong is wrong… and there are those who uphold wrongness … and we know who is behind that mindset!!!

It’s kinda simple… no one can defend the indefensible.. and trinity, a trinity or the trinity, is indefensible….

THATS WHY THE CONTROVERSY CONTINUES TO THIS DAY!

Each time a hole is found in the trinity ideology, trinity advocates need to patch it up with even more controversies. So, a great deceitful tactic is to produce many different SECTS of the trinity ideology which, if anything is found wanting in one sect, the upholders of it can claim a belief in a different sect of the trinity ideology as a get out!!

For instance, Jesus is gained as the Son of God. Now while it is true that it is a title given to him, trinity claims that he was ‘Son’ from eternity. However, when asked HOW Jesus is SON from eternity BUT NOT ‘BORN’ from God, we are told that Jesus was ‘NEVER BORN’ but ‘EXISTED AS SON FROM ETERNITY’.

Now, of course, that claim is UNBELIEVABLE since trinity ALSO SAYS that Jesus was THE BORN AS THE FIRST OF GOD’s CREATIONS.

And even more unbelievable, that Jesus THEN WENT ON TO CREATE ALL THINGS…. does anyone see the controversy… the dilemma, the impossibility of what is being claimed?

On top of that, Jesus, himself, declares that he can ‘Do nothing unless he FIRST SEES the Father (aka: God) do it!! Immediately we get the question of ‘How did Jesus create all things if he could only create all things AFTER SEEING THE FATHER CREATE ALL THINGS’?

I have heard several trinity ideologist claim that this was because God CREATED FIRST then destroyed that creation which then allowed the Son to create… They point to before the great flood as the first creation and then JESUS created the new world after the flood….. really!!??? Can you now see how deceitful, despicable, irresponsible, fallacious, and devilish Trinitarians can become in attempting to defend their indefensible ideology.

And, among many other things, we have the trinity claims that Jesus is God because :

1. Jesus could walk on water…. But:
   1. Peter also walked on water but isn’t God!
2. Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead… but:
   1. Elijah and Elisha both raised the dead before jesus did but yet they are not God!
3. Jesus forgave sins… But:
   1. Jesus told us that WE, Too SHOULD FORGIVE those who do us wrong. Does that make us God, too! (In truth, one man can forgive a wrong done to him by another man: but he cannot forgive a wrong done against GOD. It is for GOD only to forgive a wrong sins against HIM!!! ‘Measure for Measure’ as thd great play-write, William Shakespeare, wrote!!
4. Jesus is SEATED NEXT TOGOD - at the right hand of God. But:
   1. The right hand of Majesty is a seat OF HONOUR… not a seat of EQUALITY!
5. Jesus ACQUIRES (is REWARDED) with the rulership over THE CREATED WORLD (and all in it)… But:
   1. Jesus is SUPPOSED to have CREATED THE WORLD (and all in it!). How is it a reward to acquire what you created and are already ruler (as God) over??!

Any answers from anyone???

(P.s. Let’s see what deceitful, despicable, irresponsible, fallacious, and devilish answer we get!!)