Isaiah 43:11

[FerventGodSeeker]

The earliest Christians, are you sure of that?
The proto-orthodox had no concept of Trinity. The Trinity concept came into existance in the 4th century at the Council of Nicea and was later expanded upon int he Athanasian creed in the 6th century. Thats at least 325 years without a doctrine of Trinity within what would become the orthodox chuch alone. Never mind the fact that the earliest Christians were not limited to the proto-orthodox sect of Irenaeous and his buddies.

That's quite simply a false statement. While the doctrine of Christ's deity, the Trinity, etc, was authoritatively defined and explained at the Council of Nicea, the teaching of Christ's deity and the Trinity existed long before 325 (in the Christian view, since Christ and the Apostles).
"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.,18:2).

"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

Tatian the Syrian: "We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).
Origen: "Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).
Hippolytus of Rome: "For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:34 [A.D. 228])
Theophilus of Antioch: "It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).
Origen: "For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).
Gregory the Wonderworker: "There is one God. . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Clearly the teachings of Christ's deity and the Trinity were around well before Nicea, and taught by authoritative, orthodox Christian teachers.

The spirit was never with the Church, the spirit is with the people. Truth abandoned the Church as soon as man-made beliefs became more important than Christ's message.

The Spirit is with what people? Christians? Do not Christians compose the Church? Is not the Church to be organized with leaders who teach and act authoritatively, binding and loosing, acting as the pillar and ground of the truth?

Quite a lot plainer actually. Along the lines of "God is three forms in one, and three forms alone" would be best.

How are you defining "form"? Generally the Trinitarian term for Father, Son and Holy Spirit individually is "Person".

Valentinians believed in over 30 aspects of God that were one.

Yeah....so what? Valentius was a heretic who was excommunicated by the early Church; I wouldn't look to him for a lot of spiritual guidance .

Just because it says that three aspects of God are in fact only aspects of a single source does not mean that those three alone exist.

If no other "aspect" (i.e. Person) is mentioned in Scripture or in the Tradition of the Church preserved since the Apostles, why are we to assume that there are more? Even if you were to posit that (which would be a hypothesis with no evidence, as far as I can tell), the verse is still quite plainly Trinitarian: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three in one. That's the EXACT terminology used by orthodox Christians to decribe the Trinity. Also, something doesn't have to be explicitly spelled out in Scripture in order to be doctine.

Nor does it even vaguely suggest that those three forms are somehow distinct from one another to the extent that God is tri-form in nature.

Scripture quite clearly distinguishes between the three of them as distinct from one another, and acting interdependently of one another:
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My (Jesus') name, He will teach you all things, and bring to remembrance all things that I said to you." John 14:26

FerventGodSeeker

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Halcyon,

Go on then, explain to me why Christ was called the word of God. Also why he's only called this in the gospel fo John.

The use of Logos is not Gnostic, but Greek. Here's something from wiki on the use of the Logos in John's Gosple:

In Christianity, the prologue of the Gospel of John calls Jesus the Logos (usually translated as "the Word" in English bibles such as the KJV) and played a central role in establishing the doctrine of Jesus' divinity and the Trinity. (See Christology.) The opening verse in the KJV reads: "In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word [Logos] was with God, and the Word [Logos] was God."
Some scholars of the Bible have suggested that John made creative use of double meaning in the word "Logos" to communicate to both Jews, who were familiar with the Wisdom tradition in Judaism, and Hellenists, especially followers of Philo. Each of these two groups had its own history associated with the concept of the Logos, and each could understand John's use of the term from one or both of those contexts. Especially for the Hellenists, however, John turns the concept of the Logos on its head when he claimed "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us" (v. 14). Similarly, some translations of the Gospel of John into Chinese have used the word "Tao (&#36947" to translate the "Logos" in a provocative way.

Sure. I am the son of God because i am male and am a creation of God. I am a part of God, but i am also an individual.

Son of God is also a title. People can become a Son or Daughter of God when the Christ descends upon them and the gain practically unadulterated understanding of God, they become one with God in a much greater sense than unenlightened people, God speaks through them as they are at one with God. However they are not fully God as God is far too great, thus a good title is a Son of God.

Oh, this is then were I have a different understanding. I guess in a way I would refer to myself as a child of God as it captures one aspect of my relationship with the Father. But I do not think I am a parrt of God (a creation of God, yes, but a painting is not part of the artist), although I do beleive I dwell in God and God lives in me. As for the idea of people becoming a Son or Daughter of God, while I am not very familiar with neo-Gnostic belief, what you describe does not sound like the gospel of "Repent, the Kingdom of God is near!" I think the Holy Spirit does dwell with all of us, or as I said above we dwell within the Spirit, but the transformation of unvovering this truth does not require any kind of special 'knowledge' that is personally revealed only to some few. The Secret of Christ is right out there in the open. For goodness sake, what would be the criteria for developing this special enlightenment?

The earliest Christians, are you sure of that?
The proto-orthodox had no concept of Trinity. The Trinity concept came into existance in the 4th century at the Council of Nicea and was later expanded upon int he Athanasian creed in the 6th century. Thats at least 325 years without a doctrine of Trinity within what would become the orthodox chuch alone. Never mind the fact that the earliest Christians were not limited to the proto-orthodox sect of Irenaeous and his buddies.

The doctrine of the Trinity, although not in labelled with that term, was the experience of the earliest Christian community as passed forward in Tradition and protected by the Spirit. It is woven throughout the New Testament which was written well before the 4th century.

Oh i'm fine with people believing in the Trinity, i just came across a passage that seemed to go against the concept and wanted to debate it.

OK then!

The spirit was never with the Church, the spirit is with the people. Truth abandoned the Church as soon as man-made beliefs became more important than Christ's message.

The people are the Church. The Church is not an organization, it is not a denomination or even a religion. So again I ask you exactly when the Spirit abandoned the Church? What year? Every time you read the Bible you interpret it. Which exact doctrine marks the departure of the Spirit from the Church, and why would God not be able to keep His promise?

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Buttercup]

He "quoted" God as saying that there is no saviour beside Him. Taking Isaiah's religious viewpoint, this seemed to me to be a prophetic warning against a saviour who people will see as equal to God. Jesus is often called the Saviour by Christians.

If this is not referring to the Saviour, which saviour is it referring to?
When i read it it was like being smacked in the face, it seemed like a prophetic declaration that Jesus is not equal to God and so cannot be the second person in any form of Trinity.

I am assuming that you realize that many, many Christian theologians consider large parts of Isaiah to be Messianic prophecies right? Isaiah believed there would be a human being coming to save the world as Messiah? The passage below is thought to be about John The Baptist announcing Christ's way....and the second one is supposed to be about Jesus as well. If you want to start a thread about Messianic prophecies and how they were fulfilled in Jesus, we can.

Isaiah 40:3
A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God."

Isaiah 49:6
he says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."


I wanted to include other scripture that correlate Jesus as God that are not from John.

"...they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US."​

--MATTHEW 1:23

"For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form."
-- Colossians 2:9

"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word."
Hebrews 1:3

"...CHRIST, who is the IMAGE OF GOD..."
--II Corinthians 4:4

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
Philippians 2:6,7

 

[Halcyon]

That's quite simply a false statement. While the doctrine of Christ's deity, the Trinity, etc, was authoritatively defined and explained at the Council of Nicea, the teaching of Christ's deity and the Trinity existed long before 325 (in the Christian view, since Christ and the Apostles).

Erm...no?

Do you even know what an ecumenical council is?
The very fact that the people of the time needed Nicea to take place shows us that there were widely varying beliefs. Ecumenical councils are used to was to once and for all determine the orthodox position on a piece of theology, such as the nature of Christ and God, which they didn't even completely accomplish at Nicea.

The New Testament does not use the word "Τριάς" (Trinity), but only speaks of God (often called "the Father"), of Jesus Christ (often called "the Son"), and of the Holy Spirit, and of the relationships between them. The word "Trinity" began to be applied to them only in the course of later theological reflection.

Conclusions about how best to explain the association of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit with the one God developed gradually and not without controversy. Christians had to reconcile their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ with their belief in the one-ness of God. In doing so, some stressed the one-ness to the point of considering Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit as merely three modes or roles in which God shows himself to mankind; others stressed the three-ness to the point of positing three divine beings, with only one of them supreme and God in the full sense. Only in the fourth century were the distinctness of the three and their unity brought together and expressed in mainline Christianity in a single doctrine of one essence and three persons.

Tatian the Syrian

Origen

Theophilus of Antioch

Gregory the Wonderworker:

Clearly the teachings of Christ's deity and the Trinity were around well before Nicea, and taught by authoritative, orthodox Christian teachers.

Wow, a load of Church fathers, nice unbiased sources there. For a start i'm not debating the divinity of Christ in this thread, this is about the Trinity. The only sources you give mentioning the trinity concept are third century and from orthodox Church Fathers. Their writings, although authoritative now, do not reflect the beliefs of the general population at the time they were written.

The Spirit is with what people? Christians? Do not Christians compose the Church? Is not the Church to be organized with leaders who teach and act authoritatively, binding and loosing, acting as the pillar and ground of the truth?

The Church is an organisation, like a bank or a motor company. People can leave the church and still know the spirit of God. And God is with all people, not just Christians.

How are you defining "form"? Generally the Trinitarian term for Father, Son and Holy Spirit individually is "Person".

Nit-picking. But anyway, they're not people they're not even remotely human-like so person is an idiotic description.

Yeah....so what? Valentius was a heretic who was excommunicated by the early Church; I wouldn't look to him for a lot of spiritual guidance .

Pffft. This is all a matter of opinion.
Yes he was branded a heretic, but from my position it was the church of the time that was heretical. Plus, he very nearly became Pope, so he obviously had a lot of sway and many people would have looked to him for spiritual guidance.

If no other "aspect" (i.e. Person) is mentioned in Scripture or in the Tradition of the Church preserved since the Apostles, why are we to assume that there are more? Even if you were to posit that (which would be a hypothesis with no evidence, as far as I can tell), the verse is still quite plainly Trinitarian: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three in one. That's the EXACT terminology used by orthodox Christians to decribe the Trinity. Also, something doesn't have to be explicitly spelled out in Scripture in order to be doctine. Scripture quite clearly distinguishes between the three of them as distinct from one another, and acting interdependently of one another:
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My (Jesus') name, He will teach you all things, and bring to remembrance all things that I said to you." John 14:26

Many other beings are mentioned in scripture, angels, archangels, Satan, devils. Sophia is mentioned a lot in the OT.
Three beings are mentioned, and it is also mentioned that they are one, it does not say three in one.

Lets return to scripture for a moment, Buttercup posted from the First Epistle of John;

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7

Firstly this is from an epistle, not from a gospel, thus it is opinion/belief of the author already an orthodox chrsitian, it is not of Christ, it is man-made.

Secondly, if this was not enough, 1 John 5:7-8 did not appear in any copy of 1 John until the sixteenth century. This was well into the existance of the orthodox church as an entity, and well after the formation of the trinity as a doctrine. Coincidence?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%205:7-8;&version=31;

 

[Halcyon]

I am assuming that you realize that many, many Christian theologians consider large parts of Isaiah to be Messianic prophecies right? Isaiah believed there would be a human being coming to save the world as Messiah?

Yeah i know buttercup, and some of Isaiah does bear a striking resemblance to the passion. But if you talk to any Jew, they'll give you the actual context and person of reference for of which the text is actually speaking.

If you want to start a thread about Messianic prophecies and how they were fulfilled in Jesus, we can.

You know, i might just do that.

I wanted to include other scripture that correlate Jesus as God that are not from John.

"...they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US."​

--MATTHEW 1:23

"For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form."
-- Colossians 2:9

"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word."
Hebrews 1:3

"...CHRIST, who is the IMAGE OF GOD..."
--II Corinthians 4:4

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
Philippians 2:6,7

This might be hard to believe BC, but i don't disagree with any of the quotes. I'm not disputing that Christ is of God.
What i am disputing is that Jesus as a man and as a saviour is beside God as one member of a trinity - evidenced in Isaiah by God himself saying that "beside him there is no saviour". The NT and early Christians differentiated between God the Father and Jesus Christ, its only to be expected that God himself and his Jewish prophet would do the same, is it not?

 

[Buttercup]

This might be hard to believe BC, but i don't disagree with any of the quotes. I'm not disputing that Christ is of God.
What i am disputing is that Jesus as a man and as a saviour is beside God as one member of a trinity - evidenced in Isaiah by God himself saying that "beside him there is no saviour". The NT and early Christians differentiated between God the Father and Jesus Christ, its only to be expected that God himself and his Jewish prophet would do the same, is it not?

May I ask you who you think Jesus was and how you came to the conclusions you have of him? That would help me further answers questions in this thread I think.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Erm...no?

Do you even know what an ecumenical council is?
The very fact that the people of the time needed Nicea to take place shows us that there were widely varying beliefs. Ecumenical councils are used to was to once and for all determine the orthodox position on a piece of theology, such as the nature of Christ and God, which they didn't even completely accomplish at Nicea.

Yes, I do know what an ecumenical council is, thank you. In case you are unaware, the Church dealt/deals with issues and heresies in the Church as they come up. In the early Church, one heresy was known as Arianism, which denied that Jesus was God. Thus, as this heresy grew more popular, the Church convened the Council at Nicea to clarify the teachings of Christ's deity and the Trinity as a whole. This is exactly what the Church was meant to do as the pillar and ground of the truth. The fact that you may disagree with their divinely authoritative teachings is another issue entirely. However, the fact that I posted numerous ante-Nicene citations discussing the deity of Christ and the Trinity proves that such teachings were not just inventions of Nicea.

Wow, a load of Church fathers, nice unbiased sources there.

Wait, where else would ytou go to find out what the early Church believed? The ECFs were the Church leaders who were taught by the Apostles or taught by those who were taught by the Apostles....what more authoritative source could there be to discover what the Church taught and believed in the times in which such men lived?

For a start i'm not debating the divinity of Christ in this thread, this is about the Trinity.

Except that the deity of Christ is implicit in the doctrine of the Trinity, the two are intertwined. Do you, then, believe that Jesus is God?

The only sources you give mentioning the trinity concept are third century and from orthodox Church Fathers. Their writings, although authoritative now, do not reflect the beliefs of the general population at the time they were written.

Sure they do. These were the leaders of the Church; they taught the general population and formed/developed the beliefs of the general population. The reason they are authoritative now is because they were authoritative then. If they were not authoritative then, when did they suddenly become authoritative?

The Church is an organisation, like a bank or a motor company. People can leave the church and still know the spirit of God. And God is with all people, not just Christians.

The Church is not a bank or a motor company is the sense that you can just drop the Church because you don't like it and find another religion, and still expect the same service (from God). Salvation is known and promised inside the Church by Christ and the Apostles; outside the Church we do not know where salvation is. When you say God is "with" all people, what do you mean? I believe He is omnipresent, and thus "with" all people in a sense, but many people do not know God, many even completely reject God or the notion that any deity exists at all. I believe that God specially blesses and indwells those who are in the Church, as Christ and the Apostles promised us.

Nit-picking.

Not really. In an in-depth discussion about the nature of the Trinity, word choice is everything. If words are not specifically defined, entire discussions or debates can be completely purposeless because all sides did not understand the terms in question.

But anyway, they're not people they're not even remotely human-like so person is an idiotic description.

This depends on your definition of "person", which you are restricting to humans alone. I personally like the following description (made by Matt Slick, Protestant apologist) of what a "person" is:

A person exists and has identity.A person is aware of his own existence and identity.

1. This precludes the condition of being unconscious.
2. A self aware person will use such a statement as "I am", "me", "mine", etc. A person can recognize the existence of other persons.
3. This is true provided there were other persons around him or her.
4. Such recognition would include the use of such statements as "you are", "you", "yours", etc.

A person possesses a will.

1. A will is the capability of conscious choice, decision, intention, desire, and or purpose.

A single person cannot have two separate and distinct wills at the same time on the exact same subject.

1. Regarding the exact same subject, a person can desire/will one thing at one moment and another at a different moment.
2. Separate and simultaneous wills imply separate and simultaneous persons.

A person has the ability to communicate -- under normal conditions. Persons do not need to have bodies.

1. God the Father possesses personhood without a body, as do the angels.
2. Biblically speaking, upon death we are "absent from the body and home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8).

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all different Persons in the Trinity.

Pffft. This is all a matter of opinion.

No, it's a matter of Church delcaration and authority. Christ gave the Church the power to bind and loose and authority as the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church's declarations, such as excommunication, are far more than "opinion", they are truths and righteous judgments guided by the Holy Spirit.

Yes he was branded a heretic, but from my position it was the church of the time that was heretical.

Well that's convenient. Throw out all the teachings of the Church as a whole to indulge the declared heresies of a single man.

Plus, he very nearly became Pope, so he obviously had a lot of sway and many people would have looked to him for spiritual guidance.

I hadn't heard that he almost became Pope, where did you find that out? Sure, he may have had sway, and that's the whole reason that he was excommunicated; his teachings were so heretical and contrary to Church teaching that his sway over the Church had to be eliminated, or at least declared erroneous.

Many other beings are mentioned in scripture, angels, archangels, Satan, devils. Sophia is mentioned a lot in the OT.

And where did you get the idea that any of those things were/are God?

Three beings are mentioned, and it is also mentioned that they are one, it does not say three in one.

It says that the three (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are one. Again, a single passage couldn't possibly be any more Trinitarian.

Firstly this is from an epistle, not from a gospel, thus it is opinion/belief of the author already an orthodox chrsitian, it is not of Christ, it is man-made.

What? This was written by John the Apostle, who also wrote the Gospel of John. This guy knew Christ and was taught by Him, and even called the "beloved disciple"...he learned his Christology directly from Christ, there's not much more you could ask for.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Pilgrim]

What? This was written by John the Apostle, who also wrote the Gospel of John. This guy knew Christ and was taught by Him, and even called the "beloved disciple"...he learned his Christology directly from Christ, there's not much more you could ask for.

FerventGodSeeker

To be clear, the authorship of those books is still in question.

 

[sojourner]

The Church is an organisation, like a bank or a motor company. People can leave the church and still know the spirit of God. And God is with all people, not just Christians.

Actually the Church is not an "organization" except in the narrow definition of human contrivance. The Church is people -- ecclesia. The Church has been organized, but it is not, strictly speaking, an organization, distinct from other organizations. Organizations are human entities. the Church is born of God.

The nature of the Church is that it is one, as God is one. The Church, then, must consist of all God's children (all humanity, in a sense.) If what the Psalmist says is truth: "Where can I run from your presence?" then, one cannot "leave the Church." One cannot run from the presence of ecclesia, because one is inherently part of ecclesia...wherever one goes and whatever one does. the differences that serve to divide us, theologically, ecclesiastically, philosophically, are illusions -- only "real" to human divisiveness, not to deific unity. The truths that are revealed to the Church are inspired truths, available to all and binding upon all. They are not the contrivances of some select body of people, but are the revelation of God.

Switching gears...

One of the problems I see with folks getting their minds around the concept of the Trinity is this: People tend to make "Father" synonymous with "God." It's easy to separate Jesus out from God, because Jesus was fully human. It's not so easy to separate the concept of Father from God. God, in concept, is all-encompassing. Father, in concept, is not. Father is a slightly different concept from God, just as Jesus is a different concept from God. It might be easier if we didn't blur the distinction between "Father" and "God," using them interchangeably, as we tend to do.

While Father is the creator, Jesus is the savior (and the H.S. is the sustainer). While God is creator, sustainer and redeemer, the Father is not all of those things. While God is creator, sustainer and redeemer, Christ is not all of those things, etc. Incidentally, this "triform" ministry of God to God's people is reflected in the symbology of the "triform" ministry of the ordained clergy: Bishop, priest, deacon.

 

[alexander garcia]

hi, read Isa. chapters 40 to 50 and then see how many times YHVH says I by my self. Just the fact of the word (I) does not leave room for (US).

 

[sojourner]

hi, read Isa. chapters 40 to 50 and then see how many times YHVH says I by my self. Just the fact of the word (I) does not leave room for (US).

Oh, come on. refer to the Shema. If The LORD is One, why would God refer to God's self in plurality? Even Jesus says that he and the Father are One.

 

[Halcyon]

May I ask you who you think Jesus was and how you came to the conclusions you have of him? That would help me further answers questions in this thread I think.

Sure, i'll try and make it brief. I should point out though that my beliefs are not set in stone and are liable to change if i discover something contrary to them.

God is all things, simple as that.
Humans by default are ignorant of the fullness of God, this is caused by flaws in our universe.
Through effort men (as in humanity) can overcome this ignorance and realise their true nature in the fullness of God. Jesus did this.
Jesus was born a human son of Mary and Joseph. Through great effort and meditation he conditioned his mind to the point at which the nature of God could be known to him. This event occured at his baptism where he had a vision of the fullness and he became annointed by the light and knowledge of God.
Then he went into the desert for a period of contemplation which allowed his mind to come to grips with its new state. He left the desert as fully Jesus the Annointed, a Christ.
At his death the man Jesus died, but what he had become, the Christ, lived on and taught those the man Jesus had known, the apostles, for a further 11 years.
The Christ is not God, because God is infinite, but it is of God. Jesus though is dead.

 

[Halcyon]

Yes, I do know what an ecumenical council is, thank you. In case you are unaware, the Church dealt/deals with issues and heresies in the Church as they come up. In the early Church, one heresy was known as Arianism, which denied that Jesus was God. Thus, as this heresy grew more popular, the Church convened the Council at Nicea to clarify the teachings of Christ's deity and the Trinity as a whole. This is exactly what the Church was meant to do as the pillar and ground of the truth. The fact that you may disagree with their divinely authoritative teachings is another issue entirely. However, the fact that I posted numerous ante-Nicene citations discussing the deity of Christ and the Trinity proves that such teachings were not just inventions of Nicea.

I never said they were inventions of Nicea, i said that it was not until Nicea that the Trinity became the official Church doctrine on the nature of God.
And yes i agree with you, they did hold such ecumenical meetings in response to the changing beliefs of the populace. Which just goes to show you that the beliefs on the nature of God at that time were diverse enough to warrent a council specifically designed to sort out, once and for all, what "real" Christians should believe God is.
And i imagine Origen and those who thought like him, several of whom you quoted from, probably had enough followers and power in Rome to push their belief at that council.

Wait, where else would ytou go to find out what the early Church believed? The ECFs were the Church leaders who were taught by the Apostles or taught by those who were taught by the Apostles....what more authoritative source could there be to discover what the Church taught and believed in the times in which such men lived?
Except that the deity of Christ is implicit in the doctrine of the Trinity, the two are intertwined. Do you, then, believe that Jesus is God?

Not early Church, early Christians.
They only claimed to be taught by the apostles, they offered no proof.
I do not belief Jesus is God. God is God.

Sure they do. These were the leaders of the Church; they taught the general population and formed/developed the beliefs of the general population. The reason they are authoritative now is because they were authoritative then. If they were not authoritative then, when did they suddenly become authoritative?

They don't, they reflect their own beliefs which they then pushed onto the populace, often by force. They are authoritative now because their methods of teaching were "very persuasive".

The Church is not a bank or a motor company is the sense that you can just drop the Church because you don't like it and find another religion, and still expect the same service (from God). Salvation is known and promised inside the Church by Christ and the Apostles; outside the Church we do not know where salvation is. When you say God is "with" all people, what do you mean? I believe He is omnipresent, and thus "with" all people in a sense, but many people do not know God, many even completely reject God or the notion that any deity exists at all. I believe that God specially blesses and indwells those who are in the Church, as Christ and the Apostles promised us.

God is not an ignorant little child. He doesn't abandon anyone, ever. Especially just because they don't follow exactly the religious code of ignorant men.

Not really. In an in-depth discussion about the nature of the Trinity, word choice is everything. If words are not specifically defined, entire discussions or debates can be completely purposeless because all sides did not understand the terms in question.

Fine, i'll use person from now on to avoid confusion. I don't believe God is a person, but meh.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all different Persons in the Trinity.

And you're a monotheist you say?

No, it's a matter of Church delcaration and authority. Christ gave the Church the power to bind and loose and authority as the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church's declarations, such as excommunication, are far more than "opinion", they are truths and righteous judgments guided by the Holy Spirit.

He gave Peter the authority to found a Church in his name, what that church became was the result of man. Excommunication is not from the Holy Spirit, that's just silly.

Well that's convenient. Throw out all the teachings of the Church as a whole to indulge the declared heresies of a single man.
I hadn't heard that he almost became Pope, where did you find that out? Sure, he may have had sway, and that's the whole reason that he was excommunicated; his teachings were so heretical and contrary to Church teaching that his sway over the Church had to be eliminated, or at least declared erroneous.

It is convenient, the Chuch is wrong.
Sorry, my bad, it wasn't Pope it was Bishop of Rome according to Wiki. Although i'm sure i heard it was Pope form another souce - but i guess that one was wrong.

And where did you get the idea that any of those things were/are God?

Angels are the messangers of God. The Archangels are the first created and most beloved of God (so tradition says). Satan is an angel "employed" by God in the office of the adversary. All these beings are of God. The angels are even referred to as the Sons of God. They all do God's bidding, they are all one with God.

It says that the three (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are one. Again, a single passage couldn't possibly be any more Trinitarian.

I know, shame its a sixteenth century addition to an already dodgy epistle.

What? This was written by John the Apostle, who also wrote the Gospel of John. This guy knew Christ and was taught by Him, and even called the "beloved disciple"...he learned his Christology directly from Christ, there's not much more you could ask for.

Really?

The terminus ad quem for I John is provided by Polycarp, who presupposes I John 4:2 in Phil 7:1, and by Papias, who used texts from I John according to Eusebius in HE 3.39.17. This places the letter sometime in the first quarter of the second century

John was unlikely to have lived to over 100 considering the average lifespan of the time.
He wasn't called the beloved disciple, people just assume that it is him. Personally i am of the opinion, as are many others, that the beloved disciple was Lazarus.

 

[Halcyon]

Actually the Church is not an "organization" except in the narrow definition of human contrivance. The Church is people -- ecclesia. The Church has been organized, but it is not, strictly speaking, an organization, distinct from other organizations. Organizations are human entities. the Church is born of God.

The nature of the Church is that it is one, as God is one. The Church, then, must consist of all God's children (all humanity, in a sense.) If what the Psalmist says is truth: "Where can I run from your presence?" then, one cannot "leave the Church." One cannot run from the presence of ecclesia, because one is inherently part of ecclesia...wherever one goes and whatever one does. the differences that serve to divide us, theologically, ecclesiastically, philosophically, are illusions -- only "real" to human divisiveness, not to deific unity.

I agree. Makes excommunication seem irrelevent then doesn't it?

The truths that are revealed to the Church are inspired truths, available to all and binding upon all. They are not the contrivances of some select body of people, but are the revelation of God.

I disagree. I see no evidence of God talking to people though a body of men. God can and does talk to all people, and to all of them he says different things. To listen only to the opinions and revelations of a self-selected few seems disasterous for the spiritual development, to me anyway.

One of the problems I see with folks getting their minds around the concept of the Trinity is this: People tend to make "Father" synonymous with "God." It's easy to separate Jesus out from God, because Jesus was fully human. It's not so easy to separate the concept of Father from God. God, in concept, is all-encompassing. Father, in concept, is not. Father is a slightly different concept from God, just as Jesus is a different concept from God. It might be easier if we didn't blur the distinction between "Father" and "God," using them interchangeably, as we tend to do.

Well, since Jesus made no distinction between his usage of the terms God and Father, i don't see that i should either.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Jesus was born a human son of Mary and Joseph. Through great effort and meditation he conditioned his mind to the point at which the nature of God could be known to him. This event occured at his baptism where he had a vision of the fullness and he became annointed by the light and knowledge of God.
Then he went into the desert for a period of contemplation which allowed his mind to come to grips with its new state. He left the desert as fully Jesus the Annointed, a Christ.
At his death the man Jesus died, but what he had become, the Christ, lived on and taught those the man Jesus had known, the apostles, for a further 11 years.
The Christ is not God, because God is infinite, but it is of God. Jesus though is dead.

Since what we know about Jesus comes from Scripture I assume you just made all this up?

 

[Halcyon]

Since what we know about Jesus comes from Scripture I assume you just made all this up?

No, its just a different interpretation of the same scripture. Plus some Gnostic scripture.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No, its just a different interpretation of the same scripture. Plus some Gnostic scripture.

Okay, then please tell me how this scripture from Matthew 1, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." can be tortured into meaning that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph?

 

[dawny0826]

Actually it's an excellent prooftext FOR the Trinity. Jesus is the Savior (Titus 1:4), and therefore, since there is no Savior but God, then Jesus must be God.

FerventGodSeeker

Exactly.

(You said it much better than I could have):yes:

 

[Halcyon]

Okay, then please tell me how this scripture from Matthew 1, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." can be tortured into meaning that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph?

Because the guy who wrote Matthew was of the belief that Jesus was prophecised in Isaiah, he simply wrote his gospel to reflect his beliefs. Notice that Mark and John don't have an infancy narrative.

James the Just, the blood brother of Jesus, did not believe Jesus was the literal Son of God and did not believe that his mother virginally gave birth to his older brother. Who you gonna believe, the anonymous author of a gospel that is usually considered 2nd or 3rd generation Christian, or the actual brother of Jesus?
I know who i'd rather believe.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Because the guy who wrote Matthew was of the belief that Jesus was prophecised in Isaiah, he simply wrote his gospel to reflect his beliefs. Notice that Mark and John don't have an infancy narrative..

I see, what you don't want to believe just call it false. Not that there's anything wrong with that.......

James the Just, the blood brother of Jesus, did not believe Jesus was the literal Son of God and did not believe that his mother virginally gave birth to his older brother. Who you gonna believe, the anonymous author of a gospel that is usually considered 2nd or 3rd generation Christian, or the actual brother of Jesus?
I know who i'd rather believe.

And you get all this "stuff" from where?