Jump to content
Melvind

Trinity vs Unitarian Discussion - Is Jesus God

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

More importantly if the original Christians were Unitarian what difference would it make to you. 

I'm here out of curiosity. I'm more curious in what is being discussed than interested in making a point or taking a position.

you didn't answer my question though.

seems to me like you're trying to prop up your own beliefs or build your own esteem by attempting to discredit others.

but who can really disprove an idea that is too abstract and subjective to understand, to begin with? 

Anyway, I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

We are in agreement. The dogma was chosen to preserve unity but that doesnt mean it was the correct dogma. As I was pointing out I can find no evidence anyone proposing a trinitarian concept before the Council of Nicea and even then it was codified till much much later.

The Council of Nicea codified a 'di-ity' not a trinity

 

Right or wrong, the majority believed so. Trinity was not a new idea. The discussion had been going for a couple of centuries before dogma was established. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, andres said:

Right or wrong, the majority believed so. Trinity was not a new idea. The discussion had been going for a couple of centuries before dogma was established. 

With respect I would disagree because it wasn't discussed or codified in the Council of Nicea. Unless you can prove otherwise all my research indicates that the trinity wasn't even a belief at that time.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, iCambrian said:

you didn't answer my question though.

seems to me like you're trying to prop up your own beliefs or build your own esteem by attempting to discredit others.

but who can really disprove an idea that is too abstract and subjective to understand, to begin with? 

Anyway, I digress.

I think you will find Islam can stand on its own 2 metaphorical feet. It seems that you are uncomfortable with the discussion because it shows that the trinity wasn't a belief at the council of Nicea.

It has always been Islams position that the current Christian theology/dogma is the corrupted message of God.

Its interesting that your own historical accounts seem to support this position as well.

I am not here to disprove the trinity, I am disproving that it was an original dogma of the christian church  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A true Sunni said:

With respect I would disagree because it wasn't discussed or codified in the Council of Nicea. Unless you can prove otherwise all my research indicates that the trinity wasn't even a belief at that time.     

Did you consult wikipedia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

Athanasius Contra Mundum?

Yes.

Just in doing some reading, it appears as though, later in his life he was Trinitarian, and he was present at the council of Nicea and may have played a large role. But was he Trinitarian during the council of Nicea? Or is there record of figures who were present at the council, who were Trinitarian at that time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Yes.

Just in doing some reading, it appears as though, later in his life he was Trinitarian, and he was present at the council of Nicea and may have played a large role. But was he Trinitarian during the council of Nicea? Or is there record of figures who were present at the council, who were Trinitarian at that time?

Wikipedia says he was already a trinitarian leader, against Arianism, from the age of 27. "Against Arianism" seems to come up a few times, borderline crusader, finally went nuts and hated everyone. Gregory of Nazianzus was only born during the time of the council but had many years to learn from Athanasius, moving himself up the ranks of the church himself. After Athanasius died and the dust settled, Greg went on to toot him a pillar of the church. 

Hard to say what impact he had on the council, but he sure made an impact on Gregory of Nazianzus. 

The the main thing Constantine wanted worked out was the Arian controversy. I don't think he cared the outcome as much as he just wanted peace, plus he became Christian so he probably also wanted to know what that meant.

He invited way too many people for a council. During my "project" years I've never had full agreement on a procedure in groups larger than 7, and even-numbered groups don't work well at all. 1000 people??? The numbers aren't up there to see, in my experience I would break this down to 1000 invited, 600 showed, 300 for the free food, (left when they saw there was work to be done), about the same 20-30 people argued day in day out while the rest worked on the actual project, listened, doodled, slept. It took years to compile the Bible. I wouldn't set foot in that council. 

It would seem "killing" Arianism became the agenda for some, Athanasius was certainly the man for the job. Greg went on to become the "Trinitarian Theologian", known for his works in Greek and Latin. Trinity was definitely alive and well at the council but more emphasis was put on getting rid of Arius. Not sure if we can find an exact date when someone said, "Lets call ourselves Trinitarians". Usually it's a label given by those around, like Christian, and Arian.

Interesting study but can't go much farther today. I asked my wife what she wanted for her birthday. She said, "An extension to the greenhouse"  A couple more strips of polycarb, and some sealing and I should be done today. Her birthday was 1 1/2 weeks ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, andres said:

Did you consult wikipedia?

Of course, the trinity is a very particular doctrine mentioning 'father son holy spirit' in what ever format does not mean trinity.

So recognising there are three entities does not mean that they were trinitarians. If that was the defintion Muslims would approximately agree and call it God the Prophet and Angel Gabriel recognising that they are 3 distinct beings.

However the council of Nicea tried to define the nature of 'God & Son', the holy spirit was not considered as being part of the '-ity'

Proof is that over 90% of the attendees signed up to the di-ity. they recognised the 'holy spirit' as being a seperate entity.

That is not 'trinity' that is di-ity plus recognising the Holy Spirit as a seperate entity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 21, 2017 at 9:01 PM, iCambrian said:

@Son of Placid @LeftCoastMom

Do either of you know about athanasius? Was he trinitarian? And was he a figure of the consul of nicea?

Sorry....I have been busy this week.

Yes, I have mentioned him before in this discussion I believe. He is one of the foundational thinkers of the Church and is honored as one of its eight major " Doctors  of the Church " ( his group of four being of the East). As I said, he was only a young deacon  to the Patriarch of Alexandria at Nicea so he would have played a supporting role only, since supposedly only the bishops were actually in Council. But he was definitely a champion of orthodox Trinitarian Christianity and later emerged as a major figure. Would be hard to overestimate his influence. The Eastern Churches really love him. But he is honored everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 21, 2017 at 8:29 AM, A true Sunni said:

See again you miss the point if the Trinity doctrine had been extant in the church as you are implying then the Council of Nicea would have been discussing Un-ity vs Di-Ity vs Trin-Ity

Instead Trinity was not discussed as a concept or doctrine at all

As I said, the Council of Nicea  was mainly about Christology. That does not mean other aspects of the doctrine were not already believed. There is ample evidence the Trinity concept was everywhere extant. I have put the names of early Church Fathers ( second and third centuries)writing on that on here before. These are just a few:

Theophilus 

Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch

Irenaeus 

Hippolytus

etc.

Their communities and students would likely have believed same. The doctrine of the Trinity didn't just appear out of thin air.  The Council of Constantinople a few decades after Nicea is considered to be the one that finished the argument on that for the orthodox view. The Church considers it to affirm what was already held by most Christians. ( Church councils were often called , among other reasons, in response to a heresy challenging doctrine,not to create doctrine out of nothing.)

 

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

 

He invited way too many people for a council.

It would seem "killing" Arianism became the agenda.

Well, the Council was called to deal with Arianism, so it seems appropriate that is what it did. ( It also did some nuts-and-bolts things like set dates for Easter,but that wasn't the main concern.) probably Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, brought the thunder at this event since the problem centered in his region. Even the Pope, Patriarch of Rome, did not make it. Constantine invited reps from the major Christian centers of the Empire, although likely only the 300 some bishops debated. I'm thinking they were pretty interested in what they were doing. It took  a long time and was a pain to travel in those days ,even under Imperial " invitations". Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

Of course, the trinity is a very particular doctrine mentioning 'father son holy spirit' in what ever format does not mean trinity.

So recognising there are three entities does not mean that they were trinitarians. If that was the defintion Muslims would approximately agree and call it God the Prophet and Angel Gabriel recognising that they are 3 distinct beings.

However the council of Nicea tried to define the nature of 'God & Son', the holy spirit was not considered as being part of the '-ity'

Proof is that over 90% of the attendees signed up to the di-ity. they recognised the 'holy spirit' as being a seperate entity.

That is not 'trinity' that is di-ity plus recognising the Holy Spirit as a seperate entity

Are you having the God-Jesus-Mary trinity concept that we find in the Quran in mind? Have you found of this trinity concept being mentioned among Church authorities during the centuries preceeding Nicæa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2017 at 4:09 AM, andres said:

Are you having the God-Jesus-Mary trinity concept that we find in the Quran in mind? 

Collyridian Christians believed Mary to be god.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2017 at 5:05 AM, baqar said:

Collyridian Christians believed Mary to be god.  

Not much is known about them. Seemingly a small heretic Arabic sect from the 5th century. Could of course have existed earlier, but far from the Christian centers Collydrians were   unknown to the Church when the Christian Creed was established. 300 years later in Mekka they must have drawn Muhammeds attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, andres said:

Are you having the God-Jesus-Mary trinity concept that we find in the Quran in mind? Have you found of this trinity concept being mentioned among Church authorities during the centuries preceeding Nicæa?

OK it appears that you are either avoiding the obvious or are genuinely ill informed about the subject.

So lets take this one step at a time so there is no misunderstanding

Definition of Trinity

 The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from trinus, "threefold")[2] holds that God is three consubstantialpersons[3] or hypostases[4]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[5] In this context, a "nature" is whatone is, whereas a "person" is who one is.

(Trinity from Wikipedia)

So as you can see the Trinity is a very particular belief. Simply believing in the Father the Son and Holy Spirit does not constitute belief in the Trinity.

It is has been contended that Arianism was minor heretical sect that was cast out by the Nicene council and the proof given was that over 90% of the bishops signed the creed.

It has been proven that the Nicene creed did not include the Holy Spirit in the 'consubstantialpersons' but as a seperate entity

According to your own 'evidence' ie 90% signed up to Nicene creed therefor it was the dominat belief, I would contend that 90% signed up the di-ity indicating that was the dominant belief

OK so when was the Holy Spirit incorporated into the 'consubstantialpersons'

Well it appears that it the trinitarian formula is discussed at Constantinope 381

and the Filoque incorporated in the 6th Century ( causing the great Schism) 

 

Filioque (Ecclesiastical Latin: [filiˈɔkwe], literally "and [from] the Son"[1][discuss]) is a Latin term added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (commonly known as theNicene Creed). It has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western Christianity. The Latin term Filioque describes the double procession of the Holy Spirit and is translated into the English clause "and the Son" in that creed:

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father 〈and the Son〉.
Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Well, the Council was called to deal with Arianism, 

That is exactly the point I am making. How did they deal with Bishop Arius they classified his belief as heretical and endorsed the di-ity model. 90% of them rejected Un-ity and embraced di-ity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A true Sunni said:

OK it appears that you are either avoiding the obvious or are genuinely ill informed about the subject.

So lets take this one step at a time so there is no misunderstanding

 

In the 4th century the church by majority vote agreed on the dogma of trinity. To create order within the church and settle a long ongoing discussion. Not all agreed, still not all Christians agree on the relation between God-Jesus-Ghost. What is the problem? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, A true Sunni said:

That is exactly the point I am making. How did they deal with Bishop Arius they classified his belief as heretical and endorsed the di-ity model. 90% of them rejected Un-ity and embraced di-ity.

Well, I would have to disagree with you that the condemnation of Arianism created only a di-ity. ( The  Trinity is still a "unity" for us). For  the Trinity to be affirmed just a bit later at Constantinople it would have to be a major concept long before then. The Council of Nicea wasn't about that, but it is considered implicit in the creed. Reading the early church writers ,seems they are in the Trinitarian camp. I would expect to see more heterodoxy if that were not true.

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, andres said:

In the 4th century the church by majority vote agreed on the dogma of trinity. To create order within the church and settle a long ongoing discussion. Not all agreed, still not all Christians agree on the relation between God-Jesus-Ghost. What is the problem? 

Because you are ignoring what is written from your own christian reports. The Nicene council voted on  

Di-ity not Trinity.

You totally ignoring the evidence in your own literature is the problem. Copy and paste a source that shows it was Trinity they voted on. Wkipedia which is the source you pointed me towards says Di-Ity 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Well, I would have to disagree with you that the condemnation of Arianism created only a di-ity. ( The  Trinity is still a "unity" for us). For  the Trinity to be affirmed just a bit later at Constantinople it would have to be a major concept long before then. The Council of Nicea wasn't about that, but it is considered implicit in the creed. Reading the early church writers ,seems they are in the Trinitarian camp. I would expect to see more heterodoxy if that were not true.

Well thank you for acknowledging that it wasn't Trinity that was voted upon. But you are still glossing over an uncomfortable fact for you and that is that the Nicene council never even acknowledged the possibility of the Trinity.

What you are suggesting is purely conjecture. They voted on Di-Ity not just by excluding Arianism but by also embracing Di-Ity

Edited by A true Sunni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Establishing whether or not Jesus is God, is not equivalent to rejecting the holy spirit as part of a triune God. The establishment at the council of nicea appears to be more of a, "here is where we are at, here is where we agree thus far" kind of stage.  As opposed to a "ok we have this all done, we are finished now" stage. Hence why in the next 50 years, further details were established with respect to the holy spirit.

When I solve a large puzzle, I do so, one piece at a time.  And I think that is what we are seeing here. 

And, I think some significant points here are those that came from LCM. She said something along the lines of "I don't think Trinitarian ideas came out of nowhere".  If we know there were Trinitarian beliefs that predated and existed among figures of the council, then recognition of the Nicene creed, is therefore not something that rejects the holy spirit as a potential part of a triune God.

And so, here is the question I would give to A true Sunni, or baqar.

Where in the Nicene creed, or what documentation established at the council of nicea, explicitly rejects the holy spirit as a potential figure in the triune God?  If Arianism was outright rejected, then where is the material that also outright rejects the holy spirit? Because when I read the original Nicene creed, I don't see such material. In regards to the holy spirit, what I see is a lack of detail, almost like an omission out of ignorance or a detail, not yet established or clarified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"90% of them rejected Un-ity and embraced di-ity."

This is not what the Nicene creed states.^ It does not reject the holy spirit of a triune God, rather, it is vague with respect to the holy spirit and leaves it open ended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Salaaam Alaykum,    So I have a SoundCloud for my fav latmiyah for Farsi, Arabic and Urdu. InshaAllah i might even go for a premium account in the future and let me know how they are For Arabic and Farsi -  click below   For Urdu - click below   THANK YOU AND TAKE CARE YA'LL 
    • Salam. Umn al-Baneen AS is well known for her love and loyalty toward the Holy Prophet SA, Fatima Zahra AS, Imam Ali AS, Imam Hassan AS, and Imam Hussein AS. No doubt that Imam Ali AS loved her because she loved Ahlul Bayt AS.  http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/37432-umm-al-baneen-sa/
    • Members are unaware of many inappropriate posts that banned members made in the past, because Moderators removed those posts from the forums. 
    • Guest Zahra
      Salam! Did Imam Ali (as) love Um al baneen like he loved Fatima al zahra? Or did he marry her just so that she could take care of Imam Hussein and imam Hassan? 
    • Hi Mosa, Thanks for your reply! Sorry to say we have not received your email, might be due to a maintenance that our SMTP server was running. Please Contact me on my temporary email for any urgent issues : techie.world99@gmail.com Thanks
×