Jump to content
Melvind

Trinity vs Unitarian Discussion - Is Jesus God

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 5/23/2017 at 1:05 PM, iCambrian said:

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.

It was originally suggested that it was a Un-ity vs Trin-ity discussion at the Nicean council. Now that I have proven that wrong you are now suggesting that they rejected the Un-ty model but left it open to decide later one about what model they were going to use.

That flies in that face of what the Nicean council was all about. The Nicean council was bought together to establish conformity in the Christian religion.

I think you are taking a rather creative interpretation of the Nicean council creed.

Un-ity = God (father) + son (Jesus subordinate) + Holy Spirit ( subordinate)

Di-ity = Father +Son (consubstantialpersons) + Holy Spirit

Trin-ity Father + Son + Holy Spirit( consubstantialpersons)

So in all cases Holy Spirit has been defined. By leaving the matter of the Holy Spirit alone it proves that at that stage they weren't trinitarians otherwise 90% would not have signed up to a Di-Ity model .

Based on the evidence it would suggest that Un-ity and Trin-ity models were both in the minority and

Di-Ity were in the majority.

If we are to accept that these concepts are changing all the time then how long before it becomes a

tert-ity and incorporates Mary as well   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2017 at 1:07 PM, iCambrian said:

"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.

I think that's a rather creative interpretation and again proves my point that trinitarians if they existed were in the minority .

Previously it was suggested by a Christian brother that Arianism must have been false and not the original Christianity because it was in the minority and Emperor Constantine only helped the Bishops reach consensus on what they all believed anyway.

If we are to accept that argument then Di-Ity is the original Christianity.

Shias are a minority sect. We have seen what the power of central government can do so  'majority' arguments don't really work with us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2017 at 1:30 PM, A true Sunni said:

It was originally suggested that it was a Un-ity vs Trin-ity discussion at the Nicean council. Now that I have proven that wrong you are now suggesting that they rejected the Un-ty model but left it open to decide later one about what model they were going to use.

That flies in that face of what the Nicean council was all about. The Nicean council was bought together to establish conformity in the Christian religion.

I think you are taking a rather creative interpretation of the Nicean council creed.

Un-ity = God (father) + son (Jesus subordinate) + Holy Spirit ( subordinate)

Di-ity = Father +Son (consubstantialpersons) + Holy Spirit

Trin-ity Father + Son + Holy Spirit( consubstantialpersons)

So in all cases Holy Spirit has been defined. By leaving the matter of the Holy Spirit alone it proves that at that stage they weren't trinitarians otherwise 90% would not have signed up to a Di-Ity model .

Based on the evidence it would suggest that Un-ity and Trin-ity models were both in the minority and

Di-Ity were in the majority.

If we are to accept that these concepts are changing all the time then how long before it becomes a

tert-ity and incorporates Mary as well    

 I just joined this discussion, so you cant really criticize me of making prior suggestions on the topic.

Either way, you are unable to answer my question. You are assuming that the Nicene Creed is explicitly against Trinitarian views. How do you figure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2017 at 0:35 PM, A true Sunni said:

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 

Ok, maybe I understand. Are you saying that Catholics believe in 3 Gods while Orthodox believe in only 2 Gods since they rejected the filioque addition? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreeing on a stage of completion, is not equivalent to rejection of how the final stage exists.

When you build a puzzle, everyone can say, ok, I agree with you on this.  But it is not rejection of concepts yet to be discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will pose the question again,

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? 

Share this post


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

I will pose the question again,

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? 

Since it didn't enter the equation and they signed up to to a Di-Ity model. it sort of explains itself. Where in the Nidene creed did they say 'we will deal with the issue of Holy Spirit later' 

Share this post


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

Agreeing on a stage of completion, is not equivalent to rejection of how the final stage exists.

When you build a puzzle, everyone can say, ok, I agree with you on this.  But it is not rejection of concepts yet to be discussed.

When you are seeking to solve a puzzle its normal to lay the groundwork or foundation of what is being proposed. Or state what the puzzle is.

Nowhere in the Nicene creed is the Holy Spirit mentioned as being part of the puzzle, so the question of them being trinatarians is a bit far fetched 

 

Share this post


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

 I just joined this discussion, so you cant really criticize me of making prior suggestions on the topic.

 

Either way, you are unable to answer my question. You are assuming that the Nicene Creed is explicitly against Trinitarian views. How do you figure?

I wasn't criticising you I was illustrating the confusion about trinity and its origins even on this thread 

Share this post


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

Since it didn't enter the equation and they signed up to to a Di-Ity model. it sort of explains itself. Where in the Nidene creed did they say 'we will deal with the issue of Holy Spirit later' 

That is what we call, an assumption.  And you cannot answer my question by posing another question.

Your argument has failed, and with that, thank you for sharing. This has been an interesting discussion none the less.

 

Share this post


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

When you are seeking to solve a puzzle its normal to lay the groundwork or foundation of what is being proposed. Or state what the puzzle is.

Nowhere in the Nicene creed is the Holy Spirit mentioned as being part of the puzzle, so the question of them being trinatarians is a bit far fetched 

 

More assumptions. ^ And you know what they say about people who assume things.

Share this post


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

No 

Ok. However it is clear that Orthodox and Catholics do not have exactly the same understanding of trinity. Is that a problem to you? Is there any religion that has not split into different directions? Of course not, this is a very natural human behavior.

 

Share this post


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

That is what we call, an assumption.  And you cannot answer my question by posing another question.

Your argument has failed, and with that, thank you for sharing. This has been an interesting discussion none the less.

 

Actually you can because thats exactly what you did. Let me be clear so there is no misunderstanding.

It is my contention that there was no form of Trinity discussed at Nicea. I believe that if it was a belief it was such a minor 'irritation' it didn't even warrant a mention.

The reason why it was never excluded at Nicea because it was never proposed as a theology point.

Yes I agree that the Father Son and Holy Spirit were mentioned prior to Nicea but never as a trinitarian type concept.

Since this my contention in order for you to refute you should show me proof that the Trinitarian concept was alive and well prior to Nicea , not pose a question to me which is what you did

Share this post


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

Ok. However it is clear that Orthodox and Catholics do not have exactly the same understanding of trinity. Is that a problem to you? Is there any religion that has not split into different directions? Of course not, this is a very natural human behavior.

 

From your previous posts it is quite clear you have not read about the council of Nicea so if i am kurt to you in my replies its because I find that annoying and that is very natural human behavior as well. When you refer me to a source to check information please have the courtesy to read the source first.

Share this post


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

That is what we call, an assumption.  And you cannot answer my question by posing another question.

Your argument has failed, and with that, thank you for sharing. This has been an interesting discussion none the less.

 

Again as I said you make the biggest assumption and then get holier then though, when people make assumptions which contradict your assumptions

Edited by A true Sunni

Share this post


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

Again as I said you make the biggest assumption and then get holier then though, when people make assumptions which contradict your assumptions

My full statement should have said you don't like people making assumptions that contradict your assumptions even though my assumptions are that more realistic

1)the bishops meant what they signed up to

2) that they didn't leave items unsaid or unresolved without indicating it what they were

 

Edited by A true Sunni

Share this post


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

From your previous posts it is quite clear you have not read about the council of Nicea so if i am kurt to you in my replies its because I find that annoying and that is very natural human behavior as well. When you refer me to a source to check information please have the courtesy to read the source first.

Never mind.

Share this post


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

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

Lol. Personally I think it is "uncomfortable "for you to acknowledge that the Trinity concept was widespread well before either Nicea or Constantinople. In fact, I know of no Christians  who are uncomfortable with Nicea. They understand what the Council was about. It dealt with other matters. If I go into my own Council here regarding one aspect of tribal sovereignty that does not mean the other aspects of it do not exist even if they aren't written down in the decisions of that particular meeting.  As I said, I've read the early Church Fathers. The concept  is  there and is evident in the baptismal formulas. That's more than conjecture. If you don't want to accept that, that's okay,but it seems to me you are putting your own spin on the historical record. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Lol. Personally I think it is "uncomfortable "for you to acknowledge that the Trinity concept was widespread well before either Nicea or Constantinople. In fact, I know of no Christians  who are uncomfortable with Nicea. They understand what the Council was about. It dealt with other matters. If I go into my own Council here regarding one aspect of tribal sovereignty that does not mean the other aspects of it do not exist even if they aren't written down in the decisions of that particular meeting.  As I said, I've read the early Church Fathers. The concept  is  there and is evident in the baptismal formulas. That's more than conjecture. If you don't want to accept that, that's okay,but it seems to me you are putting your own spin on the historical record. 

LOL, not sure what or why I would be uncomfortable about it at all. Islam is very clear Christianity was originally a monotheistic religion & Jesus is a Prophet.

If you are right all it does for me is shift the timelines and the corruption in Christian theology happened earlier then Nicea.

Personally I think it is "uncomfortable" for you to acknowledge that the trinity concept wasnt even discussed at Nicea.

All those Bishops , the cream of Christian theology and not one mentioned Trinity.

Edited by A true Sunni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said...I think they  didn't mention it because it was assumed. If you want to shift the terms of discussion to  Trinitarianism existing as a dominant, although " corrupt"  form of theology prior to Nicea, that is a different argument. But it is consistent with my understanding of what Muslims believe. Otherwise you would be Christians. I will see you in the morning...unfortunately humans need sleep so I'm going back to bed ( I hate insomnia).

Share this post


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

LOL, not sure what or why I would be uncomfortable about it at all. Islam is very clear Christianity was originally a monotheistic religion & Jesus is a Prophet.

Christianity from its very beginning believed Jesus was divine. You may call this polytheism if you like. I know Muslims believe Jesus was a Muslim. Only the Quran supports this belief, which of course is sufficient for you. Islam started with Muhammed, just like Christianity with Jesus and Judaism with the Biblical writings by jews in captivity in Babylon.

 

Share this post


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

Christianity from its very beginning believed Jesus was divine. You may call this polytheism if you like. I know Muslims believe Jesus was a Muslim. Only the Quran supports this belief, which of course is sufficient for you. Islam started with Muhammed, just like Christianity with Jesus and Judaism with the Biblical writings by jews in captivity in Babylon.

 

Islam is very clear on how Christianity started and you are right we do not believe the original Christians believed in the divinity of Jesus. We believe that when the Christians made Jesus divine they corrupted his message. So again I reiterate I am not sure why I would feel any discomfort on the exact point that Christians made Jesus Divine.

But back to the point I am making you have provided no evidence that the Council of Nicea codified the Trinity , you have provided no evidence that there was a Trinitarian belief before the council of Nicea. As I said the before trinity is different to triune. 

Even the language used to describe the trinity wasn't 'created' till after Constantinople. Pray tell how were Bishops discussing the Trinity without the language for 400 years

Share this post


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

As I said...I think they  didn't mention it because it was assumed. If you want to shift the terms of discussion to  Trinitarianism existing as a dominant, although " corrupt"  form of theology prior to Nicea, that is a different argument. But it is consistent with my understanding of what Muslims believe. Otherwise you would be Christians. I will see you in the morning...unfortunately humans need sleep so I'm going back to bed ( I hate insomnia).

I think brother Andres has been passing barbed comments about people who assume lol, so I wouldn't have used those words for the venerable Bishops . I am truly grateful that you are being diligent in reading and reflecting on information before posting it. I would however respectfully point out that signing up to a di-ity model and assuming everyone would know they meant trinity would have been very careless of them.

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!

    • I just want to recite few verses of Chapter 47 of Qur'an e Majeed: Surah Muhammad, Verse 25:
      إِنَّ الَّذِينَ ارْتَدُّوا عَلَىٰ أَدْبَارِهِم مِّن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الْهُدَى الشَّيْطَانُ سَوَّلَ لَهُمْ وَأَمْلَىٰ لَهُمْ Surely (as for) those who return on their backs after that guidance has become manifest to them, the Shaitan has made it a light matter to them; and He gives them respite.
      (English - Shakir) Surah Muhammad, Verse 26:
      ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا لِلَّذِينَ كَرِهُوا مَا نَزَّلَ اللَّهُ سَنُطِيعُكُمْ فِي بَعْضِ الْأَمْرِ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِسْرَارَهُمْ That is because they say to those who hate what Allah has revealed: We will obey you in some of the affairs; and Allah knows their secrets.
      (English - Shakir) Surah Muhammad, Verse 27:
      فَكَيْفَ إِذَا تَوَفَّتْهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ يَضْرِبُونَ وُجُوهَهُمْ وَأَدْبَارَهُمْ But how will it be when the angels cause them to die smiting their backs.
      (English - Shakir) Surah Muhammad, Verse 28:
      ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمُ اتَّبَعُوا مَا أَسْخَطَ اللَّهَ وَكَرِهُوا رِضْوَانَهُ فَأَحْبَطَ أَعْمَالَهُمْ That is because they follow what is displeasing to Allah and are averse to His pleasure, therefore He has made null their deeds.
      (English - Shakir)
    • He just wants to have a physical relationship with you. Is he your fiance? or are you planing to marry him?
    • Entire azadari is not an obligatory act of worship. Meaning there is nothing wajib in it.  Do whatever you can and do it with sincerity - that's all brother.
    • Now add to that picture the economic hitman and all his sanctions PRECISELY to keep nations poor and backwards. It does not want us to study the atom and the particles despite repeated assurances we will not use nuclear fission as weapon (nukes). The global elites / bankers / bolshevik use a teaspoonful of uranium to power their monstrosities, their navies and power plants for years on. But we are forced to buy and burn fossil fuel. The vehicles we drive are not allowed to run on anything other than fossil fuel and the computers in them are programmed to make the fuel air mixtures as rich on fuel as they can so we buy more and burn more. With a tech like solar power we have the means to free ourselves but very surprisingly even our own governments and leaders are not leading us in that direction. Some of them may be naive, while the clergy of science are hiding knowledge and misleading people for the elite global jewry the capitalists and lead us all on paths that make us financially weak day by day and the jews richer. In these circumstances when merely staying afloat financially is a task that takes a person's whole life how can we make progress on research, arts, culture, spirituality, social science, exploration and all that? We're all enslaved, and rather we are losing all those fine things rapidly.
×