Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Trinity vs Unitarian Discussion - Is Jesus God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member
7 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

It gathers the three personas into a tight configuration, but still uses words like, "begotten, not made" and "proceedeth from" .

Hi SoP

My understanding is that the word "begotten" is a mis-translation of the Greek. And that a better translation should be "unique".

"Begotten" does not make sense anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

However it is important to recognise when these became codified into the Christian religion.

It is commonly held that the trnity concept became codified into the Christian religion at the Council of Nicea, this is however a false assertion.

The Council of Nicea codified a 'di-ity' father and son.

The tri-nity came about 60 years later 

I would imagine belief in the trinity existed prior to the counsel of nicea. What does it matter when it was codified?

(aside from simply being an interesting topic)

Edited by iCambrian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

^ It certainly did or there obviously wouldn't have been such a dust-up. but ,as I said at the start, there were differing ideas. The Church believes the correct one, by which all mainstream Christians adhere today, won out.

Theophilus ( second century)
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.

Others...

Ignatius  the Bishop of Antioch

, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp and later Bishop of Lyons

Didache, Origen, etc. articulated the concept .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
5 hours ago, iCambrian said:

I would imagine belief in the trinity existed prior to the counsel of nicea. What does it matter when it was codified?

(aside from simply being an interesting topic)

The predominant Christian belief today is the trinity.

Historically we are agreed that there was a mish mash of beliefs before the Coucil of Nicea and some on here contend that the 'Trinity' was the dominant belief and was thus backed by Constantine.

However when we go back and look at the actual writings we find that the 'Trinity' doesn't even appear to have been discussed rather it was 

Di-ity vs Unity

My point is that since the Council of Nicea was the first real chance to codify the religion and if 'Trinity' was the predominant belief structure then it would have been discussed then but we find it never was  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

The predominant Christian belief today is the trinity.

Historically we are agreed that there was a mish mash of beliefs before the Coucil of Nicea and some on here contend that the 'Trinity' was the dominant belief and was thus backed by Constantine.

However when we go back and look at the actual writings we find that the 'Trinity' doesn't even appear to have been discussed rather it was 

Di-ity vs Unity

My point is that since the Council of Nicea was the first real chance to codify the religion and if 'Trinity' was the predominant belief structure then it would have been discussed then but we find it never was  

 

I suppose I'm indifferent to the point being proposed. 

I am trying to think of comparable topics. The theory of evolution comes to mind.

A school council may teach the theory of evolution, excluding the evolution of man (as is done in some areas of Iran) for example.

but what a school council establishes 

A. May not be the whole truth, but rather just an initial step toward truth. 

B. May be the whole truth.

And

C. May be on the hearts and minds of a portion.

D. May be on the hearts and minds of a majority.

The council ultimately isn't the end all be all of establishment of truth. It is a gathering to hammer out details to work toward truth.

trinitarianism may have been present throughout the minds and hearts of the majority, though it may have been a step by step process, establishing ideas amongst a community.

trinitarianism may have been of the hearts and minds of a minority, regardless, the council isn't necessarily designed to establish a final truth.

regardless, there hasn't been enough said in this topic to establish that trinitarian views were not in the hearts and minds of people of the council. On the contrary, people appear to agree that it was. So the topic turns to a question of "how many?" 50%, 25%, 75%? 

Im not sure that anyone could know. 

But beyond that further, I kind of am in line with andres yet again, that I don't really think it matters. I think it would matter more to a Muslim trying to establish his own faith by discrediting some forms of Christianity. Though to many Christians, following Christ can be done independently of if you belief he is fully God or not. When He preaches grace and love, whether He was God or not, becomes irrelevant to the truth of His words.

anyway, good topic though, thanks for sharing.

if this topic were to go any further, the next step would be to describe who all was at the council, and what their specific beliefs were, to establish the prominence or lack thereof  of trinitarianism.

in an election we can name the number of democrats, republicans, independents, Green Party figures, facists, socialists etc. Can the same be done with the council of nicea? And beyond that, is there documentation on each of their beliefs regarding trinitarianism? This is the information necessary to establish if they were a minority or majority.

Edited by iCambrian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

The predominant Christian belief today is the trinity.

Historically we are agreed that there was a mish mash of beliefs before the Coucil of Nicea and some on here contend that the 'Trinity' was the dominant belief and was thus backed by Constantine.

However when we go back and look at the actual writings we find that the 'Trinity' doesn't even appear to have been discussed rather it was 

Di-ity vs Unity

My point is that since the Council of Nicea was the first real chance to codify the religion and if 'Trinity' was the predominant belief structure then it would have been discussed then but we find it never was  

The first generation Christians did not agree on everything and the Bible does not explain everything either. Different views on the relation Jesus-God inevitabke had to occure. The trinity formula was a descicion that was reached by voting. Not all agreed, those that differed were tolerated as long as they kept quiet. The dogma was necessary in trying to keep the unity within the Church. In 1153 (or so) the Church was split. Orthodox and Catholics do not havr exactly the same view on trinity. If you are interested in the history, there are many books to chose among.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Nicea was primarily a discussion on the nature of Christ ,not the Trinity...but that does not mean the Trinity was not a major concept  already extant in the Church. It doesn't surprise me the Alexandrines were so active in this. The Alexandrine Jews were discussing even the  λόγος concepts in their own way well before Jesus. Was quite beautiful.

There were around 300 bishops there ....Since all the bishops but two signed the Creed , I think the dominant idea prevailed. ( Athanasius,though still just a deacon, was there ).The Creed itself also reflects Trinitarian concepts and is based on far older writings...and likely baptismal formulas in use from very early times.

sorry, a bit short in time today...it is Sunday after all.

Edited by LeftCoastMom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, andres said:

 Not all agreed, those that differed were tolerated as long as they kept quiet. The dogma was necessary in trying to keep the unity within the Church. In 1153 (or so) the Church was split. 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

 

I suppose I'm indifferent to the point being proposed. 

I am trying to think of comparable topics. The theory of evolution comes to mind.

A school council may teach the theory of evolution, excluding the evolution of man (as is done in some areas of Iran) for example.

but what a school council establishes 

A. May not be the whole truth, but rather just an initial step toward truth. 

B. May be the whole truth.

And

C. May be on the hearts and minds of a portion.

D. May be on the hearts and minds of a majority.

The council ultimately isn't the end all be all of establishment of truth. It is a gathering to hammer out details to work toward truth.

trinitarianism may have been present throughout the minds and hearts of the majority, though it may have been a step by step process, establishing ideas amongst a community.

trinitarianism may have been of the hearts and minds of a minority, regardless, the council isn't necessarily designed to establish a final truth.

regardless, there hasn't been enough said in this topic to establish that trinitarian views were not in the hearts and minds of people of the council. On the contrary, people appear to agree that it was. So the topic turns to a question of "how many?" 50%, 25%, 75%? 

Im not sure that anyone could know. 

But beyond that further, I kind of am in line with andres yet again, that I don't really think it matters. I think it would matter more to a Muslim trying to establish his own faith by discrediting some forms of Christianity. Though to many Christians, following Christ can be done independently of if you belief he is fully God or not. When He preaches grace and love, whether He was God or not, becomes irrelevant to the truth of His words.

anyway, good topic though, thanks for sharing.

if this topic were to go any further, the next step would be to describe who all was at the council, and what their specific beliefs were, to establish the prominence or lack thereof  of trinitarianism.

in an election we can name the number of democrats, republicans, independents, Green Party figures, facists, socialists etc. Can the same be done with the council of nicea? And beyond that, is there documentation on each of their beliefs regarding trinitarianism? This is the information necessary to establish if they were a minority or majority.

In order for you to show that the trinity concept was in the hearts and minds of the bishops of Nicea you would have to show some proof that it was discussed.

Instead we find that it was a discussion of Un-ity vs Di-Ity, to paint it otherwise is misleading.

You may question why I as a Muslim choose to research this. This is certainly not as a way of reinforcing my belief in Islam.

As a Muslim I believe without reservation that the original Christians were Unitarians. Starting from this point I looked for evidence of a Unitarian movement and this is how I discovered the modern Unitarian church, Bishop Arius and the Un-ity vs Di-ity discussion at Nicea ( not Un-ity vs Trin-ity) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Nicea was primarily a discussion on the nature of Christ ,not the Trinity...but that does not mean the Trinity was not a major concept  already extant in the Church. It doesn't surprise me the Alexandrines were so active in this. The Alexandrine Jews were discussing even the  λόγος concepts in their own way well before Jesus. Was quite beautiful.

There were around 300 bishops there ....Since all the bishops but two signed the Creed , I think the dominant idea prevailed. ( Athanasius,though still just a deacon, was there ).The Creed itself also reflects Trinitarian concepts and is based on far older writings...and likely baptismal formulas in use from very early times.

sorry, a bit short in time today...it is Sunday after all.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

In order for you to show that the trinity concept was in the hearts and minds of the bishops of Nicea you would have to show some proof that it was discussed.

Instead we find that it was a discussion of Un-ity vs Di-Ity, to paint it otherwise is misleading.

You may question why I as a Muslim choose to research this. This is certainly not as a way of reinforcing my belief in Islam.

As a Muslim I believe without reservation that the original Christians were Unitarians. Starting from this point I looked for evidence of a Unitarian movement and this is how I discovered the modern Unitarian church, Bishop Arius and the Un-ity vs Di-ity discussion at Nicea ( not Un-ity vs Trin-ity) 

I'm not making nor rejecting a claim. For you to propose that the trinity was not in the hearts and minds of people at the council, you would have to show that. 

As far as I am aware though, everyone here is in agreement that trinitarian belief predates the council. So the question becomes, what number of attendants may or may not have had this view. So if you're trying to determine the number of trinitarian vs non trinitarian figures, then just as I mentioned before, you would have to have an idea of who all was there and what their individual beliefs were.

 

 

Edited by iCambrian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

In order for you to show that the trinity concept was in the hearts and minds of the bishops of Nicea you would have to show some proof that it was discussed.

Instead we find that it was a discussion of Un-ity vs Di-Ity, to paint it otherwise is misleading.

You may question why I as a Muslim choose to research this. This is certainly not as a way of reinforcing my belief in Islam.

As a Muslim I believe without reservation that the original Christians were Unitarians. Starting from this point I looked for evidence of a Unitarian movement and this is how I discovered the modern Unitarian church, Bishop Arius and the Un-ity vs Di-ity discussion at Nicea ( not Un-ity vs Trin-ity) 

And if the original Christians were not Unitarian, what would it mean to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, iCambrian said:

I'm not making nor rejecting a claim. For you to propose that the trinity was not in the hearts and minds of people at the council, you would have to show that. 

As far as I am aware though, everyone here is in agreement that trinitarian belief predates the council. So the question becomes, what number of attendants may or may not have had this view. So if you're trying to determine the number of trinitarian vs non trinitarian figures, then just as I mentioned before, you would have to have an idea of who all was there and what their individual beliefs were.

 

 

No offence meant to anyone but it beggars belief that all these bishops kept 'trinity' hidden in their hearts and minds at the council of Nicea and added their names to a di-ity model.

Since only God can truly tell us what is in the hearts & mind of men we have to judge them on their written record.

Their written record shows no evidence of belief in the trinity. In fact I would ask you to prove that trinity was in their hearts and minds even as they signed up to a di-ity model.

You are doing a disservice to your bishops of old to suggest they would mislead the masses by signing up to di-ity whilst believing in trinity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, iCambrian said:

And if the original Christians were not Unitarian, what would it mean to you?

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

I am comfortable with the belief that they were Unitarian because there is no indication there was trinity till well after Nicea. Despite all your protestations to the contrary you cannot submit any proof because the main argument at Nicea was Un-ity vs Di-ity and the majority of the Bishops signed up to Di-ity .

Trinity wasn't even discussed  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

No offence meant to anyone but it beggars belief that all these bishops kept 'trinity' hidden in their hearts and minds at the council of Nicea and added their names to a di-ity model.

Since only God can truly tell us what is in the hearts & mind of men we have to judge them on their written record.

Their written record shows no evidence of belief in the trinity. In fact I would ask you to prove that trinity was in their hearts and minds even as they signed up to a di-ity model.

You are doing a disservice to your bishops of old to suggest they would mislead the masses by signing up to di-ity whilst believing in trinity

It sounds to me like the counsel didn't have the objective of affirming the trinity. Beyond that, for me is just speculation. And this is no disservice to anyone, it's just an observation.

perhaps those who believed, were not in a position to support it or hadn't formulated a scriptural based set of arguments. Perhaps they first needed to demonstrate divinity of Jesus before they could argue for the Holy Spirit and trinity. Perhaps communities were not ready. Ultimately i really couldn't say, as I'm not well versed on the interests of those historic figures. 

As far as I can tell, and people like son of placid and LCM and andres would likely know more than I do, but based on what I've read online and in this discussion, trinitarian ideas pre existed the counsel of nicea. And beyond that, within 50-60 years, which isn't that long, it's within a single lifetime, trinitarian ideas appeared to dominate in certain Christian groups...

this implies that, there is good likelyhood that trinitarian beliefs, even if just in a minority, likely existed amongst early bishops and Christian communities.

but I'm not the one proposing that they simply didn't exist, as you seem to be, for which you have no proof. Your proposal thus far has been baseless.

Edited by iCambrian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
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.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
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  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
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.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...