The Greatest Threat to the Church Today...

So what is the big deal? You have already violated the TOS by calling one of the members a liar, so why not go the full course and refer to the founding member of our faith as a liar. Why would I expect you to do anything different?

That God the Father and God the Son have differing characteristics.

According to your interpretation which you have already commented on.

Absolutely... He was referring to God the Father, then in conclusion Jesus says '..as we are...'. Try again hotshot.

 

We are both slightly off beam here - you are regarding Athanasias as important too early, whereas I am getting the Council of Nicaea mixed up with the Council of Constantinople when it comes to invitations. The Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea and Athanasius attended only as deacon to his Bishop, Alexander: his importance is that he held fanatically to the Nicean formula thereafter - whereas Constantine was looking for compromise. He, not the Church excommunicated Arius (for not signing the final statement), but he afterwards made friends with him again, and when he was baptised chose Arius's supporter, Bishop Eusebius, to carry out the ceremony. It looks as if the key thing about Nicaea was not that it was a decisive discision but that it established a written formula that could be appealed to during the far more decisive Council of Constantinople later. My source for this material is Charles Freeman's 'AD 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State'. It is concerned with the end of free speech in the Roman world rather than theology, and he appears to be a scholar in generally good standing.

Freeman points out that Constatine simply didn't realise - coming from the simpler West - what he was getting himself into went he attempted to establish a single belief on such a mass of local churches with such different traditions, and most of their thinking deeply permeated with the complexities of Greek philosophy - he shows that the 'of one substance' formula the argument was about is out of Greek philosophy, not scripture, for instance. The majority of these traditions, based in this case on scripture, held strongly to some form of 'subordinationism', whereby the son was seen as subordinate to the Father. Only imperial authority could ever finally impose the philosophical notion against their arguments and citations, but there were meanwhile some very sophisticated attempts by the Cappadocian Fathers and by Bishop Gregory in Constantinope. In this world Athanasius, who took over from Alexander in Alexandria from 328, seems to have been pretty muc a lightweight:

'Athanasius was not an intellectual. He does not seem to have experienced a "classical" education, and the sources of his theology are largely biblical. "His thought is not wide ranging or considered in its use of philosophical distinctions and concepts" is the verdict of David Bakke, an authority on the bishop. "Instead..... Athanasius focussed with laser-beam intensity on a single idea: the fully divine Word of God became incarnate in human flesh to save humanity from sin and death." From the 350s, Athanasius insisted that the creed of Nicaea represented orthodoxy. In a debate in which more educated minds were able to dissect each nuance ad infinitum, this clear message was certainly an advantage ... yet the creed had hardly been a coherent theological statement .... Athanasius' critics noted ... that he failed to define the distinction between Father and Son with any clarity, or, indeed, how Jesus' divinity could co-exist with his humanity..... One can hardly complain that Athanasius was unable to solve a problem that might have been, in any philosophically coherent sense, insoluble, but his intellectual clumsiness was exposed by the issue, and more sophisticated minds could not take him seriously.'

I have had to leave out a good deal of detail. The key point is that Athanasius was to become a sort of theological McCarthy-figure, so I'd gather - very single minded, very repetitious, and all the time trying to blacken the name of any opponent with Arian guilt-by-association, and that he was all the time pressing towards the imperial take-over of doctrine that was to happen under Theodosius. Without him, we might have had a much more inclusive Church and saved some valuable knowledge and insights.

Anyway, I am worn out with copy-typing, and trust you will accept that the selection of bishops for the Council of Constantinople - really the decisive one - was not inclusive at all.

 

Shows that they are NOT THINKING themselves. Maybe they can't address the issue…answer questions because of lack of information…they obviously don't know the issues or feel confident enough to answer….only accuse.

 

Of course Father and Son have different characteristics. They are not the same.

This only further supports my claim that Jesus is not the God of Abraham.

 

By your private interpretation of that scripture, but your interpretation is admitted by you to be based on an ambiguous meaning behind the phrase "..as we are one."

So you still have not proven anything.

 

I did not base my interpretation on that phrase, I used the "unambiguous phrases". It was your interpretation the ambiguous phrase above.

Lets look at your claim "that Jesus is God, that they are one in the same" in light of other Biblical stories.

Im not sure what your perspective on God in general is but in my perspective God is an intelligent fellow and not prone to doing completely irrational things.

Take the crucifixion story and ask yourself if it makes sense from the perspective that Jesus "is" God.

So .. God comes down to earth and submits himself to the Romans for punishment. (hmmmm .. Im already having trouble with this but lets see what God is up to)

Then the Romans string God up on the Cross for crucifixion. (at this point I have to ask myself .. is God a masochist ? Why would God subject himself to this and are we supposed to feel sorry for a God that suffers pain inflicted on himself ?)

Did God actually feel the pain or was he just faking it ? In retrospect, does God actually expect us to believe that there was ever a time that his life was actually in Jeopardy while on the cross ?

The story gets more strange later on.

While hanging on the cross God says to himself "God why have you forsaken me"

Did God forsake himself ? Why on earth would God start mumbling so incoherently as to blame himself for his own actions ?

Did God get delusional ? I mean really .. what is going on here.

What even makes less sense is that God would think that humans, upon hearing this story would not think that God had lost his marbles.

After all .. God created humans and knows that he gave humans logic.

Does God expect humans to believe that God would start talking to himself and blame himself for something that he willingly entered into and something that he could excape anytime he wished should he will it ?

After all God is God .. could God not escape ? Would God do something so silly as to put himself in a position he could not escape and then get mad at himself for allowing himself to be in that position ?

Again .. I tend to give God a wee bit more credit .. but others are welcome to their opinion.

Then, according to the creeds, God goes down into hell (did God die ?) and then goes up to heaven where he sits at the right hand of the Father.

Who on earth is Gods Father ? .. Did God create this Father while he was hanging on the cross so he could have someone to blame ?

The whole crucifixion story is testament to the idea that Jesus is "not" the Father. There are numerous other unambiguous passages where Jesus clearly separates himself from the Father.

Simply the fact that the term "Father" is used should drive the point home.

There are only a few very ambiguous phrases that some choose to interpret as meaning that Jesus "is" God, but these could all have alternate meanings.

Numerous Bible reference books, written by Christians for Christians, claim that there is no place in scripture where Jesus actually claims to be God.

Jesus never claims to be God in scripture and the idea that he did claims this makes sense in context of the crucifixion, other Bible stories, and in the many instances where Jesus refers to God as separate from himself.

 

No, its right. And, Im not talking about philosophy. Im talking about what the Church believes based on the Bible.

The early Church believed Jesus was God. It wouldn't be until the heresy of Arianism that specifics had to be dealt with and defined.

Evidence? What claim does that evidence support?

I explained to you why Athanasius was exiled. Constantius who became Emperor, placed an Arian as Pope. Thus the Arian Pope went after the orthodox believers, of whom Athanasius was one. Arianism was and is a heresy.

See Durant p. 658-660. 'Ceaser and Christ'

Quantrill

 

Im not sure why you are even bringing Athanasius up as he is not representative of the early Church. The fellow was not even born until 298.

Arianism was not heresy until Constantine made it so. Athanasius was the one promoting the Trinity.

This has nothing to do with anything that the early church believed.

 

The source of all Theology should be the Bible.

That the doctrine of the Trinity is the orthodox view, is beyond dispute. Athanasius was a defender and champion of this truth. He almost single handedly defeated Arainism. Without him, God would have provided someone else.

Constantine did not know the Bible or the importance of doctrine. He just wanted peace and harmony in the Empire and wanted the Church to contribute to that by being peaceful and harmonious.

All the bishops were invited to come. Constantine was following the decisons of the Church.

Quantrill

 

Quant .. I am baffled why you would ignore Iolo's entire post .

This conversation has nothing to do with the Bible so why would you bring it up.

The idea that Constantine imposed the Trinity doctrine on the Church nor any refutation of that idea comes from scripture ???

You keep claiming that Constantine was following the decisions of the Church yet folks citing historical scholars are telling that this was just not the case.

Stating your opinion over and over again is not helping. Can you not find any valid support for this claim ? and if you can not why do you continue making it.

 

Arianism gets its name from 'Arius'. Arius came up with his heresy about 318. He was removed as a priest. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, was the one who pushed this. And Athanasius was archdeacon and went with Alexander to Nicea.

The point is, Athanasius had everything to do with defeating Arianism. Arianism was not orthodoxy as you are trying to peddle. Arianism was heresy starting with Arius.

Quantrill

 

After Constantine Athanasius had power to go after Arianism.

This has nothing to do with pre Constantine beliefs.

I will even grant that possibly, although I have seen no evidence put forth, a few years before Constantine the Trinity Doctrine gained some acceptance.

Who cares .. this has nothing to do with what the majority of Christianity believed 300 years prior.

It is the 300 years prior to Constantine that is of interest .. not a couple years before Nicene or the period after.

 

Pay attention. First sentence third paragraph.

Constantine did not impose the Trinity doctrine on the Church. He didn't know enough about God or the Bible to impose at all. He simply wanted peace in the Church and Empire.

Constantine said in a letter to both Alexander and Arius, " ...I hear there are more disputes among you than recently in Africa. The cause seems to be quite trifling, and unworthy of such fierce contests...." (Durant, p.659) As clearly shows thae Constantine was ignorant in theology and didn't understand the importance of the debate and heresey.

Sorry but it was the case. Constantine wanted peace in the Church. He would not go against the Church. Thus Constantine exilled Arius becauses the Church condemned his doctrine.

Quantrill

 

JESUS IS GOD.

And the trinity is represented in the Bible. So who cares about all these other people.

 

The point is that the formula adopted could not possibly be supported by the Bible as we have it, so they had to say 'as interpreted by the Church Fathers' - and who they were was decided - ultimately - by the power of the Roman Emperor, for the sort of reasons you state, not for theological ones.

 

you should.
because you will be questioned about the things you have
accomplished with your logic.

and no, we have seen no proof yet.
catholic encyclopedia agrees with me, along with various christian scholars:

in scripture there is as yet no single term by which the three
divine persons are denoted together....the vatican council has
explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in
theology. it lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are
not merely incapable of discovering apart from divine revelation,
but which, even when revealed, remains “hidden by the veil of
faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness” (const.,
"de fide. cath.", iv). (joyce g.h. the blessed trinity. the catholic
encyclopedia, volume xv copyright © 1912 by robert appleton
company online edition copyright © 2003 by k. knight).


rest of the post is here if you are interested​

i really think it is unnecessary to claim that the trinity is in the bible.
in christianity, interpretations have replaced the actual words.
better deal with the facts, rather than pursuing an endless rope.

 

The theological climate of the early Church was such that there were innumerable opinions, and the shifts of political power meant that some of the became 'heretical', then others, in a shifting pattern. At the time when the Goths were converted, for instance, the Arian interpretation was the officially dominant view. What came out on top was what the Emperor chose to support. I has nothing much to do with truth or scripture, just power.

 

That Constantine lacked knowledge of the Bible has nothing to do with why he wanted peace in the Church and peace in the country.

You are correct that he wanted peace in the Church, which is why he "insisted" the term homoousius be inserted and that the dispute be resolved once and for all.

He wanted monotheism for historical reasons. Constantine perhaps knew little about the Bible but he did know his history. The Persians had been united under Zoroastrian monotheism.

There was considerable strife in the Empire when Constantine took the reigns and he was interested in order.

Part of that plan was in part having one monotheistic Religion and then appointing himself Pontifex Maximus "bishop of bishops".

Religion is, and always has been very Political. This was doubly so during the time of Constantine.

If you think Constantine was not making Political decisions in relation to religion you are barking up the wrong tree.

The inclusion of the term homoosius in the Nicene creed was a Political decison by the Emperor. He wanted to stop infighting in the Church and unite the country under monotheism with himself at the top.

Monotheism had united the Persian Empire and it so Constantine knew exactly what he was doing.

 

The empire already had monotheism. The state cult worship of the time in which Roman emperors became deities is also a far more political religion than Christianity could ever be.

It should also be noted that Arianism and Catholic Christianity are both monotheistic beliefs. So, despite monotheism, the empire was still divided.

After Rome had acquire an empire, Augustus Ceasar declared himself Pontifax Maximus(not Constantine). Augustus came up with the whole emperor worship thing because now that Rome was an Empire, it had many different cultures and beliefs.

Considering that both Arianism and Christianity are both monotheistic religions, what reason would he have for choosing one belief over the other? How did he choose? Did he flip a coin? Or did he just leave it up to the bishops to decide, considering they were more well versed on the matter.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that there are Christian denominations who accept the Trinity, and other denominations that do not.

BOTH use the Bible to justify their beliefs. So when I see atheists posting - "No one description of the Trinity in the Bible ...," and then pointedly ignoring the rest of the reasoning put forth by the Catholic Church, which very much believes in the Trinity, then there is something not quite right about that.

Its also amazing how a bunch of amateurs with little or no knowledge on early church or Roman politics are suddenly expert enough to be condeming one side of a debate that has gone since the very beginning and is largely ignored within the faith community?

Me thinks the real motive here is simply to tweak others and use their faith against them - why else would someone claim, quite stupidly, that the Bible does not support the Trinity - when people regularly quote the Bible to justify the doctrine of the Trinity?

Makes no sense.

And if some Christians believe the three aspects are distinct and separate? And others believe that these aspects are distinct portions of the God? Who cares?

Who are any of you to be running around saying, "You are an idiot for believing in the Trinity as taught! Nanner, Nanner, Nanner!!!!"

 

It did not matter what religion was chosen. Rome had gone through many stages from dictator to republic. Often during the dictatorial stages the Ceasar gave himself "divine right" and was worshiped in almost a religious way.

The reason why many Christians were killed was because they refused to worship/make offerings to Ceasar.

Constantine did not care what the religion was so long as there was one God. Then when he set himself up as "bishop of bishops" .. he was the one that spoke for that one God.

His authority was then unchallengable .. just like divine right of Kings or the Pope.

It does not really work that well if folks believe in many different Gods. The could just claim .. Ceasar speaks for his God but not for mine.

Ceasar wanted "Monotheism".. the problem with Christianity at the time was that no one could figure out if there were one or two Gods .. or three for that matter.

Arianism was not viewed as a solution to that problem.

Constantine solved the problem .. Jesus and God are one .. the same substance .. homoousius. End of Issue .. Done deal.

Eusebius did not agree and was exiled as were others. Eusebius eventually signed off on it.

Constantine would have no dissent and he made this clear by exiling those that disagreed.

This was politics and had nothing to do with religion.

Prior to Constantine the vast majority of the Church just did not believe that Jesus and God were the same.

Prior to Tertullian at the beginning of the 3rd century the Trinity doctrine as we know it did not even exist.

Jesus was thought to be subordinate to the Father by the early Church.

 

Maybe one side just presented a better arguement? Which is why I keep inviting you to read up on the opposing side rather than just declaring it non-Biblical.

 

I am not Catholic…I stand on the Word, Genesis through Revelation.


1 John 5:7-8

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, (a)the Word, and the Holy Ghost: (b) and these three are "one". 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth, (a) the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three "agree" in one."

John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 10:30


John 15:26

" But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

These verses show that the Word was God.


John 1:14

"And the "Word" was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Rev 19:13; 16

" And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called the "The Word of God."

Rev 19:16

"And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS."

GOD

There is only one God (Deut 6:4) He is the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all living things. He has revealed Himself to humanity as the Father (Creator), in the Son (Saviour), and as the Holy Ghost (indwelling Spirit).

FATHER

God is a Spirit (John 4:24). He is the Eternal One, the Creator of all things, and the Father of humanity by creation. He is the First and the Last, and beside Him there is no God (Isaiah 44:6) There was no God formed before Him; neither shall there be after Him (Isaiah 43:10)

SON

Jesus is the Son of God according to the flesh (Romans 1:3) and the very God Himself according to the Spirit ( Matt 1:23) Jesus is the Christ (Matt 16:16); the Creator of all things (Colossians 1:16-17); God with us (Matt 1:23); God made flesh (John 1:1-14); God manifested in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16); He which was, which is, and which is to come, the Almighty (Rev 1:; the mighty God, everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) Jesus Himself testified of His identity as God when He said "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father" (John 14:7-11) and "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30)

 

The Trinity was and is supported by the Bible. As they and we have it.

So, no, its not just the Church Fathers. Its the Church Fathers correctly interpreting the Bible.

The Roman emperor didn't decide. The Church did. Constantine was no theologian. If the Church had been for Arius, He would have agreed to that. But the Church didn't. So, he agreed to that.

Quantrill

 

As I have already said, you are wrong. Constantine didn't care one way or the other whose side won. He wanted peace for peace in the empires sake.

The only reason the orthodox and Biblical view of the Trinity won out, is because it is the true view and supported by the Church.

Quantrill