Spirituality
24 Aug 12
06 Sep 12
Originally posted by galveston75I covered this in the other thread.
Still no takers on these questions?
So a couple easy questions for the trinitarians....
If the teaching of the trinity was taught by Jesus and his followers, it is something that naturally should have been taught by "ALL" his followers after Jesus and the apostles died away, why didn't all the Christians up to the Nicaea event not already believe ...[text shortened]... ans up to Nicaea, so what groups of Christians had this belief and which christians didn't?
The fact was that a majority (yes, a majority) of Christian churches accepting the doctrine of Trinity as fact before the First Council of Nicaea. This was probably why it was accepted in the Creeds there in 325. Despite all the politics of the era that I was denouncing in that other thread, the fact remains that the Trinity was a common Christian belief by almost all Christians except the Arian movement. It pretty much was the "already standing belief". The only ones asking the questions about it was the Arian movement. So it wasn't "forced into the Church" as you say... it was already there.
As to the second question, you're just wrong. It wasn't obviously not a wide-spread belief, it *was* a wide-spread belief at the time (yes, before Nicaea). Nearly all Christian churches believed it. It was only those churches aligned with the Arians that disavowed it.
06 Sep 12
Originally posted by Suzianneit took about 400 years and two councils to come up with the particulars of the trinity doctrine. it's hardly valid to claim that it was a wide-spread belief at the time.
As to the second question, you're just wrong. It wasn't obviously not a wide-spread belief, it *was* a wide-spread belief at the time (yes, before Nicaea). Nearly all Christian churches believed it. It was only those churches aligned with the Arians that disavowed it.
06 Sep 12
Originally posted by SuzianneWhether or not it was a “standing belief" (which is questionable) is irrelevant. The doctrine is not in the Bible, anywhere; it is an erroneous inference which ignores what God actually says about himself throughout the Bible.
I covered this in the other thread.
The fact was that a majority (yes, a majority) of Christian churches accepting the doctrine of Trinity as fact before the First Council of Nicaea. This was probably why it was accepted in the Creeds there in 325. Despite all the politics of the era that I was denouncing in that other thread, the fact remains that the ...[text shortened]... rches believed it. It was only those churches aligned with the Arians that disavowed it.
06 Sep 12
Originally posted by divegeesterAre there any doctrines in the Holy Bible, in your opinion?
Whether or not it was a “standing belief" (which is questionable) is irrelevant. The doctrine is not in the Bible, anywhere; it is an erroneous inference which ignores what God actually says about himself throughout the Bible.
06 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIn fact it was SO wide-spread that no one ever thought to "doctrinize" it. It was believed by most Christians and no one ever thought to question it. Until Arius and his movement kept harping on about it and pissed off the pope and the RCC.
it took about 400 years and two councils to come up with the particulars of the trinity doctrine. it's hardly valid to claim that it was a wide-spread belief at the time.
And it took two councils to finalize it into what we have today. The Creeds were written at the First Council. And I'm sure it didn't take too long since most churches WERE on the same page about it at the time. The Second Council was 56 years later. Obviously it took that long for any opposition to them to surface.
EDIT: And it also took considerably less than 400 years. Christ died around 30AD, and the First Council of Nicaea was 325AD. That's 295 years, and as I said, the Trinity doctrine was already in wide-spread belief for quite some time before the Council met.
06 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterHow is it "irrelevant"? Most churches believing in one concept is "irrelevant"? And we are still talking about the Trinity concept, right?
Whether or not it was a “standing belief" (which is questionable) is irrelevant. The doctrine is not in the Bible, anywhere; it is an erroneous inference which ignores what God actually says about himself throughout the Bible.
And no, the doctrine is not spelled out in the Bible, and it is certainly not called Trinity in the Bible either. Most Christians got the gist of it by reading the Bible. Any one with half a brain could piece it together.
And what the heck are you talking about "an erroneous inference which ignores what God actually says about himself"? It doesn't ignore anything. Yes, God said that He is one God. Trinitarians believe that too. That's the one thing you and others here have conveniently left out in your ranting.
06 Sep 12
Originally posted by SuzianneLet me help you out. Christ was crucified on Passover Wednesday, 25 April 31 A.D. However, the exact day is not in any creed and you do have to believe that to be saved. But that makes the time it took 1 year less, so I guess every little bit helps. 😏
In fact it was SO wide-spread that no one ever thought to "doctrinize" it. It was believed by most Christians and no one ever thought to question it. Until Arius and his movement kept harping on about it and pissed off the pope and the RCC.
And it took two councils to finalize it into what we have today. The Creeds were written at the First Council. ...[text shortened]... nity doctrine was already in wide-spread belief for quite some time before the Council met.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
06 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneDon't forget that the nation of Israel is described in the Holy Bible as ONE nation, however, that does not mean that only a single person makes the nation of Israel. The One is not an absolute One in Hebrew, but a united/composite ONE. And in like manner, One God does not mean God is made up of only a single person, because how else are we to explain the person of the Father, the person of the Son, and the person of the Holy Spirit?
How is it "irrelevant"? Most churches believing in one concept is "irrelevant"? And we are still talking about the Trinity concept, right?
And no, the doctrine is not spelled out in the Bible, and it is certainly not called Trinity in the Bible either. Most Christians got the gist of it by reading the Bible. Any one with half a brain could piece it t o. That's the one thing you and others here have conveniently left out in your ranting.
Certainly it can not logically be explained as the Jehovah's Witnesses explain it.
06 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Suzianneit wasn't as wide spread as you think, though it was a growing heresy. those who were fighting the trinity heresy had to be stamped out and it took the trinitarians two councils and persecutions with the power of the state backing them up to do it.
In fact it was SO wide-spread that no one ever thought to "doctrinize" it. It was believed by most Christians and no one ever thought to question it. Until Arius and his movement kept harping on about it and pissed off the pope and the RCC.
And it took two councils to finalize it into what we have today. The Creeds were written at the First Council. nity doctrine was already in wide-spread belief for quite some time before the Council met.
it wasn't firmly established until 381 and the persecutions continued well after that.
also, there was another council, council of rimini in the year 359 where over 400 bishops (more than attended the council of nicaea!) attended and in that council, the trinitarian doctrine was soundly defeated.
06 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritCreed of Constantinople of 359
it wasn't as wide spread as you think, though it was a growing heresy. those who were fighting the trinity heresy had to be stamped out and it took the trinitarians two councils and persecutions with the power of the state backing them up to do it.
it wasn't firmly established until 381 and the persecutions continued well after that.
also, there was ...[text shortened]... uncil of nicaea!) attended and in that council, the trinitarian doctrine was soundly defeated.
The resulting creed read:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, of whom are all things. And in the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of God before all ages, and before every beginning; through whom all things visible and invisible were made: who is the only-begotten born of the Father, the only of the only, God of God, like to the Father who begat him, according to the Scriptures, and whose generation no one knows but the Father only that begat him. We know that this only-begotten Son of God, as sent of the Father, came down from the heavens, as it is written, for the destruction of sin and death: and that he was born of the Holy Spirit, and of the Virgin Mary according to the flesh, as it is written, and conversed with his disciples; and that after every dispensation had been fulfilled according to his Father's will, he was crucified and died, and was buried and descended into the lower parts of the earth, at whose presence hades itself trembled: who also arose from the dead on the third day, again conversed with his disciples, and after the completion of forty days was taken up into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come in the last day, the day of the resurrection, in his Father's glory, to requite every one accord-to his works. [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit, whom he himself the only-begotten of God, Christ our Lord and God, promised to send to mankind as the Comforter, according as it is written, "the Spirit of truth;" whom he sent to them after he was received into the heavens.
But since the term ousia [substance or essence], which was used by the fathers in a very simple and intelligible sense, but not being understood by the people, has been a cause of offense, we have thought proper to reject it, as it is not contained even in the sacred writings; and that no mention of it should be made in future, inasmuch as the holy Scriptures have nowhere mentioned the substance of the Father and of the Son. Nor ought the "subsistence" of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit to be even named. But we affirm that the Son is like the Father, in such a manner as the sacred Scriptures declare and teach. Let therefore all heresies which have been already condemned, or may have arisen of late, which are opposed to this exploitation of the faith, be anathema.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople_(360)
P.S. Did you notice this last part of the Creed?
Let therefore all heresies which have been already condemned, or may have arisen of late, which are opposed to this exploitation of the faith, be anathema.
06 Sep 12
Originally posted by SuzianneYou post reads like it's you who is "ranting".
How is it "irrelevant"? Most churches believing in one concept is "irrelevant"? And we are still talking about the Trinity concept, right?
And no, the doctrine is not spelled out in the Bible, and it is certainly not called Trinity in the Bible either. Most Christians got the gist of it by reading the Bible. Any one with half a brain could piece it t ...[text shortened]... o. That's the one thing you and others here have conveniently left out in your ranting.
It (what people believe) is irrelevant because it (the trinity) is not in the Bible anywhere. Therefore what you or anyone else over the centuries believes in it (the trinity) is irrelevant. Not a difficult concept really.
No, most people get the gist of it by being taught it by other trinitarians.
Let me explain further; the trinity is not in the Bible, anywhere. Therefore it is made up by man; it is an error and those who believe it ignore the facts that it contradicts what God says about himself and that it is not in the Bible...anywhere.
Hope this helps 🙂
06 Sep 12
To help set the record straight and fill in the blanks about the council at Rimini, I submit the following information:
At Rimini, the majority of the Western bishops initially affirmed the Nicene statement. But there were a minority of about 80 of the 400 bishops present that refused to accede to the majority decision. Both parties sent representatives to the Emperor and the minority party (the Arian one) met with the Emperor as soon as he arrived and he refused to meet with the other party. The Arians won the emperor's endorsement and were able to infiltrate the representatives of the Nicene majority. After explaining their formula (actually blurring the distinctions between their formula and the Nicene statement of faith), the representatives of Rimini, under pressure to come to a decision, agreed to the like-the-Father formula.
So this doctrinal decision can be considered as being made by the Emperor, because the Pope was not even invited to attend the Rimini synod. It was about this time that St. Jerome made his famous remark that the whole world had become Arian.
In consequence of the Rimini-Seleucia decision, ratified by the council which met in Constantinople at the beginning of 360, the party of the Acacius, the homoeans or the like-the-Father party, had imperial support. Those not agreeing to the like-the-Father phrasing, suffered imperial displeasure. Many were exiled.