ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Nicea Creed of 325

If first century Christians believed in a Trinity and that the Holy Spirit was an equal part of it. Why was in not included at Nicea 325?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Visit Our Apostles Creed
 ---scott on 7/29/09
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



Scott, the people who answer you have to be prepared to answer the language barrier of terminology that all of you bring. Unless terms are defined when two or more are talking, a person can get eveloped with the langauge you bring. That is the way of the cults. Having already redisigned the terms in a framework of your own making and to your own liking, to challenge mainstream Christianity.
You have prepared yourself for that challenge hoping you can find many who don't know much about God to fall for your kind of teachings. Jehovah Witnessess, Mormons, Christain Science all use Christian terminology with absolute freedom to make their case. Sounding Christ like, but attempting to strip Christ of His deity is no secret.
---MarkV. on 8/8/09


Warwick: At least we can say that Scott's writing is COLORFUL!

On Jesus' being the Alpha and the Omega:

Note that He is also the "Author" and "Finisher" of our faith (beginning and end).
---jerry6593 on 8/8/09


Warwick,

A biblical scholar? Hardly. That's a claim I've certainly never made. But it doesn't take one in this case And I'm not so irresponsible as to draw theological conclusions (and pontificate about them as if proven) without checking the facts. This is a grammatical issue discussed in the first few chapters of most Hebrew primers.

It's irresponsible on your part not to check. But It's pride on your part to ignore that information once you've been made aware of it.

Your myopic view of this causes you to ignore this simple truth:

Not only does Aleph/Tav follow Elohim in Genesis, it follows or precedes 100s (if not thousands) of other nouns that are not Elohim.

Did I mention Methuselah?
---scott on 8/8/09


Scott, I have never claimed to be a Hebrew expert!

How amusing you should parade as a Bible scholar! Your blogs show you are only expert in following antiTrinitarian dogma.

I find it interesting that Aleph and Tav follow 'God' in Genesis 1:1. Aleph and Tav equating to Alpha and Omega in Greek i.e. the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End- applied to God Almighty and The Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore they are one and the same.

'Jehovah never said 'I am the Aleph and the Tav."'

In Isaiah 44:6 God is 'the first and the last. In Rev. 1:8 Almighty God calls himself the Alpha and the Omega-the same as Aleph and Tav, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
---Warwick on 8/8/09


Ruben, Dictionary of the Bible (1)

"The {Trinity} belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of person and nature which are G[ree]k philosophical terms, actually the terms so not appear in the Bible. In the N[ew]T[estament] the Father is the God (G[ree]k ho theos), and Jesus is the Son of God (ho hyios tou theou)...

Cont
---scott on 8/7/09




Ruben,

"When one does speak of unqualified [unlimited] Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say the last quadrant of the 4th century ... Herein lies the difficulty. On the one hand, it was the dogmatic formula one God in Three Persons that would henceforth for more than 15 centuries structure and guide the Trinitarian essence of the Christian message...On the other hand, the formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins, it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development."

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 295.
---scott on 8/7/09


Ruben, Dictionary of the Bible (2)

(Continued)

...The Spirit is the spirit of the God or the holy spirit, in this context a synonymous term. Deity [in the Bible] is conceived not in the G[ree]k [philosophical term] of nature but rather as a level of being...What is less clear about the Spirit [in the Bible] is His personal reality: often He is mentioned in language in which His personal reality is not explicit....The O[ld] T[estament], does not contain suggestions or foreshadowing of the trinity of persons.

Dictionary of the Bible, John McKenzie, S.J., 1965, pp. 899-900.
---scott on 8/7/09


Warwick Re Aleph/Tav

You are embarrassing yourself with this argument.

Of course Aleph is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet and Tav is the last. That doesn't take a Hebrew scholar.

It is the meaning that you have attached to "Eth" that has you twisting in the wind and at odds with every book on Hebrew grammar. (See comments below).

Are you suggesting that at Gen 5:22 the verse should read "And Enoch...begot [Eth-God] Methuselah."?

Jehovah never said 'I am the Aleph and the Tav."

When you find that verse and learn a little Hebrew, I'd be happy to revisit this with you again. But not before.
---scott on 8/7/09


Ruben,

So you concede the triune formula needed the efforts of uninspired men to develop after the inspired bible writers were gone.

Curiously you didn't say so initially. Instead you argued (essentially) that 1st century Christians had a clear understanding of the trinity and the councils were convened to ward of the heresy that challenged what they already, unequivocally believed.

The Jewish religious leaders embellished and added to what God required of His people as clearly recorded in scripture. Christ said:

"Because of your traditions you have destroyed the authority of God's word." Mark 7:13 GWT

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" Matt 15:3
---scott on 8/7/09


Wayne 2: let me remind you that it was you who called me a liar. I didn't call you a liar. Scott and 1 Cliff go back and forth but they did not come out like you. I can call everything you say a lie, but it would be my word against yours. I didn't call anyone names, I said they attack the deity of God and that is what all of you are doing.
The substance of the Trinity doctrine is biblical. That is my understanding, now this might not be to you, but it is to me. A proper evalution of the biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity depends on the faithful application of sound principles of biblical interpetation. The implicit in light of the explicit. So to explain it to you, you would have to have those principles but you don't.
---MarkV. on 8/7/09




Scott, you never did answer my simple question:

Do Aleph and Tav mean the same as Alpha & Omega, the first and last letters of the respective alphabets?

Yes or no?

As you have not attempted an answer I feel confident you acknowledge Aleph and Tav mean the same as Alpha and Omega. The First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

There at the beginning of Scripture we have 'Elohim' (God) followed by Aleph and Tav, the Alpha and the Omega the very title Jesus claims for Himself in Revelation, at the end of Scripture.

There we have the Lord Jesus Christ the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. The beginning and the end of time. The First and the Last in rank-God Almighty.
---Warwick on 8/7/09


Wayne, From the very beginning of the Church to now humans will always try to attack the deity of God. That's why I admit that many of the early church fathers when they became Christian came with corrupt theologies and many were philosophers before converting and brought their corrupt believes into the church. That is history of men.
But in order to explain the Trinity a person would need space to put it all together but here when Warwick puts one thing down, he is not able to put all the passages that speak of the deity of Christ. It is impossible so all of you take stabs one at a time attacking the humaness of Christ, to separate Him from His divine nature.
---MarkV. on 8/7/09


Read it again 1stCliff

In taking upon Himself human flesh Jesus willingly made himself nothing', He took the nature of a servant, He humbled Himself, He became obedient, for a purpose, and a time.

God the Son is obviously not created but the creator, (John 1:3, Col. 1:16) not coCreator. He is the the Alpha & the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. The Holman Bible Dictionary says Alpha & Omega 'refers to God's sovereignty and eternal nature.' It refers to both first in time, and in rank, see Bullingers lexicon and concordance of the NT.

God the Son came to us 'God manifest (shown openly, made apparent) in the flesh'- 1 Tim. 3,16. He was never created.
---Warwick on 8/6/09


Reuben asks, "Where in the Bible does it say everything has to be in the bible?"
A- Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
---robinz on 8/6/09


Warwick, Your words-#1*We use human terminology* *#1 comming from the Father*
Begotten= God was originally alone (but not lonely)created a Son Rev.3.14( #1-begot)to share creation (as co-creator) Jn.1.
Phil.2 "became OBEDIENT" Obedient to who Warwick? To His Father, "Not my will but yours.." "WILL" has nothing to do with whether you're an angel,a god or a human.
Still with Phil.2, God "exalted him",how could He be higher than (as you say) the God He already was????
Jesus is now and has always been 2nd in command to His Father!
Can you get any higher than that???
---1st_cliff on 8/6/09


scott* It took unscriptural language to define what God's inspired word is silent on.

Where in the Bible does it say everything has to be in the bible?

scott* Did the Almighty need the words, creeds, Greek philosophical language of uninspired men who came after His inspired Bible writers to describe the form in which He exists? Not my God.

Why not? Didn't he use uninspired men to put the bible together? Where does God tell us which books belong in the bible? If you believe these men on the bible, why can't you believe them on the Trinity?
---Ruben on 8/6/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


scott* Ruben,"Early Christianity.., however, does not yet have the problem of the Trinity in view" (Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3, p. 108)

To say that early Christians "did not yet have the problem of the trinity" is certainly not suggesting that they had the faintest idea of such a notion.

The question is did the early Christians believe in the Trinity, not if they had a good grasp on it. And from the writer you choose to quote, he tell us yes! It wasn't until the third century when the group Arians came and taught that Jesus Christ was created by God, by the way there is a group today that teach that same wrong doctrine anyway the Coucil of Nicea 325 put a stamp on it.
---Ruben on 8/6/09


MarkV- Did I ask you to defend your belief in the divinity of Yeshua? No I didnt. But see you love to call names, but then hate it when your fed the same attitude you feed to others. I asked you some very simple questions, why wont you answer them? Is it because you must answer yes to them being pagan????? See Mark, you say your beliefs are not pagan, yet you know the truth, because they are. Right down to the very name you use for the Messiah. So will you answer the questions????? Or at least be honest and tell everyone here you refuse to answer and why?
---wayne on 8/6/09


MarkV- Heres the point MarkV, you say you have the truth, yet as much as you believe this, as much as you preach honesty as a christian, you and others here refuse to admit that scriptures have been changed,you refuse to admit that most of the faith you profess has been corrupted with pagan doctrines. The truth is in history and its there for anyone who wants to find it. But you refuse to do this because if you did, you would have to admit to all of this. This is why you havent answered my very simple questions. Wheres the honesty ? As a christian shouldnt you be honest with yourself let alone everyone else??????
---wayne on 8/6/09


1stCliff read all of Phil. 2:6-11

'Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.'

You know this refers to Jesus God the Son, now incarnated,who humbled Himself, for a specific purpose.
---Warwick on 8/5/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Ruben,

"Early Christianity.., however, does not yet have the problem of the Trinity in view" (Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3, p. 108)" Ruben 8/5/09

Agreed. How exactly do you feel this helps your argument?

To say that early Christians "did not yet have the problem of the trinity" is certainly not suggesting that they had the faintest idea of such a notion.

It took unscriptural language to define what God's inspired word is silent on.

Did the Almighty need the words, creeds, Greek philosophical language of uninspired men who came after His inspired Bible writers to describe the form in which He exists? Not my God.
---scott on 8/5/09


Wayne, you can call me anything you want. But I am not disputing the deity of Christ. You are. If anyone is the enemy it is you. While there is many who cannot in short spaces explain the Trinity for space does not allow, even if they could you would still call them children of the devil. That only shows what kind of person you are and what you represent and that is the Covenant of the law which can never bring salvation. I don't follow the law, because I cannot keep the whole law, I follow Christ and if that makes me wrong in your eyes then you do not know the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact Jesus told those who follow the law, they were children of wrath and did the desires of their father the devil.
---MarkV. on 8/5/09


1stCliff, I landed while you slept!

I did not think I would have to explain the obvious:

God is not man, not flesh, but Spirit,does not inhabit time or space, does not have a consort, or reproductive organs. He is perfect, cannot lie, and eternal.

When we speak of God we use human terminology to describe His doings, as we have no ability to do otherwise. We speak of Jesus as begotten, as in coming from the Father, denoting the relation of Christ to the Father. This obviously therefore cannot mean God in any way birthed, Jesus, as Jesus is Creator, not created. It means Jesus is of the Father, of the same substance.

We also talk of God's anger. Do you imagine this equates to human self-serving, selfish anger?
---Warwick on 8/5/09


MarkV, Ruben

"The NT does not actually speak of tri-unity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the N.T."- Kittels Theological Dictionary of the N.T.

-scott on 8/5/09


We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the NT. ... Early Christianity itself, however, does not yet have the problem of the Trinity in view"(Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3, p. 108)
---Ruben on 8/5/09


Shop For Church Audio Video


MarkV- you can say what you like, I dont mind, your doctrine has been proven wrong. Prove sunday is not pagan

Prove the so called hoildays are not pagan

Prove the name you use for the Messiah is not pagan


Prove you do not follow the rcc even though you claim to be protestant

I can prove all of this, can you? You call me an enemy of christ, but I follow the true Yeshua, not the pagan jesus you follow.
---wayne on 8/5/09


Warwick, You circle in a holding pattern but you never land!
*That which is begotten refers to the offspring of a creature* (your words)
God called Jesus His "only begotten Son"
Now you say He said "begotten but didn't really mean begotten" but meant a relationship status?
God usually means what He says!
How do you "beget" someone in a relationship if that someone was always there?
Strange that you cite Phil.2.6-11 as it says "Christ never thought equality with God was something to be grasped!"
---1st_cliff on 8/5/09


MarkV, Ruben

"The NT does not actually speak of tri-unity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the N.T."- Kittels Theological Dictionary of the N.T.

"The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by logic or by scriptural proofs."- Hastings Dict. of The Bible, Grant

"If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians...was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief." Gibbon, History of Christianity
---scott on 8/5/09


Wayne, I have listened to you too for a long time. What I believe your represent is an enemy to the faith and enemy to the Cross and a enemy to God since what you argue is the deity of God. You say you have provide proof and whatever you provide is not considered proof since it cannot be compared to the Word of God. You can give all your opinions, someone elses opinion, but its not from Scripture. Only words from an angry man who cannot discuss anything with anyone without throwing arrows at them as some others do. It has to be your way the way of your denomination or else it is paganism. I already know what you stand for, you stand under the law. One day you might come under Grace. Only if God permits it.
---MarkV. on 8/5/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


MarkV, Ruben,

"We must not contend that the Nicene Creed looks like the New Testament. The creed is an exercise in systematic theology. Although there are portions of the New Testament which are highly theological, the one thing we cannot say is that any of it is systematic theology as it was practiced three hundred years later." Beisner, E. Calvin's "God in Three Persons." (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, c1984), footnote 7, p. 145.
---scott on 8/5/09


MarkV- I have provided proof many times, but so called believers like you dont wish to see the proof when provided. You worship on a pagan day, you celebrate holidays which are pagan, you use a pagan name for the Messiah, and yet you say your beliefs are not pagan. You for along time now have treated people horribly because they do not believe what you consider to be true, and yet you consider yourself saved. You hide behind the term faith, so you dont have to have a law, and yet Yeshua says to people like you He never knew you for you work lawlessness. But His own words mean nothing to you, you would rather pervert Pauls words to your own destruction.
---Wayne on 8/5/09


Scott, I didn't provide anything to the effect of what I said, that could explain what truth really is since what I said is from history not the bible. You haven't provide anything we can check to determine whether what you said is truth either since what you know and say comes from history also, not Scripture, but from someone's opinion of history.
When I answered that the Church believed in the Trinity from the very start is from history as I read it from different sources then you. That the councils like Antioch, Nicea and Chalcedon ever came to be is only because of the attacks on the deity of Christ. If these heretics had not tried to enter their heretical views there would have been no councils to speak of.
---MarkV. on 8/5/09


MarkV- And your only purpose is to serve a man made God while denying the true God of Yeshua. Your serve your father the devil. I have given proof in so many of these blogs, yet self rightous so called believers like you refuse to look at any of the evidence. You have turned a man into God and yet dont even follow what Yeshua says. Yeshua says follow the law, you say we dont have to. The Apostles say follow the law, you say no. The religion you follow is pagan in everyway, your ashamed of the Messiah and His Jewishness. The whole of scripture says there is one law for the Jew and the gentile, you deny this, you want a slavation where you do nothing. Truth is truth
---wayne on 8/4/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


1stCliff that which is begotten refers to the ofspring of a creature.

In theological terms it refers only to the relationship between the Father and the Son. Humans beget humans,God 'begat' God. God was never pregnant. Jesus is creator of everything so is not a creature.

I am aware Jesus is fully man but as Scripture also says fully God. God is Spirit and resides in Jesus-God in human form- Phil. 2:6-11.

John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 show Jesus is creator of everything created.
Jn. 1:3 uses 'through' in describing Jesus' creative acts but 'through' is also used of Gods creative acts in Romans 11:36, Hebrews 2:10.
---Warwick on 8/5/09


If it were not for the eloquence and logic of Athanasius the persuasions of Arius would have prevailed in 325AD.
The division between the two formulating groups hinged on relationship and substance of God and Son.
And,from the Nicean debates come the coined phrase,"Trinity" from Tertullian.
Every attempt to define the relationship and substance of God will only stir confusion in out thoughts but how great it is to ponder the divine relationship that we are sons and daughters of Divinity.
The bible authors does not give us but very little to work with to formulate strong concepts on this subject.
We thinks much but knows little.
---earl on 8/4/09


Wayne, you said, what I said was a lie, but what you gave had no written proof, not even from history that what you said is correct. In fact you cannot prove anything you say. Not one thing. All you can do is give your opinion which really means nothing.
There was no mixing of pagan doctrines, only those who are heretics to the Christian faith would say such things. In fact the same battles the early church had was from people like you who's only purpose is to strip Christ of His deity.
---MarkV. on 8/4/09


From the beginning the 325ce council of Nicea was "stacked"
Constantine was overtly anti-semitic, not one of the 300(or so) bishops that attended were Jewish! They strongly believed in a solitary God! (Deut.6.4)
It was a Roman set-up from the very beginning headed by the "Sol priest head" who was more concerned with "unity" than correct theology!
Arius was like David facing Goliath,too bad he never had a sling shot!,he's the one that got railroaded!(outnumbered)
Heretic? No, hero!
---1st_cliff on 8/4/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


scott* Ruben,

Then if 1st century Christians had a fully developed understanding of the trinity (contrary to what the New Catholic Encyclopedia asserts):

Why wasn't that "orthodox" view simply reaffirmed at Nicea 325?

Because that where the heresy of the group call Arianism came in and taught that Christ was a creature created by God, sound familiar!
---Ruben on 8/4/09


Scott, let us keep it simple.

Do Aleph and Tav mean the same as Alpha & Omega, the first and last letters of the respective alphabets?

Yes or no?
---Warwick on 8/3/09
---Warwick on 8/4/09


Mark V- That is a complete lie that the church believed in the trinity from the beginning. History shows they didnt. Rome already believed in a trinity and mixed it into the church. Nicea wasnt a rewording, it was a mixing of the pagan doctrines in such a way that it sounds christian. The church of rome's own historians admit they have changed verses in scripture, changed laws to conform to thier doctrines. And the protestants follow along very happily. Protestants are another catholic sect if you admit it or not.
---wayne on 8/4/09


"The Church believed in the trinity from the very beginning." MarkV 8/3/09

Define "very beginning." If you are speaking of God's word you're mistaken. Neither is a fully formed notion of a triune God found in the earliest post-apostolic writing.

"We will be disappointed if we expect to find developed trinitarian reflection in the early post-apostolic writers. It is simply not there. More time will be needed for the implications of early Christian thought and practice to ferment and mature." The Tripersonal God (Pro-Trinity), OCollins, 1999, pp. 85-103

You've not employed any scriptures in defense of your position.

Calvin would be proud, what with his treatment of Servetus.
---scott on 8/4/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


Ruben,

Then if 1st century Christians had a fully developed understanding of the trinity (contrary to what the New Catholic Encyclopedia asserts):

Why wasn't that "orthodox" view simply reaffirmed at Nicea 325?

Does it not seem reasonable, in all of the discussions that took place over several days (weeks?) when the Bishops gathered, to simply draw their attention to what they already knew? That, from the beginning, orthodox christians worshipped the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as a triune God.

It would have been a no-brainer. Again if that view was clearly in mind, why was the Holy Spirit not included for another 56 years?
---scott on 8/4/09


Scott, The Church believed in the trintiy from the very beginning. What happened at those councils was a rewording of what trinity meant. In the Council of Antioch, the wording had to be change to combat the attacks from heretics like Sabellius, it was modalistic monarchianism. In order for the church to argue those views they had to reword the concept of Christ and the Father been one in essence. Then at the council of Nicea a new heretic challenge came from Arius which was called Dynamic monarchianism. And the Church again had to explain away what begotten meant in order to argue against Arius. It didn't mean the Church didn't except the concept until later years only that they completed explaining the Trinity correctly.
---MarkV. on 8/3/09


"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." NCE, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 299
---scott on 8/1/09


This is only saying that the apostolic Fathers did not use the precise formula "one God in three persons" not that they did not believe in the trinity! Please throw away the pamphlet "Should you believe in the trinity?"
---Ruben on 8/3/09


"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. NCE, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 299
---scott on 8/1/09


The author of the article R.L. Richard writes :"If it is clear on the one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of three centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--and hence an elemental Trinitarianism--went back to the period of Christian origins" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, XIV, 300).
---Ruben on 8/3/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Warwick you are doing fine. Sometimes though you have to move on with some people. When it's someone goal to pursue to knock the deity of God, they will not stop since most of what they answer online concerns the deity of God. I have a brother who is very very intellegent, hardly ever wrong. He is also a great guy who knows Medicine by name, dieases what they do and how they come, countries, wars, you name it and he knows. But when it comes to faith in the deity of God, there is none. All the knowledge in the world cannot originate faith in the heart as to who God is. It's the job of the Spirit to bring light to who God is. Many still don't understand it all but know that with faith one day they too will understand who God is.
---MarkV. on 8/3/09


Warwick (slick), So Thomas said "the Lord of me and the God of me" That makes Jesus "God" right?
"My" is possesive, so if I say "my god"I'm claimimg ownership?, NO! the transliteration is "god of me" exactly the same as Thomas! He did not say "you are" now did he? (it was an exclamation of surprise)
How the small mind thinks- Thomas says "my God" and right away the fundamentalist says "there, see, he called Him God, so that makes Jesus God right there" huh?
Powerful man, that Thomas!
---1st_cliff on 8/3/09


Warwick, You have a problem understanding English -to wit
Begot- to sire, breed, father, procreate, generate etc..
Scripture says God "BEGOT" His Son! You say otherwise!
Qualitative- from the root word "Quality", Jesus is the same "quality" as His Father does not make Him His "own" Father!(your psycobabble)
Jn chap.1 Shows Jesus (Logos) as co-creator saying He was "WITH" God. "with" means more than one!
If I called you "my god", would that make it so???
---1st_cliff on 8/3/09


My apologies. Part of my example was not as clear as it should have been and I inaccurately included the definite "ha" in version 1.

Hopefully the corrected version below will prove helpful.

1. The king remembered a son= "Ha melech zacar bane."

2. The king remembered the son= Ha melech zacar eth ha bane."
---scott on 8/2/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


1stCliff cont.

'6 Jesus is the direct Son of God ,why would He not have the "fullness of deity?" '
He does, another proof that He is God.

'7 God had no "beginning" he will not have an "end" Alpha and Omega does not apply to God in this sense!'
Alpha and Omega mean first and last, and when used of God mean eternality and omnipotence. Jesus therefore claims to be the all-powerful one of eternity past and eternity future-Jehovah God.

'Same verse (Rev 22 .12) says SOON 2,000 years is soon?? Hello! Soon means without delay!!'

Great minds have puzzled over this but let me, like you, give a flippant answer- what's a few thousand years to God?

Maybe someone else has a comment?
---Warwick on 8/3/09


Scott, let us keep it simple.

Do Aleph and Tav mean the same as Alpha & Omega, the first and last letters of the respective alphabets?

Yes or no?
---Warwick on 8/3/09


" AT - Aleph and Tav" Warwick 8/1/09

Any hebrew "grammar" will reveal Warwick's faulty reasoning with these two Hebrew letters.

This 'word' is simply used to mark direct objects when they are definite (though not pronounced). Example:

The king remembered a son= "Zacar ha bane"

The king remembered the son= Zacar eth ha bane."


A personal name in Hebrew is definite.

Gen 5:22 "Wayti Chanoch, chamash weh sheshim shanah,
wayoled, eth-Methoshalach."

"And Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah."
---scott on 8/2/09


1stCliff you wrote:

'1 Qualitative is not "Homoousius"'
I disagree, Jesus is one substance with the Father.

'2 God only "begot" one Son, the rest are by adoption.'
Jesus is begotten, not created.

'3 Are we not ALL made in God's image?'
Jesus was not made. He is the uncreated 'image of the invisible God'

'4 Jn Chap.1 Jesus (Logos) is Co-creator!'
John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 show He is Creator.

'5 Every man Jack and his brother says "Oh my God" when surprised!'
No, Thomas called Jesus the Lord of me and the God of me.

cont.
---Warwick on 8/2/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


Scott BTW I never claimed to be expert on Hebrew. I simply pointed out what appears in the Interlinnear Hebrew Bible. I can read!

In the beginning God AT (Aleph & Tav) created the heavens...
---Warwick on 8/1/09


Warwick, "Lo mevin evrite." (You do not understand Hebrew).

Your comments about a language that you know nothing about (and twisting it mightily to suit a false theological premise) would be irresponsible if it wasn't so sad.

With your last several (increasingly strange) arguments on this topic I am reminded of the Black Knight of Monte Python fame.

"It's only a flesh wound."
---scott on 8/1/09


Cluny,

Obviously if the trinity doctrine was fully accepted and understood by first century Christians, Nicea 325 would have been the time and place to simply reaffirm that "orthodox" view. Didn't happen. It was pieced together over time.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." NCE, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 299
---scott on 8/1/09


Scott, translating Genesis, into English (Hebrew word order), reads-In the beginning created Elohim (God) Aleph and Tav. Note Aleph and Tav coming after 'Elohim'

Likewise Genesis 1:27 reads - he is creating Elohim AT (Aleph and Tav) the human.

Aleph and Tav are the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Equivalent to Alpha and Omega in Greek, meaning the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End- as Jesus is called in revelation. He has inserted this next to Elohim in both Genesis 1:1, and 27, because He is Creator, the First and the Last.

Interestingly there is Jesus, the First & the Last, in the beginning of the first and the end of the last book of the Bible.
---Warwick on 8/1/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


Cluny, *do you have a different nature from your own biological father*
Define "nature"
---1st_cliff on 7/31/09


Warwick, let me answer your questions.
#1Qualitative is not "Homoousius"
#2God only "begot" one Son, the rest are by adoption.
#3Are we not ALL made in God's image?
#4Jn Chap.1 Jesus (Logos) is Co-creator!
#5Every man Jack and his brother says "Oh my God" when surprised!
#6Jesus is the direct Son of God ,why would He not have the "fullness of deity?"
#7God had no "beginning" he will not have an "end" Alpha and Omega does not apply to God in this sense!
Same verse (Rev 22 .12) says SOON 2,000 years is soon?? Hello! Soon means without delay!!
---1st_cliff on 7/31/09


Donna66,

A simple search for "Nicene Creed 325" will help you to locate this important creedal declaration.

The fact that you have (rightly) acknowledged that many Christians may have little interest in this is noteworthy.

Noteworthy because it is this very creed, overseen by (sun-worshipping) emperor Constantine, that all trinitarians can trace their so called orthodox view of the Father/Son equality to.

"Christianity derived from Judaism was strictly Unitarian...Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God, it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. XXVII, p. 294.
---scott on 7/31/09


From the historical standpoint, Nicea I was called to deal with the issue of the nature of the Son: Is He of the same nature (homoousios) as the Father or of a different, subordinate, created nature?

The issue of the deity of the Holy Spirit did not become a problem until afterwards with the Pnevmatomach (Enemies of the Holy Spirit) controvery, when the section regarding the Holy Spirit was expanded at Constantinople I.
---Cluny on 7/31/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


Scott- Sorry for quoting the wrong creed. I still think it would help if you quoted the one you mean. Not everybody is familiar with these creeds.

Otherwise it's just a theological argument that doesn't interest many Christians...or maybe that's what you intended.
---Donna66 on 7/31/09


"'Elohim' and the "two letters" next to it. Warwick on 7/31/09

This comment reveals a woeful lack of understanding of the Hebrew language.

"In Hebrew, when the direct object is a definite noun, it is usually preceded, sometimes followed, by the word [Aleph/Tav]. The word [Aleph/Tav] has no translation in English. It is simply used to mark direct objects when they are definite." Hebrew Primer, Simon, p 61

Gen 1:27 "God created [Aleph/Tav] man in His image."

Is "man" also Jehovah because these two, unpronounced letters are connected to it?

Warwick, here, ignores basic rules of Hebrew grammar, hoping no one knows better.
---scott on 7/31/09


The question of this blog-

Just to repeat and perhaps expand on this particular blog question:

If first century Christians believed in a Trinity and that the Holy Spirit was an equal part of it. Why was in not included at Nicea 325?

Many claim that the the teaching of a triune God is unquestionably established in scripture and was clearly understood by first century Christians.

The council of Nicea, they claim, was convened to ward off heretics who taught otherwise.

If true, given that first opportunity to officially reaffirm the orthodox view of a "three in one" God, why was 1/3rd of the triune not included until 381 ce...

...56 years later?
---scott on 7/31/09


In the Hebrew Interlinnear Bible at Genesis 1:1 the English words, plus Strong's numbers, are under the Hebrew.

The 4th 'word' (reading right to left) next to the Hebrew for God the Creator, 'Elohim', is two letters, untranslated & without a Strong's number- Aleph & Tav the first and last numbers of the Hebrew alphabet equal to Alpha & Omega in Greek.

In Revelation 1:11, 17,18, 2:8,22:13-Jesus is the Alpha & the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning & the End. These 3 terms mean the same. In Rev. 1:8 God Almighty is the Alpha & the Omega.

Jesus shows He is God Almighty in the first line!
---Warwick on 7/31/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


\\ " Who do you say I am?" Jesus asked His disciples. Answer- "Christ, SON of the living God" Who is the "real" Jesus Cluny?
---1st_cliff on 7/30/09\\

Do you have a different nature from your own biological father, or the same human nature, Cliff?

When you answer my question, you will have anwered your own.
---Cluny on 7/31/09


1stcliff The term Son of God means He is qualitatively equal with God.

To which other Son did God say 'This is my beloved Son..' Matt. 3:17

What other Son is 'the image of the invisible God?' Col. 1:15
Which other Son is Creator of everything ever created? Co.1:16
What other Son is "God manifest in flesh?' 1 tim 3:16
What other Son is called 'My Lord & My God?' John 20:28
In which other Son does 'The fulness of deity live in bodily form?' Phil 2:6-11
What other Son calls Himself 'the Alpha & the Omega, the First & the Last, the Beginning & the End?' Revelation 22:13

No Son other than Jesus Christ, God the Son.
---Warwick on 7/31/09


Cluny, I'm afraid you are the one on the outside looking in.
I believe in the "real" Jesus the one who is the "Son" of God not a third head of a three headed god!
" Who do you say I am?" Jesus asked His disciples. Answer- "Christ, SON of the living God" Who is the "real" Jesus Cluny?
---1st_cliff on 7/30/09


You're obviously not a Christian, cliff, as you don't believe in the real Jesus.

Therefore, you don't believe in Jesus at all.
---Cluny on 7/30/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


Cluny: 1st show me exactly where 1st century Christians believed in a triune God!
In Nicea they did a "hack job" on Arius who stood up to them with the truth, they burned his writings, threatened him with death, killed some of his associates and tossed him out branding him a " heretic".
As the bible says Jesus was "begotten" as a Son of God,obviously not co-eternal!
God did not "beget" himself a 2nd personality equal to Himself.
Deut.6.4. "ONE GOD" not three!
The word "TRInity" means =three!
Too simple????
---1st_cliff on 7/30/09


Donna66,

You are citing the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, not the creed of 325. The reference to the "Holy Ghost" was not included originally, only that it was 'believed' in.
---scott on 7/30/09


But in case you are asking if the Holy Spirit is a Person of God . . . I'll offer Romans 5:5 > "Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5) To me, this means the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of "the love of God", therefore the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God's own love. I'd say only God Himself can be the Spirit of His own love. Also, we have, "the Lord is that Spirit," in 2 Corinthians 3:17. The Lord who is God is that Spirit, I get through this. So, the Holy Spirit is *not* some second best one of a lesser love.

It's like how flowing gold and images of gold are all gold (o: 2 Corinthians 4:4
---Bill_bila5659 on 7/30/09


Personally, seeing many of the actions associated with the Father are also associated with the Son (i.e. creation (John 1:10, Col 1:15-16) the raising of the Son (Jesus said "in three days >>I<< will raise it) and the giving of the Spirit attributed in one verse to the Father and in another to the Son) I see no trinity in the modern sense of the word. I simply see one God who manifests himself in various ways for various reasons and we see that throughout the scripture, not just in the NT. But I also, no longer, see this topic as a reason for brethren to divide.

Peace.
Ken
---Ken_Rank on 7/30/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


Cluny,

In answer to your first question- Yes.

In response to your comment to Cliff- My question is not about the relationship between Father and Son but the inclusion or exclusion of the Holy Spirit in 325ce Nicea.

I'm happy to throw in my 2 shekels on the topic of the unscriptural and hotly debated word "homoousios" introduced at that time to 'resolve' the issue at Nicea.

But the question is about the later addition of the HS, 381 Constantinople.
---scott on 7/30/09


\\ Scott, *First century Christians believed in a trinity* Nope!\\

Yes,they did, Cliff.

Your saying they didn't doesn't change the fact they did.

Now, if you DENY "homoousios", are you saying that the Logos not of the same substance as God--that is, is LESS than God, and therefore, not really God?

If you do, John 1 disagrees with you.
---Cluny on 7/30/09


Here is the NICEAN CREED (in 2 posts)
Part I

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate,
---Donna66 on 7/29/09


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.