Infomation On The Trinity.

[Evolutionist]

I’m not sure how many times this has been discussed, but performing a search, I couldn’t find anything specific on here, so thought I might start off a new thread in order to gather the information.

I’ve read a lot about the trinity being mostly thought up in the council of Nicea in 325CE, then later being refined in later councils, in 381CE, 431CE and 451CE respectively. However, I discussed the topic in another forum, mostly because I saw the thread, and was dragged in (you know how it is J) . and I got two interesting replies:

“Actually, these were just the first time Christians officially codified what was already in Scripture.

Trinitarian teachings go back as far as Genesis, because in Genesis there was already a depiction of God as a triune being.”

And

The Trinity is explicitly "right there" in Scripture, in the form of narrative pictures, e.g. Gabriel's annunciation to Mary, and the baptism of Christ. A trinitarian understanding of the Godhead is the presupposition of the whole NT. It springs from history--the Church's encounter with the Son of God and the outpoured Spirit. Whatever one thinks of Christ and Pentecost, no further explanation is needed for the origin of this belief.

The word "Trinity" (Lat. trinitas) was coined around the late 100's by a North African Christian named Tertullian. This word is a kind of summarising label for Scriptural ways of talking about God. And the word and the concept were used early.

ORIGEN (185-254 A.D.)

"For it is the TRINITY alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the TRINITY, which are to be measured by times and ages."

"We believe, however that there are THREE PERSONS, the FATHER and the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father [however, clearly from the above Origen does not say the Son was created]. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ."

TERTULLIAN (c. 155 - 250 A.D.)

"...in the case of the present heresy, which considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the one only God in any other way than by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are the very selfsame Person [i.e. Monarchianism]. As if One were not All even in this way, that all are one--through unity of substance, of course!"

"And at the same time the mystery of the -oikonomia [relationship between the persons] is safeguarded, for the UNITY is distributed in a TRINITY".

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces THREE who, though coherent, are DISTINCT ONE FROM ANOTHER. THESE THREE ARE ONE, and yet NOT one: for 'I and the Father ARE ONE' [John 10:30] was said in regard to their UNITY OF SUBSTANCE, but not in regard to a singularity of number."

There are similar quotes from:

Novatian (c. 235 A.D.), St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.), Aristides of Athens (c. 140 A.D.), St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.), St. Melito of Sardes (c. 177 A.D.), Athenagoras of Athens (c. 180 A.D.), St. Theophilus of Antioch (c. 181 A.D.), St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.), St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 200 A.D.), St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - 216 A.D.), St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 A.D.), and St. Dionysius of Rome (c. 262 A.D.).”


Which, I have to admit, does contradict what I had heard up until then, regarding the trinity. I had assumed that Jesus was considered a prophet-like character prior to the council of Nicea, am I wrong in this? Any information would be helpful, as it’s peaked my interest now.

[Evolutionist]

heh, any takers?

[Magus55]

Jesus was worshipped as God during His life, and forever after that. He was never considered a mere prophet by anyone but skeptics ( i and mean Biblical skeptics as well, those who rejected His divinity in the Bible). The trinity is implied in the OT, and continued into the New.

[RED DAVE]

fROM Magus55:

Jesus was worshipped as God during His life, and forever after that. He was never considered a mere prophet by anyone but skeptics ( i and mean Biblical skeptics as well, those who rejected His divinity in the Bible). The trinity is implied in the OT, and continued into the New.

1. Who but a tiny group even knew about JC during his life? And as for forever, I wouldn't wait up.

2. And show me how they worshipped him as God. And how about us Jews, Magus? It's doubtful if most of us even considered him much of a prophet, AND WE STILL DON'T!

3. If the trinity is implied in the OT, how come we missed it? Are we stupid or something? I don't remember being taught about any son or holy spook in Hebrew School?

RED DAVE

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
3. If the trinity is implied in the OT, how come we missed it? Are we stupid or something? I don't remember being taught about any son or holy spook in Hebrew School?

RED DAVE

No, just unsaved. ;)

[Jackalope]

Actually, the council of Nicea (325AD) had nothing to do with the trinity. What was argued was whether Jesus had one or two natures (ie, was he God, man or god/man?). The question of the Trinity was decided at the Council of Constantinople (381AD). As I threatened to do earlier, here are some good, reliable links about early church ecumenical councils and byzantine history.

The Council of Nicea and the Bible (aka, what the Council of Nicea really covered):
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
Text from the Council of Nicea (325 AD):
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
First Council of Constantinople (381 AD), where the trinity was actually set down in cannon:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm
Quick summaries of church councils:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
Kissers and Smashers, why the Orthodox killed one another over icons:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/54h/54h020.html
Byzantine Studies on the Internet:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/
Byzantine and Medieval Studies index:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/medweb/
Medieval Sourcebook: Byzantium:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1c.html
Byzantine Reference Documents:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/refdocs.html
Byzantine sources in translation:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/alltexts.html

[Amos]

A good question would be to ask if the trinity exists in heaven if heaven is the place where all will be made clear when we have the mind of God. In other words, why would we need the HS when we have the mind of God (after enlightenement) and if we can't ever achive this what is all the fuss about.

So obviously, the trinity exists only while we are alienate from God and if enlighenment resolves the trinity we are looking for the horse we are sitting on and therefore can't seem to find it.

[CX]

Originally posted by Evolutionist
I had assumed that Jesus was considered a prophet-like character prior to the council of Nicea, am I wrong in this? Any information would be helpful, as it?s peaked my interest now.

The council of Nicaea was not concerned with the trinitarian dogma, but with combatting the Arian heresy which taught that Jesus was not equal to god. Ultimately it is difficult to say how many divergent beliefs there were with respect to Jesus when Xianity was in it's infancy because the self-proclaimed "orthodox" church was exceedingly efficient at stamping out "heresy". It is clear that gnostic Xianity garnered considerable influence and popularity early on.

[CJD]

. . . too good of a reference book to pass up the opportunity to recommend it:

Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, by Hendrickson Publishers, 1998 (Republished from Baker Books, 1984). See especially pp. 145–157.


Regards,

CJD

[Amos]

Originally posted by CX
The council of Nicaea was not concerned with the trinitarian dogma, but with combatting the Arian heresy which taught that Jesus was not equal to god. Ultimately it is difficult to say how many divergent beliefs there were with respect to Jesus when Xianity was in it's infancy because the self-proclaimed "orthodox" church was exceedingly efficient at stamping out "heresy". It is clear that gnostic Xianity garnered considerable influence and popularity early on.

But Jesus is not God and needed to be crucified to set free the Christ identity (that is God) and to this identity the old human identity was added in the upper room. The recall of the apostels deals with this because they once were the shepherds called to be apostels and now recalled into the upper room. The were spared from the crucifixion to show that sanity prevailed throughout it all. Notice the identity switch from the lower house to the upper house (from conscious to subconscious mind).

The problem was the -ism of Gnosticism but not the gnostic mind.

[Bernard Muller]

The council of Nicaea was not concerned with the trinitarian dogma, but with combatting the Arian heresy which taught that Jesus was not equal to god. Ultimately it is difficult to say how many divergent beliefs there were with respect to Jesus when Xianity was in it's infancy because the self-proclaimed "orthodox" church was exceedingly efficient at stamping out "heresy". It is clear that gnostic Xianity garnered considerable influence and popularity early on
I am not a specialist in Trinity, but at the council of Nicaea, one main argument was the nature of the Son. Even Arianus was not contesting the pre-existence, but that the Son had been begotten by the Father, at the beginning of times. That 100% what shows in the NT, that is Heb1:5,5:5; 1Jn4:9; Jn1:14,18,3:16,18; Acts13:13

Philo of Alexandria (a Jew, not a Christian!) started the ball rolling with his firstborn Son of God/WORD

"For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest Son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn. And he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father ..." (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XIV)

"And even if there be not as yet one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angel, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called the authority and the name of God and the Word, and man according to God's image ..." (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XXVIII)

In the NT, the Son is also the firstborn (from God):

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Hebrews 1:6
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

As far as I know, Nicaea made the Father, Son and Holy Spririt existing from before the beginning of times, but within one godhead (one is three, three is one!), making Arianus a heretic. Then if Father & Son existed forever before, with one not begotten by the other, what about the relationship father and son? And all the evidence to the contrary from the NT?
I am glad I am not an apologist.
Best regards, Bernard

[Jackalope]

Originally posted by Bernard Muller

As far as I know, Nicaea made the Father, Son and Holy Spririt existing from before the beginning of times, but within one godhead (one is three, three is one!), making Arianus a heretic. Then if Father & Son existed forever before, with one not begotten by the other, what about the relationship father and son? And all the evidence to the contrary from the NT?
I am glad I am not an apologist.
Best regards, Bernard

No, the father, son, holy ghost bit was the Council of Constantinople. The council of Nicea was about the nature of Christ. For some reason, people mix those two up all the time.

From the Council Summary Page (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm):

First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325)

The Council of Nicaea lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester. The Emperor Constantine was also present. To this council we owe The Creed (Symbolum) of Nicaea, defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios), and the fixing of the date for keeping Easter (against the Quartodecimans).

Second Ecumenical Council: Constantinople I (381)

The First General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius I, was attended by 150 bishops. It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.

[Bernard Muller]

No, the father, son, holy ghost bit was the Council of Constantinople. The council of Nicea was about the nature of Christ. For some reason, people mix those two up all the time.
Ya Jack, I checked your links.
So now, from Nicea, we have, "the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousion, consubstantialem) with the Father."
"begotten, not made": What would be the meaning of begotten here? Obviously my dictionary is wrong: it says produced, generated.
Best regards, Bernard

[CJD]

Bernard Muller asked:
"What would be the meaning of "begotten" here?

I think the historic creedal orthodox answer would be as follows:

According to this creed, the Christ is called the "only-begotten," which means the only one born of God the Father. "Begotten" as a word simply means "born" or "generated."

The Son of God is born from the Father "before all ages"; that is, before creation, before the commencement of time. Time has its beginning in creation. God exists before time, in an eternally timeless existence without beginning or end.

Eternity as a word does not mean "endless time." It means the condition of no time at all — no past or future, just a constant present. For God there is no past or future. For God, all is now.

In the eternal "now" of God, before the creation of the world, God the Father gave birth to his only-begotten Son in what can only be termed an eternal, timeless, always presently-existing generation. This means that although the Son is "begotten of the Father" and comes forth from the Father, his coming forth is eternal. Thus, there never was a "time" when there was no Son of God. This is specifically what the heretic Arius taught. It is the doctrine formally condemned by the first ecumenical council (Nicaea).

Although born of the Father and having his origin in Him, the only-begotten Son always existed, or rather more accurately always "exists" as uncreated, eternal and divine, & co.

Regards,

CJD