The Nicene Creed

[Quath]

How can you serve God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit at the same time?

You can't, if they're not the same person! That would be idolatry! Get it?

If God sent an angel to command an army, you can serve God by serving the angel. So I think you can serve Christ if he were or were not also God.

If you think of a person like my husband, for example, he's a father AND a son AND a husband, AND an uncle and so on and so on. He's only one person but has many roles. I kind of see the Trinity like that...one being with several roles: Father, Son and Spirit. It helps me to be able to discuss it with others a bit better, I think.

I tend to see this as the overall idea also. However, the problem comes in when Jesus talks to God as if he were someone separate. If your husband started to talk to himself because he had three roles, we would probably just call it multiple personalities. Buf if the Trinity is really multiple personalities, that doesn't make much sense either because they do not really share the same body. They would be three separate personalities or three gods. And then we are back at the non-Trinitarian idea.

Maybe the way to reconcile it is to say they share some kind of spiritual body. In that sense, maybe they are like a three headed ettin.

 

[maggie2]

If my husband started talking to himself I'd probably call the ambulance to cart him off to the hospital!!

I see your point about this though. You speak of a spiritual body; that's how I see all aspects of God, as spiritual, not physical. Actually, I don't believe in the Trinity as it is preached in the Christian church, but for those who do, this way of seeing it might be helpful.

 

[crystalonyx]

Hi TrueBlue2,

The thing about the Nicene Creed is that it is using finite language to describe an infinite being, so I don't have a problem with you describing it as an "incomprehensible description of God as trinity", because God is not completely comprehensible to our minds (He infinite, us finite).

God bless,
Mark

What proof do you have that a supposed god is infinite, or for that matter even exists?

 

[Quiddity]

For those interested, the Trinity and the early Fathers:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/christianity/22344-trinity-fathers.html

 

[jolakoturinn]

What proof do you have that a supposed god is infinite, or for that matter even exists?

I don't. But it stands to reason.

Put it this way: we don't have proof he exists, nor do we have proof he doesn't. I'd rather go through life acting like he does (and live a good life, a happy one) and then find out I was wrong, than act like he doesn't and then find out he does!!

 

[athanasius]

It was in the third century that the emperor Constantine gathered the best philosophers of his day, along with several Catholic bishops, and threw them in a room together with a mandate to come to a consensus as to the nature of God. These discussions, as one can imagine, were contested and hotly debated for weeks. From this came the doctrine of the 'trinity' which has confused the Christian world for centuries. Over the next 120 years it was revised again and again.

Just wondering why so many Christians stick to this ancient, and man made, and incomprehensible description of God as trinity, especially when there are vivid examples in the scriptures that contradicts what the Nicene Creed purports?

Well Actually it wasn't a group of Philosophers and Bishops it was the 1st Ecumenical Church council held to deal with Arian heretics. Catholics do not just view the church as merely human. We view the Church as both Human and Divine. The Holy Spirit (Divine) works through the human leaders to proclaim truths at councils(See Acts 15:28). Jesus also told the church "he who hears you hears me"(Lk 10:16) and he gave them the power to bind and loose(Matt 16:18-19, Matt 18:15-20). So to us God just reiterated in a "more explicit" way his Truth that had always been taught about the Trinity(in apostolic tradition and implicitly in scripture) at these councils so as to settle heresy and he used the human Church leaders to do it.

 

[TrueBlue2]

The Holy Spirit (Divine) works through the human leaders to proclaim truths at councils(See Acts 15:28)...So to us God just reiterated in a "more explicit" way his Truth that had always been taught about the Trinity(in apostolic tradition and implicitly in scripture) at these councils so as to settle heresy and he used the human Church leaders to do it.

To me, Athanasius, when the Holy Spirit bears witness to a truth there is clarity and a much better understanding on whatever the subject might be. Here we are 1700 years after the fact, and I can turn to any Christian website on this web and find confusion about the doctrine of the trinity. That would NOT be the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

Also, you say the doctrine had always been taught but you are ignoring the myriad of scriptures that seem to contradict this concept, in favor of the few that can hypothetically support it.

 

[prayerbead]

Given the length of time and different interpretations handed down from generation to generation, The Creed arrived at by the Council must have been "lost in translation" over all this time. Unless you were there (possibly fearful of a conclusion counter to the Emperor's) it would be next to impossible to know clearly what was actually agreed to.

 

[crystalonyx]

I don't. But it stands to reason.

Put it this way: we don't have proof he exists, nor do we have proof he doesn't. I'd rather go through life acting like he does (and live a good life, a happy one) and then find out I was wrong, than act like he doesn't and then find out he does!!

Then you've wasted a lot of time believing a myth. You just admitted there's no proof a god exists.

 

[jolakoturinn]

Then you've wasted a lot of time believing a myth. You just admitted there's no proof a god exists.

No; I admitted I do not know or have such proof to hand. (Not the same thing.)

 

[sojourner]

Think of it this way:

How can you serve God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit at the same time?

You can't, if they're not the same person! That would be idolatry! Get it?

We serve the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.


Get it?

 

[sojourner]

Thanks Maggie. That should be interesting. I'm not seeing anyone defend the creed as being divine. Everyone seems to agree that it is surrounded in controversy, and that men had a lot to do in defining it. I have checked out other Christian forums and the confusion and chaos surrounding this creed is obvious.

Just really surprised then that so many Christians hold to the 'trinity' concept as though it were gospel, and as though it would be blasphemous to believe anything else. From my simple reading of scripture it is apparent that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate individuals. Jesus Christ was the Son of God - not God.

There's the rub. The theology imbedded in the scriptures is not so simple.

How do you plan on reconciling your last sentence with Philippians 2? Without compromising, twisting, or engaging in eisegesis?

 

[sojourner]

one being with several roles: Father, Son and Spirit. It helps me to be able to discuss it with others a bit better, I think.

This has actually historically been identified as heresy...
The Trinity is three distinct Persons -- not one Person with three "jobs."

 

[Ringer]

Then you've wasted a lot of time believing a myth. You just admitted there's no proof a god exists.

Maybe you should start coming up with some thoughful insights in these discussions instead of constantly asking for proof of God. Or don't you know, faith plays an important part in Christianity?

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

The proof you ask for is something that we cannot offer to satisfy you. I and others are living proof to the existence of God. The fact that we trusted God with our lives and are changed because of it is proof enough for us and possibly others. So no, it's not a myth. Your problem is that you want irrefutable proof before you believe. Jesus said that is not the way it's done. You trust in him and take the first step and he will take if from there.

Now back on topic...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's the rub. The theology imbedded in the scriptures is not so simple.

How do you plan on reconciling your last sentence with Philippians 2? Without compromising, twisting, or engaging in eisegesis?

Are you implying that "in the form of God" means "being God"? I think that may be a rather large leap to make all in one go.

The proof you ask for is something that we cannot offer to satisfy you. I and others are living proof to the existence of God. The fact that we trusted God with our lives and are changed because of it is proof enough for us and possibly others. So no, it's not a myth. Your problem is that you want irrefutable proof before you believe. Jesus said that is not the way it's done. You trust in him and take the first step and he will take if from there.

Except to an outside observer, there's no difference between what you describe and what others say they get out of completely different religions. If I find a person just as changed by Hinduism, Shamanism or some other faith, should I follow it instead of Christianity?

 

[Ringer]

Except to an outside observer, there's no difference between what you describe and what others say they get out of completely different religions. If I find a person just as changed by Hinduism, Shamanism or some other faith, should I follow it instead of Christianity?

True, but then again, Jesus made a unique claim that others in history have not. I don't think it was an accident that Jesus said he was the only way to the God when chances were disciples would be spreading the gospel in Hindu land that probably believed there were 330 million gods. I agree you should only take the follower of the faith at face value and spend your time looking into the author of the faith instead.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True, but then again, Jesus made a unique claim that others in history have not. I don't think it was an accident that Jesus said he was the only way to the God when chances were disciples would be spreading the gospel in Hindu land that probably believed there were 330 million gods. I agree you should only take the follower of the faith at face value and spend your time looking into the author of the faith instead.

Did He?

Bhagavad Gita (normally dated between 500 and 100 BC), Chapter 12, Verse 6-8. The "Me" speaking is the Hindu God Krishna:

But those whose actions are renounced unto Me, who are single mindedly bent on Me through meditation, [they] truly worship Me.
Of them I quickly become the Deliverer from death and the ocean of rebirth and material existence, [even] of those whose minds are fixed on Me.
Establish your mind truly upon Me, apply your intelligence unto Me, and you will truly live in Me in the hereafter, [of this] there is no doubt.

 

[Ringer]

Did He?

Bhagavad Gita (normally dated between 500 and 100 BC), Chapter 12, Verse 6-8. The "Me" speaking is the Hindu God Krishna:

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think Hinduism can hardly be considered montheistic. I was under the assumption that it can even span in pantheism and atheism. If indeed it is universally accepted among hindus that Krishna claimed to be the one and only God, I was unaware of it.

 

[TrueBlue2]

There's the rub. The theology imbedded in the scriptures is not so simple...How do you plan on reconciling your last sentence with Philippians 2? Without compromising, twisting, or engaging in eisegesis?

By Phillippians 2 I think you mean verses 6 and 7. I just don't have any problem with that at all. I see Jesus Christ as a significant member of the Godhead, and the Jehovah of the Old Testament. No question he condescended to come to earth but he did so with a purpose. Now, how would you reconcile your belief with Christ's baptism when a voice spoke from heaven, or with his ascension into heaven when he clearly stated: "I ascent unto my Father..."?

 

[credance]

At the Baptism of Christ a voice was heard from Heaven, right? "This is my Beloved Son." Not sure how Christ could be in the water and in heaven at the same time. Then the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove. Can you explain?

I guess you had to be there.
If I was there and a voice from heaven said "this is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" I don't think I would be to worried about His credentials or pedigree. I would know He was well connected.
After following Him around for a few days, I would certainly be aware of His authority.
Watching Him die I would be exceedingly sad because He showed only love, and I would think why is this happening? He has the power to stop this.
But wait, the story does not end here. He came back, never to die again. He told us He would make His spirit available to us for all time. A living spirit for the living.
If the Nicean Creed's objective was to capture the essence of God in a document complied by men in the adolescence of history, they can only come up short.
I see Him standing on a bridge welcoming all to come over to the other side. If there are three, my eyes have only been granted the power to see one.