The Trinity Concept

[Katzpur]

One of the things I find to be really, really odd about the Council at Nicea is that it was not convened by the Pope, who was the undisputed leader of "the Church" in 325 A.D., but by a political leader. Apparently the Arian controversy wasn't as big a deal in the Pope's mind as it was in Constantine's. Constantine had a definite agenda -- uniting his empire. He couldn't have cared less which way the vote went, as long as one side emerged a clear winner and the other side was exiled. The Pope, as a matter of fact, was not even in attendance!

Imagine Obama calling together a conference and inviting all the religious leaders in America to attend. Picture several hundred men and women representing all of the major religions in America getting together to come to a decision on some very significant point of Christian doctrine. All of the various denominations make sure their best debaters are there, even if they can't send their top people. When all are assembled, the debates begin. They last several months, and become extremely heated at times. Finally, after threats of deportation and the loss of their American citizenship, everyone must cast his or her vote. The losers lose big time. They must completely revise their way of thinking. The winners, on the other hand, go home really happy. They not only get the majority vote, but everybody in the U.S. must abide by the results of the vote for the next 1700 years. And somehow, the general populace comes to accept that God was somehow an active participant in the conference. For the next 1700 years, the vast, vast majority of Americans unquestioningly accept the Obamian Creed. The fact that it doesn't make sense to most of them is completely immaterial. And anyone who doesn't believe it is condemned as as heretic.

This is essentially what happened at the Council at Nicea in 325 A.D. The truth about why and how the Nicene Creed came to be doesn't even phase most Christians. Seriously, if the Arian Controversy had been such a big deal, why didn't the Pope himself call a conference? It just boggles my mind!

 

[Greygon]

How on earth does being a "Christian" require the acceptance of Creeds that even Christ's Apostles didn't believe? I do, by the way, hold to all aspects of divinity in Christ. I believe He was every bit as divine as His Father. I believe every last word the Bible has to say about Jesus Christ. What is intellectually dishonest about that?

The Creeds are derived from the teaching of the apostles. So, you are correct that the disciples never swore an allegiance to the creeds, instead, the creeds flowed from their very teaching. To say that the creeds do not reflect the beliefs of the apostles would be to separate the creeds from the scripture, which is kind of problematic.

Thanks for clarifying your position in regards to the divinity of Christ. If the Son is in all ways as divine as the Father, then you would agree that he was an eternally existent being through whom all things were created. This assertion obviously must mean that he is an uncreated being, because a cause cannot cause themselves.

 

[Katzpur]

The Creeds are derived from the teaching of the apostles.

Really. I could have sworn they were derived from the neo-platonic teachings so prevalent at the time.

So, you are correct that the disciples never swore an allegiance to the creeds, instead, the creeds flowed from their very teaching. To say that the creeds do not reflect the beliefs of the apostles would be to separate the creeds from the scripture, which is kind of problematic.

It's very problematic, but it's true. The creeds are, in fact, quite separate from scripture, which is why I don't accept them.

Thanks for clarifying your position in regards to the divinity of Christ. If the Son is in all ways as divine as the Father, then you would agree that he was an eternally existent being through whom all things were created. This assertion obviously must mean that he is an uncreated being, because a cause cannot cause themselves.

That would be correct.

 

[truseeker]

Part of the confusion comes from the fact that the word God is like a family name. Just like Smith. There is a father and a son who are both in the Smith family. So you can say there is one Smith "family" but more than one person in the family. In the same way there is a father and a son in the God family so there is one God "family" but more than one member of the family. The Holy Spirit is the power that God has and is not a separate member of the family.

 

[Katzpur]

Part of the confusion comes from the fact that the word God is like a family name. Just like Smith. There is a father and a son who are both in the Smith family. So you can say there is one Smith "family" but more than one person in the family. In the same way there is a father and a son in the God family so there is one God "family" but more than one member of the family.

I agree.

The Holy Spirit is the power that God has and is not a separate member of the family.

I disagree, but I understand why you would believe as you do.

 

[truseeker]

Humans have a spirit but that spirit is mortal and sinful. God has a spirit that is holy and eternal. Your human spirit is not a separate person and God's spirit is not either

 

[Katzpur]

Humans have a spirit but that spirit is mortal and sinful. God has a spirit that is holy and eternal. Your human spirit is not a separate person and God's spirit is not either

I agree, but I don't believe the Holy Ghost is "God's spirit." I believe God the Father has a spirit. I believe Jesus Christ has a spirit. I just don't believe the Holy Ghost is the spirit of either the Father or the Son, but a spirit which is distinct from either of theirs.

 

[Greygon]

Humans have a spirit but that spirit is mortal and sinful. God has a spirit that is holy and eternal. Your human spirit is not a separate person and God's spirit is not either

According to John 4:24, God is spirit, which poses a problem to you assertion.

 

[Katzpur]

According to John 4:24, God is spirit, which poses a problem to you assertion.

So what is "spirit"? And why does the fact that God is spirit preclude Him from being more than just spirit?

 

[Astravalon]

I have only recently found out that a lot of Christians (predominantly Protestants, I gather) do not believe in the concept of the Trinity. But you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. So what does it mean to not believe in the trinity? I am thoroughly confused.

I have had some go so far as to tell me that the notion of a trinity is "evil". Whether God is One, or Three in One, or Three in Three, or Ten in Two , I could not possibly articulate as He goes way beyond what my lil' brain could possibly conceive without blowing my cerebral cortex attempting to do so.

However, I can definitely understand how one could conclude either a Trinitarian or a Unitarian concept of God (and I can sympathize that it's far easier to describe God from a unitarian vantage point than from a trinitarian one). I don't think either way is evil -- we are mere humans trying to wrap our minds around an Infinite Divinity, so of course we're going to come up with all kinds of different ideas as to what constitutes "God".


.

 

[Greygon]

So what is "spirit"? And why does the fact that God is spirit preclude Him from being more than just spirit?

I don't believe that God is "just" a spirit. If God was limited to "just" a spirit, then there would be several conflicts with scripture that would result (encounter with Abram, Jacob, would be two). I just don't think it is accurate to separate the person between the spirit and the physical as was being done (this may have been in reaction more to the previous post that said the Holy Spirit is the power of God).

 

[Katzpur]

I don't believe that God is "just" a spirit. If God was limited to "just" a spirit, then there would be several conflicts with scripture that would result (encounter with Abram, Jacob, would be two). I just don't think it is accurate to separate the person between the spirit and the physical as was being done (this may have been in reaction more to the previous post that said the Holy Spirit is the power of God).

So how do you define "spirit"? I ask because I also believe God is spirit. I just think we probably have a different understanding of what the statement that "God is spirit" means.

 

[Renji]

Okay then, tell me a little bit about God's "substance." What exactly is God's substance?

Substance= That there is only ONE God, presented into three persons: The Father(God, being the creator, 'provider' and the one who delivered His nation from the hands of the enemy). The Son (God as our savior; the Word made flesh "who Himself is God, but lowered Himself"). And The Holy Spirit (God as our guide; the spirit that serves as His power, His very own Spirit)

To begin with, you believe that God the Father is incorporeal. You believe that Jesus Christ is a resurrected being who ascended into Heaven with a body of flesh and bones (although, unlike ours, it was immortal and incorruptible). How can one substance be both corporeal and incorporeal? Those attributes are explicit opposites; opposites cannot be identical.

That's the reason why "He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" in the womb of Virgin Mary. Through the Spirit, He was manifested into this world as a human being (the mystery of Incarnation).

 

[Renji]

One of the things I find to be really, really odd about the Council at Nicea is that it was not convened by the Pope, who was the undisputed leader of "the Church" in 325 A.D., but by a political leader. Apparently the Arian controversy wasn't as big a deal in the Pope's mind as it was in Constantine's. Constantine had a definite agenda -- uniting his empire. He couldn't have cared less which way the vote went, as long as one side emerged a clear winner and the other side was exiled. The Pope, as a matter of fact, was not even in attendance!

Imagine Obama calling together a conference and inviting all the religious leaders in America to attend. Picture several hundred men and women representing all of the major religions in America getting together to come to a decision on some very significant point of Christian doctrine. All of the various denominations make sure their best debaters are there, even if they can't send their top people. When all are assembled, the debates begin. They last several months, and become extremely heated at times. Finally, after threats of deportation and the loss of their American citizenship, everyone must cast his or her vote. The losers lose big time. They must completely revise their way of thinking. The winners, on the other hand, go home really happy. They not only get the majority vote, but everybody in the U.S. must abide by the results of the vote for the next 1700 years. And somehow, the general populace comes to accept that God was somehow an active participant in the conference. For the next 1700 years, the vast, vast majority of Americans unquestioningly accept the Obamian Creed. The fact that it doesn't make sense to most of them is completely immaterial. And anyone who doesn't believe it is condemned as as heretic.

This is essentially what happened at the Council at Nicea in 325 A.D. The truth about why and how the Nicene Creed came to be doesn't even phase most Christians. Seriously, if the Arian Controversy had been such a big deal, why didn't the Pope himself call a conference? It just boggles my mind!

The Council and the decision on how to reconcile the belief that there is only one God despite the fact that there is a Father, Son and Holy Spirit actually had a guidance from the Pope. From my first post:

The word "trinity" did not came from Jesus. You search the Bible and you will never encounter that word. That's why the other "christian" sects that deny this belief use this argument to prove that the Trinity was a mere invention of the Catholic Church.
A little history will enable us to understand why this word "Trinity" had come in. It was the key word that settled a problem caused by the Bible.
Early christians accepted the existence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (as what we can found in "our" scriptures) But since they had no time to study the relationship among the divine persons due to persecutions (they had to flee constantly), there was no problem for years. But when Constantine issued the edict of Milan that gave Christians the freedom to practice their faith in 313 AD, it had give them more time to study the Gospels. The first thing that intrigued them was the relationship among the divine persons. How can the existence of these 3 be reconciled with the belief of one God? Since that time, there was no declaration about this, the bishops reflected. One of them was Archbishop Arius of Constantinople. He claimed that Jesus was an "inferior God". This started the controversy that ended in the council of Nicea, where the bishops gather, with the blessing of the Pope, proclaimed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal: One God in three (but not separated) divine persons, and where the word "trinity" was officially used to describe the Christian God.

 

[Renji]

I am working through these issues within myself. Many Christians IMHO have abandoned God the father and declare Jesus is God.

Lets set that aside for one moment, I believe what Jesus taught, I'm not so sure about what Paul said any more.

When I read the Bible, I give more credence to what people who actually knew Jesus in the flesh said than I do of others who came after Jesus was crucified.

It is written:

John 1:1- In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the word was God.
John 1:14- And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.....

John 10:30- The Father and I are one.

John 14:16- Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

 

[Renji]

I agree, but I don't believe the Holy Ghost is "God's spirit." I believe God the Father has a spirit. I believe Jesus Christ has a spirit. I just don't believe the Holy Ghost is the spirit of either the Father or the Son, but a spirit which is distinct from either of theirs.

Jn 20:21-22 Jesus sent the Holy Spirit from the Father
Jn 16:7; Gal4:4-7 The Son sent the Holy Spirit
Rom8:15- Through which we cry out, "Abba Father!"

 

[Renji]

How on earth does being a "Christian" require the acceptance of Creeds that even Christ's Apostles didn't believe? I do, by the way, hold to all aspects of divinity in Christ. I believe He was every bit as divine as His Father. I believe every last word the Bible has to say about Jesus Christ. What is intellectually dishonest about that?

Matthew 28:17ff- Go therefore and make disciples of every nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit...

That's the essence of the trinity (F, S,HS). So therefore, the apostles continued in preaching and mentioning the unity of these 3 persons..

Acts 2:38- "Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

 

[truseeker]

Who gave the bishops and pope the right to decide.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It is written:
John 1:1- In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the word was God.
John 1:14- And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.....
John 10:30- The Father and I are one.
John 14:16- Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Yes, in the beginning was the Word.
The Word was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.
-Psalm 90v2
God had no beginning.

Who did Jesus think he was at Revelation 3v14 b?______________

Since the same Greek grammar rule applies at John [1v1] and Acts [28v6 B] then those verses have to do more with Greek grammar rules than doctrine.

Doesn't John chapter 17 show how Jesus, God and his followers are all one?

 

[Renji]

Who gave the bishops and pope the right to decide.

It is written:

Eph 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone

Jn20:21 Jesus said to them (apostles), "Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, so I send you."

Mt 16:18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church

According to the Tradition of the Church, Peter was the first Pope who guided the early christians until he was crucified upside down on the Vatican hill. His relics is on the St. Peter's Square. Being founded on that Rock, *He promised His Church to be guided by the Spirit (Mt28:19ff).

Now according to the teaching of the Church:

The following Biblical texts tell about the need of the teachers or magisterium like priests, bishops and pope or the Holy Father in the Church:

Jn 21:15 When they had finished, breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" Peter said to Him, "Yes, Lord, you know I love you" Jesus said to him, "Feed my Lambs"


Lk 6:13 When the day came, he (Jesus) called his disciples to himself, and from them he chose Twelve, whom he named the apostles.

Mt 28:19-20 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am always with you, until the end of age.

Jn 2:21 (Jesus) said to them (apostles) again, "Peace be with you, As the Father has sent me, so I send you."

Lk 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.