The Trinity

[outhouse]

So... am I to assume that you're taking a sola scriptura stance here?

by scripture alone. No thats a religious stance for religious needs.

Historicity uses no such method.

Read the church fathers.

the church is a political institution, like most politics, the word "truth" is often used and not applied. Or its percieved "truth"


You can play all you like but when it comes down to it, man wrote the bible and man interprets the bible.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

the church is a political institution, like most politics, the word "truth" is often used and not applied. Or its percieved "truth"

If you want to pull the "everything is political card", at least recognize that so is historicism.

 

[outhouse]

If you want to pull the "everything is political card", at least recognize that so is historicism.

what???

please try and refute my statement in context

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

My point is that the Church being political is not somehow the final word on the reasons behind its expounding of the Trinitarian dogma.

 

[kepha31]

what???

please try and refute my statement in context

Your statements have little or no bearing on the facts of history, you quote others posts but your response has nothing to do with the quote you give, and you are unwilling or unable to substantiate any of your remarks with scholarly documentation. Challenge me with something instead of a litany of baseless zingers.

 

[kepha31]

very wrong

Conatantine pulled the bishops together, it was his show.
the bishops could not reach a agreement on just how divine yeshua was so Constantine ruled and his judgement stands today.

Very very wrong. Constantine collaborated with the Pope to hold a council. Arianism was tearing the social fabric empire so he had a temporal interest. The spiritual matter of Arius rested with the Church. Hence the collaboration. Constantine was present at the council but it was not his show. Arius was also present. It is impossible to summon a council without the Pope. You are regurgitating baptist propaganda. (Trail of Blood tract full of revisionism that has deceived millions)

Dan Brown of The Da Vinci Code fame claimed Constantine "turned Jesus into a deity." However, the deity of Jesus Christ (as Lord, God, and Son of God) is clearly affirmed and established in the New Testament documents and by the Church Fathers, Bishops, and Saints hundreds of years before the Council of Nicaea. As for Christ's "human traits" they are on full display in the four canonical Gospels; it is the so-called "Gnostic Gospels" where the humanity of Christ is denied.
Emperor Constantine the Great: Pagan, Christian, or First Pope?

so Constantine ruled and his judgement stands today.

Nonsense. The Magisterium ruled and her judgement stands to this day, and is accepted by most Protestants. (who would never accept a judgment made by a secular emporer) You are telling me that a person who was never ordained took on the role of Pope in making rulings or judgements at a council he was a mere guest in.

Constantine the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canons of the Council of Nicae (that some might read)
CHURCH FATHERS: First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325)

 

[outhouse]

Constantine collaborated with the Pope to hold a council

wrong please proved links to this information

Arianism was tearing the social fabric empire so he had a temporal interest

Not really tearing the social fabric of the empire, that is a exaggeration

The spiritual matter of Arius rested with the Church

wrong, they could not end their bitter debate. So constantine did.

It is impossible to summon a council without the Pope

Constantine pulled all the popes together and it was in fact his show. Without Constantine there would not have been a council.

You are regurgitating baptist propaganda

Im providing information most scholars and historians follow

claiming baptist propaganda is only your personal opinion

(Trail of Blood tract full of revisionism that has deceived millions)

wrong i dont follow that garbage

Dan Brown of The Da Vinci Code fame claimed Constantine "turned Jesus into a deity."

I agree its garbage.

the council only delt with "how" divine jesus was said to be.

Nonsense. The Magisterium ruled and her judgement stands to this day

You are wrong again and here is proof you never can post

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325


there is Constantine pulling the bishops together as I stated




Result of the debate
The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. Under Constantine's influence


And there is the influence




Maybe you missed this little tidbit



The Emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the Creed would be exiled






You may be confused because constantine didnt care about how divine jesus was nor did he care about how the trinity played out, but thats not to say he didnt rule, to get a unified church and stop the debate

You are telling me that a person who was never ordained took on the role of Pope in making rulings or judgements at a council he was a mere guest in.

this shows me how severe your lack of history is.

The past emporer's were condemning christianity, the bishops had no power at all.

Constantine played a huge role in the history of christianity due to his victory after having a vision of yeshua before battle

 

[sojourner]

by scripture alone. No thats a religious stance for religious needs.

Historicity uses no such method.

But you're not taking an historic stand here. You're taking a theological stand.
And your stand attempts to hold me to a sola scriptura argument. Whether the Trinity is unquestionably found in the Gospels makes no difference. Tradition has always been an equallly compelling factor in church practice. So what if the doctrine was "man made?" The gospels were man made, after all.

the church is a political institution, like most politics, the word "truth" is often used and not applied. Or its percieved "truth"


You can play all you like but when it comes down to it, man wrote the bible and man interprets the bible.

yeah, so? Why are you making a big deal out of the doctrine of the Trinity being man made, then? As if being man made is a bad thing!?

 

[outhouse]

But you're not taking an historic stand here. You're taking a theological stand.
And your stand attempts to hold me to a sola scriptura argument. Whether the Trinity is unquestionably found in the Gospels makes no difference. Tradition has always been an equallly compelling factor in church practice. So what if the doctrine was "man made?" The gospels were man made, after all.

correct, its all man made.

my point from the beginning. The trinity doesnt have a any sort of real backing and is still contested by many to this day.

traditions were created and man defined the divinity of the deity, not the other way around.

Why are you making a big deal out of the doctrine of the Trinity being man made, then? As if being man made is a bad thing!?

because its not divinely inspired. Really its a perfect example of man making another deity of his choosing.

 

[sojourner]

my point from the beginning. The trinity doesnt have a any sort of real backing and is still contested by many to this day.

traditions were created and man defined the divinity of the deity, not the other way around.

Again: So what? Just because it's "man made" doesn't mean that it has any sort of real backing. It has backing of solid theology. The space shuttle is man made and has the backing of solid engineering. Clothesline wire is man made and has the backing of working real well.
The Church has chosen to understand God as Trinity. There's nothing wrong with that. (I might add that there's also nothing wrong with choosing to not understand God as Trinity.)

because its not divinely inspired.

How do you know that? Divine inspiration always works through human agency.

 

[outhouse]

How do you know that? Divine inspiration always works through human agency.

so does imagination

It has backing of solid theology.

great you agree.

man made another deity, because its in the name of the church doesnt make it so.

Back then they were the politicians of the time. We all know and understand how much divinity a politician holds

 

[outhouse]

the church is the earthly mediator of God

wrong.

to mediate one would have to be able to communicate correct???

do you have a tape recording???


do people go to church put a dime in the priest ear and pick up a reciever and start talking and listening???

The church is the Body of Christ on earth

the so called christ cracker is also called the body of christ on earth.

 

[sojourner]

so does imagination

Your point? That imagination has no legitimate place in religion? Because I can promise you that it does.

man made another deity, because its in the name of the church doesnt make it so.

If , by that, you mean that humanity came to a different understanding of Deity, then I wholeheartedly agree. Because it is in the name of the Church does make it so. Definitions always defer to the community.

Back then they were the politicians of the time.

the Trinity was coming to understanding before the Church was the accepted religion. I don't think these folks were "the politicians of the time."

 

[sojourner]

wrong.

to mediate one would have to be able to communicate correct???

What's your point? That God doesn't communicate with the Church? Bold statement that you cannot prove.

do you have a tape recording???

(To the forum community: This is Outhouse's equivalent of "Nuh-uh!")

do people go to church put a dime in the priest ear and pick up a reciever and start talking and listening???

the communication is found in the relationship. But judging from the tenor of your comments, I wouldn't expect you to believe or understand that.

the so called christ cracker is also called the body of christ on earth.

As the bread of Eucharist is the Body of Christ, so it is also a symbol of the assembly, or church, which is also the Body of Christ. Just because you don't buy it don't make it true.

 

[sojourner]

Outhouse:
Just because you don't buy into the theological authority of the church doesn't negate that authority and, thus, does nothing for your argument. As an atheist, I should think that it's your opinion that carries no weight -- not that of the church. Your opinion is OK, but it certainly carries less weight than the church that developed the understanding (which you don't get) in the first place. That would be like me telling the Hindus that reincarnation is "full of bull." It's their religion -- their understanding.

 

[outhouse]

Your point? That imagination has no legitimate place in religion? Because I can promise you that it does.

Oh I agree religion is full of imagination

the Trinity was coming to understanding before the Church was the accepted religion.

The trinity came about almost the same time as a canonized standard NT. Churches and bishops had been around for a while.

Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The doctrine developed from the biblical language used in New Testament passages such as the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 and took substantially its present form by the end of the 4th century as a result of controversies concerning the proper sense in which to apply to God and Christ terms such as "person", "nature", "essence", and "substance".


key word "end of the 4rth century"



all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were great and many, and took many centuries to be resolved.

I don't think these folks were "the politicians of the time."

These men carried enough weight Constantine pulled them all together to get them unified in belief.

To be fair to you though "what point in time" is the key word,,, they were not always the politician of the time. The point in time that Constantine did not persecute them gave them political power. It became worse after that

 

[outhouse]

I dont know why your busting my chops, we agree on much of it.

my point is man defined a deity, how can they do so??? not one has claimed to have a chat with dead jesus who in turn claimed no, no, no, no, this is what I want.

The difference between you and me

is that your using faith to dictate history and id like a little more then that

 

[sojourner]

These men carried enough weight Constantine pulled them all together to get them unified in belief.

Trinity had been formulated, speculated and pondered for a long time prior to that.

my point is man defined a deity, how can they do so???

Well, perhaps you'd like to tell me who else is gonna make that definition???

The difference between you and me

is that your using faith to dictate history and id like a little more then that

I'm not dictating history at all -- I'm pointing out a theological argument. Theology is a human construct, for the benefit of human understanding. I fail to see why you (especially as an atheist) should have a dog in the fight of insisting that the doctrine come from somewhere other than humanity? I should think you'd be satisfied that the church, as a human institution, seeks to understand Deity through human means...

 

[outhouse]

Trinity had been formulated, speculated and pondered for a long time prior to that.

so was a messiah before jesus was born

Well, perhaps you'd like to tell me who else is gonna make that definition???

then we agree, man makes and defines his own deitys.

-- I'm pointing out a theological argument. Theology is a human construct, for the benefit of human understanding. I fail to see why you (especially as an atheist) should have a dog in the fight of insisting that the doctrine come from somewhere other than humanity? I should think you'd be satisfied that the church, as a human institution, seeks to understand Deity through human means...

I dont have a problem with any of that

you dont seem to understand "you" and your viewpoint is a rarity and its not the same points I was debating with others

 

[Desert Snake]

Outhouse:
Just because you don't buy into the theological authority of the church doesn't negate that authority and, thus, does nothing for your argument. As an atheist, I should think that it's your opinion that carries no weight -- not that of the church. Your opinion is OK, but it certainly carries less weight than the church that developed the understanding (which you don't get) in the first place. That would be like me telling the Hindus that reincarnation is "full of bull." It's their religion -- their understanding.

you just contradicted yourself.