The Council of Nicea invented the Trinity?

[Scotth1960]

But the Bible already provides us with an exact annual date to observe the Resurrection. The Feast of First Fruits; which occurs the third day of the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Dear Ashua, This is beyond my competence, how to calculate the date o Pascha, the rising day of Christ, but I implicitly trust the early Church to provide us with the answer. The Church does not celebrate the Resurrection according to the Jewish Passover, as Christ spoke against the Pharisees. The nation of Israel is temporarily out of favor, because they are in unbelief. They will be grafted into the Church later when they believe, and so be saved (Romans 11). The same standard is for all believers, as God is no respecter of persons, and does not favor Israel over the Gentiles. He is the God of all nations equally. Israel was and is His chosen vessel to bring Messiah to all peoples, and that is what is going on. They are blessed in Christ, not outside of Him. The warning of God goes out to them first, and then to the Gentiles. All nations need to repent and seek the face of God in Jesus Christ. In Erie Scott H.

 

[Ashua]

Dear Ashua, This is beyond my competence, how to calculate the date o Pascha, the rising day of Christ, but I implicitly trust the early Church to provide us with the answer. The Church does not celebrate the Resurrection according to the Jewish Passover, as Christ spoke against the Pharisees. The nation of Israel is temporarily out of favor, because they are in unbelief. They will be grafted into the Church later when they believe, and so be saved (Romans 11). The same standard is for all believers, as God is no respecter of persons, and does not favor Israel over the Gentiles. He is the God of all nations equally. Israel was and is His chosen vessel to bring Messiah to all peoples, and that is what is going on. They are blessed in Christ, not outside of Him. The warning of God goes out to them first, and then to the Gentiles. All nations need to repent and seek the face of God in Jesus Christ. In Erie Scott H.

Scotth,

Christ didn't speak against the pharisees; but their hypocrisy. Paul was a "pharisee of the pharisees".

The problem I have with easter is that it is a spiritually impure feast --It integrates the pagan fertility feast of the goddess ishtar into Christian theology. The Hebrew passover begins on the 14th day of the first month of the Hebrew lunar calendar; which is when Christ died; and First Fruits is the 16th day of the first month, which coincides with his resurrection. Being able to calculate this annual date isn't a problem in the age of the internet. Just find a good Biblical lunar based calendar. (Not the disgustingly unbiblical rabbinical calendar).

The men of the counsel were by no means ignorant. They were proficient in mathematics and time keeping among other things. Sadly, this is one of my biggest "beefs" with the early "church fathers". They were too eager to purge the Hebrew roots and replace them with elements from their own pagan origins. All I am saying is that the Bible gives us an exact way of knowing the time of year in which he was crucified, but for some reason we just pick a sunday in march or april, call it easter, introduce a rabbit and eggs (fertility symbolism) and despise the actual context in which Christ was crucified and raised for some watered down hellenized tradition. People are quick to say that they aren't "required" to keep the feasts of the old Law, but I'd love to see how many would have the same attitude towards those who don't keep christmas or easter. Why are these "replacement" "holidays" of any greater spiritual currency? Are they no less "works"?

 

[Scotth1960]

Scotth,

Christ didn't speak against the pharisees; but their hypocrisy. Paul was a "pharisee of the pharisees".

The problem I have with easter is that it is a spiritually impure feast --It integrates the pagan fertility feast of the goddess ishtar into Christian theology. The Hebrew passover begins on the 14th day of the first month of the Hebrew lunar calendar; which is when Christ died; and First Fruits is the 16th day of the first month, which coincides with his resurrection. Being able to calculate this annual date isn't a problem in the age of the internet. Just find a good Biblical lunar based calendar. (Not the disgustingly unbiblical rabbinical calendar).

The men of the counsel were by no means ignorant. They were proficient in mathematics and time keeping among other things. Sadly, this is one of my biggest "beefs" with the early "church fathers". They were too eager to purge the Hebrew roots and replace them with elements from their own pagan origins. All I am saying is that the Bible gives us an exact way of knowing the time of year in which he was crucified, but for some reason we just pick a sunday in march or april, call it easter, introduce a rabbit and eggs (fertility symbolism) and despise the actual context in which Christ was crucified and raised for some watered down hellenized tradition. People are quick to say that they aren't "required" to keep the feasts of the old Law, but I'd love to see how many would have the same attitude towards those who don't keep christmas or easter. Why are these "replacement" "holidays" of any greater spiritual currency? Are they no less "works"?

Dear Ashua,
Pardon me, but to the best of my knowledge, easter eggs or rabbits don't come from the Church Fathers or the Orthodox Church. And I don't think their exegesis of the Scriptures comes from paganism. Yes, I guess I mispoke; Christ was not against the Pharisees per se, but against their hypocrisy. My mistake. But He certainly didn't like that in them. No body is above reproach in this life. I am sure only that I need correcting every so often. I have made many mistakes.
As for the Jewish holidays, why does the Church no longer keep these? Because they are a shadow of Christ, according to Hebrews, I believe. These holidays are fulfilled in the ministry, person and work of Jesus Christ. In Erie PA Scott H.

 

[Ashua]

Dear Ashua,
Pardon me, but to the best of my knowledge, easter eggs or rabbits don't come from the Church Fathers or the Orthodox Church. And I don't think their exegesis of the Scriptures comes from paganism. Yes, I guess I mispoke; Christ was not against the Pharisees per se, but against their hypocrisy. My mistake. But He certainly didn't like that in them. No body is above reproach in this life. I am sure only that I need correcting every so often. I have made many mistakes.
As for the Jewish holidays, why does the Church no longer keep these? Because they are a shadow of Christ, according to Hebrews, I believe. These holidays are fulfilled in the ministry, person and work of Jesus Christ. In Erie PA Scott H.

The new holidays would also appear to be shadows too, no? Christmas, for instance has zero Biblical backing. Not only is the date completely wrong, but we are told to remember Him for His death and resurrection; Not for His birth.

 

[Free]

Thanks for the explanation.

I believe God is the quintessence of many things, love chief among them. God is righteousness. God is indignation and wrath. God is patience. God is judgment. God is mercy. God is the Rock of my Salvation.

Okay. To continue along with that thought then, I will say that love demands an object of affection. Love, at it's greatest, is towards someone other than oneself. If God is love then he must have had an object of that love for eternity past. If he had no object for that love then he could be accused of being a narcissist.

To put it another way, if God isn't a Trinity then how can we say that God is love if for eternity past he had no object for that affection other than himself?

In the Trinity we have perfect community and unity of the three Persons as a model for the community and unity that ought to exist in the Church through love for one another.

 

[Scotth1960]

Brethren, quite often we are attacked by the unbeliever with slanderous lies stating that the Council of Nicea, which convened in 325 AD, under Constantine invented the theological doctrine of the Trinity.

I would like to present to you Exhibit A in the case against these slanderous lies:


Thought this was neat when I came across it studying for my history final tomorrow. (Or not studying for it? )

Friends, The Council of Nicea did not invent the Trinity. The Trinity is not an invention. The Trinity is God. Matthew 28:19 says so. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Scotth1960]

Do you even bother to read threads?

Sorry, "theLords". So you were saying it's a lie that Constantine "invented the Trinity" at the Council of Nicea. Good for you! Thanks for pointing out that it's a lie. The Church, as you and I both know, has always believed in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, the Trinity. Take care. In Erie/Scott

 

[AKJVReader]

The Council of Nicea Myth Debunked!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3uGKp23m_g&feature=share

 

[rzr]

The Council of Nicea Myth Debunked!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3uGKp23m_g&feature=share

I can't get that link to work. What myth are you talking about? There is no myth! The early Christians had a bible and a clergy to teach it and could be interpreted differently and controversy over doctrine threatened the unity of the church. The message of Christianity was on the line: Christ, the son of God, had become man and had suffered and died to atone for the sins of all people that they might be saved and have eternal life....No myth about the council, they were bishops from all parts of Rome to weigh the evidence (which as always shown to support the trinity) and concluded that God and Christ were of the same substance.....Arianism took a back seat. Simply put, The First Council of Nicaea was called to settle the controversy on how people viewed the relationship between God and Christ--they did not fabricate anything

 

[Asyncritus]

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine



In contrast, Judaism is strongly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity. The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is filled with scriptures such as ‘before Me there was no God formed, Neither shall any be after Me’ (#Isa 43:10 qtd. in Isaiah), and ‘there is no other God...I am the Lord and there is none else’ (#Isa 45:14,18 qtd. in Isaiah). A Jewish commentary affirms that ‘[no] other gods exist, for to declare this would be blasphemous...’ (Chumash 458). Even though ‘Word,’ ‘Spirit,’ ‘Presence,’ and ‘Wisdom’ are used as personifications of God, Biblical scholars agree that the Trinity is neither mentioned nor intended by the authors of the Old Testament (Lonergan 130; Fortman xv; Burns 2).

We can conclude without much difficulty that the concept of the Trinity did not come from Judaism. Nor did Jesus speak of a trinity. The message of Jesus was of the coming kingdom; it was a message of love and forgiveness. As for his relationship with the Father, Jesus said, ‘... I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me’,{# Joh 5:30} and in another place ‘my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me’;{# Joh 7:16} and his words ‘my Father is greater than I’ {#Joh 14:28} leave no doubt as to their relationship.

The word ‘trinity’ was not coined until Tertullian, more than 100 years after Christ’s death, and the key words (meaning substance) from the Nicene debate, homousis and ousis, are not biblical, but from Stoic thought. Nowhere in the Bible is the Trinity mentioned.

According to Pelikan, ‘One of the most widely accepted conclusions of the 19th century history of dogma was the thesis that the dogma of the Trinity was not an explicit doctrine of the New Testament, still less of the Old Testament, but had evolved from New Testament times to the 4th century. (Historical Theology 134)

 

[Asyncritus]

Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edition, Volume 23, page 240, article "Theism" -

"The propositions constitutive of the dogma of the Trinity - the propositions in the symbols of Nice, Constantinople and Toledo relative to the immanent distinctions and relations in the Godhead - were not drawn directly from the New Testament, and could not be expressed in New Testament terms. They were the products of reason speculating on a revelation to faith.


"They were only formed through centuries of effort, only elaborated by the aid of the conceptions and formulated in the terms of Greek and Roman metaphysics.


"The evolution of the doctrine of the Trinity was far the most important fact in the doctrinal history of the church during the first five centuries of its post- apostolic existence."

 

[Asyncritus]

origin of the trinity

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary records:

"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible. . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."


The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the Trinity "is not. . . directly and immediately the word of God."

The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics records: At first the Christian Faith was not Trinitarian. . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings."


L. L. Paine, professor of Ecclesiastical History acknowledged: "The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there . . . is utterly without foundation."


The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity."


The New Catholic Encyclopedia also admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament."


Jesuit Edmund Fortman wrote in his book, The Triune God: ". . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a Trinity within the Godhead. . . Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers."



The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."
The New Encyclopedia Britannica reports: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."


The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology confirms: "The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity."


Jesuit Fortman similarly states: "The New Testament writers. . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."



Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirms in the Origin and Evolution of Religion: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . .they say nothing about it."



Historian Arthur Weigall records in The Paganism in Our Christianity: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord."

 

[Asyncritus]

Frightening, isn't it?

This is only part of the results of a simple google search, which anybody can do for themselves. Try it.

 

[Free]

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine



In contrast, Judaism is strongly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity. The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is filled with scriptures such as ‘before Me there was no God formed, Neither shall any be after Me’ (#Isa 43:10 qtd. in Isaiah), and ‘there is no other God...I am the Lord and there is none else’ (#Isa 45:14,18 qtd. in Isaiah). A Jewish commentary affirms that ‘[no] other gods exist, for to declare this would be blasphemous...’ (Chumash 458). Even though ‘Word,’ ‘Spirit,’ ‘Presence,’ and ‘Wisdom’ are used as personifications of God, Biblical scholars agree that the Trinity is neither mentioned nor intended by the authors of the Old Testament (Lonergan 130; Fortman xv; Burns 2).

None of those passages do are in disagreement with the doctrine of the Trinity. The statement that "Biblical scholars agree" is a generalization fallacy.

We can conclude without much difficulty that the concept of the Trinity did not come from Judaism. Nor did Jesus speak of a trinity. The message of Jesus was of the coming kingdom; it was a message of love and forgiveness. As for his relationship with the Father, Jesus said, ‘... I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me’,{# Joh 5:30} and in another place ‘my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me’;{# Joh 7:16} and his words ‘my Father is greater than I’ {#Joh 14:28} leave no doubt as to their relationship.

Out of context, as per usual. None of Scriptures above are in disagreement with the Trinity.

The word ‘trinity’ was not coined until Tertullian, more than 100 years after Christ’s death, and the key words (meaning substance) from the Nicene debate, homousis and ousis, are not biblical, but from Stoic thought. Nowhere in the Bible is the Trinity mentioned.

Irrelevant as to whether or not the Trinity is true.

According to Pelikan, ‘One of the most widely accepted conclusions of the 19th century history of dogma was the thesis that the dogma of the Trinity was not an explicit doctrine of the New Testament, still less of the Old Testament, but had evolved from New Testament times to the 4th century. (Historical Theology 134)

The deity of Christ is an explicit teaching of the NT. The Trinity is the logical conclusion of his deity.

 

[Free]

Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edition, Volume 23, page 240, article "Theism" -

"The propositions constitutive of the dogma of the Trinity - the propositions in the symbols of Nice, Constantinople and Toledo relative to the immanent distinctions and relations in the Godhead - were not drawn directly from the New Testament, and could not be expressed in New Testament terms. They were the products of reason speculating on a revelation to faith.


"They were only formed through centuries of effort, only elaborated by the aid of the conceptions and formulated in the terms of Greek and Roman metaphysics.


"The evolution of the doctrine of the Trinity was far the most important fact in the doctrinal history of the church during the first five centuries of its post- apostolic existence."

Encyclopedia Britannica. LOL! They are not an authority on anything theological.

Frightening, isn't it?

This is only part of the results of a simple google search, which anybody can do for themselves. Try it.

No, it isn't frightening. There are detractors for every doctrine and quoting these really is only a fallacious appeal to authority. The belief in the deity of Christ can be seen from very early on and I believe that Jesus and Paul both taught that. As I stated earlier, the logical conclusion is the doctrine of the Trinity.

And a lot more than just that can be found through searching the Internet, not to mention there is a lot more that is not on the Internet.

 

[Asyncritus]

Free

You were the one rebuking me for thinking very little of theologians and the like. 'Shame' I think you said.

Now here am I, citing people who are theologians, historians, church historians and philosophers of religion. They are scholars, Free, and don't (I suppose) have theological axes to grind - as you and I both have.

I imagine that they are relatively unbiassed, dispassionate, scholarly people who aren't afraid to speak their minds for fear of losing their jobs or such like.

And here are you, now sneering at the lot of them.

You're really no better than I am, in that case, but you will be hard put to deny the historical basis of all these comments.

 

[Free]

Free

You were the one rebuking me for thinking very little of theologians and the like. 'Shame' I think you said.

I do applaud you for finally considering what others have to say but Googling isn't really what I had in mind. I imagine that at some point those above actually make some good arguments but from what was posted they do nothing against any arguments that have been presented.

Now here am I, citing people who are theologians, historians, church historians and philosophers of religion. They are scholars, Free, and don't (I suppose) have theological axes to grind - as you and I both have.

I imagine that they are relatively unbiassed, dispassionate, scholarly people who aren't afraid to speak their minds for fear of losing their jobs or such like.

On the contrary, there is no such thing as someone who is unbiased when it comes to theology, or most other "ologies" for that matter. And I could hardly imagine one that is not passionate.

And here are you, now sneering at the lot of them.

You're really no better than I am, in that case, but you will be hard put to deny the historical basis of all these comments.

For all of those I could just as easily find those who disagree, as I'm sure you found when sorting through all the hits you got from Google. Most of what you quoted is from encyclopedias. Not to mention that a couple of the quotes do not deny the doctrine of the Trinity.

Please, do some serious study by reading some serious books.

 

[rzr]

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine



In contrast, Judaism is strongly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity. The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is filled with scriptures such as ‘before Me there was no God formed, Neither shall any be after Me’ (#Isa 43:10 qtd. in Isaiah), and ‘there is no other God...I am the Lord and there is none else’ (#Isa 45:14,18 qtd. in Isaiah). A Jewish commentary affirms that ‘[no] other gods exist, for to declare this would be blasphemous...’ (Chumash 458). Even though ‘Word,’ ‘Spirit,’ ‘Presence,’ and ‘Wisdom’ are used as personifications of God, Biblical scholars agree that the Trinity is neither mentioned nor intended by the authors of the Old Testament (Lonergan 130; Fortman xv; Burns 2).

We can conclude without much difficulty that the concept of the Trinity did not come from Judaism. Nor did Jesus speak of a trinity. The message of Jesus was of the coming kingdom; it was a message of love and forgiveness. As for his relationship with the Father, Jesus said, ‘... I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me’,{# Joh 5:30} and in another place ‘my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me’;{# Joh 7:16} and his words ‘my Father is greater than I’ {#Joh 14:28} leave no doubt as to their relationship.

The word ‘trinity’ was not coined until Tertullian, more than 100 years after Christ’s death, and the key words (meaning substance) from the Nicene debate, homousis and ousis, are not biblical, but from Stoic thought. Nowhere in the Bible is the Trinity mentioned.

According to Pelikan, ‘One of the most widely accepted conclusions of the 19th century history of dogma was the thesis that the dogma of the Trinity was not an explicit doctrine of the New Testament, still less of the Old Testament, but had evolved from New Testament times to the 4th century. (Historical Theology 134)

Very nice! I think people confuse the ideology behind the Trinity... We have the Son, we have the Father, and we have the Holy Spirit.... Clearly three separate things (The Trinity).....But all of these three Things are married as ONE! Hence, no controversy to monotheism! One God! One Law! One truth!

 

[Asyncritus]

Very nice! I think people confuse the ideology behind the Trinity... We have the Son, we have the Father, and we have the Holy Spirit.... Clearly three separate things (The Trinity).....But all of these three Things are married as ONE! Hence, no controversy to monotheism! One God! One Law! One truth!

umm, rzr...

a Son cannot marry his Father

 

[Sam21]

The bible,one minute you think you have it all figured out and then it seems to go in the other direction.Jesus made it plain that there was ONE GOD that He called the Father who was over all, however if you study the complete story of Jesus in the bible you can see that He was also God(God the Son but still God). And then God is said to be a Spirit yet God has a Spirit,sigh! Maybe we are not meant to understand just to believe.