The Council of Nicea invented the Trinity?

[theLords]

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:

Interrogation of Christians (July 17, 180 AD)

Excerpts from this document:

On July 17, Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donata, Secunda, and Vestia were put on trial in the [governer's] council chamber at Carthage. The proconsul Saturninus said, "You can secure the indulgence of our lord the emperor if you return to your senses."

....

"Speratus said again, "I am a Christian." And they all concurred with him.

The proconsul Saturninus read out the decree from the tablet: "Since Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donata, Vestia, Secunda, and the rest who have confessed they live according to the rite of the Christians have obstinately perseveredwhen an opportunity was offered them to return to the practice of Romans, it is my decision that they be punished with the sword."

Speratus said, "We give thanks to God."

Nartzalus said, "Today we are martyrs in heaven; thanks to God!"

The proconsul Saturninus ordered the herald to proclaim: "I have ordered the execustion of Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Veturius, Felix, Aquilinus, Laetantius, Januaria, Generosa, Vestia, Donata, and Secunda."

They all said, "Thanks be to God!"

And so they were crowned with martyrdom all together: and they reign with the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost forever and ever. Amen.

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

 

[craigmn3]

Very nice


We all know God is triune in nature, but it's good to put a muzzle on the scoffers

 

[Mike]

Oh, TL... You worried me when I read the title of this thread. whew! Consistently, all I've ever read affirmed that the council discussed how to express the nature of our Triune God; not that the matter was formulated or even debated.

That's good stuff!

 

[theLords]

Mike :biglol

I did it on purpose to draw attention to the thread. Shock and Awe, and all that 3

:rolling

 

[MinutemanX]

Easiest way for me- The trinity is in the very first verse of the Bible. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God here is Elohim, which is the plural form of Eloha- Gods created. "Created", however, is used singularly. In the beginning, Gods(plural) created(singular) the heavens and the earth.

 

[Scotth1960]

Easiest way for me- The trinity is in the very first verse of the Bible. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God here is Elohim, which is the plural form of Eloha- Gods created. "Created", however, is used singularly. In the beginning, Gods(plural) created(singular) the heavens and the earth.

No, The Councils of Nicaea in 325 AD and Constantinople I in 381 AD merely CONFIRMED what the Church already believed about the TRINITY.

 

[D4Christ]

Easiest way for me- The trinity is in the very first verse of the Bible. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God here is Elohim, which is the plural form of Eloha- Gods created. "Created", however, is used singularly. In the beginning, Gods(plural) created(singular) the heavens and the earth.

I've looked in Strong's but could not pinpoint where "created" the verb was singular in tense. Could you please point me to a document that explains this if you have the time...thanks!

 

[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? )

Dear theLords, No, the Councils of Nicaea in 325 AD and Constantinople I in 381 AD did not "invent" the Trinity teaching; they discovered this teaching in Matthew 28:19 and all the rest of the Greek NT available to those Greek bishops who could read Greek, and also Latin bishops and bishops from the whole Christian world, from Armenia to Ethiopia to Egypt to Palestine (Jerusalem, Israel), all Christians had access to the Scriptures through their churches, if not owning personal copies of these NT texts, they could have heard them read in the lectionary of the Greek-speaking churches. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[theLords]

Dear theLords, No, the Councils of Nicaea in 325 AD and Constantinople I in 381 AD did not "invent" the Trinity teaching; they discovered this teaching in Matthew 28:19 and all the rest of the Greek NT available to those Greek bishops who could read Greek, and also Latin bishops and bishops from the whole Christian world, from Armenia to Ethiopia to Egypt to Palestine (Jerusalem, Israel), all Christians had access to the Scriptures through their churches, if not owning personal copies of these NT texts, they could have heard them read in the lectionary of the Greek-speaking churches. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Do you even bother to read threads?

 

[Ashua]

I may be quasi-guilty of trolling some people here for this, but Who cares about the council of nicea? I know I don't. Theologically it has no real baring on anything. No one of that council (if it actually happened and I am biased to believe, historically that it did) --no one of that council was a first generation apostle, a prophet, or anything else pertinent to direct revelation from God. None of what they said was binding or "Scripture" in and of itself. You want to know what the council of nicea was? It was the Christian equivalent to the talmudic, midrashic, pharisaic, scribal, and any other variant of "elder Jew"; which wrote down their interpretations and exegesis and commentary of the Holy Scriptures, (some good some bad) for an authority of all believers. Go ahead and read up on what the talmud is, and youll soon find that nicea was just a bunch of select men who developed their own "official commentary" on the Word of God.

 

[Free]

I may be quasi-guilty of trolling some people here for this, but Who cares about the council of nicea? I know I don't. Theologically it has no real baring on anything. No one of that council (if it actually happened and I am biased to believe, historically that it did) --no one of that council was a first generation apostle, a prophet, or anything else pertinent to direct revelation from God. None of what they said was binding or "Scripture" in and of itself. You want to know what the council of nicea was? It was the Christian equivalent to the talmudic, midrashic, pharisaic, scribal, and any other variant of "elder Jew"; which wrote down their interpretations and exegesis and commentary of the Holy Scriptures, (some good some bad) for an authority of all believers. Go ahead and read up on what the talmud is, and youll soon find that nicea was just a bunch of select men who developed their own "official commentary" on the Word of God.

I disagree.

 

[Ashua]

I disagree.

I very much respect your entitlement to disagree; but would you like to elaborate?

What did Nicea base it's judgments on? Was it the Bible alone? If so, why can't you read it for yourself to arrive at the same conclusions, or otherwise?

(Not getting into the development of the canon)

Also, there were people within the council who rejected the council majority position on things, and well... it didn't turn out well for them.

 

[Free]

I very much respect your entitlement to disagree; but would you like to elaborate?

What did Nicea base it's judgments on? Was it the Bible alone? If so, why can't you read it for yourself to arrive at the same conclusions, or otherwise?

(Not getting into the development of the canon)

Also, there were people within the council who rejected the council majority position on things, and well... it didn't turn out well for them.

Scott already said it: "The Councils of Nicaea in 325 AD and Constantinople I in 381 AD merely CONFIRMED what the Church already believed about the TRINITY."

The development of the doctrine (mainly the deity of Jesus) can be seen much earlier than 325 AD. The Council of Nicaea was convened largely to determine Christology, particularly Jesus relationship to the Father. It was agreed that Jesus is God in human flesh but not the Father.

Personally, I can read the Bible alone and come to no other conclusion.

 

[Ashua]

Scott already said it: "The Councils of Nicaea in 325 AD and Constantinople I in 381 AD merely CONFIRMED what the Church already believed about the TRINITY."

The development of the doctrine (mainly the deity of Jesus) can be seen much earlier than 325 AD. The Council of Nicaea was convened largely to determine Christology, particularly Jesus relationship to the Father. It was agreed that Jesus is God in human flesh but not the Father.

Personally, I can read the Bible alone and come to no other conclusion.

As have so many other believers arrived, who have never bothered to research the council of nicea.

So, confirmation aside, isn't it kind of redundant if the church had already held the trinitiarian and divinity beliefs?

I see what you are saying, in that you feel the doctrine is more secured when the council *confirmed* given doctrines, but if those commonly held beliefs predated the council... That is sort of like having some national Israeli council to get together and *confirm* that the holocaust actually happened.

[also I don't know how any collection of men can *confirm* a theological matter (whatsoever it is specifically, matters not) There could be a council of the world's Jehovah's witnesses gather together in a city and *confirm* their doctrines too, using nothing but the Bible (as they are trained to use Christian scriptures only when proselytizing)]

Anyways, I didn't mean to get all debate-y. I respect your position. Just tried to understand it better for my own potential gain.

 

[Free]

As have so many other believers arrived, who have never bothered to research the council of nicea.

So, confirmation aside, isn't it kind of redundant if the church had already held the trinitiarian and divinity beliefs?

I see what you are saying, in that you feel the doctrine is more secured when the council *confirmed* given doctrines, but if those commonly held beliefs predated the council... That is sort of like having some national Israeli council to get together and *confirm* that the holocaust actually happened.

[also I don't know how any collection of men can *confirm* a theological matter (whatsoever it is specifically, matters not) There could be a council of the world's Jehovah's witnesses gather together in a city and *confirm* their doctrines too, using nothing but the Bible (as they are trained to use Christian scriptures only when proselytizing)]

Anyways, I didn't mean to get all debate-y. I respect your position. Just tried to understand it better for my own potential gain.

It's alright, we're in a "debate-y" forum.

It is important to remember that the Council was convened at least in part as a response to Arius who argued that Jesus was the first of God's creation. It is very important to have agreement on Christian doctrine as the Bible says we should, and as these forums show. Orthodoxy must be defined so as to be distinguished from heresy.

These Councils established orthodox Christian believe and practice so that heresy would easily be identifiable. I have said it before: if there is no orthodoxy, there is no Christianity.

 

[Ashua]

It's alright, we're in a "debate-y" forum.

It is important to remember that the Council was convened at least in part as a response to Arius who argued that Jesus was the first of God's creation. It is very important to have agreement on Christian doctrine as the Bible says we should, and as these forums show. Orthodoxy must be defined so as to be distinguished from heresy.

These Councils established orthodox Christian believe and practice so that heresy would easily be identifiable. I have said it before: if there is no orthodoxy, there is no Christianity.

Funny you should bring that up. I was just wondering about what it means to be "The firstborn of all Creation"and also the LOGOS, whereby ALL things are created. I guess it would be easy to dismiss it as one of those great paradoxes (root and offspring of Jesse; even though I understand that one); but something is nagging me to understand this. Perhaps the notion that "God created Himself" satisfies this mystery; but that also does not sit right with me; seeing he is everlasting and eternal.

 

[Free]

Funny you should bring that up. I was just wondering about what it means to be "The firstborn of all Creation"and also the LOGOS, whereby ALL things are created. I guess it would be easy to dismiss it as one of those great paradoxes (root and offspring of Jesse; even though I understand that one); but something is nagging me to understand this. Perhaps the notion that "God created Himself" satisfies this mystery; but that also does not sit right with me; seeing he is everlasting and eternal.

Yes, this "firstborn" word pops up a lot in these discussions. It is very important to note that there is more than one meaning for it. One of these meanings is in reference to the status that a firstborn has.

Col. 1:15 states, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation" (NKJV). In this case, the meaning of "firstborn over all creation" is that Jesus is preeminent over creation seems to be in view. This is supported immediately by verses 16 and 17:

"16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (NKJV)

Indeed, how could "all things" be created "by Him"--including things "visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers"--and "through Him," and how could he be "before all things" and have "all things consist" in him, if he was a mere creature? This is language used only of God, is it not?

Some argue that it must mean that "all other things" (as the NWT puts it) were created by, through, and for Him. But that clearly is not what is stated in the text.

And this ties back into the logos in John 1:1-3 where we see nearly the identical language used:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (NKJV)

Some again argue that Jesus was a god (as the NWT states) but that clearly would contradict what is stated in verse 3. How could it be truthfully and rationally stated that "without Him nothing was made that was made," if Jesus, the Word, was himself made? There is more that can be said about this passage when looking at the Greek but I'll leave it there.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that God is love (1 John 4:8,16), that is, that love is an essential expression of God's nature?

 

[Ashua]

Yes, this "firstborn" word pops up a lot in these discussions. It is very important to note that there is more than one meaning for it. One of these meanings is in reference to the status that a firstborn has.

Col. 1:15 states, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation" (NKJV). In this case, the meaning of "firstborn over all creation" is that Jesus is preeminent over creation seems to be in view. This is supported immediately by verses 16 and 17:

"16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (NKJV)

Indeed, how could "all things" be created "by Him"--including things "visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers"--and "through Him," and how could he be "before all things" and have "all things consist" in him, if he was a mere creature? This is language used only of God, is it not?

Some argue that it must mean that "all other things" (as the NWT puts it) were created by, through, and for Him. But that clearly is not what is stated in the text.

And this ties back into the logos in John 1:1-3 where we see nearly the identical language used:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (NKJV)

Some again argue that Jesus was a god (as the NWT states) but that clearly would contradict what is stated in verse 3. How could it be truthfully and rationally stated that "without Him nothing was made that was made," if Jesus, the Word, was himself made? There is more that can be said about this passage when looking at the Greek but I'll leave it there.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that God is love (1 John 4:8,16), that is, that love is an essential expression of God's nature?

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.

 

[Scotth1960]

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.

Dear Ashua, and other friends,
What is the significance of the Council of Nicaea?

"The Significance of the Council of Nicaea
"Four additions to an older baptismal creed, two inefficacious decisions concerning
the date of Easter and the Meletian schism at Alexandria, and a hodgepodge of twenty disciplinary canons -- verbally this is the sum total of the work of the Council. Much ado about very little, or so it seems. But what is the real significance of what was done at Nicaea? Bernard Lonergan appears to me to have best described that real meaning and importance of the Council. He argues that within the dialectic of the pre-Nicaean speculation about the Trinity there was operative a twofold movement which reached its goal at Nicaea. Trinitarian and Christological doctrines ...." [page 69: Leo Donald Davis, S.J. (1983). The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325 -787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: A Michael Glazier Books/ The Liturgical Press. ].

God bless all of you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Ashua]

Dear Ashua, and other friends,
What is the significance of the Council of Nicaea?

"The Significance of the Council of Nicaea
"Four additions to an older baptismal creed, two inefficacious decisions concerning
the date of Easter and the Meletian schism at Alexandria, and a hodgepodge of twenty disciplinary canons -- verbally this is the sum total of the work of the Council. Much ado about very little, or so it seems. But what is the real significance of what was done at Nicaea? Bernard Lonergan appears to me to have best described that real meaning and importance of the Council. He argues that within the dialectic of the pre-Nicaean speculation about the Trinity there was operative a twofold movement which reached its goal at Nicaea. Trinitarian and Christological doctrines ...." [page 69: Leo Donald Davis, S.J. (1983). The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325 -787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: A Michael Glazier Books/ The Liturgical Press. ].

God bless all of you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

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.