The Trinity

[Randy]

Bible does not teach that ,the churches teach that.
which did not happen till 200-300 years after jesus died

The NT does state that Gods only like to like "begotten" Son shares His Fathers nature and that Son is called God.
Col 1:19 Col 1:15
Hebrews 1:3
John 1:1

Just as it teaches the only "unbegotten" God is the Father and He is the God and "Father" of ALL including His Son who we now call Jesus and Lord.
A distinction was made that is not captured in orthodox trinity statements
1 Corinthians 8:6
Ephesians 3:14-15
1 Corth 1:3

I disagree that Jesus is the only unbegotten, begotten Son of the Father.
I disagree in a 3rd distinct person known as God the Spirit. Though the "Fathers" Spirit would have His nature it's the person of the Father. When the Father pours out His Spirit in Jesus's name then that Spirit is in the persona of the Son living in those in the faith and in that context is the person of the Son and in that manner both the Father and Son make their home with those in the faith Paul spoke of.

I hold to this statement from the beginning.
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

And in regard to Jesus the Lord I hold to this statement in regard to nature of the Son.
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

So I agree in part.
Begotten of the Father before all things but not made.

Its God from true God for me, not true God from true God. Jesus is the first begotten of the Father. He is God the begotten. The Father is the only unbegotten God and the Father and God of all.
One God the Father; One Lord Jesus Christ who shares "His" Fathers nature they are ONE.

John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis

Its dishonest to call those who believe in true God from true God "false" Christians.

This is the test stated. (I pass this test)
Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

 

[Milan Nikolic]

The Church Fathers concluded that the Persons of God are three distinct individuals, like three distinct torches, but always united into one, never separated, nor will they ever be.

The Persons of God, through the one and unique essence of God, make our existence possible. The problem is that we, as creatures, cannot know God within His one essence, except in the action of the three Divine Persons.

 

[7thMoon]

I'm not following. What does any of this have to do with the Trinity? Again, you need to be clear about how this ties in to the discussion, particularly what I've said.

In Origen's world, pre-existence before birth was given to everyone. Origenism and Arianism were the subject of Nicaea. Arianism is merely the next step on Origenism in that case.

 

[7thMoon]

The Church Fathers concluded that the Persons of God are three distinct individuals, like three distinct torches, but always united into one, never separated, nor will they ever be.

The Persons of God, through the one and unique essence of God, make our existence possible. The problem is that we, as creatures, cannot know God within His one essence, except in the action of the three Divine Persons.

And it took 300 years to get there.

 

[Free]

Constantine , the Roman emperor, from AD 306 to 337 had more to do with what you may believe than you may know.

No, it's the other way around--he most likely had much less to do with it than you think.

There are a number of early church fathers and figures from the 2nd century onward that either implicitly or explicitly stated that Jesus is God yet keep him distinct from the Father. For example, Ignatius (d. 107 AD), believed to be a disciple of John, said "Jesus Christ, our God" and "For our God, Jesus the Christ," in his letter to the Ephesians. In his letter to the Romans he said "Jesus Christ our God" and "For our God Jesus Christ." And in his letter to the Smyrneans, he states, "I glorify Jesus Christ the God, being in the Father."

From the Didache (50-120 A.D.): "7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;"

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-hoole.html

We also have Pliny the Younger's correspondence with emperor Trajan from the early 2nd century, in which he stated regarding Christians, "that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god."

https://earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

The foundations of the Trinity were laid in Scripture, but can be seen as early as the 2nd century. All the foundations of the Trinity--monotheism; three coequal, coeternal, divine persons--were being taught long before Constantine. It is worth noting that the doctrine wasn't fully developed until after Constantine legalized Christianity, ending Christian persecution. It's rather difficult, I would think, to have Christian leaders get together and discuss Christian doctrine, especially something as complex as the nature of God, when they were being persecuted for around 300 years.

Even with the Council of Niacea, Constantine had little, if anything, to do with the conclusion of it. Christian theologians and leaders later developed, or rather discovered, the doctrine of the Trinity. Constantine merely brought bishops together to try and get them to come to a consensus about who Christ was and is, largely due to the division Arius was causing. Division in the Church meant a divided kingdom. He oversaw the proceedings and may have participated in discussions, but apparently didn't cast a vote. And, it was a Christological debate, not a Trinitarian one.

https://overviewbible.com/council-of-nicaea/

https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Council-of-Nicaea-325

 

[Free]

In Origen's world, pre-existence before birth was given to everyone. Origenism and Arianism were the subject of Nicaea. Arianism is merely the next step on Origenism in that case.

Okay, but again, how does that connect to this discussion? No one is arguing that everyone had preexistence. We are debating what Scripture says about the nature of God and his Son.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

And it took 300 years to get there.

You can't say something didn't exist until the Church recognized it. The Lord Himself stated that only the Holy Spirit will give us the knowledge we need.

I don't understand this fundamentalism about Christ, no matter what He said. And He spoke of His Father as God and of the Holy Spirit as a concrete being with the Father and the Son.

 

[7thMoon]

You can't say something didn't exist until the Church recognized it. The Lord Himself stated that only the Holy Spirit will give us the knowledge we need.

I don't understand this fundamentalism about Christ, no matter what He said. And He spoke of His Father as God and of the Holy Spirit as a concrete being with the Father and the Son.

Unitarianism is not fundamentalism.

 

[locust]

No, it's the other way around--he most likely had much less to do with it than you think.

There are a number of early church fathers and figures from the 2nd century onward that either implicitly or explicitly stated that Jesus is God yet keep him distinct from the Father. For example, Ignatius (d. 107 AD), believed to be a disciple of John, said "Jesus Christ, our God" and "For our God, Jesus the Christ," in his letter to the Ephesians. In his letter to the Romans he said "Jesus Christ our God" and "For our God Jesus Christ." And in his letter to the Smyrneans, he states, "I glorify Jesus Christ the God, being in the Father."

From the Didache (50-120 A.D.): "7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;"

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-hoole.html

We also have Pliny the Younger's correspondence with emperor Trajan from the early 2nd century, in which he stated regarding Christians, "that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god."

https://earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

The foundations of the Trinity were laid in Scripture, but can be seen as early as the 2nd century. All the foundations of the Trinity--monotheism; three coequal, coeternal, divine persons--were being taught long before Constantine. It is worth noting that the doctrine wasn't fully developed until after Constantine legalized Christianity, ending Christian persecution. It's rather difficult, I would think, to have Christian leaders get together and discuss Christian doctrine, especially something as complex as the nature of God, when they were being persecuted for around 300 years.

Even with the Council of Niacea, Constantine had little, if anything, to do with the conclusion of it. Christian theologians and leaders later developed, or rather discovered, the doctrine of the Trinity. Constantine merely brought bishops together to try and get them to come to a consensus about who Christ was and is, largely due to the division Arius was causing. Division in the Church meant a divided kingdom. He oversaw the proceedings and may have participated in discussions, but apparently didn't cast a vote. And, it was a Christological debate, not a Trinitarian one.

https://overviewbible.com/council-of-nicaea/

https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Council-of-Nicaea-325

Constantine made it legal to be a Christian

 

[Free]

Constantine made it legal to be a Christian

Yes, I mentioned that.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Unitarianism is not fundamentalism.

Quite the opposite. Only with order we can have some sense, and unitarianism is like fundamentalism.