You realize of course that this statement I disagree with entirely. Although Constantine was not baptizes, putting it off until his deathbed, I would not say he was not Christian as you have already alluded to.
Your’s is one opinion, mine is another. What is indisputable is that he wasn’t enough of a Christian to actually be baptized a Christian.
I imagine your comments about Constantine is to impugn the doctrine? There is nothing wrong in this method but the holiness of the Church’s members does not disqualify what the Church teaches.
Yes - that’s probably so. Constantine’s role casts a shadow on the council.
- Constantine was a not a baptized Christian.
- Constantine was a repeat murderer - as I recall, both before and after Nicea.
- Constantine called, convoked and paid for the Council.
- Constantine presided (was the president) of the Council and participated in the debates. He proposed a key feature of the Trinitarian doctrine with, despite it’s poor reputation, was approved.
- Constantine threaten those that would not agree to the Creed with death and exile and actually followed through on his threats.
- Constantine, who was not even a member of the Church, appointed Bishops in the Church.
I find all that troubling.
It doesn’t matter and I will not address it further. That isn’t to say that it would never matter but I really consider Constantine as a minor character that allowed the faith to be openly practiced but was very flawed.
I dunno - what would you say if someone like Mussolini had presided at Vatican II, had participated in the debates, threatened those who would not agree and had appointed bishops.
Would you still say it did not matter?
The definition of Homoousios I will be using is of one and the same substance.
I find your usage of modern concept funny when you define modern as 4th and 5th century. :bounce: But I take your meaning, I think,
: and would say that this definition was not new that it was what the apostles taught.
If the apostles believed it, there is absolutely no record of it.
You state that you don’t believe that it is inferred.
By inferred do you mean?
Webster Dictionary
For example - God’s nature, whether embodied and anthropomorphic or not is not explicitly stated in the Bible but may be inferred from the Bible
I think we can agree that the Trinity is in the Bible and set aside that we do not mean the same thing. This is a problem because if we are not on the same ground than it might explain why you do not see how we see that the Trinity as defined at the Council of Nicea is what Scripture has always taught.
The versus that came to mind immediately were:
John 10:30
John 5:18
John 14:9
These versus say that Jesus and the Father are one. It can be inferred to mean equal. I already know that you can and do have a different meaning. That isn’t the point. The point is can you infer the teaching from these versus. I say yes you say no I assume
.
I also found
this web site while searching for these versus
I do believe that these versus are sufficient to show that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Is the same substance. You obviously interpret them differently but you should be able to see that someone else can infer in them that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same substance.
I disagree, I do not think that any of those demonstrate same substance.
Did you see this already:
Catholic encyclopedia notes that Trinitarianism doesn’t really appear until the last 25 years of the 4th century:
Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. RL Richard, “Trinity, Holy”, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967), 14:295.
A Jesuit [Catholic] scholar says this:
There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there…The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.
He is a traditionalist and does usually takes the traditional view. I am not sure whom you are referring to when you say scholarly opinion. I did do a quick search and all I found was his same opinion. After what you said I was surprised.
Modern research in my opinion is invalid because of their inability to accept previous research as being valid. I believe their research methods are tainted and pc. Just because it is a majority does not make them more right. Yes, I know it doesn’t make them wrong either
As I mentioned earlier I do not have his book but as I recall his dissents from the general scholarly view that Constantine presided at Nicea. I can provide about a dozen or more references from other scholars.
