Thoughts on the Trinity

[TOmNossor]

God cannot be divided, which is what the previous post is all about. Dividing God.

God is Father and Son, both. It is just as important for the Father to call the Son, Son, as it is for the Son to call the a Father, Father. This is Who God is. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One God.
As I would define a “singularity that is undivided” such a thing cannot be three anythings. For there to be more than a single thing there must be distinctions between that which is greater than one (again in the way I define terms).
There is only one who is unbegotten and non-proceeding.
There is only one who is begotten.
There is only one who is proceeding.
There are three “persons” or three somethings.
These three may be one something too, but they must be both three somethings and one some-such-thing. And I would suggest that the somethings and the some-such-thing cannot be the same or we find ourselves in the position that 3=1.
So we can say that God is three hypostasis in one ousia. There is a way (depending upon how you mean hypostasis and how you mean ousia) that this is logical.

But, I would suggest no division is an absolute monotheism that one who embraces the divinity of Christ cannot embrace.

Can you define how there can be three of anything without any distinctions between that which is one and that which is one and that which is one that makes a total of three?

In fact let me say that modalism is the heresy that makes the distinctions in the Trinity modes not persons. But, modalists and orthodox Trinitarians both admit to distinctions. From you post it seemed to me that distinctions are wrong. Perhaps that was not your point.

Charity, TOm

 

[R_C]

Of course you and I agree that Athanasius was not an Apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Athanasius of Alexandria is a Father of the Church, called by the Eastern churches “Father of Orthodoxy”, and as a bishop he was within the apostolic succession, which made him legitimately an apostle of our Lord.

To be honest, I think you are saying that you find the deposit of faith protected by the council of bishops and the Pope sufficient to point you towards God in a salvific way.

Of course. More than sufficient, because we know that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope and the council of bishops in matters of faith and morals.

If a proper understanding of the Trinity was worth all the things the early church went through to define it and exclude those who would not embrace it, how can it be acceptable today for so many folks to not understand it?

It is not acceptable. Everyone can study it and accept it, but many refuse to accept it. When they do, they are not following the Christian doctrine and are not formal members of the Church.

If orthodoxy is as important as the history of Eastern and Western Christianity would suggest it is, how can so many folks in the pews have so little understanding of the doctrines?

As long as the doctrine is sound and - as it is the case in the Catholic Church - has been protected, then it matters nothing if the followers chose not to deepen their faith and learn more. Their ignorance does not affect the doctrine. Furthermore we have had great mystics in the Church who, without a profound theological background, in simplicity reached major understanding of God’s trinitarian nature.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

See I have a problem with that phrase.

“There are not three persons who are one God, but one God ONLY.”

See this implies that trinity essentially isn’t monotheism, that unitarianism is hte only sort of monotheism and thats simply something Christians are going to dissagree with

But as for the bahai prophet, they really don;t view him as a prophet but a pre existent manifestation who might have been eternal. Bahais really don’t know.

 

[RebeccaJ]

As I would define a “singularity that is undivided” such a thing cannot be three anythings. For there to be more than a single thing there must be distinctions between that which is greater than one (again in the way I define terms).
There is only one who is unbegotten and non-proceeding.
There is only one who is begotten.
There is only one who is proceeding.
There are three “persons” or three somethings.
These three may be one something too, but they must be both three somethings and one some-such-thing. And I would suggest that the somethings and the some-such-thing cannot be the same or we find ourselves in the position that 3=1.
So we can say that God is three hypostasis in one ousia. There is a way (depending upon how you mean hypostasis and how you mean ousia) that this is logical.

But, I would suggest no division is an absolute monotheism that one who embraces the divinity of Christ cannot embrace.

Can you define how there can be three of anything without any distinctions between that which is one and that which is one and that which is one that makes a total of three?

In fact let me say that modalism is the heresy that makes the distinctions in the Trinity modes not persons. But, modalists and orthodox Trinitarians both admit to distinctions. From you post it seemed to me that distinctions are wrong. Perhaps that was not your point.

Charity, TOm

You have already stated what you know. That is, Trinitarian theology often begins with what the Trinity is not, but you seem to forget.

The Trinity is not an illogical mathematical equation of 3=1.

We also begin with God IS. Jesus saying I AM. This is a truth about God, that you should pay attention to, and don’t forget.

The persons are distinct but they are not divided, for when you divide God you no longer have God, but something of your own making, which is idolatry. You take distinction further, to division.

God is not a thing, but for the sake of your chosen vocabulary: There is no other thing that is God, so there is no other thing to point to and say, this is God, except God. But yes God is One thing, usually named “substance” because that is one word we have in our vocabulary to describe what God is. I like very much the words of St. John the Evangelist. God is love. That is the thing that God is.

God has revealed Himself as One. As Father. As Son. As Holy Spirit. We accept what God has revealed about Himself.

You are not the first Mormon to post these sort of questions, which isn’t a criticism. I just see the same thing, you can see what God has revealed but you won’t, or are not able to, accept it. You are stuck on the how. There is no answer to the question of how God is Three and God is One. Not one theologian, philosopher or book. You are not God and cannot understand God. Christians accept this, with faith in God Who has revealed Himself.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Tom,

The Islamic arguments are based on a fundamental flaw. That is that Mohammad did not know anything but what little he “heard” from the Christians and Jews. Which shows in his Trinitarian formula among the fact that Bible is only quoted in “one” place in the Quran.

The point being, had this been a prophet of God, then he would have known Jesus and the Bible. Had you thought about this then you would realize to communicate with another, speak on another history, then you have to know the History. Mohammad did none of this nor did he know. He recited as he went along with his army, and his state of mind reflects not only in words but his actions.

Mohammed claims the Bible/Torah are “true” in the Quran. You known another verse where it states Allah changed his mind? If the Bible to Mohammad was true in 600-700AD then its true now since nothing changed but the original misunderstood theology of Mohammad.

The mathematical idea you present is 1+1+1=3. This formula is I+1+1=1. Which is because there is only one from which procession generates from the on-set, the first principle…the Father. Mary has nothing to do with the pre-existing Trinity in its essence.

Ibn Abbas 4:171 The Messiah son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah and his word, which he conveyed unto Mary and through his word he became a created being, Jesus become a son without a Father {doing good so far, right?] …Say not Three, a Father, Son and Wife. Cease from making such a claim and repent.

What is crystal clear is Ibn Abbas has no-clue what the Trinitarian formula is since Mary is not in it.

"Quran Surah 5 verse 73

They do blaspheme who say, Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no God except One Allah. If they desist not one word of their blasphemy, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

Quran Surah 5 Verse 74

Why turn do they not to Allah, and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft forgiving Most merciful.

Quran Surah 5 verse 75

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger, many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They both had to eat their daily food. see how doth Allah make His signs clear to them, Yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth."…

As you read the dialogue, the “they” is Mary and Jesus but again misunderstanding of Trinitarian formula, which of course relates the other two verse’s. Then not only is he wrong, he concludes that “because” he ate food he wasn’t God?

The fact the misunderstanding continues to be a contingent of Islam is due to the reality of the “worship” in the Apostolic Church’s. Statues, Icons, etc. Often which depict “Mary”.

This is the “why” they talk “past” each other. One is wrong and the other right. There is “no” middle ground. Islam cannot consent to being wrong, for its a contradiction of the “their” word of God in the Quran.

1] Islams understanding of the trinity is flawed and historically.

2] The flaw is confirmed by Christian worship in Islams view, and perpetuated by Islam as a confirmation to their belief.

There can be no useful dialogue [just talking past one another] for one would have to admit their faith is diametrically opposed and flawed in Trinitarian understanding. Islam refuses to do this because as stated the belief is the Quran is the word of God who apparently changed His mind a few times. Christianity on the other hand “has” a documented “history” of Trinitarian development defined. And that history “no-where” includes Mary or worship to Mary. Yet we don’t worship a book either.

Islam believes it has found the “objective truth” and there is no turning back from it. So we see as a result the theological debate which bears no fruit.

Without direct intervention from God, this isn’t going to change. Nor will it the Jews. Nor is the idea to convert a billion followers. Its outright impossible.

The idea the trinity makes no sense “mathematically” is relevant only to a mathematical unknown. In case you haven’t noticed we do not know the mathematics of many an issue here on earth.

 

[chimo]

There is a painting or more pricisely an icon painted by St. Rublev of the Russian
Orthodox Church that can explain the mystery of the Trinity in ways words cannot.
The icon represents as close as you can get the ideal of what the Holy Trinity is.
The icon shows three young persons all around one table. The central figure can
represent the Son of God and He looks upon at the figure on the left which can
represent the Eternal Father. The figure on the right is the Holy Spirit and He also
looks to the Father. The Son is painted as the same age as the Father which illustrates
the eternity of both.

The Father has His feet resting on a tablet which can represent the Old Convenant.
The Holy Spirit has His feet resting on another tablet which can represent the New
Convenant. Who makes this possible but the central figure, Jesus. Jesus fingers
are shown to illustrate His Divine and human nature. The Holy Spirit has His hand
touch the table to illustrate His work in making the Son of God to take on humanity
and also to show His work in changing the species of bread and wine into another
Incarnation. The species of bread and wine are changed into the very Body and Blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is done in the chalice which is located in the center of
the table.

Please look up Rebluv’s work on the Trinity and see for yourself this great mystery
done in iconic form. The ideal for this great man to paint this icon was given to him
when he was reflecting and meditating on the Genesis story of the three persons
who had made a visit to Abraham. The Orthodox Church sees in this story the three
visitors as the Trinity. St. Rebluv then painted these three visitors as best as he could.

 

[TOmNossor]

R_C,
Thank you for taking the time to go through my post.

It is not possible to assert:

• that there are not three persons who are one God, but one God only;
• that there are not three persons who are co-equal or co-eternal but there is one and only one God.
• That Jesus was solely a prophet but in no way God.
• The unity of God does not contradict the trinity: one can assert that there is one God only, in three persons, and for Christians it would be blasphemy to think that there is anything more than one God;
• the fact that there are three co-equal and co-eternal divine “persons” does not contradict the fact that there is only one divine nature - this is the same as the first phrase, except that it focuses on the characteristics of the divine persons rather than on their divinity;
• There is no way that Jesus can be considered anything less than God unless we want to rule out all of the Gospels as falsehood, but that would mean to forget about all of the miracles, exorcisms, and private revelations throughout 20 centuries, which would be irrational to do.

Later you said:

That is a very interesting question, very deep. I am not sure how to respond. The One postulated by them is more lonely than the One Trinity that we postulate, for instance.

I prefer not to get into the concept of God elaborated by a new religion. With regards to the Jews, they simply did not know the Son and the Holy Spirit until they were revealed - though the Scriptures speak of them. Those who understood the revelation eventually grew into a new community and were addressed as the disciples of the anointed one, of the Christ, thus Christians. However, the Trinitarian nature of God is fully scriptural - the Church has shown this time and again, though others may insists in claiming otherwise.

My “is it possible to assert” though “it may not be a true assertion” was my way of acknowledging that I reject the idea that God is absolutely ONE like a Moslem or modern Jew would say. However, my point is one that you approach accepting in your second post. There is an absolute monotheism that could exist in some theoretical other reality. Or if you and I are wrong about God, then in this reality. Still, I would suggest that an absolute monotheist could call a Trinitarian a polytheist (though you and I would reject this label).

For those who embrace the Old and the New Testament as scripture, I think there are SOME possibilities. I with you agree that the strongest read of the Bible contains at least three truths, “There is One God.” & “Jesus Christ is God” & “God the Father is God.” (it is not my intention to leave out the Holy Spirit, but those verses are not on the tip of my tongue).

I am sympathetic to sola scriptura Christians who might say that Jesus Christ is not God in the way that God the Father is God and thus Jesus Christ is not “fully divine.” I think there is a way to define “divinity as such” that would not make Christ divine or not “fully divine.” I reject drawing this particular line as I reject the idea that Christ is partially divine.
cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

However, something that I do not reject is that God the Father is One. SOME of the Biblical insistence that God is One surely derives from the fact that God the Father is one. These passages are only a small part of showing this from the Bible:

John 20:17:
Cor. 3:22-23:
Cor 11:3:
Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34:

(Eventually I will suggest to GaryTaylor that his exegesis of these at least John 20:17 well supports my thoughts on them)
In fact, I would suggest quite strongly that 1of the ways that God is One is that the Father is One. A Catholic likely would say Christ is “God from God” and not “auto-theos” (something I would suggest John Calvin introduced into the Trinity).

Sometimes when the Bible speaks of the “One” God, I think the Bible is speaking of the Father in a way that does not include the Son. The Bible also supports the idea that Father and Son are “One” and this can then be offered as another way in which there is One God. So my view is that the Oneness of God is a product of the “fount of divinity” being the Father (single fount of divinity) AND the oneness of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. But, I believe that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are “fully divine” just not the “fount of divinity.” In other words, the mark of full divinity is not being the person who is the fount of divinity IMO.

Charity, TOm

 

[benjohnson]

My thoughts on the Trinity? One think that leaps to mind is how I sometimes take comfort in my young son and how he seems to be able to grasp the idea without the doubt that sometimes us adults have.

I often ponder Mathew 18:3 “And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

I think I sometimes have to take a step back and just accept and appreciate that sometimes there are ideas we can benefit from without needing to fully understand hem.

 

[GaryTaylor]

John 8:58, “Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.’” The Jews picked up stones and wanted to stone Jesus The Jews believed Jesus’ statement to be blasphemy. They understood that Jesus claimed to be God!

Had they not been completely convinced of this?

 

[R_C]

I am sympathetic to sola scriptura Christians who might say that Jesus Christ is not God in the way that God the Father is God and thus Jesus Christ is not “fully divine.” I think there is a way to define “divinity as such” that would not make Christ divine or not “fully divine.” I reject drawing this particular line as I reject the idea that Christ is partially divine. …] In other words, the mark of full divinity is not being the person who is the fount of divinity IMO.

It is my pleasure, we don’t often get a chance to discuss the Blessed Trinity, especially not in such a pleasant and understanding way.

I am glad that you reject drawing that particular line, because, in all honesty, there is more than enough scriptural evidence to rule out a “partial divintity” argument. I mean, just this morning (having this thread still somewhat fresh in mind) I was praying the Benedictus (the canticle of Zechariah to his newborn son John, the Baptist) and He clearly says: “you, my child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the Lord to prepare His way”, and his wife Elizabeth had told Our Lady, Mary: “Why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should visit me?”. And these are two drops in the sea: Scripturally, Christ cannot be anything less than God Himself. As such he is acknowledged and honored, even before His birth, and many of the things He did in life can be found described by the prophets…with one little detail…that they don’t refer to Him as Jesus, but as God, Lord, or even using the very ineffable name of God. Just one small example suffices, I think: Psalm 77 and Psalm 107

The waters saw you, oh, God, the waters saw you and they feared and even the depths shook! The clouds poured out water. The sky thundered. Indeed, your lightning bolts flashed. Your path led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters, though your footprints were not seen.

These see Yahweh’s works, and his wonders in the deep. He said the word, and there arose a storm of wind: and the waves thereof were lifted up. Rising up to the sky, sinking down to the depths, their courage melting away in anguish, they reeled and staggered like drunken men and were at their wits’ end. Then they cry to Yahweh in their trouble, and he brings them out of their distress. And he turned the storm into a breeze: and its waves were still.

There can be no possible doubt about who is He whom the prophet writes about, when we read the corresponding accounts from the Gospels:

Late that night, the disciples were in their boat in the middle of the lake, and Jesus was alone on land. He saw that they were in serious trouble, rowing hard and struggling against the wind and waves. About three o’clock in the morning Jesus came toward them, walking on the water. …] Immediately he told them, “Have courage! It is I (literally, He said: “ego sum”, “I am”). Stop being afraid!” Then he climbed into the boat, and the wind stopped.

That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, “Let us go over to the other side.” …] And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that the ship was filled. But Jesus was in the back of the boat, asleep on a cushion. So they woke him up and asked him, “Teacher, don’t you care that we’re going to perish?” And rising up, he rebuked the wind, and said to the sea: Peace, be still. And the wind ceased: and there was made a great calm. …] And they feared exceedingly: and they said one to another: Who is this that both wind and sea obey him?

 

[GaryTaylor]

John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This One himself was at the origin with God.

Everything was in his hand, and without him not even one thing existed of the things that existed.

In him was The Life and The Life is The Light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

but as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name

Those who had not been born of blood, nor of the desire of the flesh, nor of the desire of a man, but of God.

And The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of The Only Begotten of The Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[TOmNossor]

Well, that is very true, that would be the Father. But we cannot stop there only because we don’t like or don’t understand the fact that the Father generates the Son and that their mutual love generates the Holy Spirit. It would be resisting a revealed truth that makes perfect sense - there is no sensible, rational opposition to the understanding we have of the trinitarian nature of God; all have been addressed.

There have been many sensible and rational folks who have opposed the understanding of the first 4 councils concerning the Trinitarian nature of God.
These folks have lived before, after, and during these councils. In fact the reason the councils occurred was often to determine which idea was heresy and which was part of the deposit of faith.
Now, I consider the divinity of Christ to be a revealed truth.
I consider the oneness of God to be a revealed truth.
But, as a rejecter of the authority of the Catholic Church, I do not consider the Trinitarian formula offered at Nicea or Constantinople to be “revealed truth.” That does not mean I consider it to be untrue necessarily.

As a TEASEr for the thread I hope to start let me say, that I believe (and I think virtually all LDS could and should agree with me):
“God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are homooúsios and three hypostases.”
One caveat to the above as I mentioned earlier in this thread: the WORDS have had different meanings over time, but the meanings I impute to the words above have solid precedence in the first four eccuminical councils of the Catholic Church.

Now to the post of yours that lead me to think about this new thread idea.
Charity, TOm

 

[chimo]

John 8:58, “Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.’” The Jews picked up stones and wanted to stone Jesus The Jews believed Jesus’ statement to be blasphemy. They understood that Jesus claimed to be God!

Had they not been completely convinced of this?

St. Paul had written in one of his epistles if they knew who they were crucifying they would not have done it so it seems they were not convinced. I do not believe any of the people would have wanted Jesus dead if they believe Him to be God.

 

[SteveVH]

St. Paul had written in one of his epistles if they knew who they were crucifying they would not have done it so it seems they were not convinced. I do not believe any of the people would have wanted Jesus dead if they believe Him to be God.

They didn’t believe he was God, they believed he was claiming to be God, thus the charge of blasphemy.

 

[chimo]

They didn’t believe he was God, they believed he was claiming to be God, thus the charge of blasphemy.

Yes I realize this to be true. However the words of St. Paul refer to a truth that the people would not have done this if they knew Him to be God. They were somehow blinded to this truth which I believe was the devil’s doing. Jesus tried to convince the Pharisees of this truth but their pride and arrogrance prevented them. Yet St. Paul was convinced their guilt was limited to their own ignorance. If these same people had known in their hearts He was God and still went to crucify Him their guilt would have been worse. I think that was St. Paul’s thinking.

It is the same with Judas and Peter. Peter’s sin was of lesser guilt than Judas because Judas planned to do what he wanted and Peter did not plan to do his denial. I have a notion that Judas knew Jesus to be the Son of God and did not want the death of Jesus but planned this handing over of Him so that Jesus will be forced to show to the Pharisees He is the Son of God. But our Lord would not play into the hands of His apostle and when Judas saw that Jesus would not try to get out of this situation he became afraid which led to his suicide.

Your sin can be greater if you knew Him to be God and you still went ahead with your sin ignoring His love for you. If you do not believe Him to be God than yes your guilt would be of a lesser charge. This is what I believe the words of St. Paul does imply.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes I realize this to be true. However the words of St. Paul refer to a truth that the people would not have done this if they knew Him to be God. They were somehow blinded to this truth which I believe was the devil’s doing. Jesus tried to convince the Pharisees of this truth but their pride and arrogrance prevented them. Yet St. Paul was convinced their guilt was limited to their own ignorance. If these same people had known in their hearts He was God and still went to crucify Him their guilt would have been worse. I think that was St. Paul’s thinking.

Just a hypothetical question. Do you think even the apostles knew that Jesus was God before the resurrection?

 

[GaryTaylor]

St. Paul had written in one of his epistles

The bandwagon all want to jump on these days is that the Gospels do not have Jesus calling Himself God [and incorrectly]. And his reference to Himself from Mark forward in Gospel seems to escalate [which means what, I have no-idea]. The argument is build on bad exegesis and a lack of factual history. Pliny the Younger also referred to Christian followers as worshipping Jesus as a God during the Roman persecution in one of his letters. Augustine gives a great Biblical exegesis in Retractions.

St Paul also speaks clear in scripture.

Colossians 1:15-17
“…is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things
created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”

2 Corinthians 4:4
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them

1 Timothy 6:15
who [Jesus] is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords

Hebrews 1:2-3
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. Hebrews 1:2-3

Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. Hebrews 1:8

Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ

Facts are recorded, Jesus "really: lived and was really God, he was also Crucified, and the Sky also darked that day as recored 3X Biblically. All “historic” fact.

Ever consider the “qualifications” to be considered the Living God?

First you would have to transform hate to Love. A mind of greed to generosity. A self-centered life to become driven by a need to serve others. Give sight to the Blind, free and deliver the captive, forgive the wrongdoer, and give life to the dead. Provide peace in the midst of paralyzing fear. Give hope to those in despair, restore broken hearts. This Living God would have to produce life altering change, not just for a few but millions.

Should one do this He would certainly make the cut. In fact I would say not only that, but then every Word He spoke would be “TRUE”.

When another steps forward with the above on his resume, perhaps we can have this discussion again.

Who came into this world to date that has done this? I know of no-one, I searched in vain and it does NOT exist.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There have been many sensible and rational folks who have opposed the understanding of the first 4 councils concerning the Trinitarian nature of God.
These folks have lived before, after, and during these councils. In fact the reason the councils occurred was often to determine which idea was heresy and which was part of the deposit of faith.
Now, I consider the divinity of Christ to be a revealed truth.
I consider the oneness of God to be a revealed truth.
But, as a rejecter of the authority of the Catholic Church, I do not consider the Trinitarian formula offered at Nicea or Constantinople to be “revealed truth.” That does not mean I consider it to be untrue necessarily.

As a TEASEr for the thread I hope to start let me say, that I believe (and I think virtually all LDS could and should agree with me):
“God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are homooúsios and three hypostases.”
One caveat to the above as I mentioned earlier in this thread: the WORDS have had different meanings over time, but the meanings I impute to the words above have solid precedence in the first four eccuminical councils of the Catholic Church.

Now to the post of yours that lead me to think about this new thread idea.
Charity, TOm

Speculation, what is “considered” by you is an opinion based on what facts, as you say…as an Objector? Do you have the complete transcript for the first ecumenical council? Of course not. Your referral to “sensible and rational folks” is a thrown bone with no collaborating facts. Who, and what did they say? Have a link? Who are these sensible, rational people? The Dunkin Donut morning crew? The Mormons? Who?

The first council was called by Constantine to see what the “majority” believed. Why? Because he had a interest in World Rule which had to begin with peace in Rome and his Kingdom, which preceded his concern with God. HIs son then followed in his steps.

In fact look at Constantine and his contribution in Art. No-where will you find a Christian statue erected by him. He honored himself and built statues of himself and mixed pagan worship with Christianity. And yes he converted late. Look at the tower in Constantinople, it still stands, on top was once a statue of who? Constantine!

Forced letters to accept Arius back in the Church, exiled Athanasius 5X. The Church became reduced to Athanasius and his followers.

Think maybe he had “enough” influence to sway popular opinion???

 

[mercytruth]

All attempts to define monotheism with the revelation of God the Father whom ‘no one has seen nor can see’, and the ‘Only-begotten Son’, who is ‘the Word, who was with God, and was God’ and 'through whom all things were made’ are in my opinion, endless endeavors with endless unanswerable objections.

So, for myself, I keep it simple. I believe in the Apostle’s Creed, and I believe what Jesus prayed to God his Father: And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent

God’s peace be with you all

micah