Is God Three?

Tigger 2

Active member
jsanford wrote:

Yes, the Roman Emperor was pagan, Constantine. Yet, the only contribution he made to Christianity was prohibiting the persecution of Christians, in 325 AD. He was not in fact a Christian at this time; he simply ended the state persecution of Christianity. So, any one attributing doctrinal inception to Emperor Constantine is historically ignorant.

Constantine first called the council to convene at Ancyra but then transferred “the council from Ancyra to Nicaea so that he could control the proceedings.” - The Early Church, Chadwick, p. 130, Dorset Press, NY, 1986 ed.

“The Emperor [Constantine] himself presided over the critical session [at Nicaea], and it was he who proposed the reconciling word, 'homoousios' (Greek for ‘of one essence’) to describe Christ’s relationship to the Father (though it was probably one of his ecclesiastical advisers, Ossius [Hosius] of Cordova, who suggested it to him).” - Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, p. 134, 1977; Also The History of Christianity, Lion Publishing, 1990.

“The interference with the Church by the temporal power [began] with the control of the Council of Nicaea by Constantine in 325.” - p. 19. And, “Constantine at Nicaea in 325 arrogated to himself the right to arbitrate the dispute in the Church, even though he was only the temporal ruler of the Empire.” - p. 137, Christianity Through the Centuries, E. E. Cairns, Ph.D., Zondervan Publishing House, 1977 printing.

“at the Nicene Council ... there were three parties present: the strict Arians, the semi-Arians and the Alexander-Athanasian party. The latter party, with the help of Constantine and the [seven] Western bishops, secured the adoption of a creed which no strict Arian could subscribe to, since it declared that the Son is identical in essence (homoousian) with the Father. The semi-Arians, although they maintained that the Son was not identical in essence, but of similar essence (homoiousian) with the Father, were finally constrained [‘to compel, force’ - Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary] to sign the document.” - Encyclopedia Americana, p. 233, v. 2, 1957 ed.

“The Emperor [Constantine and his trinitarian designee, Hosius] presided over the council and paid its expenses. For the first time the church found itself dominated by the political leadership of the head of state.” - Cairns, p. 143.

“Constantine banished Arius, ordered the death penalty for those who did not conform, and commanded the burning of the books composed by Arius...” - pp. 50-51, Christianity Through the Ages, 1965, Harper ChapelBooks.

“[After the Nicene Council] the large [majority] party known as Semi Arians ... carried on the strife against the Nicenes [trinitarians] and especially Athanasius.” - p. 359, Encyclopedia Britannica, v. 2, 14th ed.

“The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority, and they were misunderstood and disliked by many [even those] who were not adherents of Arius. In particular the terms [‘out of the substance’ - 'exousia'] and 'homoousios' [‘of the same substance’] aroused opposition, on the grounds that they were unscriptural, novel, ... and erroneous metaphysically.” - p. 41, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., Bettenson, 1967, Oxford University Press.

“But [the Council of Nicaea’s] formula of the Son’s ‘consubstantiality’ ['homoousios'] with the Father was slow to gain general acceptance, despite [Emperor] Constantine’s efforts to impose it.” - p. 72, The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, John McManners, Oxford University Press, 1992.

“Before the assembling of the council of Nice, Constantine had been persuaded that the Arian doctrine contained a blasphemy against the divinity of Christ, and that the [homoousian] was absolutely required, in order to maintain the dignity of Christ’s person. …. It was nothing but the influence of the emperor Constantine which induced the eastern bishops at the council of Nice to suffer the imposition of a doctrinal formula which they detested and from which, indeed, they sought immediately to relieve themselves.” - Neander’s History of Christianity, Vol. 3, p. 189, Bohn.

“... the Creed of Nicaea became entirely distinctive because of its technical [non-scriptural] language and solemn curses (anathemas).” - p. 159. (This actually began the period of persecution of Christians by “Christians”!) And, “The Council of Nicaea set many precedents. The emperor called it, influenced its decision-making and used his civil power to give its decrees virtually the status of imperial law. The Council introduced a new kind of orthodoxy, which for the first time gave non-Biblical terms critical importance. .... In the long term did the whole church recognize that Nicaea had decisively developed its understanding of the divinity of Christ?

“Nicaea was followed by more than half a century of discord and disorder .... The ‘faith of Nicaea’, as the Creed was commonly called, was for most of the period out of favor with most churchmen.” - p. 160, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.
 

SabathMoon

BANNED
Banned
This is your response to my asking if you can "Can you point to a pagan religion, with a triune god?" Please do so, with identifying information.
Valentinian gnosticism. It's very close, but the guy was an anthropomorphist. It was a ripoff the egyptian Amon, Re, Ptah/Toth.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
You have trouble separating Jesus' earthly ministry from His divinity. It makes no sense to you for some reason, but you're not alone, if that gives you any solace.

Interesting that you claim you believe that Jesus Christ and the Father are one,

but you cannot believe that Jesus is one. You seem to have to split him into two parts

Divine means "of or proceeding from God"

by that definition, I do believe in Jesus' divinity because he is of or proceeding from God, after all, he is the son OF God.

My solace comes from believing God's word and from other's who believe God's word
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
That is because you are Jewish, not Christian. You will get to know the truth about Jesus in the times of tribulation.

And if you are not a Christian, so shall you.

Romans 10:9-10 says nothing about believing in a trinity, in fact it refutes it.
 

jsanford108

New member
Valentinian gnosticism. It's very close, but the guy was an anthropomorphist. It was a ripoff the egyptian Amon, Re, Ptah/Toth.

Note that Valentinian Gnosticism comes from the second century AD. Disciples of the Apostle John, such as Polycarp, taught and believed in the Trinity. As did Ignatius. As did many early Christians, all existing and dying before 325 AD. Thus, the OP's point, and subsequently Oatmeal's, is invalid and false.
 

SabathMoon

BANNED
Banned
Note that Valentinian Gnosticism comes from the second century AD. Disciples of the Apostle John, such as Polycarp, taught and believed in the Trinity. As did Ignatius. As did many early Christians, all existing and dying before 325 AD. Thus, the OP's point, and subsequently Oatmeal's, is invalid and false.
It is other way around. Valentinianism affected interpretation of the New Testament.

It glorifies God better to know it was the other way.
 

SabathMoon

BANNED
Banned
Note that Valentinian Gnosticism comes from the second century AD. Disciples of the Apostle John, such as Polycarp, taught and believed in the Trinity. As did Ignatius. As did many early Christians, all existing and dying before 325 AD. Thus, the OP's point, and subsequently Oatmeal's, is invalid and false.
Polycarp did not teach the trinity either, but he did confuse the valentinians who thought their god was Jesus Christ.
 

Tigger 2

Active member
jsanford wrote:
You keep mentioning that pagan religions with triune gods. Please, provide us identifying information on these pagan religions. Otherwise, it would be reasonable to assume that you are simply making them up.

“Vishnu, Brahma, and Siva together form the trinity of the Hindu Religion. At one time these were distinct Hindu deities. Their rival claims for recognition were finally met by making them three forms of the one supreme god. This was, however, a creation of the priests and ecclesiastical students.” - Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 ed., v. 28, p. 134.

“Trimurti (Tri-moor’ti), ... the Hindu trinity, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, considered an inseparable unity .... Trimurti is the theological or philosophical unity, which combines these [three] separate forms in one self-existent being. The Trimurti is represented as one body with three heads.” - p. 66, The Encyclopedia Americana, v. 27, 1957 ed.

“Trimurti, the Hindu triad, or the gods Brahma (masculine), Vishnu, and Siva, when thought of as an inseparable unity, although three in form.” - p. 8591, Universal Standard Encyclopedia, v. 23, 1955 ed.

“I, the supreme indivisible Lord am three - Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva.” - p. 378, New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 9th impression, 1974.

“This fusing of one god with another is called 'theocrasia,' and nowhere was it more vigorously going on than in Alexandria. Only two peoples resisted it in this period: The Jews, who already had their faith in the one God of heaven and earth, Jehovah, and the Persians, who had a monotheistic sun worship [Mithras]. It was Ptolemy I [who died in 283 B. C.] who set up not only the Museum in Alexandria, but the Serapeum, devoted to the worship of a trinity of gods which represented the result of a process of theocrasia applied more particularly to the gods of Greece and Egypt [with a distinct Hindu flavor].

“This trinity consisted of the god Serapis (= Osiris + Apis), the goddess Isis (= Hathor, the cow-moon goddess), and the child-god Horus. In one way or another almost every god was identified with one or other of these three aspects of the one god, even the sun god Mithras of the Persians. And they were each other; they were three, but they were also one." - The Outline of History, Wells, vol. 1, p. 307, 1956 ed.

Isn't it just a little odd that the inspired scriptures were 'unable' to make such clear statements of trinity over many centuries?
 

CherubRam

New member
It was recent Pagan converts who figured that God is a Trinity, and adjusted scriptures accordingly. You would think that would be a red flare for Trinitarians.
 

jaybird

New member
It was recent Pagan converts who figured that God is a Trinity, and adjusted scriptures accordingly. You would think that would be a red flare for Trinitarians.

why was there no trinity before rome became Christian? Canaan and babylon had them. at the time of Jesus and the 12 there was much greek influence but no trinity theology writing by any Jewish sect. rome got their trinity ideas from greece, greece from babylon.
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
why was there no trinity before rome became Christian? Canaan and babylon had them. at the time of Jesus and the 12 there was much greek influence but no trinity theology writing by any Jewish sect. rome got their trinity ideas from greece, greece from babylon.

I know trin believers are prepared to this question for sure. They have been training themselves to think up the excuses for many, many years.

Just my two cents:)
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
jsanford wrote:


“Vishnu, Brahma, and Siva together form the trinity of the Hindu Religion. At one time these were distinct Hindu deities. Their rival claims for recognition were finally met by making them three forms of the one supreme god. This was, however, a creation of the priests and ecclesiastical students.” - Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 ed., v. 28, p. 134.

“Trimurti (Tri-moor’ti), ... the Hindu trinity, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, considered an inseparable unity .... Trimurti is the theological or philosophical unity, which combines these [three] separate forms in one self-existent being. The Trimurti is represented as one body with three heads.” - p. 66, The Encyclopedia Americana, v. 27, 1957 ed.

“Trimurti, the Hindu triad, or the gods Brahma (masculine), Vishnu, and Siva, when thought of as an inseparable unity, although three in form.” - p. 8591, Universal Standard Encyclopedia, v. 23, 1955 ed.

“I, the supreme indivisible Lord am three - Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva.” - p. 378, New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 9th impression, 1974.

“This fusing of one god with another is called 'theocrasia,' and nowhere was it more vigorously going on than in Alexandria. Only two peoples resisted it in this period: The Jews, who already had their faith in the one God of heaven and earth, Jehovah, and the Persians, who had a monotheistic sun worship [Mithras]. It was Ptolemy I [who died in 283 B. C.] who set up not only the Museum in Alexandria, but the Serapeum, devoted to the worship of a trinity of gods which represented the result of a process of theocrasia applied more particularly to the gods of Greece and Egypt [with a distinct Hindu flavor].

“This trinity consisted of the god Serapis (= Osiris + Apis), the goddess Isis (= Hathor, the cow-moon goddess), and the child-god Horus. In one way or another almost every god was identified with one or other of these three aspects of the one god, even the sun god Mithras of the Persians. And they were each other; they were three, but they were also one." - The Outline of History, Wells, vol. 1, p. 307, 1956 ed.

Isn't it just a little odd that the inspired scriptures were 'unable' to make such clear statements of trinity over many centuries?

Thanks for supplying those facts
 
Top