Posted by panopticon
(here)
Posted by kreagle
(here)
Our Catholic 'friends' have endeavored to divide His Godhead, by three, and established this dogma, ( three separate 'persons', or 'Deities'), at the Council of Nicaea 325 A.D.
Of course, one can 'choose to believe' whatever they wish to believe,....in this regards. Personally,.....I 'choose' to take a closer look at what the Scriptures actually say, and what they have always taught mankind.
G'day Kreagle,
At the time of the First Council Of Nicaea there were many factions within Christianity that were all duking it out over what was and what wasn't acceptable dogma.
There are lots of references to the period leading up to and following the First Council and what was going on in both the Roman Empire (for example there were lots of powerful religions fighting over control which many believe may have led to Constantine's [debated] conversion to Christianity) and the other regions that Christianity existed in.
It's a very fascinating period in the early construction of Church doctrine and is extremely helpful in understanding how aspects of Christianity, and in particular Catholicism, came to be.
Here's a translation of the Creed:
The Nicene Creed
The Synod at Nice set forth this Creed.
The Ecthesis of the Synod at Nice.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
Source.
The term
consubstantial is an interesting one and was used to breech the gap between the various Christian groups who were trying to gain dominance/control of doctrine in this period. It essentially means that there is only one God 'substance or essence' and that the trinity is just an expression of that essence so we mere mortal fools can understand the great and unknowable expression of his supreme and superior glory (or something to that effect).
That's as I understand it anyways.
Good way to avoid infighting by saying everybody is right (expect the few heretics who they persecuted, tortured and/or excommunicated [
anathematize]).
Hope you found this interesting.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon
BTW the doctrine of the Trinity gradually developed through the
First Council of Constantinople (in 360 under the rule of Emperor
Constantius II) and then another
First Council of Constantinople (in 381 under the rule of Emperor
Theodosius I).
Yeah, that's right 2 first councils...
So in 360 they came up with this:
But since the term ousia [substance or essence], which was used by the fathers in a very simple and intelligible sense, but not being understood by the people, has been a cause of offense, we have thought proper to reject it, as it is not contained even in the sacred writings; and that no mention of it should be made in future, inasmuch as the holy Scriptures have nowhere mentioned the substance of the Father and of the Son. Nor ought the subsistence of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit to be even named. But we affirm that the Son is like the Father, in such a manner as the sacred Scriptures declare and teach. Let therefore all heresies which have been already condemned, or may have arisen of late, which are opposed to this exposition of the faith, be anathema.
Source.
So the doctrine of the Trinity originated, as I understand it anyway, because people (ie "the faithful") were having difficulty understanding the use of 'essence or substance'. The Trinity became doctrine because of this and was later confirmed by Theodosius I.
The end result was that the Trinity doctrine helped to (yet again) overcome infighting between the various factions struggling for dominance/control while labelling those they didn't like as 'heretics'.
I really do hope you found this informative as I think it's a very interesting stage in the development of Church doctrine (I miss RedeZra, he'd have known this inside out and upside down and would have explained it much better than I).
Re: Bible Topics and Questions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks