the council seems to be where the idea of trinity originated from.

The Nicene Creed introduced the word "homoousious" or "consubstantial" meaning "of one substance." This word was not invented at the Council. Eusebius writes that some of the "most learned and distinguished of the ancient bishops had made use of consubstantial in treating of the divinity of the Father and the Son" (See document E in the Appendix, Baker). We do not have the sources that Eusebius must have had regarding the use of this word. Today, the only source is Origen who used the word in what seems the orthodox way (Johannes Quastren, "Patrology," Volume 2, p78). However, this phrase of Eusebius stands as a witness to the existence of wider use.

The bishops assembled at Nicea were careful to explain how they used the word, and what it meant. This is because it had been misused by Paul of Samosta. Regarding this unorthodox usage, St. Hilary and St. Basil say that it was said to be "unfit to describe the relation between the Father and the Son" at a council that met in Antioch (Ibid, p14). Apparently Paul of Samosta applied the word in a manner that implied division of nature, as several coins are from the same metal (Baker, p21).

Alexander of Alexandria had called a meeting of the presbyters [priests]. According to the historian Socrates, the aging "pope" [some early senior bishops were called "papa," that is, "father"] "with perhaps too philosophical minuteness" began to lecture on the theological mystery of the Holy Trinity. Alexander had been discussing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost for some time when he was interrupted by one of the presbyters called Arius, a native of Libya. There is no evidence that Alexander was a profound theologian. He may have bumbled, and it is possible that Arius was justified in accusing Alexander of Sabellianism, a heresy that involved a belief in the unity of God at the expense of the reality of the Trinity. But in combating Alexander, Arius fell into a new heresy, for he announced, "If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not". Here, at some time in 319, the cry of the Arians--"There was a time when the Son was not"--was first heard. The words were to have an extraordinary influence on the shaping of the church. They were dynamite and split the church in two, and these words, which read in Greek like a line of a song, still echo down the centuries.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
http://www.thunderministries.com/history/Nicea.html

There a very good book written in prose style about the events leading up to the Council of Nicea, The Arian Controversy. If you can grab a copy, I will urge you to. Very entertaining. It is called "When Jesus Became God" by Richard Rubenstein.

Checkout the reviews on Amazom. http://www.amazon.com/When-Jesus-Became-God-Christianity/dp/0156013150/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203442899&sr=8-1

come on guys, i know u have heard of the council of nicea

@therationa and bawomol(o)

Please read about the Council of Nicea[b] very well [/b]before jumping to biased conclusions.

Start here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

yes we have read it, now explain why the idea of trinity was brought up in nicea. why do u always run to wikipedia??

bawomolo:

yes we have read it, now explain why the idea of trinity was brought up in nicea. why do u always run to wikipedia??

Wikipedia presents a balanced view of issues. I recommend it for you.

The Trinity had been around long before the Council of Nicea. See -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_of_the_Church_Fathers

why wasn't there a universal agreement on the trinity?? u'd think the trinity would be an obvious concept for ur mystery god

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

why wasn't there a universal agreement on the trinity?? u'd think the trinity would be an obvious concept for your mystery god

The Trinity is not an "obvious" concept to anyone - not even those you referenced and others who question the doctrine are agreed on their conclusions, and one should wonder why they are not 'universally agreed' among themselves.

One helpful way of looking at the subject would be the time in history when the basic tenets were recognized as established. The Council of Nicea took place very long after documents recognized as the Scriptures have been established. By way of broadening this point, one may ask if it was right there at the Council of Nicea that the Scriptures were written. If that is not the case, then those who tend to read and interpret it from that point alone are failing in their assumptions already.

@Syrup: I wish you and your a restful memorial day. Enjoy yourself. But in the maintime, please use your own yardstick of Council of Nisea being an after the development of the Trinity docrine to debase it, for your New Testatment and Old tastament, therefore.

We see that the OT mainly Moses revealed Book completely disagree that God Almighty could ever be more than One singly Lord! He Moses did not hear more than One Voice at the Burning Bush. All the Time he had an audience with his Lord, there is always One God speaking. There was never a time that there was a sense of the Singly God convering with anyone and there was never a desention or interjection from any one; seen or unseen.

It will be very safe to say that Jesus and Holy Ghost were none persona grata in their relationship to The Almighty God. It is the after the raising up of Jesus to heaven that someone or group of people developed the concept of Trinity among themself. This brings about the point of lying or bearing false witness to the forefront again. Someone lied against Jesus, the Holy ghost and God Almighty. Someone bore false witness against Jesus, th Holy Ghost and God Almighty.

Just because something was written or said before a new idea came about to refute it, does not necessarily mean that it is right. The old idea that is.

Dear Olaboalwe,

Thank you for the best wishes. I extend the same to you and yours. It's been a beautiful, peaceful day out here - many more to you.

Please understand that you have again assumed something which you will not find in the Bible - there is no place where the idea is given that the Biblical prophets preached 3 Gods. What you have to understand about the Trinity is that it is not a question of "3 Gods" (which incidentally is what people are inclined to believe with prejudice).

However, if you carefully examine the Bible you find that there is something seriously flawed in the argument of those who hold such prejudices. In recent times, if you have noticed, many evangelical Christians are asking their musl.im friends just one question - "Is God known as FATHER or not?" I thought that is a pretty good and simple enough question to ask anyone who wants to examine the doctrine of the Trinity - because no matter what you may claim about God, once you remove this very revelation or deny it outright, you face a grave dilemma already.

What is that dilemma? It is this: you would be declaring that you have no faith in the Biblical prophets.

Then immediately that becomes the starting point, all your other arguments will be pointless. Why? Because the Biblical prophets declared God as FATHER - and to deny their revelation leaves you far removed from their prophetic teachings. Claiming that you believe the prophets is meaningless until you actually present precisely what those prophets have taught. Let me quote you:

olabowale:

We see that the OT mainly Moses revealed Book completely disagree that God Almighty could ever be more than One singly Lord!

Where did you "see" this "Moses revealed Book" that you are talking about? In that "revealed Book", can we find Moses referring to God as FATHER or not? If you cannot answer that basic question, you did not see any "revealed Book", and your discussion then becomes fruitless.

It would be helpful to "see" that document you call "Moses revealed Book". If it is none existent, then where did you "see" it? How can you claim to have "seen" what you have no clues nor the will to present before us?

Blessings.

Well Me I know that trinity existed in paganism long time before christianity. It is quite likely that along with Christmas, Sunday Worship, Easter bunny worship etc Trinity was incorporated into christianity from the surrounding pagan religions. Actually it was mainly the Goddesses that were worshipped as a trinity. The Trinity was usually Crone, Mother, and Maid.

Also trinity is woven into the very fabric of the world and into the way we percieve things and process information. Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. It is mathematical, geometrical and absolute. Everything has a opposite and both have a common source, and together they make three.

"The Trinity" is not Crone, Mother, and Maid. That might have been "a trinity" concept in paganism, and it was not something incorporated into Biblical faith.

Perhaps not many people have tried to examine the real claims of those claiming this pagan incorporation ideas. Well, I have heard the claim that "everything" might have a 'three' aspect trinitarian philosophy - but that is actually not sound. Let me use a few examples:

Pastor AIO:

Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. . . Everything has a opposite and both have a common source, and together they make three.

Actually, the philosophy of the "thesis" is quite limiting - and that is precisely what many 'pagan-trinity' thinkers use as allegories for their persuasions. However, the "thesis"-link has more than 3 connotations:

* Anti[b]thesis[/b]

* Dia[b]thesis[/b]

* Hypo[b]thesis[/b]

* Paren[b]thesis[/b]

* Syn[b]thesis[/b]

* Thesis

There are more, but those are the ones I can presently remember.

Many people have been carried away with the charge that Christianity incorporated this-that-and-the-other from paganism. Please do yourself the favour of querying those assumptions by the more rigorous investigative thinking than those employed by authors who offer unsound scholarship in Christian thought. Quite often, those neo-paganistic theories have not been able to stand their own litmus.

syrup:

"The Trinity" is not Crone, Mother, and Maid. That might have been "a trinity" concept in paganism, and it was not something incorporated into Biblical faith.

Perhaps not many people have tried to examine the real claims of those claiming this pagan incorporation ideas. Well, I have heard the claim that "everything" might have a 'three' aspect trinitarian philosophy - but that is actually not sound. Let me use a few examples:

Actually, the philosophy of the "thesis" is quite limiting - and that is precisely what many 'pagan-trinity' thinkers use as allegories for their persuasions. However, the "thesis"-link has more than 3 connotations:

* Anti[b]thesis[/b]

* Dia[b]thesis[/b]

* Hypo[b]thesis[/b]

* Paren[b]thesis[/b]

* Syn[b]thesis[/b]

* Thesis

There are more, but those are the ones I can presently remember.

Many people have been carried away with the charge that Christianity incorporated this-that-and-the-other from paganism. Please do yourself the favour of querying those assumptions by the more rigorous investigative thinking than those employed by authors who offer unsound scholarship in Christian thought. Quite often, those neo-paganistic theories have not been able to stand their own litmus.

Dear o dear o dear, syrup. You are letting words confuse you. I did not present to you a clever word play with the stem -thesis. By thesis, antithesis and synthesis I am suggesting (as indeed Hegel did ) that every proposition has it's opposite or negation. Up is NOT down. To exist is opposed by nonexistence. You can't start adding prefixes and saying well there is [b]HYPO[/b]existence and [b]Paren[/b]existence.

I repeat that for absolutely everything there is an opposition, a negation. And I go further to say that both the proposition and it's negation are derived from a third which is neither and both simulataneously. (At this point I differ from Hegel who only used it as a dialectic style).

I'm glad that even Hegel's dialectic was seen for the problem that it actually was.

True, every proposition has its positive and negative. However, UP and DOWN are not the only directions one could face. If I don't look "up", and choose not to look "down", I could take another option from the others - including LEFT, RIGHT, FRONT of me or BACK!

Just don't worry about these pagan-warriors. There has always been something somewhere mid-course that they never would be comfortable with in their considerations.

@topic,

Was the Council of Nicea pre or post the following Bible verse? Colosians 2:9 because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

Hi TayoD,

Tayo-D:

@topic,

Was the Council of Nicea pre or post the following Bible verse? Colosians 2:9 because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

There are numerous verses to add to that. What's important is whether the Biblical documents came before or after the Nicean Council.

@syrup,

There are numerous verses to add to that. What's important is whether the Biblical documents came before or after the Nicean Council.

Absolutely. I was just meditating on that verse today and came acros this topic.

In any case syrup, you are holding down the forte very well here. Keep it up. You and pilgrim-1 are such a blessing, even though the hordes of you-know-who have managed to keep pilgrim-1 away from the forum.

I need to stand clear now and keep taking notes while you continue with your exegesis.

syrup:

I'm glad that even Hegel's dialectic was seen for the problem that it actually was.

True, every proposition has its positive and negative. However, UP and DOWN are not the only directions one could face. If I don't look "up", and choose not to look "down", I could take another option from the others - including LEFT, RIGHT, FRONT of me or BACK!

Just don't worry about these pagan-warriors. There has always been something somewhere mid-course that they never would be comfortable with in their considerations.

I'm really sorry but there is no way that you are going to convince me that left serves as an opposite of up. From what I learnt in school it lies on a totally different axis. left too is part of a pair and it is opposed by right. forward by backward.

Your reasoning is like responding to a statement such as 'A man is either Rich or Poor' with the assertions that 'but he is married'. Of course they are related in the sense that they are states of being, just like left, right, up and down are related in the sense that they are directions. Or in fact everything is connected inthe sense that we are all part of creation. But that has nothing to do with the fact that everything is paired with an opposite that is mutually exclusive to it. You cannot move upward and downward at the same time. you can move forward and upward at the same time. ergo forward and upward are not opposite to each other.