₦airaland Forum

JeSoul:
  nice work Dr.!

Very cool indeed; I thought the same when I saw his "QED"!

Can't resist one more excerpt; still from here http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm

Arius said that if the Father has begotten the Son, then the Son must be inferior to the Father, as a prince is inferior to a king. Athanasius replied that a son is precisely the same sort of being as his father, and that the only son of a king is destined himself to be a king. It is true that an earthly son is younger than his father, and that there is a time when he is not yet what he will be. But God is not in time. Time, like distance, is a relation between physical events, and has meaning only in the context of the physical universe. When we say that the Son is begotten of the Father, we do not refer to an event in the remote past, but to an eternal and timeless relation between the Persons of the Godhead. Thus, while we say of an earthly prince that he may some day hope to become what his father is now, we say of God the Son that He is eternally what God the Father is eternally.

Hmmm an interesting happenstance ------- a propos the question of Jesus being "begotten"

Reading the excerpted below from an old post by M_nwankwo

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=429591.msg5882641#msg5882641 date=1271156808]God is one and he is known as God the Father. God is not divisible but God can will that small unsubstantiate divine essence of his can emanate from from HIM and take on a conformation, that is take up a form. It is not the unsubstantiate essence that has the form because this unsubstantiate essence has no form but it is the cloaks through which it radiates that gives it form. Thus imagine God the Father to be a human body, then imagine that his right and left arms to be Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit. If God essense is inexhaustible and infinite as you correctly sensed, then you see that God can will that his left and right arm to leave HIM and work outside of Himself and yet if you see this "body" of God after the left and right arm has left, the left and right arm are not missing but still intact. Thus a separation has not occured as you seem to imagine. This is a crude picture as their is no concept that can give a true reflection of the process but this crude analogy is for you to see that there is no separation or division. It is simply God the Father who works as Father, Jesus Christ and the Holyspirt. If you again imagine atlantic ocean to be infinite and inexhaustible, then, one cup from this ocean can be liked to Jesus Christ and another cup of this ocean can be liked to the HolySpirit. You can only see a separation between the two cups of water and the ocean because of the cup, the vessel that contains a small part of the ocean. If you pour the cups of water back to the ocean, then they are one again with the ocean and no separation. Thus, because Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are small "parts" of God the Father, God the Father is greater in human conception than Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus even though the cup of water from the ocean has the same essense as the ocean, it will be incorrect to say that it is the whole ocean. The correct description will be to say that it is a small volume of water from Atlantic ocean.

[/quote]. . . reminded me of the below from elsewhere and, in a sense, from a "different camp"

From http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm

A favorite analogy of the Athanasians was the following: Light is continuously streaming forth from the sun. (In those days, it was generally assumed that light was instantaneous, so that there was no delay at all between the time that a ray of light left the sun and the time it struck the earth.) The rays of light are derived from the sun, and not vice versa. But it is not the case that first the sun existed and afterwards the Light. It is possible to imagine that the sun has always existed, and always emitted light. The Light, then, is derived from the sun, but the Light and the sun exist simultaneously throughout eternity. They are co-eternal. Just so, the Son exists because the Father exists, but there was never a time before the Father produced the Son. The analogy is further appropriate because we can know the sun only through the rays of light that it emits. To see the sunlight is to see the sun. Just so, Jesus says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)

@nuclearboy

I don't really think there is that much, if anything at all, to apologise for.

Thank you! So please don't use Matthew 23:23 to preach tithing to anyone again; or at least do not again use Matthew 23:23 to claim that Jesus advocated tithing for Christians.

To bring the thread back to topic, Jesus was saying in Matthew 23:9 that his followers should not call any earthly person father.

So, ajuwaya!

^^^^ If the link was originally in your post my apology --- but grudgingly. When writing/work is not your own, it is important to make this clear. You could for example place the link at the beginning and, really, you should be using the quote block.

It seems I wasn't the only one sort of 'misled' because it appears that Jovi too (above) thought you wrote the piece.

Joagbaje:
Well from my own understanding he said they ought to pay tithes.

Please explain who you mean by "they" in the above, thanx.

@confetti

When you copy an article from somewhere else (somebody else's work) you should give them acknowledgment by at the least giving the link to the article or better still naming the author and placing the article text in the quote block.


http://www.thebiblepage.org/biblesays/tithing.shtml

The above is the link for the article that you posted on page 3 of this thread.

^^^ The point I am making is that while

(a) in Matthew 23:9 Jesus did tell his disciples/followers not to call any person father (including scribes, Pharisees, "church leaders/pastors" etc);

(b) in Matthew 23:23 on the other and, Jesus did NOT tell his disciples/followers per se to pay tithes!


In Matthew 23:9 Jesus was instructing his followers whereas in Matthew 23:23 Jesus was upbraiding the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites.

It's interesting that Pasiitor Joagbaje says that Matthew 23:9 was referring to Pharisees who are "not part of the church"! This same Joagbaje had in the past argued that Matthew 23:23 (only a few verses later) applies to the "church" and that Jesus was approving "tithing" for Christians.

The truth is that when Jesus said do not call any man father he had the scribes and the Pharisees in particular view but Jesus was talking to His own disciples and followers (the multitude). So Jesus' followers are not to call any earthly person "father"; I think it is clear that this excludes biological/parental father. The apostle Paul might have written in the terms that he did; but he was being figurative and would not have expected fellow Christians to call him "father" and neither would they have necessarily done so as a matter of practice.

On the other hand when Jesus said that those who paid "tithes" ought to have done it without neglecting the weightier matters, he was in fact no longer directing that message at His disciples and followers; rather, He was now upbraiding the scribes and Pharisees specifically and directly.  Compare the three verses below:

Matthew 23:1 (from here until verse 12, Jesus was speaking to and instructing His followers)

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples

Matthew 23:13 (Here Jesus starts to upbraid the scribes and Pharisees)

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

The tithemongers' beloved Matthew 23:23 (Again, Jesus upbraiding the scribes and Pharisees specifically)

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

Of course it is reasonable to say that even when Jesus was upbraiding the scribes/Pharisees, the rest of the multitude and the disciples could have learned from what He was saying; still it should be borne in mind that Matthew 23:23 in particular was said in the specific context of observance of the law by persons still then under the law. Whereas the 'do not call any man father' injunction was in a context that included observance of traditions under the law and beyond --- when you read further from verse 9 through until verse 12.

Instead of trying the "tithing" why not try what Jesus Himself recommended:

Matthew 25

34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was unclothed and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or unclothed and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

You may also be interested in the below from the Old Testament:

Proverbs

17 He who has pity on the poor lends to the LORD,
      And He will pay back what he has given.

^^^ Jesus actually stated how people should give to Him. Do you know how He said people should give to Him? If you know, please explain, thanks.

Finally on the personality of the Holy Spirit, this piece by Spurgeon from http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0004.htm

First, the Holy Spirit is spoken of as having understanding.

In 1 Corinthians 2:9 we read, “‘No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him’ - but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” [1 Corinthians 2:9-11]. Here you see an understanding - a power of knowledge is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Now, if there are any persons here whose minds are of so absurd a character that they would ascribe one attribute to another, and would speak of a mere influence having understanding, then I give up all argument. But I believe every rational person will admit, that when anything is spoken of as having an understanding, it must be an existence - it must, in fact, be a person.

Subtle References to the Holy Spirit

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/SubtleReferencesToTheTrinity.htm

Even if there did not exist passages which directly state that God is three beings who are one, there is ample evidence in the Scriptures to prove it by indirect means

A.  What is said of one is generally said of the others, though there are some characteristics that are unique to each.

B.  The commonness reenforces the idea that God is one and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God.

One more from http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin04a.html

That the Spirit of God is DISTINCT from God the Father can also be seen by trying to 'substitute' the term 'God the Father' in all the passages  in which the Holy Spirit is present. While this would not be a problem in ALL verses, in certain passages it makes no sense at all--indeed, it makes "anti-sense" of the passage.

Note especially that the "Father sends/gives/pours out/etc. the Spirit" passages (above) make absolutely NO practical sense--"the Father sends/gives/pours out/etc. the Father"?! The terms are simply NOT EVEN CLOSE to being identical in referent. In addition to the 'dispatching' verses above, compare:

* Rom 15.16: so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. ["acceptable to God, sanctified by God"?]
* 2 Cor 13.14: May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. ["the grace of Jesus, the love of God, and the fellowship of God"?!
* 2 Pet 1.21: For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. ["men spoke from God as they were carried along by God, "]
* I Cor 2.11: For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. ["no one knows the thoughts of God except God", sorta destroys the whole passage!]
* Eph 2.18: For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. ["Access to the Father by one Father, "?!]


In addition to the above, we might add the passages in which God calls the Spirit 'his Spirit'. Certainly, the word 'God' or 'Father' cannot be substituted in these texts either!

* Rom 8.11: And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
* I Cor 2.10: but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. [God searches the deep things of God?]
* 2 Cor 1.22: and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, [He put HIMSELF in our hearts as a deposit?]
* Gal 3.5: Does God give you his Spirit
* Eph 2.22: And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. ["in which God lives by Himself, "?!
* Eph 3.16: he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit ["He may strengthen you with power through Himself, "?]


The point is this: the literary and linguistic usage of the terms for the Spirit of God demonstrate that they are neither uses of metonymy nor circumlocutions for God. Somehow, those terms (e.g. Spirit of God, Holy Spirit) refer to "something" DISTINCT from God the Father (in some meaningful sense).

From the same  http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin04a.html

If the Spirit WERE not a Person, but rather a simple alternate designation for some influence of God, we WOULD NOT expect to find the following kinds of passages, in which BOTH the Spirit AND the possible influences are co-ordinately named:

* [not identical with power of God]--Rom 15.13: May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. [would it make sense to say 'the power of the power'?!]
* [not identical with power of God]--Acts 1.8: But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; ["you will receive power when the power comes on you"?]
* [not identical with love of God]--2 Cor 13.14: May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. ["the love of God and the fellowship of the love of God"?!]
* [not identical with power of God]--Acts 10.38: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, ["God anointed Jesus with power and with power, "?!]
* [not identical with love of God]--Rom 5.5: because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. ["God poured his love into our hearts by his love, "?!]
* [not identical with power of God]--Luke 4.14: Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, ["Jesus returned in the power of the power, "?]
* [not identical with power of God]--Rom 15.19: by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. ["by the power, , through the power, "?]
* [not identical with power of God]--Gal 4.29: At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. [ "by the power of the power, "]


We must conclude on the basis of the data, that the term 'Spirit of God' is NOT a metonymy for the 'Power of God' or the 'love of God'

Granted that in some contexts, the Holy Spirit may be justifiably used to describe the power of God.

Now, more on the personality of the Holy Spirit.

From here:  http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin04a.html

The term "Holy Spirit" and "Spirit of God" (and parallel terms) appears in a wide variety of statements in the NT. In many of these statements and contexts, this term APPEARS to be denoting a fully conscious/fully personal/fully alive agent. This Agent is said to speak, warn, reveal, predict, teach, remind, enable, help, witness, testify, encourage, counsel, know, and pray. This Agent is apparently invested with active authority over the mission of God--leading, selecting workers for tasks, selecting workers for positions of authority, dispatching workers, evaluating situations, making decisions about distribution of spiritual gifts, 'steering' and directing. Even though the grammar would predict otherwise, this Agent is referred to by non-neuter personal pronouns in several situations (i.e. 'he'). Human interactions with this agent are best categorized as "inter-personal"--we can lie to the Spirit, resist Him, test Him, grieve Him (notice the inner emotional capacity of the Spirit), blaspheme Him. Christ seems to view the Spirit as a 'suitable', non-localized replacement for His earthly, localized presence among the disciples. Finally, the Spirit is used in co-ordinate statements with the other Divine Personal Agents (i.e. Father, Son) in such a way as to suggest the possession of Personality/Consciousness.

It should be noted at this point (prior to really analyzing the probability that the Spirit is simply a personification of an influence/operation of the Father) that the above data points are surprisingly extensive, varied, and consistent. Most personifications are not this robust nor are maintained so pervasively throughout the breadth of literature (e.g. 'love' in I Cor 13--it is rarely used in such a personified way elsewhere). This will create a strong presumption in favor of the impersonal passages being derivative upon the personal--AND NOT VICE VERSA. In other words, it is beginning to look like it makes more sense to understand passages like "poured out the Spirit" as referring to the operations of the Personal Agent the Spirit, than it is to take "grieve not the Holy Spirit" as a personification of God's power, but more on this later.

nuclearboy:
. . .   . Jesus can yap O.   . . .

Jesus can yab well well! Na so He call one mumu (in fact a whole king,) a fox --- {"go and tell that fox"} ; some other magas He been tell say their papa na liar and murderer from the beginning. In fact Him no send!

And . . . 

[quote author=Joel. link=topic=499560.msg6599125#msg6599125 date=1282205238]. . . .

8.
I have decide[b]d[/b] to follow Jesus 
“I have decide[b]d[/b] to follow Jesus 
I have decide[b]d[/b] to follow Jesus 
No turning back, to tu[b]r[/b]ning back.


9
You are thy the lord let your name be glorifiesd
You are thy the lord

10
I know my redeemer liveth
I know my redeemer liveth
I know my redeemer liveth
He liveth  forever more.

11
We are gathering in thy the presents presence of thy the lord.
And we will praise him according to he’s his name.

12
My lord rainet in thy reigneth let the earth tremble
My lord rainet in thy reigneth let the earth tremble
Jehovah  rainet in the trembe reigneth let the earth tremble
They lord ranet in the tremble The Lord reigneth let the earth tremble

13
He owns the key to my life
He owns the key to my life
When sickness and trouble seems to take my soul away
He owns the key to my life.

14
I cannot fail, I cannot fall,
the blood of Jesus I cannot fail.
I cannot fail, I cannot fall,
Because of Jesus I cannot not fail

15
Our father,
Our father who at art in heaven amen
Hello Hallowed is your name.

16
I magnifies thy magnify thee(?) lord Jesus
I magnifies thy magnify thee(?) lord Jesus
I magnifies thy magnify thee(?) lord Jesus
Hello Hallowed be your name.

17
To you oh Lord(?), be onto all the(?) glory
To you oh Lord?, be onto all the(?) honor
I dour mentions [b]Adorations(?) forever more.

18
Santa Satan done fall for gutter
Matched am matched am
He done fall for gutter
Matched am matched am
Where is the Santa Satan under my feet I match am he done
I say, Matched am matched am, he don die

{{D song na wah sef!}}

20
I go rejoice oh Santa Satan na you go shame
I go rejoice oh Santa Satan na you go shame
You go shame, you go shame
You go shame, you go shame oh
I go rejoice oh Santa Satan na you go shame

{{U no like Fada Xmas?}}

21
Our father in heaven we glorify your name
We bow down before you.
Our father in heaven we glorify your name
We bow down before you.

22
There is power mighty in thy the(?) blood
There is power mighty in thy the(?) blood
There is power mighty in thy the(?) blood
In the blood of jesus Christ
There is power mighty in thy the(?) blood

23
My hands are blessed
My hands are blessed
With thy blesses the blessings of God (the Lord?), With thy the blessings God (the Lord?)
My hands are blessed
My hands are blessed
With thy blesses the blessings of God (the Lord?)
Anything I do shall be more be bless Anyone {or thing etc} I touch {do etc} surely shall be blessed
Anything a say Shall be more be bless Anyone {or thingetc} I touch {do etc} surely shall be blessed
My hands are free eh. blessed
With thy blesses of thy the blessing of the lord.

24


will continue later.[/quote]

^^^ If you think that you have proved (and "conclusively" too for that matter!) that Jesus is not God, I am happy to leave you with that thought.

Some corrections --- maybe others later. 

[quote author=Joel. link=topic=499560.msg6599125#msg6599125 date=1282205238]1
What almighty a mighty God we serve
What almighty a mighty God we serve
Heaven and earth adore him,
Angles bow before him
What almightya mighty God we serve.

2
I will praise him
I will praise him
I will praise him,
With my whole heart
With my whole soul
With my whole mind,
RighturesRighteous people Praise thythe(?) lord.

3
I will lift God in[b](God's name?)[/b] higher
I will lift God in(?) higher
I will lift God in(?) higher
Above other name[b]S[/b]

4
You are the lord,
That is your name
You will never share your glory with any man
You will never share your glory with any body
Almighty God that is your name.

5
We lift your name higher
We lift your name higher
We lift your name higher
We lift you name higher

6
Everybody testify you are good
You are good Jehovah you are good
Everybody testify you are so good
You are good Jehovah you are good .

7
We give glory to thy lord in rains the Lord He reigns
We give glory to thy lord in rains the Lord He reigns
He rain he rain he rain He reigns, He reigns, He reigns ooh.
We give glory to thy lord in rain the Lord He reigns.[/quote]

@ aletheia

It's no surprise, is it? Even on the "Is the Holy Spirit Personal and Sentient" thread, nuclearboy had pointed out this destination very early on.

nuclearboy:
@DeepSight:

Yor 1st attempt above at a reply is hilarious - everyone here knows my style. I am addicted to fun (in the cleanest sense of it) and thus attempt to be imaginative and lively in conversing. But it is tiring to answer the same questions over and over especially when they come from the same person. You seem to go about doing one of two - [a] looking for ways to stand against the "carpenter" [2] offering an alternative "infinity". No wahala, bro, bring it on.

But when you do so, be honest. . . .

And earlier on nuclearboy also had pointed out the aim at the Trinity more generally.

nuclearboy:
EDITED

@DeepSight:

I now see where this is going - its another attempt to ridicule the "1 showing as 3" concept! . . . .

Interestingly, Deep Sight said above that his post had shown conclusively that Jesus is not God. What does one say to that other than to laugh? On the other thread that I mentioned, I played along for a while and when I threw down the gauntlet about what he and supporters would need to show to even begin approaching proof that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being, what did they do?

The same here, there is even no need to make a defence when someone says he has shown conclusively that Jesus is not God! If again I point out what he will need to do to even make a case I expect the same kind of reaction as on the other thread!

@ Deep Sight

I really was not going to respond beyond my last post. However, because of my response to aletheia's post I will say this to you. See, if you make an extraordinary claim and you do not realise that you would need extraordinary proof for such a claim, you are not making a good presentation of yourself at all.

For those saying the "church" should not marry the pregnant woman and her groom, I have a question.

Supposing the couple later get married at a Registry civil office or according to traditional custom, do you think they are married in God's eyes or not?

@ Deep Sight

Erm . . . ok!

Edited posted in wrong thread

cool like dat vescucci, many thanx.

^^^

Actually, whether or not Constantine was a Christian or made Christianity state religion is not exactly relevant to the key point being made here. The key point being made, as I understand that you acknowledge, is that the Trinity doctrine well predated Constantine and the Nicene Council.

As to why the Trinity doctrine was favoured, the question to ask is this: Does the Bible lead to the conclusion that each of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is God? If the answer is yes and if one believes that God is One, then accepting a doctrine of Trinity becomes inevitable. The question then is what are the details of that doctrine of Trinity?

Let me state here that I don't believe anyone is damned for not believing in the Trinity per se. If defective doctrine is what damns one, all of us have had it!

Having said that: I am very careful about using the word "manifestation" because of its potential interpretation (or misinterpretation, I suppose) as advocating the Oneness/Sabellian doctrine.

I for say! Na wa oh! (Although the argument would be that the Jews did not have a concept of the Trinity; there are of course possible explanations from the Trinitarian side too)

PS Hope to be in touch soon.

Still on the Johannine Comma

The "earliest" manuscript (as opposed to extraneous writings) in which it is known to be recorded is the Latin manuscript m (427 AD; Codex Speculum/Speculum Augustine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Speculum ). That is fairly early despite the arguments that the Latin manuscripts are translated from Greek and the earliest Greek manuscripts known (which are dated later) do not contain the Comma.

There is indeed a line of argument that there must probably be early Greek manuscript support for the Comma. For example while some doubt that the Comma was included in the original Latin Vulgate, Jerome who compiled the Vulgate from Greek manuscripts (inter alia) is quoted as having said:

"In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e., of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father, and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic (i.e. universal) faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is confirmed." (390 AD, Prologue To The Canonical Epistles)

(edited)

Also, regarding the Johannine Comma:

1 John 5:7-8

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Many will of course know that this passage is disputed as not being found in the majority of extant manuscripts. Irrespective of that however, there is the genuinely legitimate question: what is the origin of the Comma itself and when/where did it first appear?

It seems the first undisputed use of the Comma is attributed to one Priscillian who is said to have written in c. AD 380 that:

As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”

Some claim that Cyprian who wrote around AD 250 was also referring to the Johannine Comma; this is disputed; what is not disputed though is that the two quotations of Cyprian that are used (from c. AD 250) are clear Trinitarian statements e.g.:

The Lord says “I and the Father are one” and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. “And these three are one.”

The worst case that could be made would seem that the Johannine Comma first came about in the 4th century; it is of course yet possible that it came about earlier.

(Edit This thread is a follow on from the following post/thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-490515.64.html#msg6541713 )

It is sometimes suggested by anti-Trinitarians that the Trinity doctrine was invented at a council meeting or that it was started by the Roman Catholic Church.  Of course people with decent church history know better than to take the anti-Trinitarians seriously --- except to occasionally confront their misleading and sometimes deceitful arguments.

The piece below is not exactly a "scholarly" or "heavy tome" (and there are things in it one may question). However, for the beginning enquirer it gives a viewpoint that shows that we should not take such allegations by anti-Trinitarians at face value.


From here: http://www.letusreason.org/Trin13.htm

The   Nicene Council, what was it really about?

Emperor Constantine's Nicene council is usually pointed to as the source for the doctrine of the Trinity, yet the Trinity was present in the church long before Constantine. Most Jehovah Witnesses and other anti- trinitarians have never had a true presentation of Church history. If they knew history they may not point to Constantine. They have created this misrepresentation to do battle against a lie. They portray Church history as  proof that the doctrine of the Trinity is of a pagan source from the Emperor Constantine. The truth will astound you.

The term Trinitas was popularized by Tertullian almost 100 years before the Nicene council in his debate against Praxeas. However, he was not the first to use the term, a man Theophilus Bishop of Antioch in 160 was the first to use the term (that we have in writing), many years before in his epistle to Autolycus The 2nd,xv, We can assume it was used prior to Theophilus and was held as a common church belief with the many quotes that are left to us in history by the early church pastors. Athenagoras representing the whole Churches belief wrote, that, "they hold the Father to be God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit, and declare their union and their distinction in order."(A plea for the Christians.10.3) The term was used to simply describe the three that simultaneously exist as the one God. A man named Praxeas promoted what is called Monarchianism, which held a strict form of monotheistic progression. That the Father became the Son, and the Son became the Spirit. This is what is called modalism in it's simplest form, What is better termed Oneness today. Despite the accusation's of the Church inventing and promoting the Trinity. We find the Church in Rome and elsewhere falling prey to numerous heresies that they tried to keep out.

As we see from history the doctrine of the Trinity did not depend on any council as it was used by Tertullian and others long before a council was called on doctrinal teaching. The Catholic Church gets blamed for inventing the Trinity yet when we look through it's history it tells a different story. History shows that it was Trinitarians that first resisted a single church Government with a Pope as its head, they did not invent it. Zephyrinus (210 AD.) and Callistus (220 AD.) were the first bishops to claim Mt.16:18 to themselves, they were both modalistic in their view of God. Tertullian called him an usurper saying, "as if he was the Bishop of Bishop's." So it was Oneness believers who first wanted to be head of the whole Church, not Constantine. Adolf Harnack in his book the History of Dogma actually states that "Modalism…was for almost a generation the official theory in Rome." (3:53). Which certainly proposes a problem for those who claim a Roman origin of the Trinity. This occurred before Constantine and Arius' heresy won after Constantine which  Rome promoted for yet another 50 years.

The truth is that there was no Roman Catholic Church ruling Christianity before Constantine, because Christianity was an illegal religion and an underground practice. It was not until hundred's of year's later, 5th cent. to the 7th cent., that the first vestiges of this church government rose where there was a Roman bishop as the head of the Church, making it an official Roman Church functioning similar to today's.

Before we can understand the council of Nicea we need to at least understand Constantine and what took place. In 312 AD, Constantine claimed a vision from God, a shape similar to a cross in front of the sun. Many believe it was then that he declared his conversion to Christianity. Constantine saw a flaming cross in the sky, with the Greek words en toutoi nika- in this sign conquer.  Early the next morning, (this is according to Eusebius whom Constantinegave this account to). Constantine dreamed that a voice commanded him to have his soldiers mark upon their shields the letter X with a line drawn through it and curled around the top ,

He heard a voice say that he would conquer in the sign that he had seen. Constantine painted the perverted crosses on the shields of his soldiers. The victory was directly linked to the sign he had seen.

It is assumed it was Jesus Christ whom he accepted. The fact that Constantine saw the cross and the sun together may explain why he worshiped the Roman sun god, while at the same time professing to be a Christian to bring a political religious unity to his empire. Constantine built a triumphal arch featuring the sun god, his coins featured the sun. Constantine made a statue of the sun god, with his own face on it, for his new city of Constantinople.

Under Constantine in 312 AD, Christianity was adopted by Rome. He repealed the persecution edicts of Diocletian. Constantine 'Christianised' the Roman Empire and made it the religion of the state. He also paganized Christianity in Rome. Constantine's plan to have unification and peace in his empire succeeded and “Christianized Rome” and a political church was made to rule. Satan began the process of corrupting the church from within. Christianity was slowly infiltrated with a pagan system and joining the church with the world political system. Baptism made one a Christian and they brought their pagan religion in to be synthesized with the church. Saints and Images entered the Church under Christian `names, the worship of relics. In Eastern Orthodoxy, icons had intrinsic power.

Historians disagree whether or not Constantine actually became a Christian. His character certainly did not reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ. Constantine was vain, violent and superstitious. Constantine waited until he was dying before asking to be baptized. Christianity became politically correct. Many people joined the Church for other reasons than forgiveness of sins and a changed life.

Many claim that the Trinity doctrine was invented by the Catholic Church at the council of Nicaea in Bithynia, (Turkey) in the 4th century. History has a different story! Its been said if one tells a lie long enough, and hard enough, people will begin to believe it. That is exactly what [my insert: some anti-Trinitarians] have done.  They have revised history.

Ella Rose Riehle was born in an incredible set of numbers, 8-9-10 at 11:12 because of that she has become a star. This precious bundle of joy arrived in the world on 8/9/10 at 11:12 p.m. therefore making it impossible for her parents to forget her date of birth. Ella Rose Riehle's mom Terri Riehler arrived at Christ Hospital to be induced, and expected something great to occur but never imagined that her baby would become famous.

Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/babies-articles/ella-rose-riehle-unforgettable-birthday-3029562.html#ixzz0wW5HP4Op
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

http://www.articlesbase.com/babies-articles/ella-rose-riehle-unforgettable-birthday-3029562.html

http://news.yahoo.com/video/cincinnati-wlwt-18191085/girl-born-on-8-9-10-at-11-12-21349417

PS I think they are using American dating pattern.