Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

The fabricated term "Godhead" goes hand in hand with the false trinity teaching that was officially introduced into Christianity by the "Christianized" Romans who later came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church. The formal teaching of trinity that survives today began in 325 CE/AD at the Council of Nicaea. On that occasion, about 300 Catholic bishops met with Roman Emperor Constantine—a non-Christian who was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding Constantine's role in the formulation of the Trinity, the Encyclopedia Britannica states:

"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed... the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, [that Christ was] 'of one substance with the Father.' "


Keep in mind that Jesus died and returned to heaven in 33 C.E. and this idea that would later evolve into the trinity did not officially become Roman Catholic dogma until 381 C.E. (more than 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene). Also keep in mind that the ROMANS who executed Jesus—prior to adopting Christianity as the state religion—had a long history of polytheism (worship of many gods). It was therefore a simple matter for the ROMAN Catholics to graft various pagan/false teachings into their corrupted version of Christianity. One such teaching became the "Christian" version of trinity or worship of a triune/triad (three-in-one) god.

 

[Root of Jesse]

ALTER2EGO -to- TOOLMAN JANTZI:
I suggest you go back and read my opening post. I made it abundantly clear therein that the idea of a trinity god existed in pagan religions for centuries before Jesus Christ showed up on the earthly scene. I also stated in my opening post (at Question #3 and Question #4) that the idea of a trinity god is nowhere to be found in God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. I further stated in my opening post that the idea of a trinity god was brought into Christendom by the "Christianized" Romans who later came to be known as Roman Catholics. In other words, your above request is moot. The pagan trinities were as fictitious as the "Christianized" version because there are no scriptures in the Bible that support the dogma. Thus, the title of my thread: "Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?"

So what? Does it follow that, because some group of people had some idea before, and it's similar to some other idea of some other group of people, that they are the same idea? The post hoc ergo proper hoc doesn't work here. From the Beginning, the Bible expresses God in three persons. So, since it's in Genesis 1-2, it pre-dates Christianity altogether.
But even if it was a pagan idea brought into Christian practice, so what? Jesus came to a pagan world and sanctified it, as does the Catholic Church, which allows some local practices, in fact blesses and sanctifies them. As the Church turns the world against Satan, so with pagan practices.
The Trinity is a doctrine which knits Sacred Scripture together and explains it.

 

[Alter2Ego]

So what? Does it follow that, because some group of people had some idea before, and it's similar to some other idea of some other group of people, that they are the same idea? The post hoc ergo proper hoc doesn't work here. From the Beginning, the Bible expresses God in three persons. So, since it's in Genesis 1-2, it pre-dates Christianity altogether.
But even if it was a pagan idea brought into Christian practice, so what? Jesus came to a pagan world and sanctified it, as does the Catholic Church, which allows some local practices, in fact blesses and sanctifies them. As the Church turns the world against Satan, so with pagan practices.
The Trinity is a doctrine which knits Sacred Scripture together and explains it.

ALTER2EGO -to- ROOT OF JESSE:

I've read the book of Genesis several times and have never seen anywhere that it "expresses God in three persons." I suggest you quote the verses where you've seen this, and then bold the portions that you are focusing on, then explain to the forum why you personally believe the bolded words are with reference to "God in three persons."

 

[Alter2Ego]

But even if it was a pagan idea brought into Christian practice, so what? Jesus came to a pagan world and sanctified it, as does the Catholic Church, which allows some local practices, in fact blesses and sanctifies them. As the Church turns the world against Satan, so with pagan practices.
The Trinity is a doctrine which knits Sacred Scripture together and explains it.

ALTER2EGO -to- ROOT OF JESSE:

The forum would like for you to show scriptures where Jesus sanctified the pagan world by telling the pagans it is okay for them to bring in their pagan teachings into Christianity.

 

[Albion]

I've read the book of Genesis several times and have never seen anywhere that it "expresses God in three persons."

Understood. However, it's clear that God is described there as plural, even though Scripture is also explicit about there being only one god.

 

[Imagican]

I would like to point out a 'bit of an error'. Alter Ego stated that 'trinity' didn't become a doctrine until the Council at Nicea.

This isn't exactly accurate.

The Council at Nicea merely determined that The Son and the Father were of the 'same essence'. Neither a beginning nor ending.

It took quite a few hundred years AFTER the Council at Nicea for the doctrine of 'trinity' itself to be formulated into the doctrine that we find today.

But it is CORRECT that a 'pagan Emperor' was THE deciding factor at the Council at Nicea. He was witnessing his 'new religion' being torn in two and had decided that no matter what, this was NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

So after siding with those that favored a Son of the same essence, it WAS Constantine that determined that 'from this day forth', this is WHAT will be taught and followed in MY EMPIRE.

And it is a KNOWN FACT that the majority of the ELITE in Rome practiced a religion worshiping a god called Mythra or Mithra. And it is believed by MOST scholars that this religion contained a 'THREE PART GOD'. That THE god Mithra was in fact, a THREE in ONE God.

So if this is truth, then it would only stand to reason that Constantine would have chosen to introduce what he already followed that was MOST familiar to HIMSELF. So it is not surprising in the least that He opted for a Son of the same essence as the Father. A Son that was in fact, the SAME as the Father. Much as both mother and son were considered to be a part of the 'god Mithra'.

While many attempt to down play the significance of the influence of Mithra in the 'Christianity' formed in Rome, the evidence is overwhelming that it most certainly DID have a MAJOR influence in those that would be the 'church leaders' in Rome. And not only of their own accord, but due to the very nature of the religious practices of their EMPEROR/S as well.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Albion]

I would like to point out a 'bit of an error'. Alter Ego stated that 'trinity' didn't become a doctrine until the Council at Nicea.

This isn't exactly accurate.

The Council at Nicea merely determined that The Son and the Father were of the 'same essence'. Neither a beginning nor ending.

It's more than "neither a beginning nor ending," but OK.

It took quite a few hundred years AFTER the Council at Nicea for the doctrine of 'trinity' itself to be formulated into the doctrine that we find today.

That's false. Within a few years of Nicaea, another council was called in order to flesh out the description of God by clarifying the nature of the Holy Ghost. The Creed is more correctly called, therefore, the "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed."

But it is CORRECT that a 'pagan Emperor' was THE deciding factor at the Council at Nicea.

No. He was the force for CONVENING the council in the first place, because he wanted a clear and unified statement of belief for the new faith he's just adopted.

He was witnessing his 'new religion' being torn in two and had decided that no matter what, this was NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

That's right--and it's what I just explained in other words. However, it's far from correct to think that he ran the council or dictated its decisions.

And it is a KNOWN FACT that the majority of the ELITE in Rome practiced a religion worshiping a god called Mythra or Mithra. And it is believed by MOST scholars that this religion contained a 'THREE PART GOD'. That THE god Mithra was in fact, a THREE in ONE God.

So if this is truth, then it would only stand to reason that Constantine would have chosen to introduce what he already followed that was MOST familiar to HIMSELF.

No, that is a supposition without any basis other than a guess. It is well known that there were divisions among the Christians, most notably on the part of the Arians, but it is not correct to speak as though no one in the Christian community thought of a triune god.

 

[Phantasman]

When the council at Nicea met, it was also to do things like figure out what day Easter should be. Since pagan roots were already in the church, they had to crate their doctrine for all to follow. Since 1800 church leaders were asked to attend the Nicea councils, only 312 showed up. The smart ones appeared to stay away, knowing the intent of Constantine from previous experience with him and other emperors.

 

[catholicmystic]

Where do we get this idea that a particular word has to be used in a particular text in order for it to be true? Trinity is a term created for the sake of the intellect. It refers to a concept. Yes? A linguistic tool to help the intellect grasp something that it can never quite grasp. I'm not sure I see the issue here.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Say there is Scripture that said the following:

"John is 12. Bob is two years older than John"

I might then conclude that Bob is 14 years old even though that isn't stated explicility in the text. That's kind of how people view the Trinity doctrine in relation to what is presented in the Scripture I think. I don't think anyone is saying the word "Trinity" is found there or that the exact dogmatic definition in the Nicene Creed is found there word for word.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

As a rather heretical guy you would probably assume that I reject the Trinity but I'm actually a Trinitarian believe it or not. My man Valentinus (an early 2nd century Gnostic Christian Theologian) was even one of the early Christian adopters of the term Trinity. Origen was one of first in the proto-orthodox camp to embrace the term as well and I've always admired him as being one of the few "orthodox" dudes of that time period whose ideas were worth studying. Origen's thought was formed in discussion (though often in debate) with Gnostic theology and philosophy and I wouldn't be surprised if that played a role in his adoption of the Trinity idea.

I believe in

1. The Father- Also called Bythos (which means Depth and came from Valentinus), Unknown Father (Marcions term), and the Father of Lights (James 1:17). Mani called him Zurvan. This is the Father of Christ.

2. the Mother- Also called the Holy Spirit (spirit is feminine in Aramaic) or Barbelo. She is the Mother of Christ.

3. The Son- Christos, Logos, the Primal Man or Phos Adamas (the Man of Light).

Behind all three is the transcendent abyss of the Godhead (Meister Eckharts Gottheit) which I , following Jakob Boehme, call the Ungrund , which is the Abyss without ground, the source of all freedom. Similar to the Vedantic idea of the Nirguna Brahman. Freedom, creativity, and creative imagination flow from this Abyss. The Three members of the Trinity perfectly (and eternally) manifest the Ungrund and are it's Hypostatizations or Personal faces. To use more orthodox Nicene terminology the Ungrund is the divine Ousia or Essence of the Three. "Of one essence/ousia with the Father" is the Son and the Holy Spirit. That essence is the Ungrund.

 

[SilentShadow100]

Because pagans had similar concepts to Christianity doesn't mean they were the same. The pagans could have been inspired by Satan, as one of his most successful deceptions is to tell half-truth/half-lies (what he did with Eve). They also could have copied the trinity doctrine which was expressed through the OT linguistics (Using the plural form of "God" [Elohim] but singular verb conjugation when talking about YHWH, and also direct references to the "spirit of God" and "son of God" and "messenger of God [Jesus is our mediator between us and the Father, and came to Earth as a messenger]"). It could also just be coincidence.

Also, the pagans did not have "trinity" teachings, but rather, teachings of gods having children, so even if the above argument is false, you still have nothing but coincidence on your side.

 

[Albion]

When the council at Nicea met, it was also to do things like figure out what day Easter should be. Since pagan roots were already in the church, they had to crate their doctrine for all to follow. Since 1800 church leaders were asked to attend the Nicea councils, only 312 showed up. The smart ones appeared to stay away, knowing the intent of Constantine from previous experience with him and other emperors.

I don't see what that has to do with when the nature of the Holy Ghost was defined.

 

[Albion]

As a rather heretical guy you would probably assume that I reject the Trinity but I'm actually a Trinitarian believe it or not. My man Valentinus (an early 2nd century Gnostic Christian Theologian) was even one of the early Christian adopters of the term Trinity. Origen was one of first in the proto-orthodox camp to embrace the term as well and I've always admired him as being one of the few "orthodox" dudes of that time period whose ideas were worth studying. Origen's thought was formed in discussion (though often in debate) with Gnostic theology and philosophy and I wouldn't be surprised if that played a role in his adoption of the Trinity idea.

I believe in

1. The Father- Also called Bythos (which means Depth and came from Valentinus), Unknown Father (Marcions term), and the Father of Lights (James 1:17). Mani called him Zurvan. This is the Father of Christ.

2. the Mother- Also called the Holy Spirit (spirit is feminine in Aramaic) or Barbelo. She is the Mother of Christ.

3. The Son- Christos, Logos, the Primal Man or Phos Adamas (the Man of Light).

That doesn't make you a "Trinitarian" any more than believing in that "all Gaul is divided into three parts" would make you a Trinitarian. A Three-fold Theist, or Triadian, or a Triuneist perhaps, but not a Trinitarian.

 

[Phantasman]

I don't see what that has to do with when the nature of the Holy Ghost was defined.

?

Did you not read the 3-4 posts before mine that I was alluding to?

 

[Albion]

?

Did you not read the 3-4 posts before mine that I was alluding to?

I'll take a look.

 

[Phantasman]

As a rather heretical guy you would probably assume that I reject the Trinity but I'm actually a Trinitarian believe it or not. My man Valentinus (an early 2nd century Gnostic Christian Theologian) was even one of the early Christian adopters of the term Trinity. Origen was one of first in the proto-orthodox camp to embrace the term as well and I've always admired him as being one of the few "orthodox" dudes of that time period whose ideas were worth studying. Origen's thought was formed in discussion (though often in debate) with Gnostic theology and philosophy and I wouldn't be surprised if that played a role in his adoption of the Trinity idea.

I believe in

1. The Father- Also called Bythos (which means Depth and came from Valentinus), Unknown Father (Marcions term), and the Father of Lights (James 1:17). Mani called him Zurvan. This is the Father of Christ.

2. the Mother- Also called the Holy Spirit (spirit is feminine in Aramaic) or Barbelo. She is the Mother of Christ.

3. The Son- Christos, Logos, the Primal Man or Phos Adamas (the Man of Light).

Behind all three is the transcendent abyss of the Godhead (Meister Eckharts Gottheit) which I , following Jakob Boehme, call the Ungrund , which is the Abyss without ground, the source of all freedom. Similar to the Vedantic idea of the Nirguna Brahman. Freedom, creativity, and creative imagination flow from this Abyss. The Three members of the Trinity perfectly (and eternally) manifest the Ungrund and are it's Hypostatizations or Personal faces. To use more orthodox Nicene terminology the Ungrund is the divine Ousia or Essence of the Three. "Of one essence/ousia with the Father" is the Son and the Holy Spirit. That essence is the Ungrund.

Good post.

 

[Albion]

?

Did you not read the 3-4 posts before mine that I was alluding to?

EDIT: Yes, I had looked back in an attempt to get a handle on your point. I still can't discover why you're now talking about the number of bishops and the date of Easter when we were discussing the belief in the Holy Ghost as a member of the Trinity.

 

[Phantasman]

EDIT: Yes, I had looked back in an attempt to get a handle on your point. I still can't discover why you're now talking about the number of bishops and the date of Easter when we were discussing the belief in the Holy Ghost as a member of the Trinity.

Imagican explained it pretty well, in which you disagreed, how Constantine infiltrated the council with parts of his own religious thought. The Nicene Creed is organized under the government of the time. Since only one sixth of the church leaders show up, and since the government is what allows which religious doctrines survive or be considered taboo, the organized Nicene council became the "law of the land" with Constantines help and approval.

Deciding days of worship, holidays, what books to believe, etc. is the sign of a government. When a few people debated the intent in the beginning of the council, Constantine banished them. It sure made the others take notice and realize that they should listen to him, and insert God where it met Constantines favor.

"However, Constantine certainly did not patronize Christianity alone. After gaining victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312), a triumphal arch—the Arch of Constantine—was built (315) to celebrate his triumph. The arch is most notably decorated with images of the goddess Victoria and, at the time of its dedication, sacrifices to gods like Apollo, Diana, and Hercules were made. Most notably absent from the Arch are any depictions whatsoever regarding Christian symbolism." - WIKI

And at the meeting at Nicea:

"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."[17] As Eusebius described, Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones."[34] He was present as an observer, and did not vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. Hosius of Cordoba may have presided over its deliberations; he was probably one of the Papal legates"

Hardly what I would call a person who put Christianity at the forefront.

His theology manufactured by his council is todays church.

 

[Albion]

Imagican explained it pretty well, in which you disagreed, how Constantine infiltrated the council with parts of his own religious thought.

All right. He was in error about that.

The Nicene Creed is organized under the government of the time. Since only one sixth of the church leaders show up, and since the government is what allows which religious doctrines survive or be considered taboo, the organized Nicene council became the "law of the land" with Constantines help and approval.

Quite a lot of guesswork and rationalizing there, don't you realize. The historical evidence is all to the opposite conclusion. And think about this for a minute. Those bishops who attended included many who had been tortured for their faith under Diocletian and were mained and disfigured because of it (as the Romans were good at doing). Do you seriously think that they who had not sold out their beliefs under THAT kind of persecution from the Roman authorities were just going to roll over and behave like lapdogs for Constantine because he claimed to be a Christian! NO!

Deciding days of worship, holidays, what books to believe, etc. is the sign of a government.

I don't see why you'd think that.

When a few people debated the intent in the beginning of the council, Constantine banished them. It sure made the others take notice and realize that they should listen to him, and insert God where it met Constantines favor.

Back to speculation again.

However, Constantine certainly did not patronize Christianity alone. After gaining victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312), a triumphal arch—the Arch of Constantine—was built (315) to celebrate his triumph. The arch is most notably decorated with images of the goddess Victoria and, at the time of its dedication, sacrifices to gods like Apollo, Diana, and Hercules were made. Most notably absent from the Arch are any depictions whatsoever regarding Christian symbolism." - WIKI

That's an old charge that Jehovah's Witnesses have favored, but it's been debunked many times.