Try the Trinity.

[Thomas]

That is all part of the "tapestry" .. Christians of various beliefs were persecuted by The Romans,
as were Jews generally.

Just pointing out you said 4th, when really schism was earlier.

It was when the church became part of the state, that schism became more ugly.

Scholars are not certain the Church ever became part of the state. You'd have to supply evidence for that.

Constantine's persecution of Arians resulted in five exiles, all of whom were invited back.

Arians replaced Nicene bishops, Nicene replaced Arian ... Not sure what you refer to as 'ugly'?

 

[Thomas]

As you say, all Christians consider themselves monotheist.

Yes.

..and that is why I say that Arians considered "the Father" to be God.

OK

Their argument is that Jesus is "not equal to the Father".

Is it? Where?

You are just arguing that they saw both Father and Son as "God".

Yes. That's what they say.

I see that their declaration is that Jesus is not "God" in the same way as the Father.

No, that would be wrong. Their declaration is that Jesus is God, but not in the same way the Father is God.

Looks like a communication issue, to me.

If you think I'm wrong, please point out the texts that show I've misrepresented their position?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

All of God's Faiths are born from an 'Annointed One' a Christ. Each and all have 3 components

God the Most Great Spirit.
The Messenger, the "Annointed One" (Christ).
The Holy Spirit by which they are Annointed.

This is indicated and recorded in their Revelations, all Given of our One God.

Zoroaster was Annointed with the Holy Spirit recorded by the symbol of the "Sacred Fire."

Moses was Annointed with the Holy Spirit recorded by the symbol of the "Burning Bush".

Jesus was Annointed with the Holy Spirit recorded by the symbol of the "the Dove".

Muhammad was Annointed with the Holy Spirit recorded by the symbol of the "Angel Gabriel".

The Bab was Annointed with the Holy Spirit recorded by the symbol of the "severed head of Imam Ali".

Baha'u'llah was Annointed with the Holy Spirit recorded by the symbol of the "the Maiden".

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Scholars are not certain the Church ever became part of the state. You'd have to supply evidence for that.

Justinian definitively established Caesaropapism, believing "he had the right and duty of regulating by his laws the minutest details of worship and discipline, and also of dictating the theological opinions to be held in the Church". According to the entry in Liddell & Scott, the term orthodox first occurs in the Codex Justinianus: "We direct that all Catholic churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed."
Christianity_as_the_Roman_state_religion - Wikipedia

... Not sure what you refer to as 'ugly'?

Wars between Roman Empire and other Christians .. mainly Arians

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is it? Where?

Really?
Are you suggesting that Arians saw Jesus as equal to the Father?

If you think I'm wrong, please point out the texts that show I've misrepresented their position?

We've been here before..

Little of Arius's own work survives except in quotations selected for polemical purposes by his opponents, and there is no certainty about what theological and philosophical traditions formed his thought.
Arianism - Wikipedia

What we can be sure of, is that they did not agree with the Nicene creed.

 

[Thomas]

Justinian definitively established Caesaropapism ...

Or tried to. Read on:
However, Caesaropapism "never became an accepted principle in Byzantium."[10] Several Eastern churchmen such as John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople[6] and Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, strongly opposed imperial control over the Church, as did Western theologians like Hilary of Poitiers and Hosius, Bishop of Córdoba.[11] Saints, such as Maximus the Confessor, resisted the imperial power as a consequence of their witness to orthodoxy. In addition, at several occasions imperial decrees had to be withdrawn as the people of the Church, both lay people, monks and priests, refused to accept inventions at variance with the Church's customs and beliefs. These events show that power over the Church really was in the hands of the Church itself – not solely with the emperor.[12]

Wars between Roman Empire and other Christians .. mainly Arians

Oh, the wars between Rome and the Gothic states? All wars are ugly. But that's politics, not religion.

 

[Thomas]

Really?
Are you suggesting that Arians saw Jesus as equal to the Father?

No, I'm asking you to evidence what you're suggesting.

 

[Thomas]

We've been here before..
Little of Arius's own work survives except in quotations selected for polemical purposes by his opponents, and there is no certainty about what theological and philosophical traditions formed his thought.
Arianism - Wikipedia

Yes, and this is the problem with a dependence on wiki alone. I took the trouble to seek out the review and read it entirely, and it's conclusion is rather different to what you might suppose ... you can do so here (emphasis mine)

... little of his own work survives except in quotations selected for polemical purposes by his opponents, and also because there is no certainty about what theological and philosophical traditions formed his thought...

Part I works expertly through the debated obscurities of dates and documents, providing, as accurately as possible, the meagre biographical framework for the theological issues. Part II Williams, correctly I am sure, places Arius firmly within the Alexandrian tradition of theology ... while the ghost of Arius the ‘adoptionist’ ... is, one hopes, finally laid.

I find Williams’ detailed account of Arius’ relation to earlier theology almost entirely convincing... Out of an old familiar hat Arius pulled a new rabbit. (Had he not done so, there would not have emerged—at least not at that time—that other new rabbit: Nicene orthodoxy.)

What we can be sure of, is that they did not agree with the Nicene creed.

And you'd be wise to make sure you understand what you're defending before you leap to its defence.

 

[Thomas]

The same author the wiki article cites, Richard Bauckham, says elsewhere:

"... in the second and third centuries, in a much less Jewish context, what the early Christians meant was by no means so obvious, and so, with the Greek focus on divine nature, a strong tendency was to go for a stratified concept of divinity with three levels. Outside the Jewish context, for example, it was not so difficult to think that the one God (the Father) created the world by means of the agency of a lesser divine being (even, as Arius thought, a created but unique intermediary).
The Calvinist International

 

[muhammad_isa]

Or tried to. Read on:
However, Caesaropapism "never became an accepted principle in Byzantium."[10] Several Eastern churchmen such as John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople[6] and Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, strongly opposed imperial control over the Church ... ... ...These events show that power over the Church really was in the hands of the Church itself – not solely with the emperor.[12]

I don't think that anybody is claiming that power was solely in the hands of the state, but it
cannot be denied that emperors presided over councils, and appointed high office in the church

There is nothing unusual about that. It happened in religions other than Christianity as well.

All wars are ugly. But that's politics, not religion.

Well, that's the problem .. it is not always easy to separate the two.

 

[Thomas]

I don't think that anybody is claiming that power was solely in the hands of the state, but it
cannot be denied that emperors presided over councils, and appointed high office in the church

In Constantinople, yes – not in the wider empire.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The same author the wiki article cites, Richard Bauckham, says elsewhere:

"... in the second and third centuries, in a much less Jewish context, what the early Christians meant was by no means so obvious, and so, with the Greek focus on divine nature, a strong tendency was to go for a stratified concept of divinity with three levels. Outside the Jewish context, for example, it was not so difficult to think that the one God (the Father) created the world by means of the agency of a lesser divine being (even, as Arius thought, a created but unique intermediary).
The Calvinist International

Almighty God is right .. The One God who created the universe is always right.

This is what mankind does. We proudly state we "know" what God is, and how He operates etc.
All we are doing, is opening a "can of worms".

 

[Thomas]

Then I was confronted by Muslim, and realized, to my shock, that Christians have a hard time to explain the Trinity.

Well, I previously sumerized the Bible and read the Quran a few times, and I decided to see if there is an easy understandable way to explain the Trinity, and to also find out if the Trinity is false, or really a divine god.

I've never really engaged in such discussions – I've always accepted what others believe as their belief.

As so many Muslim's have voiced their opinion about this and other doctrines here, I thought I might offer my own thoughts.

One of the issues with Islam is when Muslims cite the Quran describing Christians as worshipping Mary:
And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'”…. (5:116).

Muqatil ibn Sulayman’s mid-eighth-century tafsir is considered by scholars to be the earliest complete commentary on the Quran to have survived in good condition. In it, Sulayman claims that Christians “say that Allah, powerful and exalted, is the third of three – he is a god, [Jesus] is a god, and [Mary] is a god, making Allah weak.”
(Source here)

The issue is there is no firm evidence that Mary was ever regarded as divine, or should be worshipped as a God. Therefore it seems that either the noble Quran is mistaken when it suggests that Mary was worshipped as a god, or at best that it was replying to at best a very minor sect and not Christian orthodoxy as a whole.

This, combined with clearly gnostic-influenced accounts of the crucifixion leads one to assume that, assuming the Prophet (pbuh) was not mistaken, with regard to orthodox Christian belief – then the commentary on the Quran was misled by a priori erroneous assumptions.

Why the Quran would challenge a very minor, possibly non-existant belief, and make no comment of the beliefs of the broader Christian church is problematic.

As the following source states:
The concept of Trinity in which the Christians believe, regardless of their various interpretations thereof, in reality boils down to exaggeration about ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) and his mother. Therefore the Qur’an dealt with and refuted this basic concept, and struck at the roots of the idea of Trinity, refuting the blasphemous idea that is common to all of their groups. Therefore we may say that the view that this verse was revealed to criticise their taking the Messiah and his mother as two gods besides Allah, may He be exalted, is not contrary to the reality of the Christians; rather it is highlighting the true essence of their blasphemy, that is common to all of their groups.

Simply, evidenced above, the doctrine was never properly understood.

Again:
Islam holds that the pristine, true worship of Allah in Arabia was distorted by Arab polytheism. A frequent polemical assertion of the Qur’an is that Allah has no ‘partners’ or ‘offspring’. This was particularly pointed since in practice the supposed progeny of Allah were the effective objects of worship rather than Allah Himself, and indeed, the Qur’an refers to the three favourite deities of the Meccans – Lat, Uzza and Manat as the binat’Allah – ‘the daughters of Allah’. It can be seen from this that the original reference of this assertion was not to any purported Christian view of Trinitarianism or divine sonship, but rather to the polytheistic Arab idea of Allah’s paternity of the Meccan pantheon. Yet Islam tends to associate the Biblical dogma of the eternal Sonship of Christ with pagan ideas of divine progeny. In commentating on Surah 66:12, Yusuf Ali, the great Qur’an translator, states the following:

The virgin birth should not therefore be supposed to imply that Allah was the father of Jesus in the sense in which Greek mythology makes Zeus the father of Apollo by Latona or of Minos by Europa. And yet that is the doctrine to which the Christian idea of ‘the only begotten Son of God’ leads.

Similarly, S. 19:88 purportedly attacks the Christian concept of divine sonship. Yusuf Ali states:

Here the Christian attitude is condemned, which raises Jesus to an equality with Allah: in some cases venerates Mary almost to idolatry: attributes a physical son to Allah: and invents the doctrine of the Trinity, opposed to all reason, which according to the Athanasian Creed, unless a man believes, he is doomed to hell for ever.

Yet what Islam is condemning in this text is a naturalistic idea of the eternal Sonship of Jesus, proposing a concept of God behaving like the gods of Greece and Rome, seducing humans and producing demi-gods. This is not how Biblical and historic Christian dogma has presented the idea of divine sonship in its understanding.

To reiterate, I'm not suggesting the Quran is wrong, but the commentary.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The issue is there is no firm evidence that Mary was ever regarded as divine, or should be worshipped as a God. Therefore it seems that either the noble Quran is mistaken when it suggests that Mary was worshipped as a god, or at best that it was replying to at best a very minor sect and not Christian orthodoxy as a whole.

The Theotokos (i.e., God-bearer, or Mother of God) title for Mary is very important in Eastern Orthodoxy and is seen as an affirmation of the fullness of God's incarnation.
Marian_devotions - Wikipedia

I suppose it depends on how you view "worship" or "a god".
Veneration could in some circumstances, be viewed as worship, and the Qur'an
was negating the idea of absolute divinity that many people shared, about Jesus and Mary.

As the following source states:
The concept of Trinity in which the Christians believe, regardless of their various interpretations thereof, in reality boils down to exaggeration about ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) and his mother. Therefore the Qur’an dealt with and refuted this basic concept, and struck at the roots of the idea of Trinity, refuting the blasphemous idea that is common to all of their groups. Therefore we may say that the view that this verse was revealed to criticise their taking the Messiah and his mother as two gods besides Allah, may He be exalted, is not contrary to the reality of the Christians; rather it is highlighting the true essence of their blasphemy, that is common to all of their groups.

Simply, evidenced above, the doctrine was never properly understood.

It is highly likely that many Muslims write commentaries, without a good understanding of Christianity.
These people can be wrong, as can we all.

To reiterate, I'm not suggesting the Quran is wrong, but the commentary.

I would agree, to some extent.
The main message in the Qur'an to Christians, that I perceive, is that it would be better not to say "three",
but righteous believers have their rewards for faith.

 

[Thomas]

I suppose it depends on how you view "worship" or "a god".
Veneration could in some circumstances, be viewed as worship, and the Qur'an
was negating the idea of absolute divinity that many people shared, about Jesus and Mary.

The only reference we have is from Epiphanius in his Panarion – a list of over eighty heresies – "Certain women there in Arabia have introduced this absurd teaching from Thracia: how they offer up a sacrifice of bread rolls in the name of the ever-Virgin Mary, and all partake of this bread” (Panarion 78:13).

The existence of the sect – a female cult – is disputed by scholars. His is the only mention of it.

It is possible that such a cult existed in Arabia, with elements from Christianity mixed in with local pagan polytheism. But it would be mistaken to think that it was at all representative of Christian doctrine.

This actually strengthens the arguments that Mohammed was countering Arab polytheism, and his critiques of Christian belief was based on misinformation or misrepresentation of the faith.

It is highly likely that many Muslims write commentaries, without a good understanding of Christianity.
These people can be wrong, as can we all.

Indeed. We agree on something!

The main message in the Qur'an to Christians, that I perceive, is that it would be better not to say "three",

Sadly, the meaning was never understood, we never said, as was supposed, three Gods.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sadly, the meaning was never understood, we never said, as was supposed, three Gods.

Come on, Thomas, isn't that just splitting hairs?
I am well aware that Christians are monotheists, and believe in One God.
..but in speaking about a "triune God", one cannot suggest that the concept of "three" does not arise.

171 O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three". Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
- Quran An-Nisaa -

..so back to the same sort of concept as in council of Nicea .. the nature of the Son of God and his precise relationship to God the Father.

When Allah SWT says that "He has no son", He refers to the concept of "sharing in divinity".
The concept of a Son, as in the OT, is one of closeness to God, and not absolute Divinity.
..so only-begotten-Son, as in unique-Son, led to the belief that Jesus is God, per Gospel of John.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Come on, Thomas, isn't that just splitting hairs?
I am well aware that Christians are monotheists, and believe in One God.
..but in speaking about a "triune God", one cannot suggest that the concept of "three" does not arise.

171 O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three". Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
- Quran An-Nisaa -

..so back to the same sort of concept as in council of Nicea .. the nature of the Son of God and his precise relationship to God the Father.

When Allah SWT says that "He has no son", He refers to the concept of "sharing in divinity".
The concept of a Son, as in the OT, is one of closeness to God, and not absolute Divinity.
..so only-begotten-Son, as in unique-Son, led to the belief that Jesus is God, per Gospel of John.

The concept of three or trinity is all throughout creation.There are three kinds of vegetation grass, herbs and trees (Genesis 1:11). There are three kinds of lights in the sky the sun, the moon and the stars (Genesis 1:16). There are three kinds of animals fish, fowl and land animals. There are three kinds of land animals cattle, creeping things and beasts (Genesis 1:24). Man has three parts spirit, soul, and body (1Thessalonians 5:23). There are three basic colors red blue and yellow and three states of matter (solid, liquid and gas). There are more!

we believe it when it was written that God reveals Himself in all of creation.

Romans 1:19–20 (ESV)
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

I'm still waiting for a response on the following scriptures.

Psalm 2:12 (ESV)
12 Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm still waiting for a response on the following scriptures.

Psalm 2:12 (ESV)
12 Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Probably best to wait for our Hebrew brother @RabbiO to make a comment

 

[talib-al-kalim]

That would be a near-impossible position to defend, I rather think.


Scholars now reckon the Decree of Thessalonika, issued by Theodisius in 380, was aimed at Constantinople, seat of semi-Arianism, and not the empire as a whole (where it had little impact) – so Theodosius never actually declared Christianity the State Religion.

Wikipedia:

Theodosius I (Greek: Θεοδόσιος Theodosios; 11 January 347 – 17 January 395), also called Theodosius the Great, was Roman emperor from 379 to 395. During his reign, he succeeded in a crucial war against the Goths, as well as in two civil wars, and was instrumental in establishing the creed of Nicaea as the orthodox doctrine for Christianity. Theodosius was the last emperor to rule the entire Roman Empire before its administration was permanently split between two separate courts (one western, the other eastern).

He will well have had problems to reign over the western part, and it may not have been his first priority to unify the Christian dogmatics there. But which scholars suppose that Theodosius meant to make a difference in Religion over his empire?

Emperors tried various means of 'uniting' the church, and all of them failed.

Both, the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic accepted and imposed the trinity dogma, and medieval emperors until the 18th centry succeeded to impose their faith in the empire.

The Trinity, the confession of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is as old as the Church.

Yes, the confession of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is common already in the 1st century Church. But that does not mean that everyone understood it as if Jesus (p.b.u.h) is a god; rather he and the Holy Spirit are sent out by Him.

You'd have to clarify that point. Monophysitism in theological discussion applies the the doctrine from Antioch in the middle of the 5th century – that Christ's human nature was completely subsumed by His divine nature.

The term is indeed later. The Monophysite (=Miaphysit) position was represent in the council of Nicea mainly by Apollinaris of Laodicea.

I said: to meet half-way and to interprete the dogma in the one or the other sense.

Subordinationism is a trinitarian teaching, as is monophysitism, both were eventually rejected as orthodoxy emerged from the sometimes furious debates across the centuries – both declare Jesus is God.

You say, both are trinitarian teachings; so the goal to unite the positions has been successful in your mind at least. But they are different from each other, and both positions deny that Jesus is both, god and human; subordinarism does not say that Jesus is God, others do.

Ah, no, that's not correct at all.

And it was defended on Scriptural grounds, too ...

You can, if you pick them out and put scolarly opinions above citings of Jesus.

But we know Christianity did not follow polytheist mythology, so that's a popular fallacy.

I am not saying that Christianity followed polytheist mythology.

Not, that's quite wrong. Mary was never declared divine.

Mary was not really declared divine but the term was used among early monophysite and trinitarian Greek Christians and it is still used in the Roman Catholic Church, and Catholics pray to Mary instead of God (which is definitely not based on the teachings of Jesus), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos.

Two out of three – not bad.

However Jesus is the Word incarnate.

I have explained my understanding of this, and you have read it.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

I could say you should beware. Jesus was quoting Deuteronomy 6 and many of us believe He was speaking of Himself to Moses.

Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son,
Lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The translation of Psalm 2:12 is probably mistaken. Please read my answer on Stack exchange.