Try the Trinity.

[Thomas]

Wikipedia:
... and was instrumental in establishing the creed of Nicaea as the orthodox doctrine for Christianity.

OK. All I was saying is that the Decree is not regarded as perhaps a local ruling. Theodosius was furious with an Arian bishop who flouted his decree in Constantinople, but he was notably not so much bothered by Arians outside the city. Certainly the prohibitions of the decree, ownership of property, etc, was not enforced with great vigour outside Constantinople.

He was, by all accounts, a fair and just man.

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?

Arianism was not an issue in the West. It was seen as a local issue.

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.

Well to be fair there was no separation between East and West at this time. We weren't discussing the later Middle Ages.

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.

I think we can assume Christians understood Jesus as God from apostolic times.

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

No, Apollinaris was at Nicaea, a friend of Athanasius and an opponent of Arius. His own monophysite Christology was not a topic of discussion, there's no appearance of it until about 360AD.

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.

They are entirely separate issues:
Subordinationism is about the relation of the Son to the Father.
Monophysitism is about the relationship of the divine and human natures in Christ
Both affirm that Jesus is God.

Arianism was an extreme subordinationism that declared Jesus a God, but distinct from the Father. Within a few years of Nicaea, the view was largely rejected by semiArians.

Apollinaris taught that Jesus had a human body and a divine nature, but not a human mind or spirit, they being subsumed by the divine. (Rejected by a synod in Alexandria 362 and at the Council of Constantinople in 381.)

Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople in 428, taught Jesus had two natures so divided that He was actually two persons.

Another monophysite, of Eutyches, saw Jesus having one nature in which the human was fully absorbed by the divine and became a third kind of nature – more than human, but less than divine. A variation was that Jesus was fully divine, his humanity having been absorbed.

So we had monophysitism contra dyophysitism – Jesus is one person of one substance but with two different natures: one divine and one human. Miaphysitism subsequently emerged, stating Jesus is one person of one substance with one, fully integrated nature that is both fully human and fully 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.

I don't think Mary was ever regarded as divine by any other than one fringe sect on record, which I've dealt with. The Church is quite clear that Mary is human, not divine and not a figure of worship.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not as 'three gods', however.

..but can't you see how believing both "Jesus is God", and Jesus prayed to the Father .. or "subordinate to God",
is problematic?

 

[RJM]

..but can't you see how believing both "Jesus is God", and Jesus prayed to the Father .. or "subordinate to God",
is problematic?

Problematic? For who?

 

[Thomas]

..but can't you see how believing both "Jesus is God", and Jesus prayed to the Father .. or "subordinate to God",
is problematic?

Why is "subordinate to God" in quotes — that's not Christian doctrine, so I don't believe in both?

The three Persons of the Trinity are equal in nature. All three have have the same divine essence, nature and attributes.

There is no ontological distinction – the Trinity does not comprise of greater and lesser gods – all three are one, God existing eternally in three co-equal Persons. God is not three difference essences, natures or substances. God is One. The three Persons are all of the same essence, substance and nature – equal in every respect.

All Three were One before the creation of the world.

 

[Cino]

All Three were One before the creation of the world.

In what way are they different? The "processes" going on between them, like begetting and proceeding? Are there other distinctions?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why is "subordinate to God" in quotes

For the same reason as why "Jesus is God" is.
The Father never prays to the Son .. the Son always prays to the Father.
it is not difficult to see that Jesus is NOT "equal to the Father" in this respect.

— that's not Christian doctrine, so I don't believe in both?

You don't believe that Jesus prayed to God, the Father?

 

[Faithfulservant]

Jesus is our example because He was fully human not just fully God. He prayed to the Father. He was baptized and all three were present. . He taught us how to pray . That's how we converse with the Father . Why is it strange that He conversed with His Father? I would think it more strange to you that we pray to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. I pray to all three and all three are worthy of my worship. Y'all are stuck on this one thing and that's ALL you post about. This thread was silent for days and not a peep out of you two until Thomas valiantly jumped back in.

Ugh I said I wasn't going to post here.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Ugh I said I wasn't going to post here.

..and I shan't make things worse by arguing with you.
I don't like upsetting people .. it's just that I find the trinity illogical.

That does not mean that I don't love Jesus, because I do.

 

[moralorel]

..and I shan't make things worse by arguing with you.
I don't like upsetting people .. it's just that I find the trinity illogical.

That does not mean that I don't love Jesus, because I do.

Well said. I wouldn't even say that I find it illogical. I just don't see the point in making it doctrine. But I have said that over and over so I'm sure the fine people here are sick of hearing me say it. Not believing in the trinity ≠ not loving Jesus. It also doesn't mean we don't love people who disagree. I must say, of any forum I have been on, you people have been the most inviting, patient, mature, and loving of any group. I can see why some of you have been here for so long.

 

[Cino]

I must say, of any forum I have been on, you people have been the most inviting, patient, mature, and loving of any group. I can see why some of you have been here for so long.

Good to have you here, glad you like the place! I think it is special, too.

 

[Thomas]

it is not difficult to see that Jesus is NOT "equal to the Father" in this respect.

But in other respects, He is the same as the Father.

The doctrine is based on consideration of all the references in Scripture, not just some.

You don't believe that Jesus prayed to God, the Father?

Not what I said. Check again.

 

[Thomas]

I just don't see the point in making it doctrine.

The doctrine emerged as a correction of error.

 

[Thomas]

In what way are they different? The "processes" going on between them, like begetting and proceeding? Are there other distinctions?

I've spoken above of the two approaches to the Trinity, the Immanent Trinity and the Economic Trinity.

Another way might be to say 'Internal Trinity', the Three Persons in relation to each other, and 'External Trinity', the Three Persons in relation to man, and the work of salvation. This latter relation is in many ways hierarchical. You have Father and Son, which speaks of a hierarchy; you have the Father sending the Son, and then the Son sending the Holy Spirit, suggesting another hierarchy, and this led to the Fathers saying "The Spirit reveals the Son, the Son reveals the Father."

In John 10:30 Jesus says: "I and the Father are one." In 14:10-11: "I am in the Father and the Father is in me”. 17:5: "And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee."

The Trinitarian Pauline greetings, the Trinitarian baptismal formula, all point to a transcendent unity of the Three Persons.

St Paul echoes this idea when in Colossians there's a quote which is believed to be from a Liturgical hymn of the church (and thus very, very early), that in the incarnate Son “all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” (Colossians 1:19).

These verses imply a mutual indwelling of two of the three persons of the Trinity. The same is accorded to the third. In the famous teaching, The Father is wholly in the Son and the Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and the Spirit, and the Spirit is wholly in the Father and the Son. The three are one. Where one is, all three are.

The term used to describe this eternal mutual indwelling is perichoresis (Gk peri, meaning 'around' and chorein meaning 'to give way' or 'to make room'. In perichoresis, the three are one, each in the other., without separation, yet distinct.

Perichoresis asserts the three persons, but says you cannot have one person of the Trinity without the other two, and you cannot have any person of the Trinity without having the fullness of God. The inter-communion of the persons is reciprocal, and their operations are inseparable. As Augustine put it: “Each are in each, and all in each, and each in all, and all are one.”

How can three persons simultaneously share the same undivided essence? The answer is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit coinhere (another term used to define the internal relations of the Trinity) in such a way that the persons are always and forever with and in one another, yet without merging, blending, or confusion.

So the distinctions only really emerge with regard to our relationship to the divine, and the mission of salvation, in which Father, Son and Holy Spirit have distinct roles.

 

[moralorel]

The doctrine emerged as a correction of error.

What error?

 

[Thomas]

What error?

OK. I can list particular disputes if you like, but it's worth noting a couple of points.

We're pretty sure that from the off the Early Christian Church believed in and prayed to, Father Son and Holy Spirit. Baptism was in the name of the Three by the end of the first century. They believed in One God, and worshipped the One in Three. No doubt their teachers used those texts in the gospels that refer to the Hebrew scriptures to explain the nature of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

What I very much doubt is that the community questioned the nature of the Trinity very deeply. (My parents never did, as far as I'm aware.) They simply believed. They found something in Christianity compelling, and again I very much doubt it was Trinitarian theological distinctions. The Love of God, as one who suffers with us and for us, says far more.

(My mum used to tell me of a very informed theologian parish priest who used to bore the pants off her and his congregation. 'You'd love him,' she said, rolling her eyes. When he took leave, a priest working cover spoke of the Love of Christ. She said they couldn't get enough of him.)

Disputes arose from two sources, one internal, one external.

Arius is a particular case. A Catholic pyesbyter, He had a lowly parish in Alexandra, mostly 'working class', and he composed hymns/songs to enable them to memorise the teachings. I've head said, like sea-shanties, they could be sung while working the boats.

The trouble was, his hymns said something different to what they'd been taught. There was confusion, and dissent. Some complained to the bishop and the rest, as they say, is history ...

Another example of error (not Arius) was that Jesus was not actually human, but an angel who only appeared so. Or that God the Father to whom Jesus prayed was not the God of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Externally, we have the infamous 'Gnostics'. This is rather a general catch-all term. But we have texts saying Jesus was crucified, but taken down alive. Or that Jesus was an angel, and therefore did not actually suffer on the cross. Or that it was not Jesus, but Judas, who was substituted at the last moment, or neither Jesus nor Judas but someone else ...

Then 'infancy gospels' begin making an appearance, with the most astounding stories or miracles and murders by the boy Jesus.

... so a broad range of conflicted narratives which the Apostles and their appointed successors had to deal with. This is the origin of orthodoxy, and the preservation of 'truth', as the apostles saw it, against error.

If you want to discuss particular errors, then we must get technical, but five minutes in and the congregation will have got bored and wandered away ... but it's important to get a sense of the sitz im leben, as they say, the background, to see the what and the why of it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We're pretty sure that from the off the Early Christian Church believed in and prayed to, Father Son and Holy Spirit..

Believed in, yes .. prayed to? Doubtful.
One thing is for sure .. early Christians prayed to the Father, as Jesus had taught them in the Lord's prayer.

I know that you believe that the disciples had the same creed as modern day Christians/Catholics.
It makes little sense to think otherwise .. but..

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
Council of Chalcedon - Wikipedia

I don't think that the disciples needed to know all that in order to worship the One God.
As you say, I doubt whether they thought about it .. they thought more about what Jesus was teaching them.
It seems to me, that this doctrine does more harm than good.
It puts emphasis on the nature of Jesus, rather than his teachings.

 

[RJM]

they thought more about what Jesus was teaching them.
It seems to me, that this doctrine does more harm than good.
It puts emphasis on the nature of Jesus, rather than his teachings.

What ARE the teachings of Jesus -- from the Qur'an? You are trying to use the New Testament to disprove the New Testament, imo.

 

[RJM]

@muhammad_isa

You know it's not really about the Trinity. It's a foot in the door to throw out the death on the cross and the resurrection -- along with all the Pauline and Johannine writings of the New Testament, and all the parts of the other gospels which don't agree with the Qur'an Jesus, as corrupted.

It doesn't matter what anyone says. Whatever doesn't agree with the Qur'an is false and corrupted

So therefore: what ARE the teachings of Jesus from the Qur'an?

(edited)

 

[Thomas]

Believed in, yes .. prayed to? Doubtful.

Well you're wrong there, it's beyond doubt, really.

We have two Christological hymns in the Pauline writings, Colossians 1:15-20 and Philippians 2:5-11.

The latter was written sometime between 52-62AD, and it's generally accepted that the hymn was in existence, used in the Lord's Day liturgy, and so copied by St Paul, which makes the origin of the hymn possibly as early as a decade after Jesus' ascension.

One thing is for sure .. early Christians prayed to the Father, as Jesus had taught them in the Lord's prayer.

No question there. Doesn't mean ...

I know that you believe that ...

And I know you don't, but there's little point in claiming your doubts as meaningful when the evidence says otherwise.

Council of Chalcedon - Wikipedia
I don't think that the disciples needed to know all that in order to worship the One God.

I don't think they did either.

I don't think Christians today know anything about Chalcedon, either.

It seems to me, that this doctrine does more harm than good.

Doesn't to me. Doesn't to millions of Christians worldwide.

It puts emphasis on the nature of Jesus, rather than his teachings.

Not really, only if that's where you focus.

I bet more Christians today know Jesus said "Love thy neighbour" than they do about the 'four Chalcedonian adverbs' I doubt many could tell you the date of Nicaea, or who Arius was ... it's you who makes so much of it ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

What ARE the teachings of Jesus -- from the Qur'an?

No, I'm not referring to the Qur'an.
I'm referring to what Jesus taught in the Gospels.

Furthemore, the Septuagint was used by early Christians, as well.