Evidence for God from Science

"Christians believed Jesus was God"

Christians never believed that Jesus was God, they believed that Jesus was the son of God, part man (physically and naturally), part God (spiritual and supernatural) given abilities, just like God giving moses the ability to do things normally nobody can ever do. Jesus was God, in the sense he carried Gods wisdom and shared it with mankind...and ofcourse you know the rest of it. Jesus by definition was Jesus, the son of God. Jesus by definiton was not God, thats my understanding anyways.

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Live,
who proceedeth from the Father and the Son;
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

__________________________________________

The need to produce this in 325 AD was a direct result of the heresies in existence at the time.

Those heresies still exist.

They deserve no more acceptance now as the Church gave them then.

The creed still applies and stands in testimony against those heresies.

As much as some might like to try and cast doubt and tear down the statement of the majority of the Church at that time and pretend that this just simply arose spontaneously and without a trace, they are incorrect.

There is plenty of material tracing the Arian heresy which still exists in the teaching of groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians.

There is plenty of material demonstrating the development of both Orthodox Christianity as well as these heresies. The bottom line is that the Church at that time reject Arianism, and excommunicated its founder.

Those who want to adhere to the heresy of Arianism, not surprisingly, will not accept the quotes and history of the orthodox line and do all they can to cast doubt upon it while promoting their own lineage and history. That is not scholarship in my estimation and observance.

For those wanting to know more about Arianism and why it was refuted by the Church in the 4th Century and deserves continued rejection, here are resources that you may use to learn more about this issue.

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism-schaff.html

(Read the whole article. This is just the conclusion.)

Arianism was refuted by an array of scriptural passages, which teach directly or indirectly the divinity of Christ, and his essential equality with the Father. The conception of a created Creator, who existed before the world, and yet himself began to exist, was shown to be self-contradictory and untenable. There can be no middle being between Creator and creature; no time before the world, as tune is itself a part of the world, or the form under which it exists successively; nor can the unchangeableness of the Father, on which Anus laid great stress, be maintained, except on the ground of the eternity of his Fatherhood, which, of course, implies the eternity of the Sonship. Athanasius charges Arianism with dualism, and even polytheism, and with destroying the whole doctrine of salvation. For if the Son is a creature, man still remains separated, as before, from God: no creature can redeem other creatures, and unite them with God. If Christ is not divine, much less can we be partakers of the divine nature, and in any real sense children of God.

The Arian system is a refined form of Paganism, and substitutes a created demigod for the eternal uncreated Logos. It lowers Christianity to a merely relative value. It separates God and the world by an impassable gulf, and makes a real reconciliation and atonement impossible. It represented the Erastian principle of the Byzantine Empire, and associated itself with the secular political power, without which it soon lost its vitality. Its logical tendency is downward to Socinianism, Unitarianism, and Rationalism, until the untenable conception of a secondary God, who originated before the world, out of nothing, gives way to the idea of Christ as a mere man. The cause of Christian civilization was bound up with the defeat of Arianism, and the triumph of the Nicene doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0622.htm

(deposition of Arius at the Nicene Council)

http://christiandefense.org/jw_objecttrin.htm

(Primarily focuses on Jehovahs Witnesses, but they are typical of other arianistic groups.)

http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/t ... fended.htm

(Many articles linked. Pay particular attention to the ones dealing with the parallels with the development of the canon by Trinitarians, the traditional attacks of JW's and Christadelphians.)

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin01.html

(excellent conglomeration of scholarly articles and defences of the Trinity)

That should do for now.

What is being displayed here is not new. It is age-old and goes back to the early church.

The beginning of this thread simply referred to an archaeological find with inscriptions that demonstrated that the concept of Jesus as God, was present in the third century, thus refuting a common criticism of Arians that this simply "appeared" arbitrarily in the 4th century within the doctrine of the Trinity.

The need to make that kind of claim is more often emotional than intellectual. Textual documentation is present. Of course, those who don't want to admit even intellectually that Jesus was seen as God by the early Church (not to mention the Scriptures themselves) will raise every possible objection they can citing technicalities. The preponderance of the evidence however is clear to any reasonable examiner of the history whether they accept one position or not. Secondary sources are common among the Patristic fathers of the time. Whether someone finds them convincing or not is a matter of opinion. The key is to examine the sources they use to support their own position and see if they apply the same standard there.

Gnosticism, Arianism, Sebellianism, Montanism, etc. were all competing theories that were coexistent and developed in the same time period.

I am a Trinitarian. I don't find it needful to try and pretend these philosophies and approaches were not contemporary with what was later certified as orthodoxy.

It should raise a flag when those arguing against the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, and orthodox Christianity feel the need to try and reconstruct history to support their position.

My opinion.

Now, I'm going to reassert AGAIN for those having difficulty comprehending the matter:

LOOK AT THE MAIN BOARD FOR A STATEMENT OF FAITH AND BELIEFS FOR THIS BOARD AS WELL AS THE DISCUSSION GUIDELINES.

Note especially the following section in the discussion guidelines.

This board is a part of Evidence for God from Science (G&S), a Christian website, which serves to provide a defense and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people. Therefore, this message board is intended to reflect that spirit--serving as a place where sincere seekers can ask questions, and where faithful Christians can receive encouragement and instruction. This board is not for those who have already decisively made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to debate and argue against Christianity, ignoring any and all reasons presented. Therefore, those who are Christian or haven't made up their minds are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged.

Christianity for the purposes of this Board is defined in the beliefs which are:

What We Believe

God - God exists eternally (not created) as one being, having the attributes of being omnipotent (all powerful) omniscient (all knowing), omnipresent (present within all parts of the created universe simultaneously) and all loving. God is revealed to us in the form of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Father - God, the Father, is the Holy Presence of God in Heaven, a real place that exists outside of our physical universe.

Son - Jesus Christ is the only begotten (not created) Son of God, born of the virgin Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Son is the full representation of God in human form - both fully human and fully divine. Jesus Christ led a sinless life as the perfect lamb of God. He voluntarily died on the cross to take the punishment for our sins, thereby giving us redemption from death, so that we might have a personal relationship with the Father. Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead, demonstrating the validity of His substitutionary death and the power of the Father in fulfilling His plan of redemption. Jesus will return to earth in glory as absolute Judge and King.

Gospel - The gospel is the "good news" that God has loved us so much that He provided His son, Jesus Christ as the means by which we can be declared sinless, and so, live with God forever in heaven.

Holy Spirit - The Holy Spirit is the power of God expressed to and through all who claim Jesus as Lord and Savior. The Holy Spirit convicts the world (and believers) of sin and encourages them to repent and turn to God. The Holy Spirit gives power to the believer to fulfill the perfect will of God and to be conformed to the image of Christ.

Mankind - God created mankind (males and females) in His own image so that they might have a personal relationship with Him. However, the first humans (Adam and Eve) rebelled against God, believing the lies of Satan, thereby suffering both spiritual and physical death. God, in His love, promised to send the Messiah, by whom the sins of the world could be taken away for all who trusted in Him. Jesus, through His sinless life, fulfilled the promises of God and is the only means by which mankind can reestablish a personal relationship with God.

Bible - The Bible is the inspired word of God given through the writing styles of men led by the Holy Spirit. It is inerrant as originally written.

Church - A church is a local gathering of individuals who call Jesus Christ their Lord and have been sanctified in Christ Jesus. This assembly of professed believers meet together in the name of Jesus Christ for baptism, the Lord's Supper, worship, praise, prayer, fellowship, testimony, the ministry of the Word, discipline, and the furtherance of the Gospel. The Church is the sum of all believers who call Jesus Lord and is the visible representation of His Body on the earth.

Ordinances - Jesus established two ordinances for the Church - believer's baptism and holy communion.

Baptism. - Jesus commanded us to baptize all new believers in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Baptism is a believer's public confession of faith in Jesus Christ, and represents his death with Christ and his resurrection to new life through Christ. Baptism is neither sufficient nor necessary for justification, but represents a believer's willingness to obediently follow Jesus.

Holy Communion. - Jesus instituted communion (unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine) at the last supper (a celebration of Passover). The unleavened bread represents the Lord's body, whereas the fruit of the vine (the cup of blessing) represented the new covenant in His blood. He told us to "do this in remembrance of Me" until He comes again.

Worship - Worship is a natural response to what God has done for us and can be expressed in many different ways (both corporate and private). Corporate worship and service is to be done with a local body of believers and is not optional for obedient Christians.

Salvation - Salvation is the process by which the believer becomes conformed to the image of Christ. The process begins through a confession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord (God and Master) and Savior. Through faith alone we are justified (declared righteous) before a Holy God. The Holy Spirit is given to the believer to guide and lead him through the process of sanctification. The process is completed through the power of God as the believer is resurrected to live eternally in heaven with God.

Anyone having trouble with these concepts can private message me for further clarification.

Clear enough?

godslanguage wrote:"Christians believed Jesus was God"

Christians never believed that Jesus was God, they believed that Jesus was the son of God, part man (physically and naturally), part God (spiritual and supernatural) given abilities, just like God giving moses the ability to do things normally nobody can ever do. Jesus was God, in the sense he carried Gods wisdom and shared it with mankind...and ofcourse you know the rest of it. Jesus by definition was Jesus, the son of God. Jesus by definiton was not God, thats my understanding anyways.

See the material above on the Nicene Creed and related history refuting this.

In addition you may want to take a look at this page on the main web site that hosts this board.

http://www.godandscience.org/cults/songod.html

Jesus Christ is Jehovah (YHVH)
The Deity of Jesus Christ from the Scriptures
by Rich Deem

Characteristic of God or Jehovah followed by the same attributed to Jesus Christ

Who is omnipotent (all powerful)? 1 Chronicles 29:11, Philippians 3:20-21
Who is omniscient (all knowing)? 1 John 3:20, Colossians 2:2-3
Who is omnipresent (present everywhere)? Proverbs 15:3, 2 Corinthians 2:14
Who is Lord of Sabbath? Genesis 2:3, Matthew 12:8
Who is the great "I am?" Exodus 3:14, John 8:58
Who is the only creator? Isaiah 44:24, John 1:3
Who is the only savior? Isaiah 43:11, 45:21, Acts 4:12
Who will judge mankind? Isaiah 3:13, 14, 2 Corinthians 5:10
Who will judge between the sheep and goats? Ezekiel 34:17, Matthew 25:31-33
Who sent the prophets? Jeremiah 7:25, Matthew 23:34
Who resurrected Jesus? Acts 4:10, John 10:17-18
Who is "coming in glory?" Isaiah 40:5, Matthew 24:30
Who is our Father? Isaiah 63:16, Isaiah 9:6
Who is the "first and last?" Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 1:17
Who is Rock of salvation? 2 Samuel 22:32, 1 Corinthians 10:4
Who is Stone of stumbling? Isaiah 8:13-15, 1 Peter 2:8
"One crying in the wilderness" came to prepare a way for whom? Isaiah 40:3, Matthew 3:3
Who is eternal? Genesis 21:33, Micah 5:2
Who is the fountain of living waters? Jeremiah 17:13, John 4:10-14
Who resurrects the dead? Acts 26:8, John 6:40
Who gives rewards to man? Isaiah 40:10, Matthew 16:27
Who has all authority and power? 1 Chronicles 29:11, Matthew 28:18
Who gives power and authority to man? Psalms 68:35, Luke 9:1
Who forgives sin? 2 Chronicles 7:14, Matthew 9:6
Who sent the Holy Spirit? John 14:16, John 16:7
Who has the greatest name? Nehemiah 9:5, Philippians 2:9
Whom are we to worship? Exodus 34:14, Revelation 5:12-13
Who is the good Shepherd? Genesis 48:15, John 10:14
Who searches for the lost sheep of Israel? Ezekiel 34:11, Matthew 15:24
Who is "Lord of Lords?" Deuteronomy 10:17, Revelation 17:14
To whom shall every knee bow? Isaiah 45:22-23, Philippians 2:10
Who is the righteous branch of David? Jeremiah 23:5-6, Jeremiah 33:15
Who alone is Holy? 1 Samuel 2:2, Acts 3:14
Whose blood cleanses us? Acts 20:28, 1 John 1:7
The world was created for whom? Proverbs 16:4, Colossians 1:16
Who is above all? Nehemiah 9:6, Romans 9:5
Who is forever the same? Psalms 102:24-27, Hebrews 1:8-12
Who is our light? Psalms 27:1, John 8:12
Who is the way or path? Psalms 16:11, John 14:6
Who is in charge of the angels? Psalms 103:20, 2 Thesselonians 1:7
Who gives us rest? Exodus 33:14, Matthew 11:28
Who gives eternal life? Proverbs 19:23, John 3:36
We are the bride of whom? Isaiah 54:5, 2 Corinthians 11:2
Who tests the heart and mind? Jeremiah 17:10, Revelation 2:23

Bible Verses Stating Jesus is God

Statement Verse

Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which translated means, "God with us." Matthew 1:23

And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, "A great prophet has arisen among us!" and, "God has visited His people!" Luke 7:16

In the beginning was the Word...and the Word was God. John 1:1

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. John 1:18

He [Jesus]... was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. John 5:18

I and the Father are one. John 10:30

The Jews answered Him [Jesus], "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." John 10:33

You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. John 13:13

Jesus said to him, "...He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, `Show us the Father?'" John 14:9

And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was. John 17:5

Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], "My Lord and my God!" John 20:28

...the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:4

...Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, Philippians 2:6

...to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, Colossians 2:9

God was manifest in the flesh... 1 Timothy 3:16

...our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time-- He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords; 1 Timothy 6:15

God...in these last days has spoken to us in His Son...And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature... Hebrews 1:2-3

But of the Son He says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever... Hebrews 1:8

...the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; Titus 2:13

Simon Peter ... by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1

And on His robe and on His thigh He [Jesus] has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." Revelation 19:16

____________________________________________________

The Scriptures themselves demonstrate the existence of the belief that Jesus was God. While a formal declaration of this was made in response to various heresies in the Nicene Creed, and possibly earlier in the Apostles Creed (we don't have a definitive date), to assert that this was new is beyond credulity.

The Scriptures saw Christ as God. The Apostles saw Christ as God and all but one of them (John) died martyr's deaths holding to that belief. There is clear progression of transmission and affirmation of this belief from the time of Christ Himself right through to Nicene.

I see the historical discussion has been abandoned, and theology is now the subject of this thread.

In an attempt to bring it back to the original topic, I will point out that Gnosticism, Modalism, Saballianism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Patripassianism, and Logos Christology were not early contemporaries with trinitarianism (which was not formulated until the 4th century), but preceded it.

Arianism was of course the dominant theology in the Christian church at one point, but that does not mean it is true. I myself am not an Arian.

Fortigurn wrote:I see the historical discussion has been abandoned, and theology is now the subject of this thread.

In an attempt to bring it back to the original topic, I will point out that Gnosticism, Modalism, Saballianism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Patripassianism, and Logos Christology were not early contemporaries with trinitarianism (which was not formulated until the 4th century), but preceded it.

Arianism was of course the dominant theology in the Christian church at one point, but that does not mean it is true. I myself am not an Arian.

When were the scriptures quoted dated?

Fortigurn wrote:I see the historical discussion has been abandoned, and theology is now the subject of this thread.

In this case theology and history go hand-in-hand.

Fortigurn wrote:In an attempt to bring it back to the original topic, I will point out that Gnosticism, Modalism, Saballianism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Patripassianism, and Logos Christology were not early contemporaries with trinitarianism (which was not formulated until the 4th century), but preceded it.

Your attempt to bring the discussion back to the original topic fails because, on the one hand, the original topic had nothing to do with trinitarianism; it had to do with only one side of it, i.e. the deity of Christ. And on the other hand, you keep claiming that trinitarianism wasn't 'formulated' until the 4th century' which forces us back into a theological discussion.

The trinity was well understood from the apostolic age. The need to formalize it (not formulate it) arose in the 4th century in order to put to rest all the other heretical doctrines you mention.

Fortigurn wrote:Arianism was of course the dominant theology in the Christian church at one point, but that does not mean it is true. I myself am not an Arian.

Ah, no. Arianism was certainly not the dominant theology, it was simply one of many heresies that was rejected and rightfully so.

Here's a link that, though not exhaustive, contains many references to the trinity's scriptural as well as traditional support (from early Christians).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Here's a quote from the 'Proof of Doctrine From Scripture' paragraph:

A. New Testament

The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18 ). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.

Jesus knew what and who he was and so did the apostles. His deity, as well as the Holy Spirit being a distinct person, were well understood from that age on. Heresies started creeping up after that, which necessitated the formalization of the doctrine. That is a historical and undeniable fact.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:I see the historical discussion has been abandoned, and theology is now the subject of this thread.

In an attempt to bring it back to the original topic, I will point out that Gnosticism, Modalism, Saballianism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Patripassianism, and Logos Christology were not early contemporaries with trinitarianism (which was not formulated until the 4th century), but preceded it.

Arianism was of course the dominant theology in the Christian church at one point, but that does not mean it is true. I myself am not an Arian.

When were the scriptures quoted dated?

The first century. But they say nothing of God being three persons.

Byblos wrote:Your attempt to bring the discussion back to the original topic fails because, on the one hand, the original topic had nothing to do with trinitarianism; it had to do with only one side of it, i.e. the deity of Christ.

If you read the original thread, I was the first to point that out.

And on the other hand, you keep claiming that trinitarianism wasn't 'formulated' until the 4th century' which forces us back into a theological discussion.

That is not a matter of theology, it is a matter of history.

The trinity was well understood from the apostolic age. The need to formalize it (not formulate it) arose in the 4th century in order to put to rest all the other heretical doctrines you mention.

You have supplied no evidence for this. Either it was a formal doctrine from the start, or it wasn't. There were plenty of heresies of all kinds from the 2nd century onwards, but you're telling me people waited for two hundred years to finally say 'Ok, everyone believe the trinity'?

The reason why it took so long was because people couldn't agree. Even the earliest councils on the issue were torn with arguments and disagreements.

Ah, no. Arianism was certainly not the dominant theology, it was simply one of many heresies that was rejected and rightfully so.

I suggest you try reading Jerome (and a good ecclesiastical history).

Here's a quote from the 'Proof of Doctrine From Scripture' paragraph:

A. New Testament

The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18 ). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.

This is complete speculation. I note that there is no evidence provided for these claims. Furthermore this is once again theology not history.

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.

I have highlighted the logical fallacy (false dichotomy).

Jesus knew what and who he was and so did the apostles. His deity, as well as the Holy Spirit being a distinct person, were well understood from that age on. Heresies started creeping up after that, which necessitated the formalization of the doctrine. That is a historical and undeniable fact.

What undeniable historical evidence of this allegedly undeniable fact is there? Why is it that we can't find any examples in the entire Bible of God being described as three persons?

Fortigurn wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:I see the historical discussion has been abandoned, and theology is now the subject of this thread.

In an attempt to bring it back to the original topic, I will point out that Gnosticism, Modalism, Saballianism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Patripassianism, and Logos Christology were not early contemporaries with trinitarianism (which was not formulated until the 4th century), but preceded it.

Arianism was of course the dominant theology in the Christian church at one point, but that does not mean it is true. I myself am not an Arian.

When were the scriptures quoted dated?

The first century. But they say nothing of God being three persons.

They support the trinity. Thanks for confirming those dates.

Fortigurn wrote:

Jesus knew what and who he was and so did the apostles. His deity, as well as the Holy Spirit being a distinct person, were well understood from that age on. Heresies started creeping up after that, which necessitated the formalization of the doctrine. That is a historical and undeniable fact.

What undeniable historical evidence of this allegedly undeniable fact is there? Why is it that we can't find any examples in the entire Bible of God being described as three persons?

We've already gone through this many times. Please refer back to the trinity thread here:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1339

I do not think most of critics claim that Jesus' divinity was INVENTED at Nicene. Most of the arguments I found around claim that Jesus was not *universally* believed to be god until Nicene.

If archeological findings prove some instance of god=Jesus before Nicene that does not mean that the whole christian community (nor a major part, nor a relevant part of it) before Nicene believed that Jesus was god.

Nor the quoting from the part of the testament which were selected at Nicene vs. many others which were declared apocryphal, I would say. )

angel wrote:I do not think most of critics claim that Jesus' divinity was INVENTED at Nicene. Most of the arguments I found around claim that Jesus was not *universally* believed to be god until Nicene.

If archeological findings prove some instance of god=Jesus before Nicene that does not mean that the whole christian community (nor a major part, nor a relevant part of it) before Nicene believed that Jesus was god.

Nor the quoting from the part of the testament which were selected at Nicene vs. many others which were declared apocryphal, I would say. )

Angel. There is no question that there were competing understandings.

The significance of the find is not that it proves what segment or number believed in the deity of Christ, which is obviously integral to the Trinity. The significance is that it refutes that small portion today who seek to draw from the absence of extra-biblical evidence by inference that what took place at Nicea was the development of a new doctrine rather than the stating of what had already been present throughout the church and was formally stated at that time.

Athanasius, probably the leading trinitarian defender, indicates in his writings in places that there were times when he and the trinitarian position were the minority or at least it felt that way to him. Arianism was a popular position and had many adherents.

Scripture is significant even for those who don't differentiate between the established cannon and apocryphal or pseudopigraphal works. The development of the canon at that time was a parallel issue.

Those who reject the Trinity have an anomaly in their position if they then accept the cannon. Usually they will not promote that position as it gives evidence to others that puts their anti-trinitarian position in a further negative light.

Strong anti-trinitarians base their position in this regard on the fallacious position that the absence of evidence equals the evidence of absence.

They cannot accept even the presence of conflicting evidence as they apparently have an emotional need to reject even the existence of the position.

That's my opinion and observation anyway.

So you're right that most critics do not reject the presence of the trinity understanding prior to Nicea. It's a very narrow minority with an agenda that does not allow for much objectivity in this regard.