re: The First Council of Nicaea came to an end 1,700 years ago this week...

quote:

---

Since you won’t take my word for it

---

You haven’t given me a reason

quote:

---

I put the below questions (in italics) in google and copied the top response.

---

Come on bro, you’re killing me.

quote:

---

The 'oneness' is for solidarity through love

---

I can agree with that. It’s up for interpretation but that’s a good interpretation that I think most can agree with.

quote:

---

not integration (into the Trinity).

---

Sounds like you agree that Jesus is one with the father in solidarity through love (not the Trinity). If so, I agree that’s what the scripture says.

quote:

---

Since you won’t take my word for it, I put the below questions (in italics) in google and copied the top response.

---

Here is what Google AI fed me.

If Trinitarians Interviewed 1st Century Christians About The Trinity (AI)

Are we using the same Google?

I’m trying to look up LSU baseball clips and this crap comes up in my feed too. I thought since you trust the Google you’d maybe have to consider this.

7 Times Trinitarians Changed The Bible For The Trinity

quote:

---

self-castration

---

Not sure how anyone could figure that this was God's plan...

quote:

---

biglego

---

Uh oh. Someone's gone full theunknownknight.

In sounds like you subscribe to a type of Arianism, so this makes the discussion much more straight forward. To make the discussion clearer, instead of using divinity I will use “the essence of God.” So I will make a few claims:
(1) A being is God if and only if it has the essence of God
(2) If a being is created, then it does not have the essence of God
(2a) If a being has the essence of God, then it is not created (follows from 2)
(3) Angels are created
(4) Angels do not have the essence of God (follows from 2 and 3)
(5) If in scripture a being is said to be uncreated, is described as having the quality of God, performs functions that are said to be the role of God, and is referenced by phrases used to reference only God, then that being has the essence of God
(6) The Word of God has the essence of God (from 5 and the below verses)
(7) The Word of God is neither created nor an angel (from 4 and 6)

John 1:1-3 (NET)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.

You dispute the above translation of verse 1, but as discussed previously, John 1 at minimum describes the Word of God as having the quality of God. You wrote in a previous post “the Logos is divine - a deity in the qualitative sense.”

John 1:3 clearly states the Word of God is not in the category of created beings. All things were created by him, so if he is a created thing then he would have had to create himself.

John 1:18 (NET)
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

Some manuscripts, especially the later ones, have “begotten son” (huios) in place of the phrase translated as “himself God” (Theos). Whether it was originally huios or Theos is debated. However, what is not debated is that the word in question (either huois or Theos) is followed by “ho on,” which means the “the one who is” and is part of the same phrase the Greek Septuagint uses to translate the Exodus 3:14 phrase “I AM WHO I AM.” The Greek phrase used in Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint is “Ego Eimi ho on.” The phrase following “God” or “son” in John 1:18 is a very clear reference connecting Jesus to exodus 3:14. Throughout John, Jesus often uses the phrase “ego eimi” when discusses himself. This led to threats of violence by the Pharisees as they understood it to be claiming to be God.

John 8:56-59
Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Judeans replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus was hidden from them and went out from the temple area.

Answering the question with and ending the sentence with “I am” (ego eimi) here is an explicit claim of Deity and a clear reference to Exodus 3:14

John 5:17-18
So he told them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God.

It claims here that Jesus was making himself equal with God. The Jewish leaders who were extremely educated on these topics and who knew what he was saying in proper context also understood that Jesus was making himself equal to God, which is why they wanted to kill him.

Mark 14:61-64
Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What is your verdict?”

Jesus again says “I am” (ego eimi) when asked if he is the son of God. The priest understood that he was claiming to be God, hence why he accuses him of blasphemy. It’s not blasphemy to claim to be an angel.

Isaiah 33:22
For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver;
John 5:22
For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,
2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be paid back according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or evil.
James 4:12
There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy.

In the above verses, Christ clearly serves in a role that is a role for God to serve in.

The above scriptures were well understood by the church fathers, which is why the Nicene Creed was written the way it was and why 318 bishops signed it and only 3 refused to sign in. It’s hard to get that much agreement even on fairly uncontroversial statements. The other serious problem with Arianism or the belief that Christ is a created being or some type of super angel is developing a coherent atonement theory. One of the reasons Athanasius opposed Arianism so much was because he understood the significance of the nature of Christ on the atonement and knew it makes no sense from an atonement perspective to think Christ was merely an angel. He wrote a work on the atonement called “On the Incarnation of the Word," which I would highly recommended for anyone interested in this subject.

If Christ is understood to be not fully God but instead some type of super angel, then the whole religion descends into nonsense. God sent an angel to die for our sins? Why? Why is this angel to be glorified and accepts worship when no other angel allows men to bow or worship them as it is understood that worship is for God alone? Why is it prophesized that God will be among His people again and the one to be sent will be called Immanuel (God with us) when it is really not God and just an angel? Why was God the Father and the Holy Spirit directly involved in the Incarnation of Christ if he is not God but merely an angel? Why even come in the flesh if it is not God and man joined together? Just have an angel appear and wander around. Think about Christianity from the perspective of Christ being merely a created messenger or angel and the whole thing starts to make no sense. This is why non trinitarian denominations such as Mormons and JWs don’t seem anything like Christianity.

quote:

---

They aren’t Christian. They use the word, but they’re not Christian.

---

No true redneck smokes Virginia slims. They can call themselves a redneck, but they ain’t.

quote:

---

It’s impossible to be Christian and deny the trinity

---

Learn some history bud. The first half millennia of Christianity they didn’t have the Trinity.

quote:

---

However, the Trinity had not been defined because there was no need to define until some heretic named Arius decided to question it.

---

Pretty gross mischaracterization of the early years of Christianity.

Your first section of logic is very flawed, but you’re also directly contradicting the Bible - example:

quote:

---

(7) The Word of God is neither created nor an angel (from 4 and 6)

---

The Logos / Jesus is called the begotten son of God, the firstborn of creation, is directly compared to the other angels (being better than them), is directly called an angel, and is said to have the voice of an angel. It’s all in the good book. And you know what - I think you know that already.

quote:

---

John 1:1-3 (NET) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God

---

Bud, you and I both know that’s a joke.

quote:

---

John 1:3 clearly states the Word of God is not in the category of created beings. All things were created by him, so if he is a created thing then he would have had to create himself.

---

It clearly states nothing of the sort. It states exactly what it says. The theology is that God the father created the Logos, and through this divine agent (the Logos) everything (like heaven and earth) was created.

quote:

---

John 1:18 (NET) No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. Some manuscripts, especially the later ones, have “begotten son” (huios) in place of the phrase translated as “himself God” (Theos). Whether it was originally huios or Theos is debated

---

The NET translation is a poor translation very often riddled with the beliefs of the translators rather than simply translating from the earliest and most original Greek manuscripts into English. The original is monogenes huios. The “one of a kind son”.

quote:

---

Answering the question with and ending the sentence with “I am” (ego eimi) here is an explicit claim of Deity and a clear reference to Exodus 3:14

---

He is claiming to be YHWH here. The same deity that brought the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt. Jude, Hebrews, and Paul all state Jesus is the same deity who brought he Israelites out of Egypt and into the promised land. It doesn’t say what you think it means. It doesn’t say that Jesus is God the father.

quote:

---

John 5:17-18 So he told them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God.

---

Think hard about this one. If you take two people and say “You are equals”, are you meaning that the two of them are literally the same person?

quote:

---

In the above verses, Christ clearly serves in a role that is a role for God to serve in

---

Sounds like you are telling us about your beliefs and not what the scriptures, which you did post, mean. The role of judge and lawgiver is not for God the Father but for Jesus, as your quoted scripture clearly states.

quote:

---

Nicene Creed was written the way it was and why 318 bishops signed it and only 3 refused to sign in. It’s hard to get that much agreement even on fairly uncontroversial statements.

---

When the punishment for not agreeing is excommunication and loss of livelihood and maybe even death, it’s easier to get agreement.

quote:

---

Athanasius opposed Arianism so much was because he understood the significance of the nature of Christ on the atonement and knew it makes no sense from an atonement perspective to think Christ was merely an angel.

---

Does it make more sense if we have the Trinity and God kills himself as a sacrifice to himself? That’s even dumber.

quote:

---

If Christ is understood to be not fully God but instead some type of super angel, then the whole religion descends into nonsense. God sent an angel to die for our sins? Why?

---

Well then it was already nonsense because that’s what most Christians believed before the Trinity was established as orthodox theology in the very late 5th century and forced on the populace.

quote:

---

Why is this angel to be glorified and accepts worship when no other angel allows men to bow or worship them as it is understood that worship is for God alone?

---

I think you are confusing “God” aka “ton Theon” with “YHWH” aka “The Lord” aka “Kyrios”. The Lord accepts worship as the god of Israel. The Lord’s father, El, is what Israel is named after.

quote:

---

Think about Christianity from the perspective of Christ being merely a created messenger or angel and the whole thing starts to make no sense. This is why non trinitarian denominations such as Mormons and JWs don’t seem anything like Christianity.

---

Pot calling the kettle black.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Learn some history bud. The first half millennia of Christianity they didn’t have the Trinity.

---

Yikes

---

Yikes what? Is that hard to believe? They didn’t have the Trinity until at least 381 AD when they voted on Jesus being the same essence with God and the Holy Spirit being also God. Then they had to go out and teach it and spread it.

quote:

---

It’s more like how a tranny can call themselves whatever they want,

---

A tranny isn’t committing a no true Scotsman fallacy. That’s a different kind of fallacy.