The Trinity according to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD
- Thread starter CorrectiveLens
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Allow me to preface this by saying, I am not Arian. But I have done my due diligence in studying Arian (not necessarily Jehovah's Witness) materials. There's actually two different "constructs," or "models" (if I may use the term fluidly) which are attested in Arian circles. In order to know how to interact with the appropriate model, one needs to be able to recognize the difference between the two. Even in Arian camps, the two models will get confused or conflated, when in reality they differ.
So yes, Jn. 1:1 would be an appropriate "rebuttal" against Model A; however, one needs to be prepared to deal with this view's standard interpretation of Jn. 1:1. Essentially, they try to suggest that Christ had His "beginning" at "the beginning" of Jn. 1:1. But, as you have suggested, there is an element to this that suggest that the Word was already existing prior to "the beginning." And so does every other text which speaks of pre-existence, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:10-12.
Model B is probably the construct people should be geared at offering a rebuttal to. Proponents of this view would agree that the Word was already present prior to Jn. 1:1 (cf. Gen. 1:1), but that the Word was created at some point prior to.
I think both models are quite flawed, but if one is going to interact with "Arianism," then it should be geared towards interacting with Model B. Both models have quite a bit of problems, and adherants of both models do interpret specific passages much differently. This is an area I have spent quite a bit of time in.
If we don't hear back from CorrectiveLens, I'd be more than happy to go over some of the passages that you may have questions on. We could probably arrange to even do it via Skype or something, because with the appropriate visuals, I think it will help bring out the "difficulties" with their suggest interpretations and help "bridge" the ones I attempt to make. Don't let them act like they don't have problems; oh, because they do. They just don't talk about them, and no one has vested the time to really dig their heels in to interact.
- In Model A, Christ "came into being" simultaneously at "the beginning" (Gen. 1:1).
- In Model B, Christ "came into being" at a time that antedates "the beginning" (Gen. 1:1).
So yes, Jn. 1:1 would be an appropriate "rebuttal" against Model A; however, one needs to be prepared to deal with this view's standard interpretation of Jn. 1:1. Essentially, they try to suggest that Christ had His "beginning" at "the beginning" of Jn. 1:1. But, as you have suggested, there is an element to this that suggest that the Word was already existing prior to "the beginning." And so does every other text which speaks of pre-existence, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:10-12.
Model B is probably the construct people should be geared at offering a rebuttal to. Proponents of this view would agree that the Word was already present prior to Jn. 1:1 (cf. Gen. 1:1), but that the Word was created at some point prior to.
I think both models are quite flawed, but if one is going to interact with "Arianism," then it should be geared towards interacting with Model B. Both models have quite a bit of problems, and adherants of both models do interpret specific passages much differently. This is an area I have spent quite a bit of time in.
If we don't hear back from CorrectiveLens, I'd be more than happy to go over some of the passages that you may have questions on. We could probably arrange to even do it via Skype or something, because with the appropriate visuals, I think it will help bring out the "difficulties" with their suggest interpretations and help "bridge" the ones I attempt to make. Don't let them act like they don't have problems; oh, because they do. They just don't talk about them, and no one has vested the time to really dig their heels in to interact.
-
1
- Show all
I have plenty of time; you just let me know where you want to begin. I am out of town today, but have lots of free time. And if you would rather talk about it (rather than type about it), we can arrange that, certainly. And if Ted wants in on it, then by all means.
A lot of the materials that you have read of mine are actually written with "a slant" against Arianism, not sure if you have noticed that, even though I do not necessarily mention "Arianism," per se.
If you would like, you can shoot me a private message (or Ted, or both) and I can share some contact info if you'd rather that.
A lot of the materials that you have read of mine are actually written with "a slant" against Arianism, not sure if you have noticed that, even though I do not necessarily mention "Arianism," per se.
If you would like, you can shoot me a private message (or Ted, or both) and I can share some contact info if you'd rather that.
-
2
- Show all
Amos 6:10e
"We must not mention the name of the Lord.”
ASV "we may not make mention of the name of Jehovah."
CEB
"We mustn’t mention the name of the Lord.”
DARBY
we may not make mention of Jehovah's name.
CJB "we mustn’t mention the name of Adonai.”
NWT For it is not the time to make any mention of the name of Jehovah.’”
adds words not in the Hebrew to avoid this abosute command!!!
"We must not mention the name of the Lord.”
ASV "we may not make mention of the name of Jehovah."
CEB
"We mustn’t mention the name of the Lord.”
DARBY
we may not make mention of Jehovah's name.
CJB "we mustn’t mention the name of Adonai.”
NWT For it is not the time to make any mention of the name of Jehovah.’”
adds words not in the Hebrew to avoid this abosute command!!!
These are my present persuasions, but I don't think every Christian needs to agree on every point.
1. No.
2. Yes.
3. No
4. Yes
5a Yes. 5b No.
6. Depends on what " nature" entails. The one Person, Jesus of Nazareth, is both God (without beginning) and human (continues to inhabit the human body and soul that was born as Jesus of Nazareth.
7. One would need to define what one considers essential to a human nature and a divine nature.
8. No. It is possible for God to desire two mutually exclusive states, but to ultimately choose one state above the other.
1. No.
2. Yes.
3. No
4. Yes
5a Yes. 5b No.
6. Depends on what " nature" entails. The one Person, Jesus of Nazareth, is both God (without beginning) and human (continues to inhabit the human body and soul that was born as Jesus of Nazareth.
7. One would need to define what one considers essential to a human nature and a divine nature.
8. No. It is possible for God to desire two mutually exclusive states, but to ultimately choose one state above the other.
-
1
- Show all
trinity doctrine is anti christ, it’s a roman deception. it works on many fronts as far as the deception goes but most the most satanic of them being an open door to the likes of muslims and jews who can claim they worship the same God as christians which is an insult to the Holy One of Israel. Muslims worship Baal and Jews in their rejection and hatred of Jesus Christ can not claim to worship our God because they cant even recognize His Majesty and kingship thereby proving that who they really worship is the Satan of the babylonian talmud.
Rome hijacked christisnity in order to devise a way to expand their power by making false gods out of Yahweh of hosts. Rome in 325 on the face of it incorporated the babylonian worship of Nimrod and Semiramis and although the run of the mill catholic can can claim ignorance to this fact, it’s their worship of angels, saints, “another Jesus”, idolatry wrapped up in the ceremonial worship and the God status of Mary which leaves them twice dead with the rest of babylon.
Rome hijacked christisnity in order to devise a way to expand their power by making false gods out of Yahweh of hosts. Rome in 325 on the face of it incorporated the babylonian worship of Nimrod and Semiramis and although the run of the mill catholic can can claim ignorance to this fact, it’s their worship of angels, saints, “another Jesus”, idolatry wrapped up in the ceremonial worship and the God status of Mary which leaves them twice dead with the rest of babylon.
-
1
- Show all