Hey cousin, check www.2001translation.com , and read John 1:1 in their version.
It is not affiliated with JW’s.
Understanding the GodHead.
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
It is not affiliated with JW’s.
Full quote of this historic lesson
www.str.org
Can I be honest with you? Some statements get me frustrated. I can usually keep my cool when people say things I disagree with, but this statement puts me over the top. I am sick and tired of people claiming that the Council of Nicea (c. AD 325) made Jesus into God.
This is a claim that you will hear from both cultists and skeptics. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses are famous for making this claim. In their publication Should You Believe in the Trinity? they write, “Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God.”1 On this view, Emperor Constantine invented the deity of Christ in the fourth century.
This view was also propagated to millions of people in the bestselling book The Da Vinci Code: “Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God‘ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.... By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable.”2 Given the enormous popularity of The Da Vinci Code, this belief has become fully ingrained into the consciousness of the rank-and-file.
How should we respond to this claim? I have a two-pronged approach. First, I ask a question: How did you come to that conclusion? This is the second Columbo question in Greg Koukl’s book Tactics. It is one thing to make a historical claim, but it is another thing to back it up with historical facts. And this often-recited claim lacks any kind of historical support.
At this point, don’t be surprised if the person who raised the challenge cannot answer your question. The fact is, most people in our culture make claims they are not equipped to defend. This is not the time to insult; this is the time to inform. The person who made the claim is deeply misinformed, and you now have the opportunity to correct him. This leads to the second prong of your response.
Second, I look at the facts. This is the Just the Facts Ma’am tactic. Quite often we can correct a person’s false beliefs by appealing to the facts. When answering questions about what happened in the past, it is a good idea to consult reputable historians. In his book Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code, agnostic historian Bart Ehrman writes,
However, to show that Christians believed in the deity of Christ before the Council of Nicea, you can also consult the early church fathers. The person claiming that Nicea invented the deity of Jesus will be surprised to learn that the earliest church fathers explicitly affirmed the deity of Christ. Here is a small sample.
Polycarp (AD 69-155) was the bishop at the church in Smyrna and a disciple of John the Apostle. In his Letter to the Philippians, he writes,
Ignatius (AD 50-117) was the bishop at the church in Antioch and another disciple of John. He wrote a series of letters to various churches on his way to Rome, where he was to be martyred. He writes,
Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) was a Christian apologist of the second century. He boldly states,
Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202) was bishop of what is now known as Lyons, France. Irenaeus studied under bishop Polycarp, who in turn had been a disciple of John the Apostle. He writes,
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) was another early church father. He wrote around AD 200. He writes,
Tertullian (AD 150-225) was an early Christian apologist writing around a century after John. He said,
Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235) was a third century theologian. He was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. He writes,
All of these church fathers wrote over a century before the Council of Nicea supposedly invented the deity of Jesus. So here is my question: If the early church fathers explicitly affirmed Jesus’ deity before Nicea, then how can anyone claim that it was an invention at Nicea?
The facts overwhelmingly confirm that the deity of Christ was not invented at Nicea. In fact, this belief was birthed out of the original disciples’ close interaction with Jesus. Consequently, Jesus’ words and actions led the disciples to the only reasonable conclusion: Jesus is God. And this belief was passed down through church history.
Author
Tim Barnett
Did the Council of Nicea Invent the Deity of Christ?
Many people think Emperor Constantine invented the deity of Christ in the fourth century, but a look at quotes from the early church fathers shows this is not the case.
Can I be honest with you? Some statements get me frustrated. I can usually keep my cool when people say things I disagree with, but this statement puts me over the top. I am sick and tired of people claiming that the Council of Nicea (c. AD 325) made Jesus into God.
This is a claim that you will hear from both cultists and skeptics. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses are famous for making this claim. In their publication Should You Believe in the Trinity? they write, “Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God.”1 On this view, Emperor Constantine invented the deity of Christ in the fourth century.
This view was also propagated to millions of people in the bestselling book The Da Vinci Code: “Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God‘ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.... By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable.”2 Given the enormous popularity of The Da Vinci Code, this belief has become fully ingrained into the consciousness of the rank-and-file.
How should we respond to this claim? I have a two-pronged approach. First, I ask a question: How did you come to that conclusion? This is the second Columbo question in Greg Koukl’s book Tactics. It is one thing to make a historical claim, but it is another thing to back it up with historical facts. And this often-recited claim lacks any kind of historical support.
At this point, don’t be surprised if the person who raised the challenge cannot answer your question. The fact is, most people in our culture make claims they are not equipped to defend. This is not the time to insult; this is the time to inform. The person who made the claim is deeply misinformed, and you now have the opportunity to correct him. This leads to the second prong of your response.
Second, I look at the facts. This is the Just the Facts Ma’am tactic. Quite often we can correct a person’s false beliefs by appealing to the facts. When answering questions about what happened in the past, it is a good idea to consult reputable historians. In his book Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code, agnostic historian Bart Ehrman writes,
So belief in the deity of Jesus existed since “the early years of the religion.” Just how early? The New Testament is full of references to the deity of Christ. Certainly Paul (Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Phil. 2:5–8), Peter (2 Pet. 1:1), and John (John 1:1; 8:58; 20:28) believed that Jesus is God.
However, to show that Christians believed in the deity of Christ before the Council of Nicea, you can also consult the early church fathers. The person claiming that Nicea invented the deity of Jesus will be surprised to learn that the earliest church fathers explicitly affirmed the deity of Christ. Here is a small sample.
Polycarp (AD 69-155) was the bishop at the church in Smyrna and a disciple of John the Apostle. In his Letter to the Philippians, he writes,
Ignatius (AD 50-117) was the bishop at the church in Antioch and another disciple of John. He wrote a series of letters to various churches on his way to Rome, where he was to be martyred. He writes,
Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) was a Christian apologist of the second century. He boldly states,
Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202) was bishop of what is now known as Lyons, France. Irenaeus studied under bishop Polycarp, who in turn had been a disciple of John the Apostle. He writes,
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) was another early church father. He wrote around AD 200. He writes,
Tertullian (AD 150-225) was an early Christian apologist writing around a century after John. He said,
Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235) was a third century theologian. He was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. He writes,
All of these church fathers wrote over a century before the Council of Nicea supposedly invented the deity of Jesus. So here is my question: If the early church fathers explicitly affirmed Jesus’ deity before Nicea, then how can anyone claim that it was an invention at Nicea?
The facts overwhelmingly confirm that the deity of Christ was not invented at Nicea. In fact, this belief was birthed out of the original disciples’ close interaction with Jesus. Consequently, Jesus’ words and actions led the disciples to the only reasonable conclusion: Jesus is God. And this belief was passed down through church history.
Author
Tim Barnett
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Lambano
Well-Known Member
This is a very unwise position to hold. When you embrace Modalism, a belief deemed heretical, you put yourself above the Scriptures. I am not aware of any evangelical scholar who holds this view. Who teaches this view that you know of? Just Curious
Okay, so we can conclude that the Son of God is a god?
How much reverence should we give this second god?
You see the problem, and why Nicea had to happen?
You have described the god of Muslims. In eternity past
god was not a relational being. Since there was numerically only
one god. He lived in eternity past without any relationship, He was
all by Himself, nobody to love, nobody to be merciful to, nobody
to fellowship with, etc.
I wouldn't quibble if you said the Son of God is a God. Remember, that
Christ appeared in the OT to certain believers and back then he came in the
likeness of man, just like in the NT.
This "second god" should be identified as a second God. God is one, which
simply means he and the Other Members of the Trinity are co-equal in every respect.
God doesn't come in degrees. It is more accurate to say the one Godhead, than to say
one God.
How much reverence should we give this second god?
You see the problem, and why Nicea had to happen?
You have described the god of Muslims. In eternity past
god was not a relational being. Since there was numerically only
one god. He lived in eternity past without any relationship, He was
all by Himself, nobody to love, nobody to be merciful to, nobody
to fellowship with, etc.
I wouldn't quibble if you said the Son of God is a God. Remember, that
Christ appeared in the OT to certain believers and back then he came in the
likeness of man, just like in the NT.
This "second god" should be identified as a second God. God is one, which
simply means he and the Other Members of the Trinity are co-equal in every respect.
God doesn't come in degrees. It is more accurate to say the one Godhead, than to say
one God.
Ritajanice
Born-Again
I relate to Jesus as my Spirit Brother, he was sent by his Father, he full filled all that was asked of him by the Father, ..without Jesus doing the will of his Father, then there would be no way that we can be reunited back to our Spirit Father God...thanks to Jesus we can be reconciled back to God in spirit...my belief/ thoughts.
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
Actually, it is the case for all those who buy into the Literal Method of Interpretation. Those who take the scriptures, as a rule, symbolically, will not see passages that mention 3 Members of the Godhead. They have made a prior commitment to the view that there is only 1 Member of the "Godhead."
One guy out here said the The Father, Son., and Holy Spirit are different modes of the 1 God. And believe it or not, despite it being a heresy, he seemed proud that no evangelical scholars hold this position. Implying that he has some "in" with God Who revealed this to him while not revealing to other believers. Of course, there are always a few who hold weird doctrines.
I don't know of any evangelical scholar who believes in three Gods. There are 3 Members of the ONE Godhead. All are co-equal in every way. Those who believe in the Trinity believe in 3 Gods. I don't hold that.
You forgot to provide us with the names of scholars who hold to Modalism. How about two authors? If you can't find any, I will settle with just one scholar.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
The Son of God is God begotten. One God... even same God being 'one', having the same attributes and character and nature being equal in all things, except rank. The Father bringing forth a Son, a part of Himself. Both Spirit, both individuals, one unbegotten,one begotten. The begotten receiving all things from God Father through natural heredity. That's what we understand according to scripture. How that all works, the union of Father and Son, how the begotten aspect came about before creation, how the Father created all things through the Son, how the Son became man and how the two natures, divine and human, were united, we simply don't know and cannot explain. Some might use that lack of explanation as evidence against its truthfulness.... as if they can explain infinity and the God of infinity.
Some things God hasn't chosen to reveal. And if He did, would we even then be able to understand it? Sometimes we attempt to go too deep, trying to explain and satisfy our fragile egos with explanations, definitions etc about mysteries that are none of our business. I think Constantine should have left things as they were rather than defend the indefensible through theology and human devising.
We forget sometimes that there were several more councils after Nicea that further expanded the creeds, and acceptance of those creeds unfortunately became the benchmark for whether one was determined a Christian or not. Those that weren't were subsequently hounded out of town... and forums... for rejecting assumptions. The Trinity concept itself is often quite misunderstood. The principle idea that makes the trinity what it is, is not the three persons of the Godhead, nor even is it the declaration that each is God. Those things were accepted throughout Christendom as some one else had so eloquently pointed out previously. No, the one thing about the trinity that gives it its overarching significance in Christian doctrine and belief, is the unity factor between the three participants. How are they one? That's the question the councils wanted to explain and define. And they couldn't. They couldn't explain how an immortal being could die.
They couldn't explain how three distinct personalities could be one Being... God.
They couldn't explain how a Son could be God at the same time as His Father. So they devised a mechanism to offer believers something to cling to...an indivisible union of 3 persons making one God. The irony today is that we do not need the trinity or the creeds to form a basic belief in the Divinity of and the real atoning death of the Son of God.
Last edited:
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
Now, go ahead and send us names of anyone who holds to your view. I guarantee you will not find one evangelical scholar. You are not nearly trained well enough to understand as well as scholars. That much is obvious. This is not one position against another, but one position against sheer heretical speculation without any theological support or scholarly supporters.
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
I don't care if I'm the only person in the world who believes in one God.
That is the quintessence of arrogance. I will end our discussion here. Best of luck to you.
Let US make man in OUR own image.
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
Excuse me…. Just for clarification:
The one Person you worship, is Who, exactly?
Jesus? Or his Father? Or someone else?
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
False. The instrument is not equal to the person who wields it. Jesus is a created Being begotten.
- Status
Similar threads
