The trinity is an implied reality that Christ revealed.
He is begotten by the Father (not created) which means he is “consubstantial” with Him (of the same substance or essence; ontologically identical).
Jesus also revealed that the Father sends the Holy Spirit. Again- the spirit proceeds from the Father.
While the Son intentionally subordinates Himself to the Father relationally/in status, he is of identical will.
If you deny any of this you deny the entire thing. It is all or nothing. Pull on string and the whole thing falls.
PS - whether or not “people go to hell” is not my place to decide or even speculate. When Christ says we should not judge he doesn’t mean physically or immediately…. He doesn’t mean we don’t call other people out for being morally wrong; we ought to.
We just shouldn’t condemn them to eternal hell because they have up until the moment of death to access Christ, repent and be saved.
If you are believe the apostles didn’t believe Jesus was God you have huge issues within Scripture withing John, Galatians, and other New Testament writings where they literally affirm it.
You’d also have huge issues in Acts where they are all convicted by the Holy Spirit.
The Councils simply codify what was already known and practiced.
Really? But, if they already knew it and this was just affirming it, then why did some of the bishops disagree and they codified it through a vote? Arianism was quite the fight at the time, with the bishops who attended the Council in 325 being literally banished from the church for disagreeing.
That doesn’t sound like a “divine” anything or a council that simply codified the belief - it was a literal vote and the losing party got kicked out. In fact, throughout the fourth and fifth centuries, the “church” was quite beset with conflict over the nature of the three and their relationship to each other, hence the Trinitarian Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus. In fact, at the Council of Nicaea in 325, it was called by a political body not the Pope Sylvester 1. It was called by Constantine to settle the widespread disagreement at the time.
The First Council of Constantinople was called by emperors Theodosius of the East and Gratian of the West, not the Pope at the time Damasus 1. 150 reaffirmed the Nicaean Creed but 36 did not and were banished. That doesn’t sound like something everyone agreed upon and they were just codifying it. From that you get the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed said at Mass.
The third ecumenical council was Ephesus in 431…again, called by emperors and not the Pope, Celestine. This was a political act. It was to refuse Nestrorius (the belief that Jesus was 2 persons, one divine and one human) and declared Mary the mother of God, not just Jesus.
I can’t tell if you’re simply dishonest (which we’ve established time and time again), dumb (which we’ve established you’re willfully ignorant and have a penchant for the dumbest thought you can have and running with it) and also so narcissistic that you think you overrule Dictionaries.
I think it’s a combo - coupled with you’re so dogmatic with Catholicism, that I don’t think you have the ability to think beyond the dogma
There were an estimated 250-320 bishops present to vote. All but 2…. TWO voted against Arianism.
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same or merely of similar substance as God the Father. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 votedagainst Arius).
But you’d have these guys who never studied this believe it was a 50 50 issue.
As I said- the Christological position was merely affirmed. Most Bishops, because they were taught in a succession from the Apostles, knew the true nature of Christ.
Again, you remind me of Cliff Claven. The more you get into a topic, the more you show you’re full of shit. You’re trying to present a narrative that everyone agreed with you at the time of the Nicaean Creed and Arianism was a minor little blip. You’re overwhelmingly incorrect and showing more evidence of being dishonest. If you know the # of bishops, you know the entire council was called by Constantine to settle the dispute caused by Arianism. 2 didn’t sign it, several wouldn’t condemn Arian were exiled. This included the two who didn’t sign, as well as Esebius and Theogius along with Libyan bishop Secondus. The belief was, as by the nature of the council itself, quite widespread to the point that Constantine himself was baptized by Arian bishop Esebius of Nicodemus. They burned the books by Arian.
BUT, upon Constantine’s death, his son Constantius II came to power and was an Arian. He exiled the Nicaean bishops and went directly at Athanasius of Alexandria. He exiled Liberius and Felix II over it. Arianism was the standard and spread to the point the Vandals, Lombards and Visigoths all were followers and spread it throughout their lands for centuries. It was the primary tenant in the Eastern provinces which disputed homoousios, the central theme of the Nicaean Creed. Constantius tried to get the bishops to reverse the creed itself. 357 and the Council of Sirmium was the high point of Arianism. It wasn’t until 381 that it was effectively wiped out among the ruling class. That being said, non-trinitarian doctrine thrived throughout the Goths and Vandals and trickled down to the Protestant Reformation, Anabaptists, was the dominant trend in the 18th century Britain.
It’s alive and well in the LDS and Unitarians. You might not know this, but quite a few Baptists don’t teach the Trinity either. I know this because I was raised in Baptist churches and regardless of the what the SBC says, they directly taught against that.
Yeah, there is literally no evidence whatsoever of that. I know your church teaches you that, but your church was making money and taking power from this idea since, well, that very time.
I was on this subject when you were probably still in middle school. I suggest Williston Walker and the History of the Christian Church for you. The evolution of the early Christian church and the scriptures has been my passion since I was 18. I’m 45.
You? You appear to just recite what your church tells you.
Thank you for your protestant biased sources I’ll stick with my Catholic and original primary sources as I think that they’re more authoritative on this matter
