Does Christianity teach that the One God is a Trinity or is that Rome?

[Olivianus]

I believe the latter.

1. The teaching of the Early Christian Fathers is summed up in these six propositions :

I. There is but one God, the Father.

II. There are in the Godhead three (not mere names or modes) truly distinct persons, the Father, the Son or Word of God and the Holy Ghost. These persons are not only  hypostases but individual beings.   

III. These three Persons are generically consubstantial, i.e. the three Persons are ????????? (homoousios), not ?????????? (monoousios).

IV. There is but one beginning/cause (????????, monarchia), one font/fountain or principle of divinity (???? ????????), God the Father, who alone is a???????, God of and from Himself. Thus, the Son and Holy Spirit derive their divinity, personhood and being from Him; the Son by generation, and the Holy Spirit by procession.

V. Because the Son and the Holy Spirit derive both their divinity and personhood from God the Father, this derivation is not limited only to the person of the Father, or the divinity of the Father, but rather, from both the personhood and divinity of the Father.

VI. The Son is subordinate to the Father and this subordination does not pertain to the economy of salvation only but also to the order of being before all worlds. 

Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, C 62, 100, Apol I. 13, Apol I. 16, Apol II. 13); Theophilus of Antioch (To Autolycus, Book II, C 10); St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book I, C 22, C 19 (Old version), Book III, C 15, C 16 (Old version), Book III, C 19. 2); Tertullian (Against Praxeas, C XIII); Origen (Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book II).6, (Book VI).23, Contra Cels. Book  VIII C 14, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, Leo Donald Davis, pg. 49); Novatian (On the Trinity, C 13, 31);  Alexander of Alexandria (Epistles on Arianism and the Deposition of Arius 1.12, To Alexander, Bishop of the City of Constantinople); Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians 1.58, 2.16, 4.1, 4.9-10, De Decretis); Eusebius (Eusebius of Caesarea to Euphration of Balanea); Eusebius the Historian (Ecclesiastical History Book I, ii, Leob Classical Library, Eusebius Vol. I Page 18); Cyril of Alexander (NPNF - 2nd series, Vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pg. 202); Gregory Nazianzen, (Fourth Theological Oration, 30); Basil the Great, (Letter 38, 125, 236-In some older works Letter 391); Bishop Bull in his A Defence of the Nicene Creed catalogs many passages from the Pre-Nicene and Nicene Fathers affirming the subordination of the Son to the Father’s Monarchy beginning on page 627.

2. The Council of Constantinople 381 A.D. and later creeds, changed the meaning of the original Nicene Creed 325 A.D. into a sense contradictory to its original intention by removing the phrase “of the essence of the Father” and Nicea’s anathemas. In the Nicene Creed we read, ‘????????? ?? ?????”, in English “consubstantial with the Father”. Yet this was translated, “unius substantiae cum Patre” in the Latin by Hosius, or whoever first translated the Greek into Latin. Thus homoousios became monoousios. A generic sense was replaced by a numeric sense. In other words, Nicea 325 A.D. affirmed multiple beings that had the same type of nature but only one of those beings was the One God and that was the Father because he is the only source and cause of all. Constantinople 381 A.D. and later creeds affirmed one being. This is a radical change in meaning and has created absolute chaos ever since. David Waltz says,

Fact 1 - Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 deletes portions of the Nicene Creed of 325, even though we read from the “Definition of the faith” of the council of Chalcedon in 451 that:

…we have renewed the unerring creed of the fathers. We have proclaimed to all the creed of the 318 [i.e. Nicene Creed of 325]; and we have made our own those fathers who accepted this agreed statement of religion—the 150 who later met in great Constantinople and themselves set their seal to the same creed. (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Volume 1, Norman P. Tanner, S.J. editor, 1990, p. 83.)

Fact 2 – The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 is not “the creed of the 318” [i.e. Nicene Creed of 325].

Fact 3 – “No copy of the council’s doctrinal decisions, entitled ????? ??? ????????????? ???????? (record of the tome and anathemas), has survived.” (Ibid., p. 21.)

Fact 4 – “The Second Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, was not originally a general council”. (Joseph Pohle, The Trinity, English trans. Arthur Preuss, 1912, p. 129.)

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/02/nicene-creed-vs-niceno.html

3. The idea that God is an essence that manifests itself in or by three persons is an innovation that took hold after Nicea 325 with the influence of PLotinus through Origen and then primarily in a man known today as Pseudo Dionysius who dominated the thought of the Roman Schoalstics. I have all of this cataloged in great detail here:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/drakes-triadology-stuff/

[Nick]

It got real confusing there for a while.  Romans were use to many gods.  So they had to come up with a way to fit this whole mess of a story together.  Bam...3 gods in one...that's the ticket...a mystery...then that was not enough so we started throwing in saints.  There you go...a religion everyone can grab onto.

[The Gawd]

I asked this question in another thread, but seems it may be applicable here...

in the same vein as "A design then a designer"... A son then a mother? Seems to me we're missing a goddess, no?

[Add Homonym]

John says
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
"But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."

[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
[10] Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
[11] Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
[12] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
[13] And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
[14] If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Therefore you have a binity, at least.

Matthew says: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

If the Holy Ghost is some other God, then you have an excess of Gods.

[16] And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
[17] And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Matthew denies that Jesus is God (as polemic), because he contradicts the garbage in John.

Therefore, Christianity does not teach anything, because it is a load of vague garbage. So, it must be Rome that teaches it.

HTH

[William]

3. The idea that God is an essence that manifests itself in or by three persons is an innovation .....

What's the problem with an "innovation"?
God had several failed attempts at getting his plan out there and working.
God took thousands of years to dribble out the scriptures through humans who didn't know the full story that lay ahead of them at the time of their own writing.
And the holy ghost keeps sparking new insights too.

The bible is full of stuff that can't possibly be classed as eternal truths - for example the modern cure for leprosy does not include catching two doves, killing one and letting the other go - so I see no problem in principle with innovation.  If only the innovations made sense though     
 

[Add Homonym]

Did anyone pick up the fact that Christianity can't teach anyone anything, because it is a word? I can't find a Christianity anywhere, to teach me anything.

[kcrady]

I find it a bit curious that you'd post this here, Olivianus.  We're atheists.  When it comes to Trinitarianism vs. the various non-Trinitarian theologies, we don't have a dog in that hunt.  We can point to the fact that after 2,000 years, the set of people claiming to be "Bible-believing Christians" have not been able to get their story straight, and note this as evidence for the incoherence of Biblical and Christian ("Church Fathers," sect and denomination leaders, etc.) teaching on the subject.  Not to mention the incoherence of the doctrine(s) itself/themselves.

Another thing I find curious is the fact that you're bashing the Catholic Church while sporting an avatar that looks very much like a Late Roman or Medieval...Catholic (or perhaps Eastern Orthodox) prelate.  Of course, you also don't seem to have a problem with citing, as authoritative, a group of "Fathers" who all identified themselves as members and advocates of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church...the very one you're bashing here.

[Olivianus]

I also have little interest in this thread. I was asked to start this by another member of the forum. I have addressed all the scriptural, philosophical, grammatical, and historical issues at my blog Uncreated Light in the Triadology section. 

[Nick]

I asked this question in another thread, but seems it may be applicable here...

in the same vein as "A design then a designer"... A son then a mother? Seems to me we're missing a goddess, no?

I read somewhere once that the Holy Spook was the goddess at one time but then changed into the spook for some reason.

[Quesi]

I find it a bit curious that you'd post this here, Olivianus.  We're atheists.  When it comes to Trinitarianism vs. the various non-Trinitarian theologies, we don't have a dog in that hunt. 

Ummm... yeah.  I mean, I kind of feel like you've selected the wrong audience here.  I think most of us here feel like we are reading a passionate critique of some fan fiction piece.  You know, X wrote a story in which Yoda and Captain Kirk discuss philosophy, and you are arguing that X is wrong, because we clearly remember the empathy that McCoy had for the tribels, and so Kirk could not possibly be motivated to respond to Yoda's 14th question that way. 

I don't think any of us really have a vested interest, one way or the other.... In fact, we kind of think the whole premise is silly, and not really worth forming an opinion about. 

[The Gawd]

I have to disagree with people suggesting this was posed to the wrong audience. Lets be honest here. Who is more knowledgable about scripture and religions, the atheists here or people like Wayne in the other thread? If Oli was looking for theories and arguments for and against a particular belief in Xianity what better place to come to than a place that shoots holes in all Xianity's BS? No better place than WWGHA.

For the record I learned more about Xianity here in one year than I learned in church for 15-16 years.

Personally, I dont know the answer. I think Karen Armstrong touches on this but I loaned my copy out a while back.

[zZaRDoZz]

It's is amazing how erudite I felt myself to be just because I had read some Iranaeus and co. back in my hyper-Catholic phase.  More so amongst my fellow believers than the outside world TBH.

Olivianus, it's all a croc o' bull. If god can't get it right by 325, if the Holy(io) spirit needs councils and translators and a Roman police state; all with their associated death penalties and banishments, excommunications and forbidden books, then maybe, just maybe our sewpwer dewper paraclete, guaranteer of utter and complete truth isn't really all it was made up to be in the first place.