Arianism Vs. the Trinity

[coolrok7]

An unchurched Christian.

Can you elaborate a little?

[cdowis]

7

Constantine was an unbaptized catechumen at the time, not a "pagan."

A distinction without a difference.

"Eusebius baptised Constantine the Great in his villa in Nicomedia, on May 22, 337 just before the death of the Emperor." (wiki)

also from wiki

Constantine did not patronize Christianity alone, however. After gaining victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, a triumphal arch

[coolrok7]

Back to square one please.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

During my seven or so years as a Mormon (shudder), the Mormons I encountered got it wrong, except for the Sunday school teacher who (as I recall) read it and proclaimed it nonsense. (It is nonsense, of course, but so is the LDS Church's Christology.)

Yeah so you have said.

True. There is also the Economic Trinity of Tertullian and others of his era. However, Mormon tritheism doesn't count

It doesn't count? Ok what ever you say. We are by deffinition social trinitarians. So uh.... it does count.

The evidence against Mormonism is so overwhelming that it would take several threads.

Oh.... I am ready to leave my church on your say so.

No but my Christology is close to theirs.

Oh..... Thanks for sharing.

[coolrok7]

So when there are 3 people in the room all we have to do is to multiply those three people against each other and then that makes only one person in the room? That is what you are doing here.

I am sorry but the logic of using multiplication for getting God to equal the number one is just faulty.

It is a simple analogy using the numbers involved (1, 3) in discussing the distinction of the Trinitarian view vs. the modalistic view of only 1 person involved (or any other view for that matter) as three manifestations or modes of the one God (this is not that):

Jesus answered, . . .

[volgadon]

A distinction without a difference.

A distinction with an important difference. Think of it as an investigator who accepted the baptismal challenge.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's what the syllogism was for bub.

Non-sequitur.

[semlogo]

I'm not convinced that ANYONE really knows what the trinity is really supposed to be.

[Vance]

That's what the syllogism was for bub.

As I see it, the problem with your "syllogism" is that you have an unstated premise that the lack of "flesh and bones" means "immaterial".

Until you supply some support for that premise, I reject it.

[Vance]

I'm not convinced that ANYONE really knows what the trinity is really supposed to be.

But if you misrepresent it, you must be dishonest or something.

[Vance]

Numbers aren't persons.

Nancy X Fred X Alice =(not) Robert.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is a simple analogy using the numbers involved (1, 3) in discussing the distinction of the Trinitarian view vs. the modalistic view of only 1 person involved (or any other view for that matter) as three manifestations or modes of the one God (this is not that):

Great. Those verse do not demand that there is only numerically one God. I find that most people ignore the verses in John 17 that tell us the relation of Jesus and God the Father. I have never heard a good response to those verses. It is clear from those verses that one means a unity in purpose. It is not a unity in being or substance. If that is the case then you have to interpret those verses to mean that Jesus wanted all of his diciples to be come one in susbstance and being.

The monotheism of Judaism (as derived by Mohammad in the Shahada- there is only one God (Allah) and Mohammad is his messenger) is what Christianity derives from and is therfore not polytheistic or any of the other variations of world religions.

HUh? I am not following anything you just said here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Numbers aren't persons.

Nancy X Fred X Alice =(not) Robert.

You got it all wrong.

Nancy X Fred X Alice = 1

Yeah, that works great huh?

[volgadon]

Jesus answered, . . .

[Vance]

You got it all wrong.

Nancy X Fred X Alice = 1

Yeah, that works great huh?

My bad!

[Vance]

Those verse do not demand that there is only numerically one God.

IF this,

John 10:30 I (singular) and my Father (singular) are (plural) one (singular).

means two persons in one being, then this,

1 Cor 3:6 I (singular) have planted, Apollos (singular) watered; . . .

7 So then neither is he (singular) that planteth any thing, neither he (singular) that watereth; . . .

8 Now he (singular) that planteth and he (singular) that watereth are (plural) one (singular): . . .

also means two persons in one being.

Conclusion: Paul and Apollos are two persons in one being.

Don't ask me how, it's a mystery.

[Vance]

Jesus prays for additional persons to be added to the "God" singularity.

John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Edited to add.

Rom. 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1 Cor. 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1 Cor. 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Eph. 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

Many integrated into one being?

[cdowis]

A distinction with an important difference. Think of it as an investigator who accepted the baptismal challenge.

And it is clear that you ignored the rest of my post. You are very naive to suppose that he had any interest in Christianity outside politics and power.

He was not an investigator, he was a politician using the church for his own political goals, and he made it abundently clear that he maintained his pagan beliefs. He was so "anxious" to be a Christian that he waited until he was almost dead before being baptized, while living the life of a pagan in the meantime.

You may want to call him an investigator, but he clearly was a pagan, and made certain that everyone knew it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not convinced that ANYONE really knows what the trinity is really supposed to be.

From all of the conversations I have had with people who have a mainstream view, it is clear they have not a clue what it is anymore than myself. Sure they can tell me all about what they believe but when pressed they just resort to it being a mystery.

[Ambrose]

At first, I thought this would be an excellent thread. Not even a page in, condescension and pride have overthrown the peace. Very little can be accomplished in dialogue when superiority is what is being defended.

Why would I want to engage anyone who would use that which I hold to be sacred as a wall of proof texts? My pearls are not blunt instruments meant to strike blows.

Why would I want to clarify or defend my position when mockery of it is your position? My pearls are not target dummies.

What is the purpose of theological discourse? To know God. Can we know God pridefully? No, for pride is contrary to charity, and God is love.

[Anakin7]

From my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive - http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/oneness.htm

Salvation is in Christ The Person

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Brennin]

And it is clear that you ignored the rest of my post. You are very naive to suppose that he had any interest in Christianity outside politics and power.

He was not an investigator, he was a politician using the church for his own political goals, and he made it abundently clear that he maintained his pagan beliefs. He was so "anxious" to be a Christian that he waited until he was almost dead before being baptized, while living the life of a pagan in the meantime.

You may want to call him an investigator, but he clearly was a pagan, and made certain that everyone knew it.

It is abundantly clear to me that you do not know the first thing about Late Antiquity, Ante-Nicene Christianity, or Constantine. It was not uncommon to put off being baptized until ones deathbed. Constantine had much to repent of and he no doubt wanted "maximum remission" of his sins.

Also, from the Life of Constantine:

CHAPTER LVI: He prays that All may be Christians, but compels None.

"MY own desire is, for the common good of the world and the advantage of all mankind, that thy people should enjoy a life of peace and undisturbed concord. Let those, therefore, who still delight in error, be made welcome to the same degree of peace and tranquillity which they have who believe. For it may be that this restoration of equal privileges to all will prevail to lead them into the straight path. Let no one molest another, but let every one do as his soul desires. Only let men of sound judgment be assured of this, that those only can live a life of holiness and purity, whom thou callest to a reliance on thy holy laws. With regard to those who will hold themselves aloof from us, let them have, if they please, their temples (1) of lies: we have the glorious edifice of thy truth, which thou hast given us as our native home. (2) We pray, however, that they too may receive the same blessing, and thus experience that heartfelt joy which unity of sentiment inspires.

Also, the Battle of the Milvian Bridge occurred some thirteen years before Nicaea.

[Brennin]

As I see it, the problem with your "syllogism" is that you have an unstated premise that the lack of "flesh and bones" means "immaterial".

Until you supply some support for that premise, I reject it.

Uh no. The logic is quite clear. Once again:

Premise 1: God is spirit (John 4:24)

Premise 2: A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

Conclusion: God does not have flesh and bones, i.e., is incorporeal.

Quod erat demonstrandum

[Anakin7]

What is the date of the above statement and proof of its authenticity by him ? [ I am not his judge or jury] however history states I believe that he had one of his sons murdered and his [Constantine's] wife and scripture is clear that a murderer hath no eternal life in him. I forgive him for those however.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Anakin7]

Uh no. The logic is quite clear. Once again:

Premise 1: God is spirit (John 4:24)

Premise 2: A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

Conclusion: God does not have flesh and bones, i.e., is incorporeal.

Quod erat demonstrandum

#1 - Adjectevical without the definate article is describing an attribute not totality of nature

#2 - Cannot apply to #1 due to its attribution to an attribute.

There have been Studies done on GOD'S coporeality which I suggest you investigate.

May Grace be with you.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT