Already soon after Jesus had died certain false teachings were preached. Against those the apostles warned the people. For them, people should be careful not to be attracted by the philosophical teachings of the Greeks. They had several ideas about man and his life and afterlife.
The apostles insisted their followers that they should not take on popular sayings, but that they should take care that the Truth must be spoken, maintained and defended, though all might be condemned – including ourselves.
People always have loved to be part of something or to belong to a group where they were appreciated and recognised and could play a role in the group and enjoy festivities together. Love always conforms to the will and wishes of its object. See if it is not so. If the love of Christ is a distinct enthusiasm of the mind, the doing of his commandments is inevitable by the laws that govern the mental operations of every human being. But in this world we can see that a lot of people love this intricate world, which can offer them a lot of materialism. Many also love the power they can get in this world. For that reason, many agreed to confirm to the laws and rules of this world. At one point in history preachers of the gospel also were put in front of a choice to be made, either to be prosecuted or to choose the side of the Greek–Roman culture and to be able to continue and to have power in their own groups.
All had to know that the truth creates “sides” – the for-it side, and the against-it side; and between these two sides there is no neutral ground. Throughout history, there has been that battle-ground. For centuries there have been those who followed those who brought in the human doctrine of the Trinity and those who preferred following Jesus his words and believing and appreciating what he really had done (giving himself to follow not his will but God’s Will and giving his life for the sins of others).
and he styled himself
There were men in the days of Jesus who would preach his doctrine, and not speak lightly of him, but would also carefully avoid identification with his unsavory name. This is referable to the pride of life, love of popularity, or to some other equally unworthy thing. It is certainly a course not prompted by a devotion to the truth, or a love of righteousness. (Brother John Thomas; Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come; 1852/53 pg 286)
The apostle already noticing several false human teachings entering their communities asked to come together and organised a first church council, which set the precedent for all subsequent meetings, which took place at Jerusalem about 50 C.E. and was attended by the apostles, who debated whether Goyim or Gentile believers wanted to join the Christian community were obliged to follow the Mosaic Law. Regional councils of bishops, convoked to settle doctrinal and disciplinary questions, appeared in the 2nd century.
Some preachers wanted to gain popularity and adopted those hearsays and gave their followers the opportunity to keep their human traditions. From the Gospel of St. John several people understood that the word would not be a noun but a person and that this person would be one and the same in God as in Jesus.
By the years developed the idea which purports that God would exist in three coequal and coeternal elements — God the Father, god the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (which became a creed in later centuries). Those preachers could convince their followers that these “persons” as constituted by their mutual relations, would be either one essence “being”, being a Father, or a male deity, whilst for others, it could be a female being or mother god, a great earth mother goddess, or some created next to the male deity a mother god as a separate being and/or a mother of God called Mary.
Most of them found that Jesus speaking of a relation of mutual giving and love with the Father, would mean that he being in union with his Father, should have to be that heavenly Father as well. Such union with that Father could be enjoyed through the Spirit and as such the Spirit had to be an other but equal part of the deity.
Lots of discussions went on for centuries, but already soon in our system of things, in our contemporary era the Roman leaders wanted the Jewish sect on their site to have a stronger hold against the other Jews. To bring those teachers in line with Roman tradition Constantine the Great wanted to help them when they would agree with his Roman traditions. Only by giving in to the emperor Constantine his wishes he granted tolerance to Christians within the Roman Empire. For this a meeting of bishops from various sees — especially from the eastern part of the empire — and other leaders was ordered to consider and rule on questions of doctrine, administration, discipline, and other matters. The first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). At it, all those teachers with different ideas could bring forth their doctrinal conflicts, and could order rules on practical matters (such as jurisdictional and institutional).
As time passed several people wanted to give Jesus a higher place and could not come to see that ‘god’ or ‘allah‘ was a title denoting a person or thing of higher position. As such angels (celestial beings) were called gods, but also Moses, Pharaoh, Apollos, Zeus, Hada, Mercury, Mars, Hyperion, Baäal (Baal) and many others were called gods, though they like Tamuz were not the God of gods.
In the 3rd and early 4th centuries, against Sabellianism and Arianism, the Son and Father were defined as distinct yet coequal and coeternal. In the late 4th century, as a revision by the First Council of Constantinople (381) of the creed adopted at Nicaea in 325, the Cappadocian Fathers took the final step by understanding the Holy Spirit as of the same status. God was then to be spoken of as one ousia (being) in three hypostases (persons), and this has remained the orthodox formulation.
The Athanasian Creed was probably composed, not by Athanasius himself, but by an unknown author(s) in the fifth century. It is a partial statement of doctrine dealing especially with the Trinity and the Incarnation. (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.; 2015)
About the “objective reality” or the ‘substance’ of the characters Jehovah and Jesus, the hypostases, as opposed to illusion (as in Aristotle), and ‘basis’ or ‘confidence’ (as in Hebrews 3. 14), is discussed a lot and heavily. In Christian writings until the 4th century it was also used interchangeably with ousia, ‘being’ or ‘substantial reality’. The term also came to mean ‘individual reality’ hence ‘person’. It was in this sense that it was enshrined, under the influence of the Cappadocian fathers, in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as ‘three hypostases in one ousia’. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions; 1997; John Bowker)
In the 3rd century came to exist what they called the Arian system the son of God could be called ‘god’, but only as a courtesy title; he was created (not begotten) by the Father, and he achieved his divine status by his perfect obedience to him. As a creature, it must be said of Christ ēn pote hote ouk ēn (a famous slogan),
The chief proponent of the doctrine was the Alexandrian priest Arius (c.250–c.336) who began criticizing the Trinitarian views of Bishop Alexander, accusing him of Sabellianism (an early heresy which did not distinguish clearly between the “Persons” of the Trinity, where God is said to have three “faces” or “masks” (Greek πρόσωπα prosopa; Latin personae), a more developed and less naive form of Modalistic Monarchianism; propounded by Sabellius (fl. c. 217–c. 220), who was possibly a presbyter in Rome. But when Arius explained his position, he caused greater alarm with his own views, and soon he was condemned and exiled from his diocese.
Throughout the Arian controversy the charge was levelled at the supporters of Nicene orthodoxy (those who accepted the doctrine of the Trinity set forth in the Nicene Creed), whose emphasis on the unity of substance of Father and Son was interpreted by Arians to mean that the orthodox denied any personal distinctions within the Godhead. About 375 the heresy was renewed at Neocaesarea and was attacked by Basil the Great. In Spain Priscillian seems to have enunciated a doctrine of the divine unity in Sabellian terms.
The Nicene Creed, also called Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, became for many Christians their statement of faith, which for them can only be the only ecumenical creed because it is accepted as authoritative by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and major Protestant churches. but they forget that not all protestant churches take the Nicene creed as their creed.
Often it is wrongly called “The Apostles” creed or considered a quite similar creed as the Athanasian creeds, which should be (according to lots of Christians) accepted by all Christian churches but is not.
Until the early 20th century, it was universally assumed that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (the more accurate term) was an enlarged version of the Creed of Nicaea, which was promulgated at the Council of Nicaea (325). It was further assumed that this enlargement had been carried out at the Council of Constantinople (381) with the object of bringing the Creed of Nicaea up to date in regard to heresies about the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit that had risen since the Council of Nicaea. (Encyclopaedia Britannica on the Nicene Creed)
By now, additional discoveries of documents in the 20th century, indicated that the situation was more complex, and the actual development of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed has been the subject of scholarly dispute. You could say that the discussions about the creed and about the Trinity never stopped. Today it is still a big issue and can get some Christians very heated.
Throughout the ages there have been different baptismal creeds converts had to agree too by different denominations which had all their own peculiarities.
In the development of the doctrine of the person of Christ during the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries, several divergent traditions had arisen. Chalcedon adopted a decree declaring that Christ was to be
This formulation was directed in part against the Nestorian doctrine — that the two natures in Christ had remained separate and that they were in effect two persons — and in part against the theologically unsophisticated position of the monk Eutyches, who had been condemned in 448 for teaching that, after the Incarnation, Christ had only one nature and that, therefore, the humanity of the incarnate Christ was not of the same substance as that of other human beings.
Political and ecclesiastical rivalries as well as theology played a role in the decision of Chalcedon to depose and excommunicate the patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus (d. 454). The church that supported Dioscorus and insisted that his teaching was consistent with the orthodox doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria was labeled monophysite. (Encyclopaedia Britannica on the topic monophysite)
All the early councils wanted to give the church a more stable institutional character and to create a church where more people could find themselves at ease not having to do away with their local traditions.
Having the character Jeshua his name transposed into Issou or Jesus (Hail Zeus) and allowing figurines or graven statues to be sold to believers, made the Roman economy thrive again and made the Roman leaders satisfied there could be again peace between the followers of that Nazarene and the other people in the Roman Empire.
For the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed creed, which was probably based on a baptismal creed already in existence, the leaders formulated an independent document and not an enlargement of the Creed of Nicaea.
Lots of Christians consider their creed as the faith how it was from the time of Jesus. They should know that Jesus and his apostle were believing Jews, who worshipped only One True God Who is One. None of the prophets ever believed that their God would have been a Trinity.
Christendom did know different schools of thoughts. Not all of them have Hellenistic influences like the Nicene Creed. Edessa and Nisibis [now Urfa (Sanliurfa) and Nusaybin in Souteast Turkey] were creative centres of Christian literature. The chief glory of Edessene Christianity was Ephaem (c.306-373), the classic writer of the Syrian Church, who established his school of theology there when Nisibis, its original home and his birthplace, was ceded to Persia under the peace treaty of 363, after the death of Julian the apostate. In his lifetime Ephraem had a reputation as a brilliant preacher, commenter, controversialist and above all, sacred poet. His exegesis shows Antiochen tendencies, but as a theologian he championed Nicene orthodoxy and attacked Arianism. His hymns, many in his favourite seven-syllable metre, deal with such themes as the Nativity, the Epiphany, and the Crucifixion, or else as directed against sceptics and heretics.
Narses (d.c.503) another eminent Edessene writer became one of the formative theologians of the Nestorian church, though closed by emperor Zeno in 489 got offshoots which flourished for more than 200 years. Philoxenus of Mabbug, who had studied at Edessa in the 2nd half of the 5th century was a vehement advocate of Monophytism and revised the Syriac translation of the Bible (the so-called Philoxenian version) and which was used by the Syrian Monophytes in the 6th century.
From about 428 onward Christology became an increasingly urgent subject of debate in the East, and exited interest in the West as well.
Among Alexandrian theologians the “Word-flesh” approach was preferred, according to which the Word had assumed human flesh at a so-called incarnation. The denial of Christ’s possession of a human soul or mind was at hand. Some ignored it, others denied it, and others were convinced Jesus had human brains, flesh and blood. Antiochene theologians, on the other hand, consistently upheld the “Word-man” approach, according to which the Word (though a noun, became a personal being) had united ‘himself’ (instead of ‘itself’) to a complete man. This position ran the risk, unless carefully handled, of so separating the divinity and the humanity as to imperil Christ’s unity.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Proclus of Constantinople and John Cassian prepared the way for or contributed to the Chalcedonian solution, where a formula was hammered out that at time seemed acceptable to most and that attempted to do justice to the insights of both traditions.
Those who did not want to give in and accept those human teachings were considered heretics, like many Christians still judge other true Christians today.
The so-called Filioque clause (Latin filioque, “and from the son”), inserted after the words “the Holy Spirit . . . who proceedeth from the Father,” was gradually introduced as part of the creed in the Western Church, beginning in the 6th century. It was probably finally accepted by the papacy in the 11th century. It has been retained by the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant churches. The Eastern churches have always rejected it because they consider it theological error and an unauthorized addition to a venerable document.
The Nicene Creed was originally written in Greek. Its principal liturgical use is in the Eucharist in the West and in both Baptism and the Eucharist in the East. A modern English version of the text is as follows:
The Nicene creed was adapted in the Western Church since the 9th century with the addition of the Filioque clause:
Over this addition there has been a long controversy between the Orthodox Eastern and Roman Catholic churches. The Nicene Creed is a traditionally authoritative creed of Orthodox Eastern, Roman Catholic, and some Protestant churches.
The Orthodox church recognizes seven ecumenical councils—Nicaea I (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680–681), and Nicaea II (787)—but considers that the decrees of several other later councils also reflect the same original faith (e.g., the councils of Constantinople that endorsed the theology of St. Gregory Palamas in the 14th century).
It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity.
McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20:
Please find additional information:
- God of gods
- God of gods -Host of hosts
- Almighty Lord God of gods and King above all gods
- “Who is The Most High” ? Who is thee Eternal? Who is Yehovah? Who is God?
- Only one God
- God is One
- Looking for God
- People Seeking for God 2 Human interpretations
- People Seeking for God 4 Biblical terms
- Science, belief, denial and visibility 1
- Being Religious and Spiritual 5 Gnostic influences
- The Divine name of the Creator
- God about His name “יהוה“
- Jehovah Yahweh Gods Name
- Sayings around God
- Attributes of God
- One God the Father, a compendium of essays
- Believe in God
- Blindness in the Christian world
- Getting out of the dark corners of this world
- Truth, doubt or blindness
- Not staying alone in your search for truth
- Knowing where to go
- Why is it that Christians don’t understand Muslims and Muslims do not understand Christians?
- Islam says it admires faith based on logic, what about the others
- Genesis 1:26 God said “Let us make”
- Pluralis Majestatis in the Holy Scriptures
- Increased in wisdom in favour with God
- Lord or Yahuwah, Yeshua or Yahushua
- Yahushua, Yehoshua, Yeshua, Jehoshua of Jeshua
- Who was Jesus?
- Jesus spitting image of his father
- Jesus and his God
- Is Jesus God?
- Jesus and His God
- Jesus is the Son of God but Not God the Son
- Reasons Jesus is not God
- How much was Jesus man, and how much was he God?
- On the Nature of Christ
- Jesus Christ the Messiah
- Jesus spitting image of his father
- Yeshua a man with a special personality
- A man with an outstanding personality
- The wrong hero
- He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. #1 Creator and His Prophets
- Seeing Jesus
- Christ begotten through the power of the Holy Spirit
- Sayings of Jesus, what to believe and being or not of the devil
- Jesus begotten Son of God #12 Son of God
- The Son can do nothing of his own accord
- Entrance of a king to question our position #1 Coming in the Name of the Lord
- Entrance of a king to question our position #2 Who do we want to see and to be
- Those who love Jesus
- Follower of Jesus part of a cult or a Christian
- Looking for a biblically sound church
- TD Jakes Breaks Down the Trinity, Addresses Being Called a ‘Heretic’
- Christ Versus the Trinity
- Is God a Trinity?
- The Trinity – true or false?
- The Trinity – the Truth about God
- History of the acceptance of a three-in-one God
- The Trinity: paganism or Christianity?
- Trinity And Pagan Influence
- How did the Trinity Doctrine Develop
- How did the doctrine of the Trinity arise?
- History of the acceptance of a three-in-one God
- Questions for those who believe in the Trinity
- Trinity: A False Doctrine of a False Church
- Part 2) God is not a Trinity
- Unitarianism and the Bible of the Holy Trinity
- Trinity: The Truth about Matthew 28:19 & 1 John 5:7
- Christianity without the Trinity
- In Defense of the truth
- A fact of History or just a fancy Story
- Objects around the birth and death of Jesus
- The imaginational war against Christmas
- Hanukkahgiving or Thanksgivvukah
- Thanksgivukkah and Advent
- Jesus begotten Son of God #19 Compromising fact
- Nazarene Commentary Luke 3:1, 2 – Factual Data
- Nazarene Commentary Matthew 3:13-17 – Jesus Declared God’s Son at His Baptism
- Philippians 1 – 2
- In the death of Christ, the son of God, is glorification
- Politics and power first priority #3 Elevation of Mary and the Holy Spirit
- A god who gave his people commandments and laws he knew they never could keep to it
- Sitting at the right hand of God
- If the Father is the “only true God” (John 17:3) , does that mean that Jesus is a false god?
- Americans really thinking the Messiah Christ had an English name
- Spelling Yahshuah (יהשע) vs Hebrew using Yehoshuah (יהושע)
- What is the truth asked also Pontius Pilate
- Maintaining unity of Spirit in the bond of peace becoming one with God
- Building up the spirit of the soul
- The wrong hero
- Jewish and Christian traditions of elders
- Joseph Priestley To the Point
- Who we are
- Who are the Christadelphians or Brothers in Christ
- What are Brothers in Christ
- Christadelphian people – who or what
- Christadelphians worldwide
- Major differences in thinking opposed to other Christians
- Christadelphians their faith
- Our faith and beliefs
- Our Aims
- Our history
- Tools to help you on your quest
- Coming to understanding from sayings written long ago
- Bible Inspired Word of God
- Bible Word of God, inspired and infallible
- Finding and Understanding Words and Meanings
- Bible a guide – Bijbel als gids
- Bible our guide
- The Bible and names in it
- A voice and a Word given for wisdom
- Creator and Blogger God 7 A Blog of a Book 1 Believing the Blogger
- Challenging claim 3 Inspired by God 2 Inerrant Word of God
- the Bible – God’s guide for life #1 Introduction
- the Bible – God’s guide for life #2 Needs in life
- the Bible – God’s guide for life #3 Fast food or staple diet
- the Bible – God’s guide for life #4 Not to get the best from our diet– or from ourselves
- the Bible – God’s guide for life #5 What is God like
- the Bible – God’s guide for life #8 Looking to Jesus #1 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus
- Bible our guide
- The bible and us
- Feed Your Faith Daily
- Necessity of a revelation of creation 13 Getting wisdom
- Bible-warnings to be taken seriously
- Bible Reading Planner
- Christadelphian Bible course
- Determine the drive
- Fools despise wisdom and instruction
- Roman, Aztec and other rites still influencing us today
- Solstice, Saturnalia and Christmas-stress
- Responses to Radical Muslims and Radical Christians
- Good Morning January 25 We are theologians
- Home: Blog