The Divinity of Christ and Constantine: how to be an historiographical klutz

Speak to any Jew or Muslim who is on nodding terms with Church history, and he will tell you that the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) (see NOTE below) hosted by the Roman Emperor Constantine concocted the Trinity. How many times have I heard this graphic historical nonsense! These people, with undue respects, are historiographical klutzes. They’ve never heard of, indeed – very embarrassing – even maintain that certain frontline Christian apologists of the doctrine of the Trinity, who existed long before Nicea, did not even exist. To wit:

]ustin Martyr (ca.100-165),
Tatian the Assyrian (ca. 120-180),
Theophilus of Antioch(ca. 120-190),
lrenaeus of Lyons (ca.130-200),
Athenagoras of Athens (ca. 133-190),
Aristides of Athens (second century),
Minucius Felix (second or third century).

Sure, it’s not everyone who has the time or inclination to read the Ante-Nicene – no, not anti-Nicene – fathers. Steven Lawson, in his “The Pillars of grace, Volume 2” writes:

“In addressing the ]ews, the Apologists defended the full divinity of ]esus Christ and sought
to disprove Jewish claims by applying countless Old Testament prophecies to the person and work of Christ, showing that He was the long-awaited Messiah.”

So, please, if you’re going to attack the doctrine of the Trinity, refrain from the silliness that Constantine invented it. A more graphic theological klutz – I’m a slave to history – will be hard to find.

Next time someone in my presence tries the Constantine tack, forgive me if – no, I would never say “buzz off” – I graphically nod off.

NOTE -There were two Councils of Nicaea: the first in 325 AD, the second, in 786 AD (on the topic of restoring the veneration of icons or holy images).

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The Divinity of Christ and Constantine: how to be an historiographical klutz

  1. I have encountered this theological “straw man” argument (or “Aunt Sally” for those living in the UK) as well. In Genesis 1:26 Moses quotes Yehovah Elohim who speaks to other Persons of the triune Elohim in the plural. Why did the Spirit of God illuminate Moses’ mind to choose the word Elohim a plural noun for God and quote the triune God speaking to the triune Elohim in the plural? Moses specifically writes about the plural nature of Elohim in Genesis,

    Then Elohim said,

    “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…”

    Genesis 1:26 NASB

    1. “Let Us make man”
2. “in Our image”
3. “according to Our likeness”

    Moses quotes Elohim who refers to Himself in the plural three times, Elohim is speaking to other persons of the triune Godhead. One of the persons of the triune Godhead is speaking to the other two. Our Father who is in heaven, His Son and the Spirit of God are having a conversation about the creation of man being made in their image and their likeness. http://adventofmessiah.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/the-lord-our-god-the-lord-is-one-%E2%80%9D/

    • In rabbinic writings there are two main interpretations of “Let us”:

      1. The royal “we/us.”
      2. God got some help from the angels. Hmmm.

      On another one of my themes in this post: Call no one/ not everyone a klutz.

      In Matthew 5:22, Jesus says:

      But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment….but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

      Here the word “fool” means morally worthless, dishonest , a crook. The Greek word for “fool” in this context is moros. If you call a person a moros in this context, you are pouring scorn on his heart and character, and according to Jesus, if you say this to somebody, you are in danger of hell fire.

      A klutz, in contrast, is found on the road to Emmaus:

      Luke 24:25 Then Jesus said to them, “You fools! You find it so hard to believe all that the prophets wrote in the Scriptures.

      https://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/fools-on-the-road-to-emmaus/

      So, to call someone a “klutz,” is merely not nice. See ya.

  2. I want to get into some of the early patristics one of these days…amazing with what little I have read thus far…and how it affirm some of the historic Christian belief was not invented as something new. Thanks brother.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s