Chapter I
The Premise
In 325 A.D. the first council of
bishops was held in an attempt to set out a basis of basic belief concerning
God. Though the eventual 'winning' faction sets forth that this Nicene Council
and its Creed is the fundamental foundation to the traditional 'Catholic'
Christian's doctrine of the Trinity, in actuality it was in fact far from that.
While Constantine's intent was to unify Christianity in its fundamental
beliefs and the inaugeral address was presented by Eusebius of Caesarea with
that goal in mind, just after that first council ended, such agrements of
defining concensus was betrayed and great controversy resulted because of it.
Bishop Alexander, who may be looked to as primary source for the Trinitarian
concept, was soon dead and his attending student deacon Athanaius was named
Bishop of Alexandria in his stead. And Bishop Athanaius is looked to as the
leading force behind that which actually began to for the foundation of the
doctrine of the Trinity in the 381 A.D. council. But what happened between
was far from any picture of general acceptance of that doctrine.
During the 325 A.D. council, Arius, the proposed author of the Arian doctrine
of the godhead, was 'anathematized' or 'excommunicated' by the vote of the
council Bishops, which included Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, for the 'extreme'
Arian view said to be held by him concerning the nature of the Godhead. Yet
the intent of the council was to unify Christianity not divide it. What occured
after the council is more telling than the history dogma presented by the
eventual winning faction. After the 325 council, Arius was actually accepted
back into the Christian brotherhood as position was not quite as extreme as
the Trinitarian historians have painted it to be. And in fact, it was Bishop
Athanaius who was exiled and presumably so anathematized at least 5 times by
some four Emperors over a period of 17 years.
In actual history, it appears that the more moderate movement under the likes
of Eusebius of Caesarea, did uphold a corporally divided Godhead, with the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one in purpose and the Father being the
source or Father of the Son, yet not the same being as His own Son. Such is
so stressed by an 'eyewitness' historical document in that letter Bishop
Eusebius wrote to his congregation concerning the out come of that first
council.
It would seem that while Arius view was not exactly that of the moderate view
of Eusebius, it was more in tune with the seperate corporal entity concept of
the then church and Emperor associated view than was the Trinitarian view.
The actual council which brought back the Trinity Doctrinal view was held in
381 A.D., long after the deaths of Constantine in 338 A.D. and Bishop Eusebius
of Caesarea in 339/340 A.D. By then the Trinitarian view had forced it way
back into contention, though that 'contention' had largely been the driving
force behind the dividing of Christianity rather than the unifying of it as
had been the original intent.
Today, there are still those factions at work. The heart of the Trinitarian
concept is of course the Catholic Church which historically enforced its view
upon the mind of the people by dictating what is acceptable to them as
"Christian Doctrine" and murdering any and all who historically opposed such.
Perhaps one telling item in thier forced doctrine position is that for
centuries on end only the clergy was even allowed to posses and read the
scriptural cannon, the actual Word of God, and any common person
who even desired access to the God's preserved word, was persecuted unto to
excommunication, imprisonment, torture and death. That is the historical
reality of the matter.
The question here then is asked, just what did Jesus teach in the scriptures
themselves? What does the preserved scriptural cannon say? Does it really
support such as the doctrine of the Trinity or not? Thus the premises of this
text is to attempt to see just what Jesus taught beginning with the 'Doctrine
of the Father', as that is a critical part of understaning the truth of the
nature of the Godhead. And hopefully this premise or hypothesis, null or
otherwise, can be given in that manner which will shed the light of the Lord
in upon it.
What Did Jesus Teach Concerning the Doctrine of the Father?
In presenting what Jesus taught concerning the Father there is that which
is contextual including the events surrounding the life of Jesus. One cannot
gain the full picture of Jesus' teachings without setting them in the context
of the scriptures from which they come. Thus certain contextual matters will
be presented from the scriptures some of which Jesus will quote from and
others which will present such related recorded events and contextual
witnesses in which Jesus' personal teachings ought to be presented. Then
there is the matter of words. Of course such times that Jesus speaks directly
of the Father, his Father, etc. are to be included. But also there are somewhat
of such indirect words and phrases which ought not be excluded which have the
same inferrence, such as when Jesus speaks of God, not referencing himself,
but so referencing the Father, and when such as the Son of God or even the Son of
Man type terminolgy is also used. These clearly imply that in the phrase Son
of God, there is the implication that such 'God' is the Father and Jesus is
the Son of God or Son of the Father who is that God and LORD who he is the
Son of. Such an example is when Jesus taught Nicodemus that 'God so loved the
world that he gave his only begotten Son, etc.' (John 3:16-17), there is the
obvious implied implication that God is the God the Father who so sent
Jesus the Son. All of this together, particularly that which is in the words
of Jesus himself, well sets out the Doctrine of the Father as so taught
by Jesus the Son, who is also the same as Jehovah. That is Jehovah of the
Old Testament is the same being as Jesus of the New Testament. And God the
Father of Spirits is that Most High God and Man of Holiness who is separate
and over all, He not being the same being as Jesus or Jehovah.
|