You don't need to convince me that all humans rely on faith. — andrewk

Ok then andrewk, so I hear you saying, or perhaps trying not to say, the following...

It does however mean that any statements of DISBELIEF in the trinity, or indeed about any aspect of God whatsoever, must be acknowledged by those making them to be pure items of faith, not reasoned as they are so often presented to be.

What I have said, I have said.

Constantine presided over the Council, but wasn't a decision-maker. The various Christian factions were--sometimes violently--opposed to each other, and it was hoped that there could be some sort of reconciliation, or at least a resolution of some kind. Constantine may have been there primarily to keep those who attended from beating on each other. The early Christians were intolerant not merely of pagans but of fellow Christians who failed to measure up to their standards.

But I've never heard that a non-Christian called the shots at Nicaea. Constantine, by the way, wasn't baptized until he was near death, so may not have been a "real" Christian before then.

The various Christian factions were--sometimes violently--opposed to each other, and it was hoped that there could be some sort of reconciliation, or at least a resolution of some kind. — Ciceronianus the White

Working from memory, but believe the major issue with the divinity of Jesus at Nicea was if He was begotten. Therefore had no beginning. Also if memory serves, the vote of the bishops was overwhelmingly in favor of being begotten. The “fight” or conflict between the bishops at Nicea on the divinity of Jesus is more driven by The Divinchi Code” type fiction than by fact

Working from memory, but believe the major issue with the divinity of Jesus at Nicea was if He was begotten. Therefore had no beginning. Also if memory serves, the vote of the bishops was overwhelmingly in favor of being begotten. The “fight” or conflict between the bishops at Nicea on the divinity of Jesus is more driven by The Divinchi Code” type fiction than by fact — Rank Amateur

The issue was the "heresy" of Arius, and that was alive and well at the time of the Council and afterwards, in fact. Some of Constantine's successors as emperor were Arians, e.g. Constantius II. At the time of the Council, Arius and those who followed him had been driven out of Alexandria but were still going strong in Palestine and Nicomedia. Certainly the majority of bishops who attended the Council were followers of Athanasius, but it was believed that there was a very serious dispute and discord that Constantine wanted to address.

It was decided at Nicaea that Jesus was begotten but not made. The Arians took the position that Jesus was created by the Father, and so was not of the same substance, but of similar substance. That was not tolerable to the Athanasians, but it could not be denied that Jesus was the Son of God. It was apparently thought and decided that Jesus was not created, but was procreated (begotten), and in such a manner that he was the same substance as the Father. To quote the Catholic version of the Nicene Creed adopted at the Council--"begotten, not made, one in being with the Father."

I feel that this topic is often taken in very weird directions. It really doesn't seem so hard to understand that one all powerful being could put themselves into multiple states of being. God would therefor still only be God while acting as three separate things. It is also reasonable to believe that these three different states of being were given different names simply to make it easier for people to understand. If one were to believe in God, it would make sense to say that an all knowing, all powerful being may be doing some stuff that we cannot comprehend. If we can't comprehend what God is doing, the easiest solution is for God to create a simplified way of explaining what is going on. In this case we were told that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit are all one being with different jobs.
This is the same logic that allows Hinduism to be a monotheistic religion. They have one God with tons of different personalities that all have different powers, stories, etc.

Most religions are publicized esoteric lore and due to the profound nature of esoteric teachings which are primarily symbolic and conceptual, the average person is almost always at a loss in their attempt to understand the abstract system of associations.

I am responding to this primarily because Jesus is one of my favourite philosophers, and this argument somewhat misrepresents his teachings of a monotheistic God.

TRINITY = GOD + GOD'S WISDOM + GOD'S SPIRIT. (This I shall endeavour to expound)

The 'Trinity' has its place in the study of religion and spirituality but, as has been observed, many Christians misrepresent it. Christianity is and has always been a monotheistic religion. Those who claim 'three gods in one' are mistaking an analogy for literal fact. But, this isn't new to us (humans)? The teachings of Jesus make claim that, -> that which is begotten of God, who is Divine, is also Divine. Hence, God's Wisdom and God's Spirit are imbued with that aspect of Divinity which God is. Nothing more, nothing less. Nowhere does it say or teach that God's Wisdom and God's Spirit are separate deities. The 'Trinity' is the understanding of God as an Absolute Being of Divine Spirit and Divine Wisdom. [Absolute Being -> representing the whole of reality; Divine Spirit -> Whose nature or essence is beyond and fundamental to that of everything; Divine Wisdom -> in Whom Absolute Unity and Harmony reside.] Period.

The role of God's Wisdom and God's Spirit are represented as distinct and significant aspects in the relationship between God and humans throughout the Biblical teachings. Unfortunately, due to their symbolic anthropomorphism, they have been mistaken, primarily by adherents of the religion, for distinct and individual persons.

As to God's Spirit being a different being, all I can do is ask, "Is there any evidence or precedence (in this case, the Bible) where a person's spirit is shown to be separate from the body?" All expressions of spirit represent it as something which supersedes material existence in character but, is distinctly in close proximity or in direct contact with the body during material existence. The same may be asked of God's Spirit -> Can anyone suppose it to be where God isn't?

As to Jesus (the Christ) relationship with God's Wisdom:

[Matthew 16: 13-20 => When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.]

-> It should be realised that the word 'Christ' is used as a title which refers to the identity of the Son of God. Also, that Jesus agrees he is The Christ. However, upon investigation, it will also be realised that 'The Christ' refers specifically to the 'Word' of God (Divine Wisdom) which was 'alive' or in living manifestation through Jesus. It is the Christ, God's Wisdom, which was prophesied to make an appearance, not Jesus the man of flesh and bones.

[John 1: 1-2 => In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.]

[John 3: 16 => For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.]

Only a literal translation of begotten son would bring confusion because Jesus was undoubtedly the biological son of Joseph and Mary (who was brought forth through a human birth and suffered a human death). However, accounting for the symbolic language of the Bible and through the application of reason, it should be clear that by 'only begotten son' is meant 'Divine Wisdom', which, as is portrayed in the Gospels, was embodied by Jesus. That is, in the same way God used the other prophets to bring a message to the people, He used Jesus to be the manifestation or living testimony of Divine-Wisdom in this human world. It is that purpose which sets Jesus apart from the other prophets (nothing to do with him physically).

[John 6:42 => And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?]

[John 6: 48-52 => I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?]

[John 6: 60-61 => Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?]

[John 8: 19 => Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.]

[John 8: 57-58 => Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.]

[John 10: 30-38 => I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 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.]

[John 14: 6-11 => Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 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? 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. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.]

It should be clear that the same confusion we find in most of today's adherents was present two thousand years ago.

=> This is a reeeaalllly abridged version. To understand properly, try reading the Gospels with the above analogy in mind. Also, I apologize if I seem to have brought a machine gun to an arm wrestling match. It was meant for another thread but it got halted by admin.

Well, let's just say I'm less inclined than you to accept an interpretation of this kind, which makes what I think are far too many assumptions.

What assumptions?

That an analogy is intended. That scripture is (conveniently) strewn with symbolism. That Jesus said what is attributed to him in the gospels. That Jesus was God. That Jesus and the apostles knew Latin. That Jesus knew Greek. That Peter knew Greek. That "Khristos" is the equivalent of "Logos." That sort of thing.

To suppose there was no analogy means to believe everything in the Bible is based on actual physical reality. If so, then I must assume you have had direct experience of everything described in the Bible or enough to trust everything.

To suppose the Bible is a work of fiction or may include tales which are not necessarily actual historical experiences implies the use of analogy.

The argument is not the historical fact of Jesus' life but the logical deduction of the narrative given in the Bible. Whether there is one or a million gods, does not alter the present condition of our shared perception of reality. However, it is unfair to suppose Christianity could be anything but a monotheistic religion when there is no explicit statement to that end, and when the narrative itself unfolds the opposite view (i.e., against polytheism) when analysed comprehensively.

Well, no. I need believe nothing at all about the Bible but for the fact you quoted portions of it to point out your interpretation of those quotations is based on various assumptions. The quotations speak for themselves.

And what I point out, which I think is supported well by the history of the early Church, are the problems arising from the use of certain language in the gospels, and the need which arose to produce an explanation (such as it is) for it consistent with the claim Christianity is monotheistic.

Ok.