First, you might notice that I have changed the images for the participants in this conversation. I'm softening my views on AI.
Larry: I propose that the scriptures can be taken literally. God is the Eternal Father. Jesus Christ is the Son, by whom the world was made and the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit who testifies of them all. I argue that the Nicean creed is a nonsensical misunderstanding that can't be supported by scripture, logic or common sense.
Google AI: Your proposal aligns with a theological view often called Social Trinitarianism or, more specifically, the doctrine of the Godhead as taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
This perspective argues that the scriptures describe three separate and distinct divine personages who are "one" through a unity of mind, purpose, and will, rather than through a shared mystical substance.
The argument that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate beings is typically supported by these literal readings of scripture:
The Baptism of Jesus: All three members are physically and locationally separate: the Son is in the water, the Father speaks from Heaven, and the Spirit descends like a dove.
The Intercessory Prayer (John 17): Jesus prays that His followers may be "one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us". Proponents argue that if Jesus and the Father were one literal being, He would be praying for His followers to physically merge into one person, which is illogical.
Stephen’s Vision (Acts 7:55–56): Stephen sees Jesus standing on the "right hand of God," implying two distinct individuals standing side-by-side.
Christ’s Prayers in Gethsemane: Logic suggests that if Jesus and the Father were the same being, Jesus would effectively be praying to Himself, which critics of the Nicene Creed argue makes the interaction performative rather than genuine communication between two entities.
Critics of the Nicene Creed (AD 325) argue that it introduced Greek philosophical concepts that are not found in the original New Testament records.
Philosophical Language: Terms like homoousios ("of one substance") were used to preserve monotheism but are often viewed as "man-made" additions that complicate the simpler biblical accounts of a Father and Son.
Incompatibility with Logic: Many believers find the concept of "three persons in one being" to be a logical contradiction—an "abstract mystery" that is "inaccessible to reason".
Apostasy Argument: Some argue that the true understanding of the Godhead as separate beings was lost during a "falling away" or apostasy following the deaths of the original Apostles, and was later replaced by the creedal formulations.
Larry: How did the Nicean creed gain such power? How is it supported scripturally?
Google AI: The Nicene Creed (AD 325) became the dominant standard of Christian belief through a combination of political force and the strategic application of specific scriptures to address early divisions.
The creed's authority did not happen instantly but was consolidated through several factors:
Imperial Endorsement: Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea primarily to stabilize and unify the Roman Empire. He wanted a single, cohesive religion to serve as a "political instrument" for governance.
Insistence on Homoousios: Constantine himself allegedly insisted on including the controversial term homoousios ("of one substance"). This term was chosen specifically to exclude the "Arian" view—that Jesus was a separate, created being—from the church.
Enforcement and Exile: Once the creed was adopted, the emperor enforced it as imperial law. Dissenting bishops were exiled, and their writings were often suppressed or destroyed, making the creed the "test" for legal and religious inclusion.
Universal Authority: It was the first "ecumenical" council, meaning it represented the global church. Because it was later reaffirmed at the Council of Constantinople in 381, it gained "universal authority" that most subsequent denominations inherited.
Trinitarians argue that the creed is a necessary summary of several key biblical themes that seem to contradict one another if God is not a Trinity:
The Oneness of God:
The creed begins with "We believe in one God," reflecting the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4: "The Lord our God is one").
The Divinity of Christ (John 1:1, 14):
"In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was God." Nicene supporters argue this requires the Son to be the same "God" as the Father, not a second, lesser deity.
The "One" in John 10:30:
When Jesus says, "I and my Father are one," theologians argue the Greek word for "one" (hen) refers to a single thing or essence, rather than one person (heis). They believe this proves they are the same "being".
The Baptismal Formula (Matthew 28:19):
Jesus commands baptism in the singular "name" (not names) of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Trinitarians see this singular "name" for three persons as a direct scriptural proof of the Trinity.
Creator Status (Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2):
Since only God is the creator, and the Bible says all things were made "through" and "by" Jesus, the creed concludes Jesus must be of the same divine substance as the Creator.
While you argue the creed is nonsensical, Nicene theologians call it a "mystery"—not because it is illogical, but because it describes a God who exists beyond human comprehension. They maintain that if the Father and Son were two separate beings with separate wills, it would be Tritheism (three Gods), which they believe violates the most fundamental biblical command that there is only one God.
Larry: Using available scripture and knowledge of the political aspects of the Nicean creed, would my hypothesis be more reasonable?
Google AI: Whether your hypothesis is "more reasonable" depends on which interpretive framework you prioritize: literal narrative and logical consistency (Social Trinitarianism) or philosophical preservation of monotheism (Nicene Trinitarianism).
Your hypothesis relies on a literal reading of scriptural events:
The Baptism of Jesus: You argue it is more logical to see three distinct beings because they are in three different places simultaneously: the Son in the water, the Spirit descending as a dove, and the Father speaking from heaven.
Stephen’s Vision: Seeing Jesus "standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55) strongly suggests two separate individuals rather than two parts of one essence.
Christ’s Prayers: Logic suggests Jesus was not praying to Himself but to a separate Father.
Counter-Argument:
The Nicene view argues these are "distinctions" within one being, not "separations" between beings, to avoid Tritheism (the belief in three Gods). They point to verses like John 10:30 ("I and my Father are one") and John 1:1 to argue for a single shared substance (homoousios).
History supports your observation that the Nicene Creed was not purely a product of "scripture alone" but also of intense political pressure:
Imperial Motivation:
Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) primarily to unify a fractured empire. He saw theological division as a political liability and pushed for a single, binding creed to maintain social order.
Language of Force:
The term homoousios ("one substance") was not found in the Bible but was allegedly insisted upon by Constantine to explicitly exclude the views of Arius, who taught Jesus was a separate, created being.
Suppression of Dissent:
Once the creed was ratified, those who refused to sign it were excommunicated and exiled by the state. This established the creed as a legal "test" for Orthodoxy, effectively ending the debate through imperial authority rather than unanimous scriptural consensus.
Your hypothesis is more internally consistent with a literal reading of the New Testament narrative. However, the Nicene Creed is considered the standard of "Orthodoxy" because it solved a specific philosophical problem: how to worship Jesus as God without violating the Jewish/Christian mandate that there is only "one God". If you prioritize literal scriptural narrative over post-apostolic philosophical synthesis, your view aligns with several historical and modern "non-creedal" traditions.
Larry: Are you aware of the LDS analogy of creation being God as the Contractor and His Son as the Creator?
Google AI: Yes, this analogy is a significant teaching within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), used to clarify the distinct roles of the Father and the Son within the Godhead.
It describes God the Father as the "Architect" or "Contractor" and Jesus Christ as the "Builder" or "General Contractor" who carries out the work.
The Father as Architect: In this view, God the Father is the supreme authority and designer of the universe. He conceived the "Plan of Salvation" and provided the blueprints for creation.
The Son as Builder: Jesus Christ (Jehovah in the premortal life) acted as the executive agent who literally formed and organized the heavens and the earth. LDS scripture states that "by the Son I created them," indicating Christ created "worlds without number" under the Father’s direction.
Creation as Organization: This analogy reinforces the LDS belief that creation was not ex nihilo (out of nothing). Just as a builder organizes existing materials like wood and stone to create a house, Christ organized eternal elements to form the world.
The church uses both biblical and unique restoration scriptures to support this literal distinction:
Ephesians 3:9: "...God, who created all things by Jesus Christ."
Moses 1:33: "And worlds without number have I created; ... and by the Son I created them."
John 1:1-3: "All things were made by him [the Word/Christ]; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
For proponents of this view, the "Contractor and Builder" model is more logical than the Nicene Creed because it accounts for:
Multiple Participants: It explains why God said, "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26).
Accountability: It shows the Son reporting back to the Father as the work progressed, much as a builder reports to an owner.
Unity of Purpose: The "oneness" described in the Bible is interpreted as the perfect alignment between the Father's plan and the Son's execution, rather than a shared physical essence.
Larry: Which view makes more sense with the available evidence?
Google AI: In theology, the "best" fit for available evidence depends on whether you prioritize literal biblical narrative or philosophical monotheistic preservation. Both views claim scriptural support but use different logical frameworks to reconcile the data.
This view is often considered more "reasonable" from the perspective of empirical logic and literal scriptural reading.
Narrative Consistency: The baptism (three locations), Gethsemane (two wills), and Stephen's vision (two beings standing side-by-side) are taken as literal observations of fact.
The "Unity" Evidence: In John 17, Jesus prays that his followers may be "one, even as we are one." Proponents argue this defines "oneness" as a unity of purpose and mind, not a merging of physical substance, as humans cannot literally become one substance.
Simplicity: This model avoids the "mystery" of the Trinity, presenting a Godhead that is "experientially accessible" and relatable to human relationships.
This view is considered more "reasonable" from the perspective of maintaining absolute monotheism and addressing the infinite nature of God.
The "Shema" Constraint: The bedrock of biblical faith is "The Lord our God is one" (Deut 6:4). Nicene theologians argue that if the Father and Son are separate beings, Christianity becomes Tritheism (three Gods), which contradicts the core of the Bible.
Divinity Status: To worship Jesus as God without having two Gods, He must share the same "substance" (homoousios) as the Father.
The "Mystery" Argument: Proponents argue that if God is infinite, His nature should be beyond human logic. A God who is "self-evident" or "immediately graspable" might be too small to be the infinite Creator.
Historical evidence regarding the Nicene Creed suggests it was a product of both theology and statecraft:
Lack of Biblical Terms: The words "Trinity," "Person," and "Substance" are not found in the Bible; they were borrowed from Greek philosophy to solve the Arian controversy.
Political Force: The creed was adopted at a council convened by Emperor Constantine to unify his empire. Its power was solidified by imperial law, which exiled dissenters and suppressed alternative literalist views.
Evidence Type Literal Godhead (LDS/Social) Nicene Trinity (Traditional)
Primary Logic Observation: If they interact as two, they are two. Philosophy: If there is one God, they must be one essence.
Unity Basis Unity of Purpose: Like a "Contractor and Builder." Unity of Essence: One shared "substance."
Scriptural Key Christ's prayer in John 17 (one as we are one). The "Shema" and singular name in Matthew 28:19.
Cognitive Fit Logically clear; easily visualized. Intentionally mysterious; defies human visualization.
Conclusion: If you prioritize the literal interactions of the New Testament, the Social/LDS Godhead model appears more logically consistent with the narrative evidence. If you prioritize philosophical monotheism and the historic preservation of "one God," the Nicene Creed remains the dominant framework, despite its admitted lack of literal scriptural terminology.
Larry: Could it be posited that the Nicean creed was a manmade construct, expressly ordered by the Emperor Constantine?
Google AI: Yes, it is historically accurate to posit that the Nicene Creed was a man-made construct developed within a heavy political framework expressly ordered and overseen by Emperor Constantine.
While many believers view the creed as a divinely inspired defense of truth, historians and scholars in 2026 highlight several factors that support your hypothesis:
Constantine’s primary motivation for convening the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) was political stability. Having recently reunited a fractured Roman Empire, he viewed the bitter theological dispute over the nature of Christ as a threat to imperial peace.
Political Management: He personally convened and chaired the council, the first of its kind, intending for it to produce a "uniform consistent view" to act as a binding element for his empire.
The "Architect" of the Event: Historical accounts, such as those by Eusebius, confirm the ecumenical council was essentially "the invention and creation of the Emperor".
The most critical part of the creed—the word "homoousios" (of one substance)—was not a scriptural term. It was a Greek philosophical word.
Imperial Pressure:
Historical records from bishops present, like Eusebius of Caesarea, state that it was Constantine himself who insisted on including this specific word in the final creed.
Strategic Exclusion:
The term was chosen because it was a "test" word that the Arian faction (who believed Jesus was a separate, created being) could not accept.
The creed's near-unanimous adoption was achieved through political and legal force rather than simple theological agreement.
Exile and Threats:
Constantine used threats of excommunication and exile to pressure the attending bishops to sign.
Incentives:
Bishops who aligned with the imperial view were granted financial rewards, legal authority, and public travel expenses, effectively merging church and state for the first time.
Suppression of Opponents:
Following the council, Constantine ordered the burning of Arian writings and exiled dissenters like Arius, ensuring his "one unified doctrine" was enforced as law.
While many modern churches still accept the creed as authoritative, scholars often describe it as a "committee" document.
Philosophical Synthesis: It is seen as a blending of Christian faith with Neoplatonic Greek philosophy, creating a definition of God that the original apostles likely would not have recognized.
Historical Evolution:
The creed we use today was actually further modified at the Council of Constantinople in 381, a century of debate later, showing it was an evolving human document rather than a singular static revelation.
In summary, the historical evidence for 2026 strongly supports the view that the Nicene Creed was a politically motivated formulation crafted to serve the needs of the Roman state, using non-biblical language that was literally mandated by a Roman Emperor who, at the time, was not yet even a baptized Christian.
Larry: Accepting the premise of spiritual good and evil, would it be logical to suggest that Satan guided Constantine to deliberately corrupt the works of God?
Google AI: In theology and history as of 2026, it is logically consistent with your premise to suggest that Satan influenced the formation of the Nicene Creed to corrupt Christian doctrine. Various theological perspectives and historical interpretations support this view by characterizing the Creed as a tool for institutionalizing error.
If one accepts the existence of spiritual evil, the events of AD 325 can be viewed as a "masterpiece of Satan's power" designed to destroy Christianity from within after external persecution failed.
A "Trojan Horse" Strategy:
Some theologians argue that when Satan could not defeat the Church through martyrdom, he shifted tactics to legalization and infiltration. By making Christianity the state religion under Constantine, the adversary supposedly introduced pagan traditions and worldly philosophies to replace divine revelation.
In 2026, critics of the Creed frequently quote 1 Corinthians 14:33—"God is not the author of confusion"—to argue that the "mystery" of the Trinity is a Satanic deception intended to make God incomprehensible and distant.
A common literalist argument is that Satan intended to "destroy the personality of the Father and Son" by merging them into one mystical substance, thereby obscuring the literal relationship of the Father and His Son.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) teaches that the Nicene Creed is a primary symptom of the Great Apostasy.
Latter-day Saint doctrine holds that after the original Apostles died, the authority to lead the Church was lost. In this vacuum, unauthorized changes were made to ordinances and doctrines, often influenced by the "great and abominable church," which is defined as any organization leading people away from God's laws.
In Joseph Smith’s 1820 First Vision, he recorded that Jesus Christ told him "all their creeds were an abomination" in His sight. From this perspective, the Creed is not just a misunderstanding but a corruption that "broke the covenant" of the original faith.
Historians often note that the Creed's power relied on a combination of false religion and government muscle.
Constantine, as a "clever politician," may have been an unwitting or witting tool in this process, using the Creed to create a "theological mascot" for Rome rather than following the radical teachings of Jesus.
The systemic destruction of opposing views (such as those of Arius) and the forced exile of dissenting bishops are seen by some as evidence of an adversary working to silence the original literalist tradition.
LDS / Restorationist: Orchestrated the Great Apostasy to remove priesthood authority and true doctrine.
Biblical Literalist: Used Greek philosophy and "mystery" to create a "counterfeit" God and cause confusion.
Institutional Critic: Used Constantine to turn a living faith into a dead "state religion" centered on control.
While mainstream Trinitarians maintain the Creed was a Spirit-led defense against heresy, your hypothesis is a central pillar for those who believe the original, literal gospel was lost to a state-sponsored "man-made teaching".
