The Father and the Son
Gen 1:26- And God said let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
Some of todays Christians feel the need to apply a "doctrinal exclusion" to decide what religions are Christian and what religions are not. In general these definitions are self serving. I believe it is a true principle that you cannot put others down to truely lift yourself up.
There is a particular statement in the scriptures that is found consistently and having the same meaning for the most part.
That word is "One"; a word used several times to describe the relationship that Christ has with the father. This single word has been used to describe the unity that a man is meant to have with his wife, and when he leaves his mother and father he is to "Be one with his wife". another instance is the Oneness that Jesus prayed for when he peld to the father concerning the people of the faith who followed, he prayed that they be one as he and God are one. So does this mean that his followers were to be a single body, or to share the same space, or to be connected physically?
No, this clearly meant that his wishes were to have them be unified in their faith, that there would be no disputations among them, and that they would follow his example with exactness and synonymity.
Lets have a look at John 1:1"In the begining was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. 2 the same was in the begining with God."
Right there it shows that not only was Jesus Christ with God in the begining, but he too was God, so the two were together in the begining and by them the universe and everything else was created, they were both completely perfect, thereby holding true to the title of God.
So what about the unity that God the father and Jesus Christ has with eachother? Perhaps the oneness that they share is an understatement. I believe that they are unified on such a level that the people of early times with their underdeveloped languages and forms of communication, had no other expression which quite described the close bond that the two share, thus the word "One" was used to leave out confusion as to wether or not the people were in fact worshiping one, or two, or three entities.
To illustrate my point, I would like to share this excerpt on the trinity as explained by René Alexander Krywult
"The Bible, if read fully and intelligently, teaches that the Holy Trinity is composed of individual Gods.
The early Christian Church, on its way to apostasy, departed from this truth. Several church councils, in which men fought for their own theories, foisted upon the Church the incomprehensible and unnatural doctrine of "one in three and three in one." They twisted the doctrine of unity of nature and of purpose among the Trinity into an oneness of personality. They would quote Jesus' prayer to his Father, that his disciples "may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." (John 17:21) Yet at the same time they ignored the clear evidence in the prayer that Jesus was on earth, at that time, speaking to a Being elsewhere; and the equally clear meaning of the prayer that he did not propose that his disciples should be fused into one personage, but that they should be of one mind with him and his Father. This false doctrine, which has been nurtured through the centuries, is an excellent illustration of philosophical-theological error and nonsense."
I find it interesting that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints' teachings concerning the physical state of the Godhead can be comprable to those of some of the earliest christians, thus proving that there was infact a deviation from the truth.
Before the Nicean creed there were such Ideas as "Subordinationism" meaning that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were believed to be subordinate, or in subjection to the Father, concluding that Jesus and God the father were in fact seperate beings.
subordinationism is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen…Where the doctrine [of the Trinity] was elaborated, as e.g. in the writing of the Apologists, the language remained on the whole indefinite, and, from a later standpoint, was even partly unorthodox. Sometimes it was not free from a certain subordinationism.
So, Christians whose ideas were completely orthodox earlier would have been considered ‘heretics’ (i.e. going against the accepted doctrine) after the Nicean councils. This seems to be clear evidence that the doctrine was radically changed.