Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 05-14-2012, 03:14 PM

Sotto Voce, I think you are avoiding my point regarding its clear use in the early period, especially as it became reflected in the Creeds. Toto himself may agree with me about it by now.

mountainman · 05-14-2012, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Now coming as far as the year 451 to the Chalcedon Creed, where at a time when there were supposedly several TENS OF MILLIONS of identifying Christians (presumably of one sort or another) only approximately 370 bishops attended and produced yet a new Creed restating some of the previous creeds AND a couple of new things, i.e. that Jesus himself was not only part of the trinity but was God himself, a slap at the Nestorians who managed to survive.

It also had a bunch of canons prohibiting various things which presumably means it had the power to enforce and coerce within its domain. Yet, it took FOUR HUNDRED years from the time the official doctrine said the religion was established to make final determinations about their savior based on the trinity that apparently emerged only over a century earlier and "handed down" from Nicea.

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

As you can see the greatest authority for the 4th and 5th century heresiologists was the Nicaean Creed of the "Holy 318 Nicaean Fathers" , in which no mention is made of any trinity. More important was the fact that this congregation helped the supremely victorious warlord Constantine celebrate his most auspicious 20th year of Long Service as the [Barbarian] war commander.

The trinity was absorbed into the heresiological writings by later 4th and 5th century heresiologists, and is primarily sourced in the literature of the Enneads, authored by Plotinus and preserved in writing by his apostle Porphyry. The metaphyics of Plato, according to Plotinus, starts and ends with the holy trinity of the "ONE SPIRIT SOUL".

The 4th century Christian heresiological authors misappropriated Platonic philosophy and metaphysics in service of the centralized monotheistic state Jesus church. Unravel the strands of history and we are still left with the all-important Council of Nicaea, and the prodigous authority of the 318 Nicaean Fathers.

It is just a "Big Lie" assembled and perpetuated by the ruling class to whom heresiology was a means to separate the pagans from the temples, and bring them all into the newly erected Christian basilcas.

\.

Duvduv · 05-14-2012, 04:53 PM

I guess I haven't sufficiently considered the likelihood of one or more parts of the church(es) appealing to something that would make the pagans feel right at home and comfortable while offering them something much better than what they were used to. But of course weren't the Arians, the Valentians, Cerinthians the Marconites (if they even existed) or the rest also offering things that made folks feel good?

sotto voce · 05-14-2012, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Sotto Voce, I think you are avoiding my point regarding its clear use in the early period

Find the earliest use of 'persons'. It's not in the Bible; and if it's not there, it's too late. Though I've taught you about those pagan creeds already, that don't help you.

'Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.' Article VI

Duvduv · 05-15-2012, 08:29 AM

Sorry, Sotto, I don't follow you at all in terms what you are saying having anything to do with what I was saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Sotto Voce, I think you are avoiding my point regarding its clear use in the early period

Find the earliest use of 'persons'. It's not in the Bible; and if it's not there, it's too late. Though I've taught you about those pagan creeds already, that don't help you.

'Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.' Article VI

Duvduv · 05-15-2012, 08:31 AM

So if there was no centralized hierarchy of authority despite these councils, and we see the "orthodox" still struggling against their opponents for a long time to come, then that makes it difficult to assume that the NT texts were written (to the exclusion of Nag Hammadi) on the orders of some central headquarters who could at least have smoothed out all the contradictions ahead of time instead of letting them be left as they were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Now coming as far as the year 451 to the Chalcedon Creed, where at a time when there were supposedly several TENS OF MILLIONS of identifying Christians (presumably of one sort or another) only approximately 370 bishops attended and produced yet a new Creed restating some of the previous creeds AND a couple of new things, i.e. that Jesus himself was not only part of the trinity but was God himself, a slap at the Nestorians who managed to survive.

It also had a bunch of canons prohibiting various things which presumably means it had the power to enforce and coerce within its domain. Yet, it took FOUR HUNDRED years from the time the official doctrine said the religion was established to make final determinations about their savior based on the trinity that apparently emerged only over a century earlier and "handed down" from Nicea.

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

As you can see the greatest authority for the 4th and 5th century heresiologists was the Nicaean Creed of the "Holy 318 Nicaean Fathers" , in which no mention is made of any trinity. More important was the fact that this congregation helped the supremely victorious warlord Constantine celebrate his most auspicious 20th year of Long Service as the [Barbarian] war commander.

The trinity was absorbed into the heresiological writings by later 4th and 5th century heresiologists, and is primarily sourced in the literature of the Enneads, authored by Plotinus and preserved in writing by his apostle Porphyry. The metaphyics of Plato, according to Plotinus, starts and ends with the holy trinity of the "ONE SPIRIT SOUL".

The 4th century Christian heresiological authors misappropriated Platonic philosophy and metaphysics in service of the centralized monotheistic state Jesus church. Unravel the strands of history and we are still left with the all-important Council of Nicaea, and the prodigous authority of the 318 Nicaean Fathers.

It is just a "Big Lie" assembled and perpetuated by the ruling class to whom heresiology was a means to separate the pagans from the temples, and bring them all into the newly erected Christian basilcas.

\.

sotto voce · 05-15-2012, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Sorry, Sotto, I don't follow you at all in terms what you are saying having anything to do with what I was saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Sotto Voce, I think you are avoiding my point regarding its clear use in the early period

Find the earliest use of 'persons'. It's not in the Bible; and if it's not there, it's too late. Though I've taught you about those pagan creeds already, that don't help you.

'Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.' Article VI

I was under the distinct impression that you had insisted that trinitarianism was an 'essential pillar' of Christianity. If that was not the case, then please ignore my comments.

Duvduv · 05-15-2012, 09:19 AM

Yes, that is true. It is a fundamental pillar of Christianity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Sorry, Sotto, I don't follow you at all in terms what you are saying having anything to do with what I was saying.

I was under the distinct impression that you had insisted that trinitarianism was an 'essential pillar' of Christianity. If that was not the case, then please ignore my comments.

sotto voce · 05-15-2012, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yes, that is true. It is a fundamental pillar of Christianity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Sorry, Sotto, I don't follow you at all in terms what you are saying having anything to do with what I was saying.

I was under the distinct impression that you had insisted that trinitarianism was an 'essential pillar' of Christianity. If that was not the case, then please ignore my comments.

Then find the earliest use of 'persons'. It's not in the Bible; and if it's not there, it's too late. Though I've taught you about those pagan creeds already, that don't help you.

'Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.' Article VI

Duvduv · 05-15-2012, 05:51 PM

Sorry, Sotto, I don't follow. I guess we'll leave it there then.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-14-2012, 03:14 PM	#91
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Sotto Voce, I think you are avoiding my point regarding its clear use in the early period, especially as it became reflected in the Creeds. Toto himself may agree with me about it by now.

05-14-2012, 04:53 PM	#93
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I guess I haven't sufficiently considered the likelihood of one or more parts of the church(es) appealing to something that would make the pagans feel right at home and comfortable while offering them something much better than what they were used to. But of course weren't the Arians, the Valentians, Cerinthians the Marconites (if they even existed) or the rest also offering things that made folks feel good?

05-15-2012, 05:51 PM	#100
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Sorry, Sotto, I don't follow. I guess we'll leave it there then.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.