Lower Nubia wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:Corpus Magnus wrote:By the same reasoning, if early Christians were trinitarian, Arianism, Modalism, and Adoptionsim should not have formulated. The Apostasy, and the removal of God's prophets from the earth, led to these incorrect but understandable confusions of His gospel.
2 Peter 2:1-2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
As I stated earlier, we do not deny Christ's divinity. We do, however, deny many of the teachings dispensed during the Apostasy - which began immediately after and even just before the Apostles' deaths, such as the belief that Jesus Christ and God the Father are the same God. The Nicene Creed was formulated because of the Apostasy, because Christians had fallen away from Christ and were relying on their own minds rather than divine revelation from heaven, as predicted by Paul. This is why so many of what you call heresies exist and have existed: because divine revelation had ceased for the time being - you yourselves do not believe in the existence of prophets, nor in the existence of revelation or scripture outside of the Bible! - and Christians did not have the gospel on their side, instead understandably turning to the teachings of men and not God. By saying the first Christians, I mean those who lived during the time of Christ and his Apostles, not intelligent but misled individuals from later times.
This explains things better than I can.
An apostasy was predicted by the Bible:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Acts 20:29-30 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Your first point, is faulted, if the trinity was not expounded in the Scriptures, or by the Apostles to their disciples, one must answer how such a complicated doctrine formed, while the less complicated doctrines of Modalism, Adoptionism, did not form in any great number among the church, while Arianism did not arise until several centuries after Christs earthly ministry, and then did not gain an sizable number of Bishops until the 5th century.
I read your link and found it to seriously specious and lacking, your source also refutes itself and is self defeating, if the gates of hell are not to prevail over Christ as the rock, but could prevail over the church (which is not the rock) then hell did prevail over the rock. As Christ came to establish the church, through the salvation his death and resurrection provided, if the church was overcome as your source says, then it logically overcame the son, because his salvation was made null and void by the method of the apostasy within the church. Therefore your source says Christ failed, because his salvation was overcome. Your 'source' continues:
"Another interpretation is that "prevail" has reference to keeping inhabitants inside. In this thought, gates could only prevail against something that is already inside of them and not external to them. This interpretation would be that Christ was saying that His Church would soon be inside the gates of the spirit world alone because of apostasy on earth, but that the Church would later come out from the world of the dead and back to earth—that His Church would shortly be confined to the spirit world, held back by its gates, but that later, members of Christ's Ancient Church (such as Peter, James, and John) would come, by revelation, out from behind the gates of Hades to restore the gospel to the earth."
The most damning thing is it provides no source, or translation or interpretation from the original Greek, only an English version of the KJV, which eliminates your source as anything other than standard western, individualistic interpretation methods of this verse, they didn't even consult the Greek! Allowing the English translation, the word prevail means no such thing, it does not refer to things which have already been swamped, but is a present tense word. To prevail against something is to overcome them at the current moment, for example: "We prevail over the fortress.", "We prevailed over the fortress", notice that prevail cannot refer to something already overcome, because that would suggest the fort was already in your hands before your armies seized and took it. Notice one is present tense and the other past. Christ uses present tense, that the gates of hell would not during any point in the churches history, prevail over it. Even from their 'interpretation' how can prevail mean soon? soon to you is 70 years after Christ came to earth, 'Soon' however is arbitrary, 70 years is not soon to me. To an eternal God, 1,000,000 years is soon. How has this source assumed a time from the word prevail? this term provides no such ability to determine 'soon'.
Another terrible issue is that of all the interpretations of these verses, why is the LDS version more valid than any other? Why did Joseph Smith have to reveal this interpretation if it is so fluid and natural as the source extends it to? Why is this interpretation not utilised by anyone before Joseph Smith, or at least before the reformation? You no doubt answer: "the Great Apostasy!" which is circular reasoning. As your source says the great apostasy occurred during this time, because Mormonism is true, but Mormonism is true because the great apostasy occurred in the early centuries.
The problem is that the 'great apostasy’ is not a scripturally timed event (in this way, it does not say when or where or even who), we have no indicators as to when it should occur, in fact many Christian groups can adequately presume that certain events in their history are the 'great apostasy' the Catholic to the Orthodox, the Orthodox to the Catholic, the Catholic to the Protestant, the Protestant to the Catholic. This apostasy therefore has no validity for your request, any more than it has validity for the other requests. You commit the fallacy of begging the question, you've assumed Mormonism is correct to then explain why the 2nd century father arn't, to then show you are correct, due to the 'great apostasy'. You must provide reason why your 'great apostasy' is any more valid than the Catholics, or Orthodox, or Protestants. Which is impossible. This eliminates the quotes you provide in 2 Peter 2:1-2, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Acts 20:29-30 and 2 Timothy 4:3-4.
However, what is a scriptural timed event are Christs words: in Matthew 16:18:
"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."
The gates of hell will never overcome the church which Christ gave all that he had to establish, to overcome the Church, in your interpretation, is to overcome the 'rock'. Again this defeats your 'source'.Lower Nubia wrote:Corpus Magnus wrote:The creed became the doctrine of many Christian churches because Constantine decided it was the official stance. No revelation from God led to the creation of the creed, nor am I aware of any of the creators of the Nicene Creed claiming divine revelation led to its composition.
This is nonsense, for the first 300 years the church had defied the words of emperors to their own deaths, yet suddenly the church submits, against their will? why this basic contradiction in the churches psyche? Not to mention you assume Constantine to be the enforcer of the creed (which is nonsense) but truly the creed comes from previously mentioned fathers of the church: Athanasius of Alexandria several years before stated in his work, against the Arians:
Also there are the words of Alexander of Alexandria:
The words of the Bishop of Lyons who I previously quoted from the late second century:
Why then if it was Constantine who forced the decree, is the creed practically mentioned decades, even centuries before Constantine was around to force his will? I admit Constantine had a profound impact on the church, the idea of an emperor summoning the church to council was irresistible, but apart from Constantine's 'bishop reunion' effect, how did he affect something that was already on the Church's mind anyway? Thus to blame Constantine is revisionism, and the words of the Early Fathers must be explained.Lower Nubia wrote:Corpus Magnus wrote:I'm not sure what your point is here - is there some significance to wisdom in trinitarian Christianity that I am unaware of?
The wisdom literature recounts the qualities of Gods wisdom, in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, that wisdom is personified and is seen to perform actions. Jesus then performs these actions, in a sense reciprocating how wisdom acted in the the wisdom literature. The reason of course is two fold: As the wisdom of God is a quality of God, through Christs actions he was showing himself as an integral quality of the Father, by demonstrating himself as the wisdom of the Father. The second reason is because the wisdom of God is of God, so too must Christ be of God and therefore God. This imagery was clearly seen by the church, for the greatest cathedral of the 6th century was named after Christ's title here: the Hagia Sophia, or the church of the 'Holy Wisdom'. The Church understood this literature to be the Tanakh reference to Christs deity and the 'mode' of his deity, as an integral quality of the father, just as wisdom is begotten of the Father, so too Christ is begotten of the Father. This is then repeated in the form of John's Gospel in his iconic words in John 1:1:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The point here being that the Church saw Christ as the word of God, an integral quality of the Father which cannot be segregated from him, as the word of God is begotten of the Father so too is Christ.Lower Nubia wrote:Christs claim to deity is not the Son of God title, but the Son of Man title, which he utilises as a direct reference or 'typology' of Danial 7:9-14:
"I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."Corpus Magnus wrote:I believe you are misinterpreting our beliefs. We do not believe that Christ is not a god.
I Chucked that rock in hopes of hitting Arianism too, can't fault me for throwing a rock and not attempting to hit several theologies at once.Lower Nubia wrote:
You did not reply to these texts, which suggests you either did not read them, or could not refute them. However, I will clarify as an independent line of trinitarian thought which directly affects the creed, which you said was the child of Constantine. Shown here in Hebrew 1:1-7:
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire."
This express image of the Father is in fact one of the highlights of the Creed when it discusses the Son’s attributes; Light from Light. If Christ is a direct representation of the father, how if they be separate deities can this be explained, not in how deities are produced, this is an illogical question, but how can they be so intrinsically related? Unless they are inseparable (in the sense that the members of the trinity are inseparable, not that the Father and Son are the same being) as the trinity explains, how can separate deities be such a likeness of each other? This text then directly links with the text in Daniel 7, where the express image of the Father then sits at the right hand side of the father. How can it not also be noted that the "Thou art my son, this day I have begotten me?" If Christ is an independent deity, how is he begotten? This can relate only into a context where Christ is the word of the Father, Wisdom of the Father, thus inseparable from the father in the forms shown in the trinity.Lower Nubia wrote:Corpus Magnus wrote:So your argument is that the Father and Son are literally one because of the use of the title God? How do you explain the times when Christ refers to Heavenly Father as "my Father" or "our Father"? How do you explain verses such as these?
Acts 7:55-56 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the fright hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Romans 8:31-34 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us call things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
How on earth could you gain that interpretation of what I said, I said God, i.e. the term Theos, is a monarchical title here and refers to NO persons, the Father is a name, applying to one member of the trinity, the Holy Spirit is not the Father, but the Holy Spirit is God along with the Father. This is due to the fact that God is not an identifier of personage, but of place in the universe, yet then you say I refer to Christ and the Father as one? Your failure to understand this distinction means your preceding texts become meaningless, as we are clearly not discussing the same thing.Lower Nubia wrote:Corpus Magnus wrote:That's not how logic works...
That's not an argument. Are we to yield to soundbite statements without refutation?Lower Nubia wrote:Corpus Magnus wrote:I don't understand your explanation. Could you clarify your viewpoint further?
This is somewhat a tacit admission that you do not understand the arguments within the trinity and therefore should not be discussing them. However, As shown previously, the trinity was the only method of making legitimate sense of the verses, such as John 1:1, Hebrews 1:1-7, Philippians 2:1-7, Matthew 3:15-17 and (dozens more) etc.. as well as the words of the Church Fathers (who understood the trinity as the only method by which Christ could make sense), the fact that the Father is called the Father and Christ the Son (as if somehow the two were not linked in a greater way than mere deity).Lower Nubia wrote:It might be said: "You commit the fallacy of begging the question! you assume the trinity to be true and then explain these verses through that!" No, No and no. As previously illustrated Christ is clearly seen as equal to God, it therefore comes down to the laws of logic: something cannot be A and not A, Christ is either God or he is not, the Wisdom, pauline letters clearly refer to Christ as God therefore the confusion verses cannot refer to Christ as less than that otherwise there would be a meaningless contradiction, thus these verses must be made sense in light of the former, which has been shown, and is replete through the patristic works.
It must also be reminded of the different social factors which govern texts of the 1st century compared to the 21st, Collectivist, oral-transmission based cultures have a larger degree of background knowledge, compared to our specialised knowledge, ancient people required less context to understand a concept, whereas today we require large amount of context (because we garner such a vast diversity of specialised information). This directly affects how things are to be understood because ultimately large explanations are simply not going to exist, because they are not needed. Which relays modern confusion, but seeing as the early church was even after 100 AD, clearly affirming Christ as God, it is obvious that the context spoke favorably for Christ as God.
Noted here the qualities of social factors is not discussed, as Christianity, in the form of the trinity, was the Church's understanding of Christ in the earliest centuries, and afterwords. It is therefore sensible to assume that the context was in favour of the trinity, that the words and explanations not discussed in the Scriptures, but potentially only through oral transmission contained: a) either greater elaboration to the disciples of the Apostles from the Apsotles, or b) the obvious needed not explaining. Here I may be accused of begging the question in favour of the trinity, however it should be noted that the quick 'adoption' of the trinity must be explained among her members, and this important social dynamic cannot be ignored.Lower Nubia wrote:2nd century:
Justin Martyr (100-165 AD)in his dialogue with the Greek philosophers notes that Christ is the Logos states in his work, First Apology, viewed here, Chapter LXIII: "For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a son; who also, being the first begotten Word of God, is even God"Corpus Magnus wrote:Unless I am interpreting this wrong, this quote does not conflict with Mormon views.
Actually this quote is detriment to Mormon theology, specifically the quote here is the Father having a son, in the form of no less of the Son being begotten, but as Christ and the father are eternal, with Christ being the Word of the Father, the Word cannot be separated from the Speaker, just as Christs begotten nature cannot be separated from the Father. Here the eternal begotten qualities of the Son are clearly shown, which is trinitarian theology.Lower Nubia wrote:Tertullian (150-225 AD) In his against Praxeas, viewed here, writes about the nature of the trinity, defending Christ against the Sabellian heresy.
Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons (Bishop 177 to 202) wrote practically throughout all his works,here: "God the Father, uncreated, beyond grasp, invisible, one God the maker of all; this is the first and foremost article of our faith. But the second article is the word of God, the Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was shown forth by the prophets according to the design of their prophecy and according to the manner in which the Father disposed; and through him were made all things whatsoever. He also, in the end times … became a man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and bring to light life, and bring about the communion of God and man. And the third article is the Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesised and the patriarchs were taught about God … and who in the end of times has been poured forth in a new manner upon humanity over all the earth, renewing man to God." Irenaeus of Lyons clearly references John 1:1 here and this affirms Christ divinity.
This is just a few of the great minds of this century! The number of affirmations for Christ being Lord as member of a trinity is inescapable, so many voices in the earliest church, and with Arius arriving only many centuries later (late 3rd-early 4th) to expound his heresy! Which somehow with the Holy Spirit on their side, was trodden down until apparently the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses popped "back" up to bring us the truth. Apparently Christ was wrong, for the gates of hell did overcome the church! for 1800 years!
(I moved the discussion of the Apostasy to the top, seeing as you start and end with it, and I intended to make everything here somewhat consistent) Note worthy is your inability to deal with the church fathers discussion on the trinity, you only sideline it with the charge of the 'great apostasy', of which we have no evidence for your claim more than any other claim.
Edited: Changed grammar and made some area easier to read.
I hereby grant you the First More-or-Less Annual St. Mark of Ephesus CDT Award for Extraordinary Struggle Against Heresy!
Well done sir. This is a truly impressive exposition and defense of Trinitarian Christianity. I hope you don't mind if I save it for later inspiration for the next time the issue comes up.
Lower Nubia wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
So, since you're new (at least I don't really know you) what sect are you?
I don't truly know, by this I do not mean I'm non-denominational, but currently I attend a Baptist church, but am exploring the history of the church, and am looking into Catholicism and Orthodoxy, currently I'm reading Kallistos Wares, 'The Orthodox Church', and Don Fairbairn's 'Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes'. I've somewhat become dissatisfied by my church's teaching on the Eucharist, the nature of The 'Church' and on the method of worship. So, on the fence, much prayer and learning is still required!
Come join the Orthodox Church. We have
Joking aside, I would recommend "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" and "The Living God" as particularly good books about Orthodox theology. There's also "Know the Faith", which works really well as a quick summary.
But, of course, as important as theology is, it is not really possible to understand Orthodoxy without experiencing the Liturgy as well. So, if you haven't already, I would strongly recommend finding a local Orthodox parish in your area and visiting once or twice. If you happen to be in the United States, there is an excellent search engine for finding Orthodox parishes near a given location.
THEN THE KHAN'S BULGARS ARRIVED
FROM THE THRACIAN COUNTRYSIDE
THEN THE KHAN'S BULGARS ARRIVED
TO THE EMPEROR'S AID THEY RIDE
We clearly need a version of the song with modified lyrics like these for when we make The Siege, Tars.
. "Quoting" someone to supplement your argument, is far different from just " hey read this person's commentary on the subject."
