The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Salus Maior]

I regret that this isn't wholly correct. Jovian supported Nicene Christianity, though it would be fair to note that his reign was too short to accomplish anything of significance theologically other than restore Christianity as the state religion.

The situation with the Valentinians is more complicated. Valentinian I and Gratian were Nicene Christians, so much of the Western Empire was under the control of Nicene emperors from 363 AD through Gratian's death in 383. However, the child co-emperor Valentinian II was initially dominated by his Arian mother Justina, which led to a complex dispute with St Ambrose in Milan. The usurper Magnus Maximus presented himself as a champion of Nicene orthodoxy against the Arian heterodoxy of Valentinian II and Justina Valentinian I's brother and Gratians uncle Valens favoured Arianism, so the (by this period) more important Eastern Empire was under the sole control of an Arian emperor until the accession of Theodosius I in 378. None of which stopped the Nicene Magnus Maximus from killing the Nicene Gratian, or the Nicene Theodosius protecting the Arian Valentinian II from the Nicene Magnus Maximus.

The relative toleration of the Nicene Valentinians towards Arianism and vice versa is likely down to the close family links within the family; Valentinian I and Valens seem to have placed family over theology. Once Theodosius was senior emperor, however, he felt free to make Nicene Christianity the official state version of Christianity (ignoring whatever objections the young Valentinian II might have had).

The short version is that it's certainly true that Nicene Christianity wasn't definitively established with Imperial support until 378, and that up until Jovian's accession in 363, most emperors following the death of Constantine were actively opposed to the Nicene definition. However, this wasn't true of all emperors.

However, even Theodosius I wasn't the end of the story. The defeat of Arianism (which would in any case flourish under the Ostrogothic, Vandal, and Visigothic states following the disintegration of the Western Empire) didn't mean the final triumph of what we would consider small-o orthodox christology. Several later Eastern emperors - most notably Anastasius I - were open monophysites. It's only the loss of Syria and Egypt to the Arabs in the 7th century that lances the monophysite theological boil; by removing the provinces where monophysitism (or, if you prefer, miaphysitism) was prevalent, there was no longer the need to come up with compromises along the lines of Heraclius's monoenergism or monothelitism.

So what the Orthodox, Catholics, and most protestants understand as small-o orthodox christology by no means enjoyed universal support by Roman Emperors until the transformation of the late classical Eastern Empire into the medieval Byzantine Empire was more or less complete.

We need to get you a bat signal, for when these types of disputes crop up.

Or rather, an Imperial Orthodox eagle signal.

[Lower Nubia]

Of course they were, if trinitarianism wasn't proposed by them where did this apparently un-Christian doctrine formulate itself?

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'.

And why if the trinity is so against common interpretation, logic and human understanding of how God is supposed to work, why did it become the doctrine of the church? (apparently 'mean old' Human tradition!) Of course there is a degree here, the 1st century Christians would not of spoken the Nicene, then due to Pneumatomachi, the: Niceno-Constantipolitan creed (the updated Holy Spirit version of the creed) but the creed was a final, conclusion to the trinitarian doctrine.

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:

"The Father and Son were not begotten from some preexisted first cause so that they might be called brothers. The Father is the origin of the Son and begat him, and the Father is Father and did not become anyone's son. The Son is Son and not a brother. If he is called the everlasting offspring of the Father, he is called so correctly. The Father's substance was not once imperfect so that what is peculiar to it should subsequently come into existence. Nor as man from man was the Son begotten so that he is later than the Father's existence, but he is God's offspring. Since he is the peculiar Son of God who always is, he exists everlastingly. It is distinctive of men to reproduce in time because of the imperfection of their nature. God's offspring is everlasting because of the continual perfection of his nature. Therefore if he is not a Son but a work that came into existence from nothing, let them prove it. … But if he is Son-for the Father declares this and the Scriptures shout it, and 'Son' is nothing other than that begotten from the Father, and that which is begotten from the Father is his Word and Wisdom and reflection-then what is necessary to say about those who state that 'there was once when the Son was not,' except that they are robbers who deprive God of his Word and they openly cry out against him that he was once without his peculiar Word and Wisdom, and light 'was once' without any gleam, and the fountain was barren and dry?"

Also there are the words of Alexander of Alexandria:

They say, 'For God made all things from nothing,' including even the Son of God with the creation of all rational and irrational creatures. In accord with this, they even say that he is of a mutable nature, capable of both virtue and evil, and with their supposition 'from nothing' they destroy the divine Scriptures' witness that he always is, which Scriptures indicate the immutability of the Word and the divinity of the Wisdom of the Word which is Christ. The wretches state, 'Then we too are able to become sons of God, just as he.' For it is written 'I have begotten and raised up sons' (Isa. 1:2). And when they add the statement from the text 'but they rejected me,' which does not belong to the nature of the Saviour, who is of an immutable nature, they abandon every reverence. They say that God, knowing about him by foreknowledge and prevision would not reject him and chose him from all. For he does not have by nature something special from other sons (for they say that no one is by nature Son of God). … Therefore, concerning the claim that the Son of God came into existence from nothing, and to demonstrate that there was never once when he didn't already exist, John the evangelist instructed sufficiently, writing about him, 'the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father' (Jn. 1:18). For the divine teacher in foresight shows that the two things, the Father and the Son, are inseparable from one another.

The words of the Bishop of Lyons who I previously quoted from the late second century:

"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."

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.

Some examples of where the 1st century church clearly taught the Trinity:

1st Century:

Proverb 8:5-31: "O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart. Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength. By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth. I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver. I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death."

Jesus then clearly references these words in the beatitudes and "reenacts" the roles of Wisdom in the wisdom literature, such as Proverbs 1:20-28, which is reciprocated in Matthew 11:16-19. Proverbs 9:1-6 speaks of wisdom dining with sinners and simpletons so they may gain understanding, 'shockingly' no better description could be used for Christs action with sinners. The list goes on through the book of Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, etc..

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.

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."

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.

Only a fool could not see the related imagery here between Christs actions in Matthew 24, 26:60-66, Luke 21 and Mark 13. Throughout the Gospel Christ makes statements of divinity, simply because the Jews he spoke to on multiple occasions than tried to kill him for blasphemy: such as in John 8:57-59 and John 10:33. Then we come to the Pauline letters, which frequently remark Christ as Lord and much, much more: Hebrews 1:1-7 which affirm Christ as the exact image of the Father and this passage is utilised for the contents of the Nicene Creed and for the Cappodocian Father etc.., Phillipians 2:1-7. Paul here utilises the Psalm of David, No. 110, and Daniel 7 in Colossians 3:1, along with Colossians 1:14-19, referencing John 1:1, how Christ dwells in the Godhead and upholds all things. This is but the tip of an iceberg for Christian texts in the Scriptures for Christ as God.

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.

The standard confusion texts come out of a poor understanding of the inner working of the trinity:

Mark 12:29: "Here, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.", of course here God is a title, not a name, it therefore identifies no persons, such as the Father, but a monarchical title, which is indeed one.

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.

b]Matthew 19:16[/b]: "Why call me good, there is none good but One, that is God." The irony here is this affirms Christs deity, If only God is Good and the man calls Christ Good, he logically affirms Christ to be God.

That's not how logic works...

That's not an argument. Are we to yield to soundbite statements without refutation?

John 14:28: "I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I", Indeed functionally speaking, but not ontologically speaking. The Father with Christ Incarnated is indeed greater, for Christ incarnated follows the Will of the Father, willingly of his own will, thus functionally submits, but it is not of Christs divine ousia, where he does not submit ontologically (in this sense be less than the father).

Matthew 26:39: "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Here exists the same explanation as above and as Christ clearly shows in his words, how he submits to the will of the Father, this is not Ontological submission but a quality of Christs will, which he explains. An additional point Christ also prayers to God, which is a title, not a name. This also covers the prayer texts, such as "why have you forsaken me?" or the prayer in the garden, these are submissions to the will of the Father, but this is not a physical-essence, divine ousia, ontological, based submission.

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).

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.

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"

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.

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.

[Dylar]

Uh...LN, I think you broke the thread halfway down your post...

[Stonok]

Uh...LN, I think you broke the thread halfway down your post...

That's actually pretty damned impressive.

[Lower Nubia]

Uh...LN, I think you broke the thread halfway down your post...

Yeah, I don't know what's happened, I've checked there, appears, to be no BBCode in the way, it just sought of shrank and spread out.

[Tarsonis]

Uh...LN, I think you broke the thread halfway down your post...

He just turned to the dark side halfway through

[Dylar]

Uh...LN, I think you broke the thread halfway down your post...

Yeah, I don't know what's happened, I've checked there, appears, to be no BBCode in the way, it just sought of shrank and spread out.

Well, never fear, for I've cooked up a report for it in moderation...

Now we wait...

[Farnhamia]

Yeah, I don't know what's happened, I've checked there, appears, to be no BBCode in the way, it just sought of shrank and spread out.

Well, never fear, for I've cooked up a report for it in moderation...

Now we wait...

And lo! an Angel of Moderation descended upon the post and straightened out the order of the quote and spoiler end-tags. And she muttered something under her breath before ascending once more into the clouds.

[Lower Nubia]

Well, never fear, for I've cooked up a report for it in moderation...

Now we wait...

And lo! an Angel of Moderation descended upon the post and straightened out the order of the quote and spoiler end-tags. And she muttered something under her breath before ascending once more into the clouds.

Thank you moderating angel!

[Salus Maior]

Jerusalem is a woman, Wisdom is a woman....And people say that Christianity is anti-woman

There's also Mary, the Mother of God, and the most important saint.

>Hakons triggers all his fellow Protestants

[Salus Maior]

And lo! an Angel of Moderation descended upon the post and straightened out the order of the quote and spoiler end-tags. And she muttered something under her breath before ascending once more into the clouds.

Thank you moderating angel!

So, since you're new (at least I don't really know you) what sect are you?

[Lower Nubia]

Thank you moderating angel!

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!

[Corpus Magnus]

Aaagh, stop RESPONDING TO MY POSTS SO FAST. I don't have time for this.

[Northern Davincia]

Aaagh, stop RESPONDING TO MY POSTS SO FAST. I don't have time for this.

We arrive faster than the Winged Hussars.

[Auze]

Aaagh, stop RESPONDING TO MY POSTS SO FAST. I don't have time for this.

We arrive faster than the Winged Hussars.

and now Sabaton is stuck in my head

[Tarsonis]

We arrive faster than the Winged Hussars.

and now Sabaton is stuck in my head

I keep them relegated to the gym.

[Tarsonis]

Aaagh, stop RESPONDING TO MY POSTS SO FAST. I don't have time for this.

Welcome to thunderdome.

[Corpus Magnus]

Aaagh, stop RESPONDING TO MY POSTS SO FAST. I don't have time for this.

We arrive faster than the Winged Hussars.

Evidently.

You are also more numerous than the Winged Hussars, and there's only one me.

[Constantinopolis]

You know, with all the discussion about the Holy Trinity recently, it is a happy coincidence that today happens to be a Great Feast of the Orthodox Church which is dedicated (in part) to the revelation of the Trinity to mankind.

This is also the holiday that marks the end of the Christmas season. It was originally the third most important holiday of the year in the Christian East, behind Pascha (Easter) and Pentecost. It was one of the two main annual occasions for baptizing new converts. It is a celebration older than Christmas, and remained more important than Christmas until recent centuries.

The Baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ
(also called Theophany, or Epiphany - the "revelation" or "shining forth" of God)



This is the Feast of the Revelation of God to Mankind. This is the Feast that celebrates the beginning of the Earthly ministry of Christ, the beginning of His preaching in front of large crowds and performing public miracles for all to see. And this was also the first time that the Holy Trinity was openly made manifest in a public revelation. God the Son in the waters of the river Jordan, God the Father as a voice from the heavens, and God the Holy Spirit in the appearance of a dove descending upon Christ.

In the ancient Church, Theophany was also known as the Day of Illumination or the Feast of Lights (being understood as the New Covenant equivalent of Old Covenant Hanukkah, just as Pascha/Easter is the New Covenant equivalent of Old Covenant Passover). Christmas didn't begin to be celebrated until later.

Although Christ Himself did not need to be baptized, He chose to do so, for several different reasons: As an example to be followed by all the faithful, as an expression of humility, as an occasion to reveal the mystery of the Holy Trinity to the whole world (and thus begin our illumination), and as a means to bless the waters - of the Jordan and of all the world - and to institute the practice of blessing holy water.

On Theophany, the Orthodox Church performs the ceremony of the "Greater Blessing of Water", and the water thus blessed (usually a very large quantity) is used by the priest for blessing homes over the following weeks, and for other occasions and blessings throughout the year. The faithful also take some holy water for use at home. We may drink small amounts of holy water in the morning (before eating or drinking anything else) as a form of devotion and a means to ask for God's blessings.

Here are some Orthodox hymns for Theophany on YouTube:

Troparion for Theophany (in English; this is the best version that I found)
Troparion for Theophany (in English, sung by a professional choir)
Troparion for Theophany (in English, sung by a parish church choir)
Troparion for Theophany (in Arabic)
Troparion for Theophany (in English and Arabic)
Troparion for Theophany (in Romanian)
Troparion for Theophany (in many languages)
Kontakion for Theophany - "On This Day Thou Has Appeared" (in English)
Kontakion for Theophany (in Greek, by Cappella Romana)
"As many as have been baptized into Christ" - baptismal hymn sung on Theophany as well as for any individual baptism (in English)
"As many as have been baptized into Christ" (in Greek, French and Arabic)
"As many as have been baptized into Christ" (in Greek, by Cappella Romana)
"As many as have been baptized into Christ" (in many languages)

Troparion:

When Thou, O Lord, was baptized in the Jordan,
Worship of the Trinity wast made manifest!
For the voice of the Father bore witness to Thee, calling Thee His beloved Son.
And the Spirit in the form of a dove confirmed the truth of His word.
O Christ our God, Who has appeared and enlightened the world, glory to Thee!

Kontakion:

On this day Thou have appeared unto the whole world,
And Thy light, O Sovereign Lord, is signed on us who sing Thy praise and chant with knowledge:
Thou have now come, Thou have appeared, O Thou Light unappproachable!

As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, Alleluia!

[Corpus Magnus]

Sigh. Which verses specifically?

Isaiah 43:10

All right, I finally found the article I was looking for so I don't have to exert any real thought in answering this!

Some Christians claim that the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead and belief in theosis are not compatible with multiple statements in Isaiah that "beside [the Lord] there is no God." These passages include Isaiah 43:10-11; Isaiah 44:6,8; Isaiah 45:5-6; Isaiah 45:21-22; and Isaiah 46:9-10.

These scriptures in Isaiah clearly are meant to assert the supremacy, authority, and superiority of Yahweh over not only over false idols but over all else, including real gods.

The passages in Isaiah cannot be called upon to disprove LDS beliefs in separate divine beings in the Godhead or theosis. Their main point is to encourage Israel to stop worshiping other divine beings or idols but to worship Yahweh alone (see Isaiah 41:29, Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 43:10,12,24, Isaiah 44:8,9,10,17,19, Isaiah 45:9,12,16,20,22.

Any other use of these passages distorts Isaiah's meaning and intent.

Isaiah 44:6 reads:

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Passages such as Isa 44:6,8 and 45:5,21 that read "no God beside me" or a variation of that phrase are traditionally interpreted by mainstream anti-Mormons as meaning that other than Yahweh no form of deity exists at all, including exalted men. This type of interpretation at first seems obvious, but after considering similar passages in other parts of scripture it is clear that this interpretation is incorrect.

For example, Isaiah 47:8-10 depicts the city of Babylon as saying:

Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:
For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.
These passages use the exact same phrase as Isa 44 and 45, yet they certainly do not exclude the existence of any city other than Babylon. The city of Ninevah would be very upset if this were the case, as Zephaniah depicts Ninevah in Zephaniah 2:15 as saying:

This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.
Again it is clear that this phrase does not exclude the very existence of other cities. Using these parallel phrases makes it clear that Isaiah is not excluding the very existence of any other deity when he quotes Yahweh as declaring "there is no God beside me." There are, in fact, several scriptures in the Old Testament that imply that Yahweh is in fact one of a number of Gods, albeit supreme. Compare the following passages from the KJV, NIV and ESV versions of the Bible:

And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints. For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him. O Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? aor to thy faithfulness round about thee? (KJV Psalms 89:5-8)
The heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings [fn. Lit "sons of god(s)]? In the council of holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. O LORD God almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness surrounds you (NIV Psalms 89:5-8).
Among all the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works (Psalms 86:8).
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment (ESV Psalms 82:1)
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (KJV Psalms 82:1)
These scriptures speak of divine beings, "gods" who are the "sons of god(s)" who are heavenly beings who dwell in the skies. These cannot be idols or false gods. Yahweh dwells among them, reigns over them, and holds judgment in their midst.

Another favorite scripture of the critics of the LDS doctrine of exaltation is Isaiah 43:10. They seem to believe it contradicts this doctrine when it says:

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Whether this passage is referring to false idols who represent deities that do not exist, or whether it refers to real divine beings who exist alongside and subordinate to Yahweh is not crucial for responding to this particular criticism. The passage specifically says "before" and "after" Yahweh. Since Yahweh has always existed, and since He will always exist no man can ever be exalted "before" or "after" Yahweh. All men who are exalted to godhood will be contemporaries of Yahweh, and will never precede nor follow Yahweh's existence. They will also become part of the divine council over which he presides.

Wherefore, as it is written, [the inhabitants of the Celestial Kingdom] are gods, even the sons of God (D&C 76:58).

I hope that's good enough for you, because I'm too slow of a writer to come up with something original.

[Aillyria]

Assalam my Christian brothers and sisters, I come to ask how would you describe the concept of the "persons" in the Godhead according to classic Christian theology.

Personally as a muslim, I'm not opposed to the idea of a trinity actually nor do I view it as an impossibility, however the mainstream view of your trinity seems....nonsensical somewhat (no offense). I believe that if a trinity were to exist, it'd most likely be of the sort proposed by the Modalists, imho.

[Northern Davincia]

Assalam my Christian brothers and sisters, I come to ask how would you describe the concept of the "persons" in the Godhead according to classic Christian theology.

Personally as a muslim, I'm not opposed to the idea of a trinity actually nor do I view it as an impossibility, however the mainstream view of your trinity seems....nonsensical somewhat (no offense). I believe that if a trinity were to exist, it'd most likely be of the sort proposed by the Modalists, imho.

The components of the Holy Trinity are akin to the three branches of American government. They are separate forms, but act in unison, and compose one entity.

[Aillyria]

Assalam my Christian brothers and sisters, I come to ask how would you describe the concept of the "persons" in the Godhead according to classic Christian theology.

Personally as a muslim, I'm not opposed to the idea of a trinity actually nor do I view it as an impossibility, however the mainstream view of your trinity seems....nonsensical somewhat (no offense). I believe that if a trinity were to exist, it'd most likely be of the sort proposed by the Modalists, imho.

The components of the Holy Trinity are akin to the three branches of American government. They are separate forms, but act in unison, and compose one entity.

That is perhaps the most direct and useful explaination I've seen. Ok, but then wouldn't that be a plurality in the godhead?

[Northern Davincia]

The components of the Holy Trinity are akin to the three branches of American government. They are separate forms, but act in unison, and compose one entity.

That is perhaps the most direct and useful explaination I've seen. Ok, but then wouldn't that be a plurality in the godhead?

God in His three forms are not gods in and of themselves, as the three branches of government are not governments themselves. How are we defining 'plurality'?

[Aillyria]

That is perhaps the most direct and useful explaination I've seen. Ok, but then wouldn't that be a plurality in the godhead?

God in His three forms are not gods in and of themselves, as the three branches of government are not governments themselves. How are we defining 'plurality'?

From my understanding you're describing a collective whole, not a unitary whole. That's what I'm getting at, it seems like a plurality acting as one, not one acting in more than one manner.