J/C, do you not know that the orthodox "Trinitarian" church was the one the gnostics were against? Here's why- the incarnation. The gnostics don't believe He ever incarnated- their idea of god was completely separate from anything created as all created things were seen as corrupt and intrinsically evil. Thus, their god could only be known through secret knowledge (hence: "gnosis") as He could not be known through the created order (as Heber pointed out). Orthodox Christians (Trinitarians) rejected that as contrary to the revelation of scripture and the historic event of the incarnation. This is why the Apostle John described as "antichrist" those who denied Him coming in the flesh. Without the incarnation Yeshua has no authority to say "you have heard it said...but I say to you", nor does He have the authority to forgive sins etc. Without the incarnation His sacrifice would have no eternal effect. So, no incarnation= no authority. No incarnation= no sacrifice. Ultimately, no incarnation= no ressurection which equals no religion.
He's either God or He is not. If he's not, we should all become Bhuddist.
__________________
"Here lies an atheist; all dressed up and no place to go." Epitaph in Maryland cemetery
Last edited by ContraMundum; 31st October 2009 at 03:09 AM.
Trinity
In the fourth-century, Marcellus of Ancyra declared that the idea of the Godhead existing as three hypostases (hidden spiritual realities) came from Plato through the teachings of Valentinus.[6] Valentinus is quoted as teaching that God is three and three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:
Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.
Since Valentinus had used the term hypostases, his name came up in the Arian disputes in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra, who was a staunch opponent of Arianism but also denounced the belief in God existing in three hypostases as heretical and was later condemned for his views, attacking his opponents by linking them to Valentinus:
"Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons — father, son, and holy spirit."
It should be noted that Nag Hammadi library Sethian text such as Trimorphic Protennoia identify Gnosticism as professing Father, Son and feminine wisdom Sophia or as Professor John D Turner denotes, God the Father, Sophia the Mother, and Logos the Son.
All written after the Trinitarian church was alive in well. IOW- they copied Christianity, not vice-versa.
First Trinitarian statement: made by Yeshua. (Baptise them) "In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Amen to that! This is continued in the Didache (1stC), Hippolytus (early 3rd), the Der-Balizeh papyrus (4th) and so on. Plus, every Creed and baptismal symbol of faith from the beginning, is Trinitarian in structure. They copied the Christians, not vice-versa.
__________________
"Here lies an atheist; all dressed up and no place to go." Epitaph in Maryland cemetery
Last edited by ContraMundum; 31st October 2009 at 03:20 AM.
CM - I couldn't be bothered to go down this road, again!
__________________
E & O E. Caveats may apply to this post. Terms and conditions may apply to this post. Your legal rights are not affected. Written apologies may be offered to anyone who may be even slightly offended by this post. Complaints and suggestions regarding this post, its accuracy, wording, intention, relevance to any other matter, the time of day or the colour of my socks should be referred to the author in the first instance. In the unlikely event that a Report needs to be made, pray first, and if the problem will not go away, use the Report Button which is the red one at the top right of this text box; click on it once and follow the prompts on the screen.
Kernow - land of my ancestors To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Y'israel - land of my heart
J/C, do you not know that the orthodox "Trinitarian" church was the one the gnostics were against? Here's why- the incarnation. The gnostics don't believe He ever incarnated- their idea of god was completely separate from anything created as all created things were seen as corrupt and intrinsically evil. Thus, their god could only be known through secret knowledge (hence: "gnosis") as He could not be known through the created order (as Heber pointed out). Orthodox Christians (Trinitarians) rejected that as contrary to the revelation of scripture and the historic event of the incarnation. This is why the Apostle John described as "antichrist" those who denied Him coming in the flesh. Without the incarnation Yeshua has no authority to say "you have heard it said...but I say to you", nor does He have the authority to forgive sins etc. Without the incarnation His sacrifice would have no eternal effect. So, no incarnation= no authority. No incarnation= no sacrifice. Ultimately, no incarnation= no ressurection which equals no religion.
He's either God or He is not. If he's not, we should all become Bhuddist.
I am aware that there were Gnostic groups that were divided against each other. Something like we have today. The Gnostic Christians are that group who proposed the same substance theory, and then later proposed the creeds. The Judaizing Christians were against Trinitarianism, Sunday Sabbath, and the authority of the pope.
So, no incarnation= no authority. No incarnation= no sacrifice. Ultimately, no incarnation= no ressurection which equals no religion.
He's either God or He is not. If he's not, we should all become Bhuddist.
__________________
It is no small prudence to remain silent in evil times, to turn inwardly to Me,
and not to be disturbed by human opinions.
Do not let your peace depend on the words of men. --Thomas Kempis
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Originally Posted by ContraMundum
So, no incarnation= no authority. No incarnation= no sacrifice. Ultimately, no incarnation= no ressurection which equals no religion.
He's either God or He is not. If he's not, we should all become Bhuddist.
You guys need to stop going off on these illogicl rants.
E & O E. Caveats may apply to this post. Terms and conditions may apply to this post. Your legal rights are not affected. Written apologies may be offered to anyone who may be even slightly offended by this post. Complaints and suggestions regarding this post, its accuracy, wording, intention, relevance to any other matter, the time of day or the colour of my socks should be referred to the author in the first instance. In the unlikely event that a Report needs to be made, pray first, and if the problem will not go away, use the Report Button which is the red one at the top right of this text box; click on it once and follow the prompts on the screen.
Kernow - land of my ancestors To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Y'israel - land of my heart
The Gnostic Christians are that group who proposed the same substance theory, and then later proposed the creeds.
No, that's not right at all. I've already shown you that. The Creeds are found well before Nicea, incidentaly. I've mentioned two instances already, and believe me, there's plenty more where that came from.
The Judaizing Christians were against Trinitarianism, Sunday Sabbath, and the authority of the pope.
I don't think so. The first bishops of Jerusalem were Jewish and they were clearly part of the same church as the bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria etc. In fact, Jerusalem was considered a Patricarchal See of the highest importance and were certainly in agreement with their fellow believers abroad. I don't think you can deny that, as we have plenty of witness about that.
__________________
"Here lies an atheist; all dressed up and no place to go." Epitaph in Maryland cemetery
No, that's not right at all. I've already shown you that. The Creeds are found well before Nicea, incidentaly. I've mentioned two instances already, and believe me, there's plenty more where that came from.
I don't think so. The first bishops of Jerusalem were Jewish and they were clearly part of the same church as the bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria etc. In fact, Jerusalem was considered a Patricarchal See of the highest importance and were certainly in agreement with their fellow believers abroad. I don't think you can deny that, as we have plenty of witness about that.
How about some facts CM. I presented evidence that what I have said is true, but it got deleted, until CF can decide what to do about it.
Linear Mode
