Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

[Wgw]

once again, only those that choose ignorance over knowledge would even attempt to offer that 'trinity' existed PREVIOUS to it's INVENTION. And history plainly reveals that it was indeed invented by the RCC. While they insist that it was revealed. The FUNNY part is that it took two thousand years for 'trinity' to evolve into what those that profess to believe in it say it means TODAY.

I can think of NO OTHER revelation of God that took two thousand years of evolution.

And even today, ask ten trinitarians what it means and one will receive ten DIFFERENT definitions. Does God REALLY reveal TRUTH in such a manner? That ten different people He reveals truth to have TEN DIFFERENT definitions of that truth?

Blessings,

MEC

How do you figure the Trinity was invented by the RCC? Given the relative absence of Western bishops at Nicea; if your contention is that it was invented there, I fear you would have to direct the blame at the Orthodox, most specifically at the Greek and Coptic Orthodox.

How furthermore do you see the doctrine of the Trinity "evolving" since Nicea?

Also I daresay if you ask ten knowledgeable Orthodox Christians to define the Trinity you will receive materially undifferentiated responses.

 

[Wgw]

ScottA:

That is a big "IF," considering you have failed to produce one single verse of scripture from the Bible to support your claim. Your claim is that I am "stumbling over parables" because I stated in my Opening Post that (1) literal hellfire torment is NOT a Bible teaching, and (2) Christendom's Trinity is NOT a Bible teaching. When I challenged you to prove that I am "stumbling over parables" and to prove it with scriptures from the Judeo-Christian Bible, you now come back with: "I don't need to prove anything."

Truth be told, if you were able to prove it, you would have done it by now.

Alter2Ego



________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

On point 1, I have to ask, how do you define hellfire? What doctrine do you believe is correct?

On point 2, I would contend that Matthew 28:19, John 1:1-14, and the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8, but not the version autolinked to by these fora, see Wikipedia), which I do feel inclined to invoke on this case simply because I can, all have the very agreeable effect of reinforcing the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Der Alte]

once again, only those that choose ignorance over knowledge would even attempt to offer that 'trinity' existed PREVIOUS to it's INVENTION. And history plainly reveals that it was indeed invented by the RCC. While they insist that it was revealed. The FUNNY part is that it took two thousand years for 'trinity' to evolve [Rubbish! DA] into what those that profess to believe in it say it means TODAY.

I can think of NO OTHER revelation of God that took two thousand years of evolution. [More Rubbish! DA]

And even today, ask ten trinitarians what it means and one will receive ten DIFFERENT definitions. [Even more rubbish! DA] Does God REALLY reveal TRUTH in such a manner? That ten different people He reveals truth to have TEN DIFFERENT definitions of that truth? [And even more rubbish! DA]

Blessings,

MEC

Who has chosen ignorance over knowledge? There was no RCC with a pope in Rome heading the church until 1075 when Hildebrand the bishop of Rome, took the name Gregory VII, unilaterally usurped control over the entire church by issuing 27 Dictatus Papae Papal Dictates and reserving the title "Pope" for himself alone. Until that time all presiding bishops assumed the title "pope" and the bishop of Rome had no more authority than any other bishop. Here are a few of his dictates.

Gregory VII Dictatus Papae, The Dictates of the Pope

2. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
3. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
…
8. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11. That his is the only name in the world.
12. That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp Gregory VII The Dictates of the Pope​

 

[Imagican]

How do you figure the Trinity was invented by the RCC? Given the relative absence of Western bishops at Nicea; if your contention is that it was invented there, I fear you would have to direct the blame at the Orthodox, most specifically at the Greek and Coptic Orthodox.

How furthermore do you see the doctrine of the Trinity "evolving" since Nicea?

Also I daresay if you ask ten knowledgeable Orthodox Christians to define the Trinity you will receive materially undifferentiated responses.

The Council at Nicaea was only the BEGINNING of the formation of the concept. It merely defined the ESSENCE of Christ as being equal to that of God. It still took hundreds of years before the doctrine of 'trinity' was fully defined.

Do you deny that the 'church' formed in ROME in the beginning is what evolved into the ROMAN Catholic Church? Hmmmm...........?

The 'Christian Church' that Constantine allowed into Rome's Empire is what evolved into the ROMAN Catholic Church.

So it may not have been called such in it's infancy, it is certainly THE 'church' that evolved into the RCC.

Since 'trinity' was NOT taught previous to it's CREATION, it is pretty clear WHO invented it. A cursory study of it's history plainly reveals how and when it was 'created'.

Blessings,
MEC

 

[Imagican]

Who has chosen ignorance over knowledge? There was no RCC with a pope in Rome heading the church until 1075 when Hildebrand the bishop of Rome, took the name Gregory VII, unilaterally usurped control over the entire church by issuing 27 Dictatus Papae Papal Dictates and reserving the title "Pope" for himself alone. Until that time all presiding bishops assumed the title "pope" and the bishop of Rome had no more authority than any other bishop. Here are a few of his dictates.

Gregory VII Dictatus Papae, The Dictates of the Pope

2. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
3. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
…
8. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11. That his is the only name in the world.
12. That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp Gregory VII The Dictates of the Pope​

Does a tree become toothpicks? You are attempting to argue a point that has no merit. The "Church" established in ROME, over TIME, became THE 'Roman Catholic Church'.
What you are attempting to do is no different than indicating that the Continent that we call North America didn't exist until discovered. It was here from the beginning. It just hadn't been NAMED yet.

It is the same with the 'Church' in ROME. Once established, it was ONLY a matter of TIME until it was NAMED the RCC.

NO different than the formation of any other established group that evolves over TIME. The United Nations is the result of EVOLUTION. The United States of America is the result of evolution. And the Roman Catholic Church is the result of evolution. It didn't START with this name, but the CHURCH first established in Rome EVOLVED into the Roman Catholic Church.

And to this day it STILL maintains the assertion that it is THE 'One and ONLY true Church'. Offering indication that it believes that it's FIRST Pope was Peter the apostle.

So you are attempting to argue over semantics more than FACT. Whether it was called the RCC in the BEGINNING is irrelevant to the history of how it was formed. How many of US were born with a different NAME than what we later assume in adulthood? That doesn't alter WHO we are, just what we call ourselves.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

Who has chosen ignorance over knowledge? There was no RCC with a pope in Rome heading the church until 1075 when Hildebrand the bishop of Rome, took the name Gregory VII, unilaterally usurped control over the entire church by issuing 27 Dictatus Papae Papal Dictates and reserving the title "Pope" for himself alone. Until that time all presiding bishops assumed the title "pope" and the bishop of Rome had no more authority than any other bishop. Here are a few of his dictates.

Gregory VII Dictatus Papae, The Dictates of the Pope

2. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
3. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
…
8. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11. That his is the only name in the world.
12. That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp Gregory VII The Dictates of the Pope​

In general your point is valid although regarding the title Pope, historically, until IiRC the seventh century, this was used exclusively by the Patriarch of Alexandria. So amusingly Ss. Athanasius amd Cyril were Popes, whereas their Roman colleagues were not. Leo I was the first to call himself Pontifex Maximus.

Strictly speaking, Bishop Archbishop or Patriarch is the accurate, pre-Schism term for the Roman Pope and other autocephalous primates, such as the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, the Catholicoi of the East, Armenia and Georgia, and the Archbishop of Cyprus.

 

[Albion]

I'm willing to listen to the explanation concerning when and how "it" happened. None of that is in the post above which only stipulates that it happened.

It still took hundreds of years before the doctrine of 'trinity' was fully defined.

So exactly when and how, in your view, was it defined?

 

[Imagican]

The ONLY question that needs to be answered to determine the truth of the issue: Was THE 'church' first formed in Rome THE 'church' that we now call the Roman Catholic Church? I think history would answer the question: 'without a doubt'. regardless of WHEN they started calling themselves the Roman Catholic Church.

But if it will make you FEEL better. in the future I'll use the words, 'the Church formed in ROME'. For it was certainly THAT 'church' that formed the doctrine of 'trinity'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

The Council at Nicaea was only the BEGINNING of the formation of the concept. It merely defined the ESSENCE of Christ as being equal to that of God. It still took hundreds of years before the doctrine of 'trinity' was fully defined.

Do you deny that the 'church' formed in ROME in the beginning is what evolved into the ROMAN Catholic Church? Hmmmm...........?

The 'Christian Church' that Constantine allowed into Rome's Empire is what evolved into the ROMAN Catholic Church.

So it may not have been called such in it's infancy, it is certainly THE 'church' that evolved into the RCC.

Since 'trinity' was NOT taught previous to it's CREATION, it is pretty clear WHO invented it. A cursory study of it's history plainly reveals how and when it was 'created'.

Blessings,
MEC

In regard to your first paragraph, see St. Athanasius "De Incarnatione" and the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers, and you will see the Trinity defined clearly and in a manner entirely identical to contemporary Orthodox Trinitarian theology. Nicea refuted Arianism, and Constantinople (381) strengthened it by cracking down on the pneumatomachians and semi-Arians.

On your second paragraph, I do deny that. The Roman Church became the Orthodox Church; the modern RCC is lamentably more Frankish than authentically Roman. We Orthodox incidentally regard ourselves as both Roman and Catholic. The various Greek and Arab Orthodox communities of the Near East identify as Romans and were referred to as such by the Muslims.

The Western Empire collapsed after Romulus Augustulus, and was conquered by various Barbarian hordes before ultimately winding up under the Franks; Constantinople or New Rome, an Orthodox city, was the seat of the Eastern Roman Empire until the Ottoman conquest in 1453.

The Orthodox have been out of communion with Rome since 451 in the case of the Copts, Syriacs, Armenians and Ethiopians, and 1054 in the case of the Greek Orthodox, and we are as Trinitarian if not moreso than anyone else, so I do not see how your claim that the Trinitarian is quintessentially Roman Catholic stacks up.

The various ecumenical councils like Nicea furthermore were not attended by the Pope or very many Western bishops at all; Nicea, Ephesus, Constantinople and indeed Chalcedon are all in what is now Turkey, right in the heart of traditional Greek Orthodoxy.

 

[Wgw]

The ONLY question that needs to be answered to determine the truth of the issue: Was THE 'church' first formed in Rome THE 'church' that we now call the Roman Catholic Church? I think history would answer the question: 'without a doubt'. regardless of WHEN they started calling themselves the Roman Catholic Church.

But if it will make you FEEL better. in the future I'll use the words, 'the Church formed in ROME'. For it was certainly THAT 'church' that formed the doctrine of 'trinity'.

Blessings,

MEC

Alexandria, where the Arian controversy regarding the Trinity began, and Nicea, Constantinople and Ephesus, where it was resolved, were not in Roman Catholic territory and did not become part of the Roman Catholic Church. What is more, the Church was not founded in Rome; nor was it founded in Antioch, and the Orthodox do not agree with the West that it was founded on Pentecost, even.

 

[Imagican]

I'm willing to listen to the explanation concerning when and how "it" happened. None of that is in the post above which only stipulates that it happened.

Oh my. Let us start with the Council at Nicaea then. It was THEN established that from that day forward, (the day of it's conclusion), that from that day forward, THE 'church' would ONLY agree that the Son's ESSENCE was the SAME as the Father. That the Son and the Father were EQUAL in essence.
And this was determined by MEN over THREE hundred years AFTER the death of Christ.
Then there were numerous other Councils that took place BEFORE the doctrine of 'trinity' was defined.
And it appears, by listening to those that profess to believe in 'trinity', since their understanding DIFFERS from those that 'created it', that it's STILL evolving. It seems that each time the issue is discussed, more and NEW concepts are offered by those that profess to believe in it.
The CATHOLIC CHURCH offers that it was REVEALED TO THEM in the beginning. No, not THE beginning of 'Christianity', but the beginning of THEIR FORM of 'Christianity'.
All one need do it refer to the New Advent: The Catholic Encyclopedia to see CLEARLY that they lay claim to the 'creation of trinity'. It was a concept introduced by THEIR "church fathers". If their Fathers, then it's no different than the 'Fathers of America'. They were the one's that FORMED what we call America today. Get it? FATHERS????
So it was men that the Catholic Church TODAY call their FATHERS that formed this doctrine of 'trinity'. Insisting that it was DIVINELY revealed to THEM. And even once revealed still remained a MYSTERY that is incomprehensible to any created intellect. Openly admitting that it is NOT mentioned in the Bible specifically in ANY place.

So you can attempt to argue the points I have made, but the TRUTH is, history supports what I have offered. to offer exact details would take VOLUMES of writing that, in my opinion is totally unnecessary in this discussion. The information is there, all one needs to do is search it out.

But the most important single point is that 'trinity' did NOT exist previous to it's CREATION or INVENTION or whatever you choose to call it. Divine Revelation to the FATHERS of the Catholic Church who's LEADERSHIP existed in ROME.

Blessings,

MEC



So exactly when and how, in your view, was it defined?

 

[Albion]

The mishandling of the quote makes posting a fuller answer difficult, but you cannot both insist that the Council of Nicaea did NOT define the Trinity...and then respond to my question about "Then when and who?" by saying it WAS Nicaea.

 

[Imagican]

The Athanasian Creed is what officially defined 'trinity'. And it's actual DATE of introduction is questionable at best. But it's OBVIOUS that it was NOT introduced until AFTER the Council of Nicaea. Most agree that it was not even mentioned until AFTER 400 AD. While it was obviously created by Athanasius previous to his death, it wasn't adopted by the 'church' as doctrine until AFTER his death. The exact date, so far as my research is concerned, is UNKNOWN. But the indication is that it's first MENTION is after the date of 400 AD.

You want all the possible information that exists, you do the research. But suffice is to say that 'trinity', as a doctrine accepted and perpetuated by THE 'Catholic Church' didn't exist until AFTER 400 AD. And as previously illustrated, it is obviously STILL evolving today since there are SO MANY different definitions offered by those that profess to believe in it.

Most that I have discussed the issue with KNOW LESS about it's definition than I DO. For most have merely come to their understanding by LISTENING to what others OFFER. Never choosing to actually STUDY the concept as offered by it's CREATORS.

And it's really irrelevant as to an exact date of it's creation. What matters more than an exact date is the FACT that it was NEVER taught by God, His own Son or the apostles. NEVER EVEN MENTIONED by God, His Son or the apostles. So it's pretty obvious to any looking INWARD instead of out, that it was indeed a CREATED doctrine formed and delivered by MEN, not God, His Son or the apostles.
And we haven't even begun to discuss the MANNER in which it was DELIVERED and the means by which it was perpetuated, (how it was FORCED upon the congregation with threat of torture or even death).

So attempting to indicate that I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't have DATES is a feeble attempt indeed.

Why not just ADMIT the truth and that truth being is that there was NO TRINITY prior to it's creation or (divine revelation). That there is absolutely NO mention of 'trinity' in the Bible? And it's very concept didn't exist until INTRODUCED by MEN hundreds of years AFTER the death of Christ? That is what HISTORY offers. And that history is easily obtainable now days.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

The Athanasian Creed is what officially defined 'trinity'. And it's actual DATE of introduction is questionable at best. But it's OBVIOUS that it was NOT introduced until AFTER the Council of Nicaea. Most agree that it was not even mentioned until AFTER 400 AD. While it was obviously created by Athanasius previous to his death, it wasn't adopted by the 'church' as doctrine until AFTER his death. The exact date, so far as my research is concerned, is UNKNOWN. But the indication is that it's first MENTION is after the date of 400 AD.

You want all the possible information that exists, you do the research. But suffice is to say that 'trinity', as a doctrine accepted and perpetuated by THE 'Catholic Church' didn't exist until AFTER 400 AD. And as previously illustrated, it is obviously STILL evolving today since there are SO MANY different definitions offered by those that profess to believe in it.

Most that I have discussed the issue with KNOW LESS about it's definition than I DO. For most have merely come to their understanding by LISTENING to what others OFFER. Never choosing to actually STUDY the concept as offered by it's CREATORS.

And it's really irrelevant as to an exact date of it's creation. What matters more than an exact date is the FACT that it was NEVER taught by God, His own Son or the apostles. NEVER EVEN MENTIONED by God, His Son or the apostles. So it's pretty obvious to any looking INWARD instead of out, that it was indeed a CREATED doctrine formed and delivered by MEN, not God, His Son or the apostles.
And we haven't even begun to discuss the MANNER in which it was DELIVERED and the means by which it was perpetuated, (how it was FORCED upon the congregation with threat of torture or even death).

So attempting to indicate that I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't have DATES is a feeble attempt indeed.

Why not just ADMIT the truth and that truth being is that there was NO TRINITY prior to it's creation or (divine revelation). That there is absolutely NO mention of 'trinity' in the Bible? And it's very concept didn't exist until INTRODUCED by MEN hundreds of years AFTER the death of Christ? That is what HISTORY offers. And that history is easily obtainable now days.

Blessings,

MEC

This is erroneous. The Orthodox accept the doctrine of the Trinity but do not use the Athanasian creed, indeed, the version you are referring to we reject as heresy.

 

[Albion]

Sorry. I don't read screams. Try answering properly. WHEN and HOW was the definition arrived at and by WHOM? It doesn't do to say that the RCC claims the Fathers (and the Apostles and Christ himself) for themselves because that doesn't answer the questions.

 

[Wgw]

One other point that I cannot emphasize strongly enough is that the Trinitarians were persecuted by the Arians!

 

[Der Alte]

Imagican use a reasonable size font. This huge font is the equivalent of shouting.

 

[Imagican]

This is what the New Advent offers concerning the ORIGINS of 'trinity'.

The dogma of the Trinity
The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.

This is the Catholic Church OPENLY admitting that the TERM 'trinity' was NEVER used until two hundred years AFTER the death of Christ. And when FIRST used, it was NOT 'the trinity' that later evolved into the doctrine in question. Notice that it spoke of NOTHING concerning the relation of Son with Father. It was used in reference to the three specific aspects of the CHARACTER of God Himself. It took another couple of hundred years to find itself in it's present definition.

And these words are offered by the Catholic Church ITSELF. Those that FORMED and INTRODUCED the concept.

Oh, and instead of using the word ROMAN in the future, I'll just refer to the CC, (Catholic Church).

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

One other point that I cannot emphasize strongly enough is that the Trinitarians were persecuted by the Arians!

In all honesty, it went back and forth for quite a time period.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

In all honesty, it went back and forth for quite a time period.

Blessings,

MEC

No, it did not. There was no back and forth. After St. Constantine reposed, his som Constantius favored the Arians amd there was a state of persecution into the 380s.