LDS A name that's not acceptable

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
dzheremi says:
Well, I would have said wealthy, arrogant bishops of the 5 sees, fighting for preeminence, but isn't that about what happened in the Chalcedon council.

No, it isn't. The Chalcedonian conflict was a reigniting of the preexisting conflict between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian hermeneutical schools and the philosophies behind them which influenced the formation of distinct miaphysite and dyophysite Christologies, both of which existed before the council itself (see, again, the conflict between HH St. Cyril and John of Antioch). It had nothing to do with "wealthy, arrogant bishops of the five sees fighting for preeminence." The Pentarchy wasn't even so defined until the time of Justinian I (r. 527-565), and wasn't ecclesiastically adopted in the Eastern Roman Empire until the Quinisext Council (692), both of which were significantly post-Chalcedon.

Quite frankly, Peter, you don't know what you're talking about and should stop bringing this up, because you're making yourself look like a fool every time you do.

You OO people got so mad that you took your whole church and went home, then left the rest of the Christian churches. How many rounds did it take? Was I right or what?

How many 'rounds' did what take? For it to be obvious that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, and don't know the difference between a relevant argument and just typing stuff because you can?

Zero, Peter. It took zero rounds. It was entirely obvious from the very first time you brought up Chalcedon out of nowhere, and were roundly corrected by not only me, but also an actual Chalcedonian, the Anglican poster ViaCrucis.

I am the one that said Mormons would not make it past the 1st round.

I don't remember what you're talking about, and frankly by now I don't care anymore. I'm just tired of reading your sophomoric rambling about things you don't bother to research properly before bringing them up to people who actually live them, whether Christianity in general or the Chalcedonian conflict in particular. If this doesn't stop now, I'm going to have no choice but to put you back on my ignore list again, where you probably should've stayed all along.

I'm trying to use this website to have meaningful conversations with people who are here to learn from and teach one another, each according to their given perspectives, rather than having to go over the same topic or event over and over again with one particular person who shows no sign of maturation in understanding concerning that topic no matter how much time is spent explaining it. That can't possibly be a good use of this website's bandwith, or anyone's time and attention.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BigDaddy4
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
No, it isn't. The Chalcedonian conflict was a reigniting of the preexisting conflict between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian hermeneutical schools and the philosophies behind them which influenced the formation of distinct miaphysite and dyophysite Christologies, both of which existed before the council itself (see, again, the conflict between HH St. Cyril and John of Antioch). It had nothing to do with "wealthy, arrogant bishops of the five sees fighting for preeminence." The Pentarchy wasn't even so defined until the time of Justinian I (r. 527-565), and wasn't ecclesiastically adopted in the Eastern Roman Empire until the Quinisext Council (692), both of which were significantly post-Chalcedon.

Quite frankly, Peter, you don't know what you're talking about and should stop bringing this up, because you're making yourself look like a fool every time you do.



How many 'rounds' did what take? For it to be obvious that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, and don't know the difference between a relevant argument and just typing stuff because you can?

Zero, Peter. It took zero rounds. It was entirely obvious from the very first time you brought up Chalcedon out of nowhere, and were roundly corrected by not only me, but also an actual Chalcedonian, the Anglican poster ViaCrucis.



I don't remember what you're talking about, and frankly by now I don't care anymore. I'm just tired of reading your sophomoric rambling about things you don't bother to research properly before bringing them up to people who actually live them, whether Christianity in general or the Chalcedonian conflict in particular. If this doesn't stop now, I'm going to have no choice but to put you back on my ignore list again, where you probably should've stayed all along.

I'm trying to use this website to have meaningful conversations with people who are here to learn from and teach one another, each according to their given perspectives, rather than having to go over the same topic or event over and over again with one particular person who shows no sign of maturation in understanding concerning that topic no matter how much time is spent explaining it. That can't possibly be a good use of this website's bandwith, or anyone's time and attention.

https://www.equip.org/article/what-really-happened-at-nicea/
Then see this part of the article:
THE DECISION AND THE CREED

The truth of how the council came to use the term is not difficult to discern. Athanasius notes that the gathered bishops truly desired to express their faith in primarily scriptural language, and they tried to do so. But every time they came up with a statement that was limited solely to biblical terms, the Arians would find a way of “reading” the statement so as to allow for agreement.12

The question is how many statements or readings did the orthodox have to deal with until they reverted to language that deterred Arian agreement? Or another sophomoric way to say that is: How many rounds did the orthodox have to go before they found language that deterred Arian agreement?

Now this was the Nicean council. Did the Chalcedonian council manage their debates similarly. I think so. Now your church may have exited in the first round because of pre-existing problems with others, but nonetheless, there was a first round or first ballot or first reading, they are all the same, choose your word. If mine is different than your does not mean that I do not know what I am talking about. Believe me, this is not difficult reading, a bit nauseous, for the twisting and turning that people went through to make a point of doctrine, but understandable if you can get to the end. I would not be particularly proud of that history. It seems rather dark and ruthless.

Also interesting in this article is that at Nicea, the orthodox did not want to reconcile with the Arians and everytime they made a statement using biblical terms, the Arians could agree with them. So you know what the solution was?
To use non-biblical terms. Interesting, huh?
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Good grief...now you're bringing up Nicaea, for some reason? One of the two councils that no existing Christian tradition or Church disagrees with? Alright. That's more than enough humoring you. I've pointed numerous times to the many defenses of the Nicene definition to be found in the Church's own history from before any of the major separations (e.g., before that of Ephesus in 431, Chalcedon in 451, or among the Chalcedonians themselves following the mutual excommunications began in 1054, etc.) -- not the least of which to be counted upon is HH St. Athanasius' own defense in a document known in Latin as De Decretis (On the Defense of the Decree of Nicaea), since all traditions give HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic a place of pride in having either drafted the Creed or co-drafted it -- so I'm pretty much done dealing with you and your antics, Peter.

If you are in need of a habit or hobby that isn't posting inane nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, I would suggest studying the history of the Church from primary source documents, which are many and quite easily available in English translation...at least those which are recognized by the Chalcedonians are, as that's the majority of Christianity, so they have done a great deal of the record-keeping, and historically did try to suppress others (just as the non-Chalcedonians did to the Chalcedonians in places where they were the majority and could not be suppressed themselves by the Byzantine Empire, such as Eastern Armenia, which was at the time controlled by the Sassanid Persians; the Armenian Chalcedonians were absorbed into Byzantine territories, and were probably over time Hellenized along with the Chalcedonian Syriacs, who were additionally later Arabized after the arrival of the Arab-Muslims in Jerusalem). The rest of us are catching up, however, and many of the foundational works of the saints and councils particular to the OO communion have been available for decades in English translation, such as the letters of HH Catholicos Babken II of the Armenians who oversaw the Council of Dvin in 506 which led to the Armenians' rejection of the Tome of Leo and Chalcedon; many of the letters of HH St. Severus of Antioch on various topics; some of the dialogues and teachings of St. Shenouda the Archimandrite of the White Monastery, who lived from long before Chalcedon to just after it, dying at a very old age in 466 AD; the monastic instructions of St. Philoxenos of Mabbug; an increasing number of the many, many sermons by St. Jacob of Serug; at least four of the sermons of St. Besa/Wisa, disciple and biographer of St. Shenouda; the defenses of Christianity and Christians from the charges of the Muslims by the likes of holy scholars such as St. Dionysius Bar Salibi or Abu Ra'ita al Takriti, etc.

So all of that can be found in various places. I've offered links before to places like Tertullian.org (though one should be careful there, as that is more a repository of all kinds of ancient Christian writings, including Nestorian and other types of texts), the Orthodox Church Fathers search engine (which is really just a much easier to navigate and 'Eastern Orthodox-ized' version of the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at ccel.org, which I'd recommend now as the former is apparently currently hacked; hopefully it will be regained soon!), the e-Catena at earlychristianwritings.com, and so on. If you are seriously so intellectually lazy that you'll pretend to understand all of this from having read one website with a summary of Nicaea on it (and not the actual preserved acts of the council, which are available pretty much anywhere you look...hint hint), then there's really nothing anyone can do for you...particularly when you're not studying them for their actual historical value in explaining what you are seeing or subsequently see in the history of Christianity (since Mormons are never taught the actual history of Christianity, since if they were they'd see that 'great apostasy' that supposedly makes their religion necessary never actually happened), but instead as an excuse to ask more dumb questions that are answered in the historical sources themselves.

I'm tired of this, and won't be seeing any more of your future posts, so don't even bother with me. Go to the sources themselves. They have the answers you're looking for, with the added benefit that you will no longer have to derail threads in this fashion simply because I happen to be posting in them while being Oriental Orthodox and you apparently think that means something with regard to Mormonism's purposeful teaching of falsehood regarding the early Church itself. Go away and study something so that you may learn. At least then if you still accept Mormonism and reject Christianity, it will be from a minimally historically-informed perspective.

Here's a website with a collection of translations of a bunch of documents from the Seven Ecumenical Councils as recognized by the Eastern Orthodox (i.e., including the two recognized by the Nestorians, the three recognized by the Oriental Orthodox, and the later ones up to 787 AD), plus several local councils dating from 257 to 869 AD. I recommend it to anyone who wants to know Christian history from its preserved documents, although these are obviously only a tiny fraction of them, and from a particular perspective (Chalcedonian, Eastern Orthodox) by virtue of what is included and what is not.

Best wishes to you, Peter. You're a nice guy, but I just can't do this anymore. It's not fair to the people who start threads with the expectation that they will be about what they are intended to be about, and it would be one thing if this were an organic evolution away from the OP, but it isn't. It never is when you bring this kind of stuff up out of nowhere, and I suspect everyone recognizes the "throw everything against the wall to see what sticks" approach when they see it. It's enough now. Time to end that in favor of learning. Good luck. May the Holy Spirit guide you to the true worship of the perfect, uncreated, and indivisible Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- the One God.
 
Upvote 0