Help - The Trinity

[Montalban]

G'day,
I'm an Orthodox from the antipodes

I'm debtating a JW on another fourm (4forums.com) and am trying to find more ante-Nicene sources for the Trinity...

I've already quoted Bible verse, and some Holy Fathers.

If anyone's really knowledgeable, please help.

(I'm Antiochian Orthodox; but not of Arabic background - having converted - I looked for any Orthodox churches that had Divine Liturgy in English, and they were the first I found)

 

[MariaRegina]

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

check out this website for the ante-Nicene Fathers

BTW: I've given you some blessings for your new avatar/signature!

Come back and visit us please. I'm also an Antiochian convert.

 

[Oblio]

Welcome Montalban, please return when you get a chance. We have at least one active Orthodox member from Australia (though he and his family are in Thessaloniki), [name]prodromos[/name]. We would love to have more

 

[Montalban]

G'day (again)

Chanter, Oblio, thanks for the info.

I've chosen as a signature...

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire, tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

It's Gaelic*...
Hail Mary, full of grace
The Lord is with thee.


*you'd be suprised how many people think Gaelic is English with a Scots accent!

 

[prodromos]

G'day mate

Does the Gaelic signature indicate that you have a bit of Guinness flowing in your veins? I've got a bit of single malt whiskey flowing in mine

I was contemplating giving you links to a couple of threads on another forum a few of us used to frequent (till we all got banned ) since you would have seen the arguments of a few hardcore non-trinitarians and our responses to them. That forum though is running as slow as molasses at the moment and you might find going through the entire threads a bit punishing.

Where abouts in Sydney are you situated? I used to live in Maroubra then Coogee and met my wife at Randwick Baptists (we are an interesting couple to say the least ). Are you familiar with the Orthodox monasteries in the Sydney area?

Your nosey friend,
John.

 

[Montalban]

prodromos aka John

I'm a westie. Specifically, Wentworthville.*

Actually, I'm also in a debate over Papal power.

I got sent a whole lot of quotes from a Catholic work-mate about St. Peter.

I asked him, even if the quotes were true (and some I've found to be misrepresented), then what's this got to do with the Papacy - as St. Peter founded my church BEFORE Rome (Antioch)

Anyway, here's an example of a Catholic claim (CC, based on Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)
CC: If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives. (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

Rebuttal: This refers to Acts where Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem, not to Peter, but "unto the Apostles and elders."
Acts xv. 2. This is also the time when Paul admonished Peter.
(ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-03/Npnf2-03-23.htm) (seems I can't do links yet so, I've had to break up the address)
Peter took a leading part in the discussion, but the "sentence" was pronounced not by Peter, but by James, and the decree was that of "the Apostles and elders with the whole Church." The slight "wresting" of the scriptures of which Theodoret is guilty is due rather to a desire to compliment an important personage than in anticipation of later controversies.
Further, the text actually says "
If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter268 in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see269 in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. Other cities are indeed adorned by their size, their beauty, and their population; and some which in these respects are lacking are made bright by certain spiritual boons. But on your city the great Provider has bestowed an abundance of good gifts." Ibid.
Note that he says that Rome should have first place. Why? Because it is big and wealthy! Not because of Peter's throne. When he does refer to the connexion between Rome and Peter he says " of our common fathers and teachers of the truth, Peter and Paul" (Ibid). That is Rome is important because it is associated with two distiguished Christins, and he says this to remind Leo that Antioch too, is also associated with these great Christians.



*I'm thus a dead set Parra fan.
Go the Eels!

 

[ChoirDir]

We should first consider that passage from the Gospel according to St. Matthew upon which the Roman Catholics base the primacy of St. Peter. Our Lord was at Caesarea of Philippi (Matt. 16) when He asked His Disciples: “Whom do men say that I am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for the flesh and blood hath not revealed it into thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 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.” (Matt. 16:13-18)

It is quite evident from these words of our Lord that He built His Church not upon Peter for then He would have clearly said, “Thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my Church,” but upon the rock of the true Faith which Peter confessed. Christ our Lord clearly said that His Church is built upon the truth which Peter declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Only through considerable distortion of the text can one draw the conclusion of the Roman Catholics, that Christ built the Church upon Peter.

It is also clear from the Scriptures that St. Peter had no authority over the Apostles. In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul states that when he saw Peter was not thinking correctly, he corrected him in the presence of others, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Gal. 2:11) Further down St. Paul elaborates by saying, “ . . . when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all) if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:14) On the basis of these words of St. Paul we may justly question, “Is there even a trace of recognition here of Peter’s authority to teach without the possibility of error?”

Thoughts anyone?

 

[Montalban]

Someone told me that in fact Peter not only did not found the Church in Rome, but was the second Pope/Church leader there.

 

[prodromos]

Someone told me that in fact Peter not only did not found the Church in Rome, but was the second Pope/Church leader there.

I think this is beside the point since all the Church Fathers consider Peter and Paul as founders of the church in Rome.

It is also clear from the Scriptures that St. Peter had no authority over the Apostles. In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul states that when he saw Peter was not thinking correctly, he corrected him in the presence of others, ?But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.? (Gal. 2:11) Further down St. Paul elaborates by saying, ? . . . when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all) if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?? (Gal. 2:14) On the basis of these words of St. Paul we may justly question, ?Is there even a trace of recognition here of Peter?s authority to teach without the possibility of error??

Thoughts anyone?

ChoirDir, you should probably remove the above from your list of arguments against Papism

from another thread, Chrysostom on Galatians 2

John

 

[Montalban]

I think this is beside the point since all the Church Fathers consider Peter and Paul as founders of the church in Rome.
John

My understanding was that orthodox held high honour for Rome because

a) both Peter and Paul died there
and
b) it was the biggest city of the empire


However, you touch upon it yourself by attributing a joint-foundership. So the issue for Orthodoxy is not that Peter was the first Pope, (important for Catholics, yes), but that Rome was the place for the two biggies in Early Christian thinking.