Thanks for your reply. I think part of the point Hippolytus was making is that the Trinity argument isn’t backed by scripture, the early teachings of the church (pre-Nicene Creed), nor by reasoned logic.
Surely you’ve read the events leading up to, & including the formulation of the creed. Constantine was hardly found to noble in his actions. The authorities claimed no direct divine intervention, thus leaving the “wise & learned” to their own devices. Hardly what the apostles taught nor envisioned.
Your mention of nothing but # 14 is somewhat conspicuous. There are many other important points, ones that frankly are hard to argue against.
I do understand your reluctance to tackle the other post as well. Others here have demurred likewise. It’s a salient argument & one that’s very difficult to refute. I cited scripture from the New Testament, as well as cogent arguments from noted theologians. You called someone out for their statement on the Trinity. I thought I would give another point of view, one that folks like Hippolytus, Origen, et al seemed to have shared.
I respect your opinion on the subject. However, yours is not the only viable option in the argument, nor necessarily the right one. After centuries, man found that the “wise’ weren’t correct about the world being flat either. It happens. What we do when it “happens” is how we will account for our stewardship in the end.
It’s an interesting topic, one that is not as cut & dry as many think. Traditions, not logic, or truth for that matter, would lead many to think otherwise.
Best wishes for a great week.
Since you seem to expect me to have time to wade through pages of patristics, I gather you have time to do the same. I commend to your attention the Catechetical Homilies of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The baptismal creed at Jerusalem at that time (sometime between the Edict of Milan and the First Ecumenical Council) is virtually identical to the Nicene Creed, and St. Cyril does a masterful job of supporting every clause on the basis of the Scriptures.
Besides pointing out paragraph 14 of the excerpt you posted form Hippolytus, I refuted your own interpretation. You seem to be mistaking Sabellianism for Orthodox triadology: your own rephrasing of the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity was Sabellian, not Orthodox, while your phrasing of your purported ur-Christian doctrine was tri-theism.
Of course St. Hippolytus regarded Sabellianism as a heresy, the Church, East and West, regards Sabellianism as a heresy.
Your notion that the Nicene Creed is a Constantinian invention simply because St. Constantine called the council is quite unsupportable. It is fairly clear that Constantine himself had Arian sympathies, but was obedient to the decision of the Council.
As to the other post, it has nothing to do with ease or difficulty of refutation. I simply make it a point not to argue with canned presentations cut and pasted into threads.
Present the argument briefly in your own words, and if it is contrary to the Orthodox Faith, I will do my best to refute it and defend the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints.