Jibaholic -
You will soon see that DU is very selective when ever he cites something. Especially when he takes liberty with history. Take the following for instance:
Constantine, who called the first council at Nicea and with a combination of bribes, and threats got the church to agree on a creed that all of Rome could unite behind. This was his expressed purpose according to records he had kept of the event.
If you follow his link you will find the following:
"The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. .......In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members. "
Try as one may, one will not see the term - bribed or threat used in any variant form. DUs continues the spin as follows:
In spite of Christianity being illegal, it had grown in popularity (or maybe even because it was illegal) Constantine sends letters to these bishops (who are under a death sentence just for being Christians) and invites them to a conference,
Is there truth in this statement? Not in the least. Following his coming to power, Christianity was legalized by the Edict of Milan, early in 313 - that is twelve (12) years before the Nicean conference. This is a an example of typical mormon amateur apologetics who expects that his statements will go unchallenged. Next he will try to present a little truth.
However, there are a few conditions, he wants a definition of God that everyone can accept, and thus we have the Greek religions influence in to the Nicene Creed.
Correct, Constantine wanted the strife to stop. But is this hellenistic influence? Arianism was at its core Platoism. The Arian conception of Christ as neither truly God nor truly man but an ontological in-between. Platonism, in its various forms, postulated the existence of such a mediator because it could not accept a direct contact or union between the Transcendent Divine Reality and Creation. It was this intermediate that Arius developed his heresy upon. Jehovah's witnesses carry this heresy to its conclusion - a kindred spirit for DU.
But now for the rest of the story. DU would have you believe that Constantine instituted the Trinity doctrine into the church. History reveals that the opposite is true. Arius’ friend Eusibius was a friend of Constantine, Emperor of Rome. He persuaded Constantine defend Arius. Constantine was baptized as an Arian. The Arians were anti-Trinitarians. The change in the church was not as the result of the Council of Nicaea. At the council, the historic position of the church was affirmed and written into a creed. It was after this council that historic Christianity was exiled and replaced with the Arian heresy.
Also, the Nicean Creed that breeds such bile from DU wasn't formulated in its current form until Council of Constantinople (381) - some 56 years later. So jibaholic, and any other lurker present, it is clear that the history has been misrepresented by DU.
You will soon see that DU is very selective when ever he cites something.
I suppose you are going to say you just chose your quotes at random? No?
Especially when he takes liberty with history.
Of course you
Never take liberties with anything? (LOL!)
Take the following for instance:
Constantine, who called the first council at Nicea and with a combination of bribes, and threats got the church to agree on a creed that all of Rome could unite behind. This was his expressed purpose according to records he had kept of the event.
If you follow his link you will find the following:
"The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. .......In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members. "
Try as one may, one will not see the term - bribed or threat used in any variant form.
LOL! So you have a very bloody war of reunification, you have Christianity which has been used to provide entertainment at the coliseum for a long time, and in many places being a Christian was still a capitol offense. you have letters delivered, by whom? there is no postman the letters are delivered by a military guard. an invitation by the emperor which was refused was often followed by an execution. Then he "put public transportation at their disposal, so what is that, a bus? (There was no bus) travel being dangerous public transportation was travel with the military.
Let's put this in modern terms, a swat team arrives at your house and a fully armed police officer asks you to come with him, the Governor wants to see you. you to believe there is no implied threat? you go ahead and think that. Constantine routinely killed dissenters. There is even one account that has the first bishop who objected to the Nicene Creed in the council being put to the sword, but I don't have a corroborating story fro it so I don't use that, even though it's consistent with Constantine's methods.
Also note that the state church of Rome was a paid position, so the Roman catholic church received monies from the people of Rome. That is the bribe.
DUs continues the spin as follows:
In spite of Christianity being illegal, it had grown in popularity (or maybe even because it was illegal) Constantine sends letters to these bishops (who are under a death sentence just for being Christians) and invites them to a conference,
Is there truth in this statement? Not in the least. Following his coming to power, Christianity was legalized by the Edict of Milan, early in 313 - that is twelve (12) years before the Nicean conference. This is a an example of typical Mormon amateur apologetics who expects that his statements will go unchallenged.
Are you saying that the date is without argument? (LOL do you want to go there again?) just for the fun of it, let's use your date for a minute... let's say Christianity had been legal for a whole 12 years with the memory of coliseums still in living memory, and with the war and dissenters being put to death, there's not much change in how a bishop being "served" with his invitation will feel.
Next he will try to present a little truth.
Please refrain from mind reading, it is forbidden by the rules of this forum, thanks!
However, there are a few conditions, he wants a definition of God that everyone can accept, and thus we have the Greek religions influence in to the Nicene Creed.
Correct, Constantine wanted the strife to stop. But is this Hellenistic influence?
You might want to read a few papers on this, try
Hellenistic influence on Christianity:, and
Hellenistic philosophy and Christianity (pay particular attention to the section called "Hebrew versus Greek thought regarding God"). There is a lot more out there, but denying Hellenist influence will just make you look silly.
Arianism was at its core Platoism.
Stop right there,
Platonism is not
Arianism, anyone who is willing to spend a just a few seconds will know that.
The Arian conception of Christ as neither truly God nor truly man but an ontological in-between. Platonism, in its various forms, postulated the existence of such a mediator because it could not accept a direct contact or union between the Transcendent Divine Reality and Creation. It was this intermediate that Arius developed his heresy upon.
You need to read up on
Arianism. your description of it here is unrecognizable.
Jehovah's witnesses carry this heresy to its conclusion - a kindred spirit for DU.
Actually, the JWs come by my house every couple of months we have some very interesting conversations, but I would definitely not call us "Kindred Spirits"
But now for the rest of the story. DU would have you believe that Constantine instituted the Trinity doctrine into the church. History reveals that the opposite is true.
History according to who? The Bible is replete with scriptures that only make sense if God the father and Jesus Christ were separate beings. Without listing exact scriptures here I'll point out that Jesus always speaks of God the Father in the third person, prays to him and at his baptism all three are present in different places, and when Stephen is stoned he sees Jesus standing on the right hand of God the Father. Then there is the little matter of
Hippolytus who's work "A refutation of all heresies" was the voice of the church in correcting many of the heresies of his day. I have a whole section on him in my page, and in his book "Against one Noetus", his arguments against Noetus would obliterate the Trinity too, here is a snippet from
my page that was taken from
here This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died. You see what pride of heart and what a strange inflated spirit had insinuated themselves into him. Froth his other actions, then, the proof is already given us that he spoke not with a pure spirit; for he who blasphemes against the Holy Ghost is cast out from the holy inheritance
At the end of
my section on Hippolytus I conclude with this:
So between the time that Hippolytus died in 236 and the Council at Nicea in 325 AD the view of the church swung from three entities acting as one God to one God made up of three manifestations. This is really not a HUGE change when you think about it, but it has many important ramifications.
Having quoted this to you before and having referred you to may page many times I am finding it hard to believe you are ignorant of my true position.
Arius’ friend Eusibius was a friend of Constantine, Emperor of Rome. He persuaded Constantine defend Arius. Constantine was baptized as an Arian.
And Arius was recalled from exile and the day before he was to be "brought back into full fellowship" he died of what his friends claim was poisoning, his enemies claim he was stopped by God.
The Arians were anti-Trinitarians.
that is as inaccurate as defining the Trinitarians as "anti Arian". Any rational person will readily admit there is far more to both sides than just being in opposition to the other side.
The change in the church was not as the result of the Council of Nicaea.
IMHO the first council of Nicea was the culmination of many small heresies being allowed into the church, resulting in the council where they were compiled and codified as a big heresy. To say it was not a change, is just denial of reality.
At the council, the historic position of the church was affirmed and written into a creed.
Hippolytus, the theologian of his day disagrees with you.
It was after this council that historic Christianity was exiled and replaced with the Arian heresy.
Is it your contention that Arianism won? If so why does "Orthodox Christianity" use the Nicene Creed?
Your version of history is supported by no documentation, no link, nothing but your opinion. I quote from the "
Catholic Enclyclopedia Online". I quote from Wikipedia about
Arianism.
My page, has a section on the Trinity complete with excerpts from these sources, what do you post oh scholar of the pajamadeen? your post your unsubstantiated opinion. Very scholarly. (LOL)
Also, the Nicean Creed that breeds such bile from DU wasn't formulated in its current form until Council of Constantinople (381) - some 56 years later. So jibaholic, and any other lurker present, it is clear that the history has been misrepresented by DU.
LOL! I linked to the Source! on the
Catholic Encyclopedia Online. Where it says: "
The year 325 is accepted without hesitation as that of the First Council of Nicaea."
I don't care how many times it was reformatted after that, and I don't think I am exactly displaying "Bile" here. I am presenting a logical, sourced, well reasoned opinion that disagrees with yours. In response you post provably false assertions with no links, no support other than your word, and then you accuse me of not being Scholarly. This is funny.
Let's actually look at the Nicean creed as adopted by the bishops in the meeting being presided over by Constantine:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.
this contains exactly what I am talking about (gee imagine that, I was talking about the thing I linked to...) go look up
homoousion, a Greek word because to better represented what they were trying to say than any other language (see the Greek Hellenistic influence I was talking about)
To borrow a bit from your phraseology: So jibaholic, Godzilla and any other lurker present, it is clear that the My post has been misrepresented by Godzilla. Now, I won't attribute base motives to Godzilla, I truly believe he didn't understand what I was saying, didn't follow the links, and didn't mean to call me a liar. I truly believe he thinks history is as he represents it here and he's just ill informed, and has not taken the time to study before posting, counting on what he has been "taught" to carry him through.
Lurkers, I encourage you to check out what I am saying, start with
the Trinity, read
The Arian Controversy and go on to read
Hippolytus.. Follow my links, follow my logic, FM me and point out corrections or exception or new sources. I am making extensive use of the
Catholic Encyclopedia On line, so I am not just posting "Mormon" doctrine here, please help me to be as accurate as I can on my page.
P.S. feel free to read the whole page, and not just the sections I have linked you to here.