Thank you for this hyperbol DU, it demonstrates clearly the issue here. You claimed that your source (CE Online) supported you in this outlandish claim. Simple, unbiased reading of the article you cited clearly indicated that the opposite occured. Some could consider such a misrepresentation as being intellectually dishonest. If you are refering to another source describing the event, please use that citation. As I said in the previous post, there is no evidence of threat or coersion from the article, infact the article indicates just the opposite.
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.
Is that the best you can come up with! And tell me DU, when did the Catholic church start taking money from the roman treasury? Citation please.
Are you saying that the date is without argument?
Do you have proof that the Edict of Milan was written some other year than 313 – please present it, I’m sure lots of historians would like to see that evidence.
….. 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.
Do you have a citation that indicates that he continued the persecution over that 12 year period….. Once again, it was legal throughout the Roman empire – you hyperbolic assertions not withstanding.
You might want to read a few papers on this, try Hellenistic influence on Christianity:,
This is the work of a single individual that focuses primarily upon the time of Greek conquest of Israel prior to the arrival of Christ, commonly referred to as the intertestamental period. Old stuff.
Hellenistic philosophy and Christianity . . . . . . but denying Hellenist influence will just make you look silly.
Now, now DU, where did I deny that there was greek influence using your broad brush – after all, the NT was written in greek (DUh). What I did deny was that greek philosophy was the source for our Trinitarian doctrine. That is significantly different than what you are accusing me of. Now while we are looking at other sources of information, the readers should look at:
Mormonism, Platonism and the Hellenization of the Early Church
Was Early Christianity Corrupted by 'Hellenism'?
Stop right there, Platonism is not Arianism, anyone who is willing to spend a just a few seconds will know that.
Never said they were the same DU, can’t you read. What I did say was that Arianism drew upon a key component of platonic thought at the time
You need to read up on Arianism. your description of it here is unrecognizable.
Well, from your citation from Wiki – a non authorative source, even they say …the nature of Arian teachings is difficult to define precisely today. Had you bothered to read my statement I made this parallel which I will expand a little on-
1. The Arian conception of Christ as neither truly God nor truly man but an ontological in-between. He was a creature, not the creator in that he had a beginning.
2. 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.
This ‘mediator’ is the parallel to the semi-god defined by the Arians. Perhaps you need to read something other than Wiki.
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.
Always DUh. Jibaholic, please note here that DU grossly misstates Trinitarian doctrine. Were he to accurately frame the doctrine, these so called “proofs” against the Trinity actually support the doctine. Further more, the statement that Jesus always referred to the Father in the third person is incorrect too. And it is recorded that Stephen only saw Jesus bodily, with the ‘glory of God’ and not God with a body.
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
I always love it when you throw a name out and expect on that basis it supports your claim, after failing to read the whole article. You’ve tried this one before and got shot down in flames. Once again, in your glee, you chose this moment to display ignorance of the terms involved. Noetus developed the heritical teachings of modalistic monarchianism or patripassianism. That has completely nothing in common with the understanding of the Trinity. (but it does have a direct counterpart in mormonism)
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.
Hippolytus was Trinitarian, contrary to your illegitimate ramblings on “Against Noetus”. Infact he makes a clearly Trinitarian statements here in Against Noetus
A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine. (8)
And “For us, then, it is sufficient simply to know that there was nothing contemporaneous with God. Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality.” (10).
Its amazing what you will find DU when you actually READ the articles you cite.
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.
Mind reading are we DU???? I’ve seen your lame polemic plenty of times, you cut and past from it time and again when you get someone new regurgitate it to, so why bore my self with more pseudo-scholarship on the subject on your part since you cannot even seem to understand the difference between Trinitarianism and modalism (among other things). And Arius was recalled from exile and the day before he was to be "brought back into full fellowship"…
My citation was referring to actions prior to nicea DUh, not afterwards.
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.
Nicaea was a culmination of many things, I’ll agree that far. However, it was in response to the heresy of Arianism that forced the matter.
Hippolytus, the theologian of his day disagrees with you.
ROTFLAICGU – DU channeling Hippolytus - see Hippolytus’ Trinitarian quotes cited above
Is it your contention that Arianism won? If so why does "Orthodox Christianity" use the Nicene Creed?
Can’t you read. History shows that Constantine shortly after Nicea became an arian and that with his sponsorship, arianism flurished for a time before the teachings based upon Nicea eventually prevaled.
Your version of history is supported by no documentation, no link, nothing but your opinion. I quote from the "Catholic Enclyclopedia Online".
DU, I’ve been working with CE online finding this information. Others I have cited. You, however, have been making statement that were totally unsupported by CE online as if they were supported – see start of this post.
I quote from Wikipedia
Right, well respected source of ‘information’.
My page, has a section on the Trinity
Citing yourself and your lame interpretations – LOL that is sweet.
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."
Very good DU, now read it again – that was when the council met. Infact, CE online states that Soon after the Council of Nicaea new formulas of faith were composed, most of them variations of the Nicene Symbol, to meet new phases of Arianism. . Thus the statement of faith develop there was not universally forced upon the churchs at that time, but served as a format. The “nicean “creed that is used today resulted from the First Council of Constantinople (381), which modified it further. Not adequately reading your source again DU. Here, let me help -
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.
LOL, your eruptive response to my earlier post is indicative of the scorn you hold, no matter how many reformats DU. If by reasoned, you mean grossly misreprented, then keep it up. LOL
Let's actually look at the Nicean creed as adopted by the bishops in the meeting being presided over by Constantine:
I thought Constantine forced it upon them, now you tell me the bishops developed it independantly? Constantine later rejected the decision. Regarding the text of that version, which churchs use it as is? See above history on the development of the creed. Perhaps you need to expand your studies to here and here
… 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)
ROTFLAICGU, stop it DU. Pssst a little hint – they were writing in Greek, and language develops its meanings from the culture it developed within. Since pre-Christian greek though influenced the initial development of the words and their meanings, the bishops had those definitions to work with. But what is even more juicy is that once again you just throw a link out there thinking it supports your cause, but in facts undercuts it even more. It goes to show that homoousion (and latin equivalents) were in use describing the Trinity 50 to over 100 years before, as you alledge, Nicea where it was invented by Constantine. Lurkers please take time to read and follow the links further. Key to are Tertullian’s and Dionysius of Alexandria letters.
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.
Since DU is being true to form. I more than understand what he is saying. I further know that he loves to throw a lot of citations around in an attempt to support his arguments, but if one takes the time to read the links, those references do not support his arguments, but actually undercuts them. I’ve pointed this out on numerous occasions in this post. Misrepresenting what an article actually says as well as misrepresenting what the doctrine of the trinity actual entails to produce a strawman. Lurkers, please avail your self of the CE online links and it will become readily apparent that what is really being presented there is NOT what DU is presenting here. I have pointed this gross descrepency time and again, for only by misrepresenting the material can he find support for his view of mormonism.
Well done G...