The Rule of Faith, or laying Constantine's ghost ...

[Thomas]

This then is the order of the rule of our faith, and the foundation of the building, and the stability of our conversation:
God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith.
The second point is: The Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the dispensation of the Father: through whom all things were made; who also at the end of the times, to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce a community of union between God and man.
And the third point is: The Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led forth into the way of righteousness; and who in the end of the times was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man unto God.

And for this reason the baptism of our regeneration proceeds through these three points: God the Father bestowing on us regeneration through His Son by the Holy Spirit. For as many as carry (in them) the Spirit of God are led to the Word, that is to the Son; and the Son brings them to the Father; and the Father causes them to possess incorruption. Without the Spirit it is not possible to behold the Word of God, nor without the Son can any draw near to the Father: for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son of God is through the Holy Spirit; and, according to the good pleasure of the Father, the Son ministers and dispenses the Spirit to whomsoever the Father wills and as He wills. (Irenaeus of Lyon: A Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching)

Irenaeus died around 202AD, he was one of the early post-apostolic Fathers, and notably not a philosopher. The above is an extract of what might be termed an early Catechism.

What I would point out is 'a rule of faith', which suggests the existence of a creed (or 'symbol') long before Nicea and a profound Trinitarian theology, especially for its assertion that as the Son reveals the Father, the Holy Spirit reveals the Son.

So the next time someone tells you that Constantine 'invented' Christianity, or told the Christians what to believe, you can put them right.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[showme]

Irenaeus died around 202AD, he was one of the early post-apostolic Fathers, and notably not a philosopher. The above is an extract of what might be termed an early Catechism.

What I would point out is 'a rule of faith', which suggests the existence of a creed (or 'symbol') long before Nicea and a profound Trinitarian theology, especially for its assertion that as the Son reveals the Father, the Holy Spirit reveals the Son.

So the next time someone tells you that Constantine 'invented' Christianity, or told the Christians what to believe, you can put them right.

God bless,

Thomas

Constantine didn't invent "Christianity". He was simply the beast with two horns like a lamb on which the Roman church sat. He supported the Roman church by way of the Roman treasury and political might. He was simply the the 7th head of the beast (Rev 17:9), whose authority came from the dragon (Rev 13:11), and was to deceive those "who dwell on the earth" (Rev 13:14). Constantine, was a politician, whose aim was to consolidate his power, and combining his nation's pagan rituals with those of Pauline "Christianity" seemed the way to proceed.

Your Irenaeus was not a member of the Roman church. He did not participate in the Nicene Council, nor did he give a seal of approval for your church or its' doctrines. As for Ireneus repeating Yeshua's testimony of the son revealing the Father, and the Father revealing the son, any scribe could read the gospel of Matthew and simply express it in a different form. (Mt 11:27) Mt 11:27 does not support your Trinity dogma.

 

[radarmark]

Draw in your horns, showme. Thomas was just making a valid academic point; one you do not have to agree with. He was (I think) just showing that the case can be made (this is not the only example) for Trinitarian beliefs predating Nicea. Most RC and Eastern Theologians hold a similar viewpoint. There is a very good case to be made for the existence of a "Catholic Faith" before there was a Catholic Faith.

Irenaeus (imho) would have accepted the Nicene Council and Creed. He was seeking an interpretation that could overcome all the differences in interpretation of the Word.

BTW, I am not a Trinitarian nor a Catholic. I am just saying there are two sides to this issue. And that I happen to believe the facts (from what this old mind can make of them) supports the Traditional Christianity of the Catholic, Eastern Oriental and Orthodox interpretations.

Later Revelation may contradict this, but within their world-view, there is no on-going Revelation.

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

Irenaeus died around 202AD, he was one of the early post-apostolic Fathers, and notably not a philosopher. The above is an extract of what might be termed an early Catechism.

What I would point out is 'a rule of faith', which suggests the existence of a creed (or 'symbol') long before Nicea and a profound Trinitarian theology, especially for its assertion that as the Son reveals the Father, the Holy Spirit reveals the Son.

So the next time someone tells you that Constantine 'invented' Christianity, or told the Christians what to believe, you can put them right.

God bless,

Thomas

with just this, huh?

not the folks i know.....
edit: just look up a little about Constantine's wife....

 

[showme]

with just this, huh?

not the folks i know.....
edit: just look up a little about Constantine's wife....

Just look up a little about Constantine's mother!!

 

[showme]

Draw in your horns, showme. Thomas was just making a valid academic point; one you do not have to agree with. He was (I think) just showing that the case can be made (this is not the only example) for Trinitarian beliefs predating Nicea. Most RC and Eastern Theologians hold a similar viewpoint. There is a very good case to be made for the existence of a "Catholic Faith" before there was a Catholic Faith.

Irenaeus (imho) would have accepted the Nicene Council and Creed. He was seeking an interpretation that could overcome all the differences in interpretation of the Word.

BTW, I am not a Trinitarian nor a Catholic. I am just saying there are two sides to this issue. And that I happen to believe the facts (from what this old mind can make of them) supports the Traditional Christianity of the Catholic, Eastern Oriental and Orthodox interpretations.

Later Revelation may contradict this, but within their world-view, there is no on-going Revelation.

What does "within their world-view, there is no on-going Revelation" mean? And what is "IMHO" good for in a debate if no substance is given to back your humble belief?

The side that won the arguement is the side which had the most political power, such as the ability to burn the books of Arius, and threaten to kill anyone found in possession of such books. The outcome seemed to rest more on who was the reigning king of Rome than on any relationship to truth.

As for a man trying to find clarity, he did well in paraphrasing Yeshua, but apparently, he wasn't able to straighten out the crooked path of the Roman "Christian" church, and was unable to keep them from using this particular writing to further obsure the truth.

 

[Thomas]

Hi BMS —

with just this, huh?

The point is, there's nothing doctrinally in Nicea (325AD) that Irenaeus was not saying 100 years before.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

What does "within their world-view, there is no on-going Revelation" mean?

It means that what has been revealed is infinite in its scope and access.

And what is "IMHO" good for in a debate if no substance is given to back your humble belief?

With all due respect, where's the substance of your argument?

The side that won the arguement is the side which had the most political power ...

No, the facts are that what Nicea declared to be doctrine had already been doctrine for over a hundred years, so Constantine had nowhere near as much influence as you seem to think.

... such as the ability to burn the books of Arius, and threaten to kill anyone found in possession of such books.

You need to be carefully of retro-fitting moral models here ... the people of the day reacted as people of the day do, you can't hold them accountable to a post-modern sensibility. Sitz I'm leben, is the contextual term.

The outcome seemed to rest more on who was the reigning king of Rome than on any relationship to truth.

Rubbish. The evidence, as I have demonstrated, refutes this.

As for a man trying to find clarity, he did well in paraphrasing Yeshua, but apparently, he wasn't able to straighten out the crooked path of the Roman "Christian" church, and was unable to keep them from using this particular writing to further obsure the truth.

Actually, the only contribution Constantine made to Nicea was the request (suggested by his own theological adviser, a Christian monk) to clarify the relation of the Son to the Father, to head off the Arian dispute. Thus the word 'consubstantial' was added to emphasise the relationship, but this did not stop Arius.

Your own argument, offered without a shred of evidence, is demonstrably false, from the evidence I have shown above. Also its seems riddled with anachronisms, as there was no such thing as the "Roman 'Christian' Church" — the majority of Bishops at Nicea were from the Greek East, Nicea is in the East, Constantinople became the city of the Eastern Empire ...

God bless

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Constantine didn't invent "Christianity".

Quite. That's my point.

He was simply the beast with two horns like a lamb on which the Roman church sat.

No he wasn't ... not sure where you've got this analogy from?

He supported the Roman church by way of the Roman treasury and political might.

Anachronism. There was no such thing as 'the Roman church' — there was just the Church. It was mostly 'Eastern', 'Greek' or even 'Byzantine'.

He was simply the the 7th head of the beast (Rev 17:9), whose authority came from the dragon (Rev 13:11), and was to deceive those "who dwell on the earth" (Rev 13:14).

Not really. Revelations was written a long time before Constantine, and refers to Rome at a time when Christians were being persecuted. Even before he became Emperor, Constantine did not persecute with anything like the vigour of his neighbours.

Constantine, was a politician, whose aim was to consolidate his power, and combining his nation's pagan rituals with those of Pauline "Christianity" seemed the way to proceed.

I agree about Constantine's foresight, he was a politician with a good sense of 'the signs of the times' and saw that Christianity was the best glue to bind the empire together.

The rest is the usual tosh. There's not a shred of evidence to show 'combining his nation's pagan rituals' so I don't know where you've got that from.

Also, you'd need to define what you assume by 'Pauline 'Christianity'', as there was just Christianity.

Seems a lot of polemical opinion, and precious little substance?

Your Irenaeus was not a member of the Roman church.[]/quote]
Another anachronism. He is a Father of the Church, the same Church that sat at Nicea.

He did not participate in the Nicene Council, nor did he give a seal of approval for your church or its' doctrines.

Other way round. Nicea affirmed what Irenaeus had been teaching 100 years previously, that's my point, which rather makes a nonsense of your argument.

Mt 11:27 does not support your Trinity dogma.

Never said it did. Just said that the Church was always Trinitarian. Scripture is Trinitarian. Christ's own words are Trinitarian.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

What does "within their world-view, there is no on-going Revelation" mean? And what is "IMHO" good for in a debate if no substance is given to back your humble belief?

Pretty clear, I thought. Traditional Christianity (Catholics, Orthodox, and Oriental) hold (nor do most Protestant groups) that Revelation (a spiritual message coming from the same font that inspired the prophets) has ceased. Kinda like Muhammed building in "there will be no other Prophets until the end of days" (my understanding of 33:40)

I do not really understand your second sentence. Does it mean I should trace back my opinion? Or does it mean my opinion is of "no substance"? Read Irenaeus, it is hard to believe anyone could consider him anything but a trinitarian. If you want to refute that, refute it or start a thread on it.

The side that won the arguement is the side which had the most political power, such as the ability to burn the books of Arius, and threaten to kill anyone found in possession of such books. The outcome seemed to rest more on who was the reigning king of Rome than on any relationship to truth.

Temporarily won. There are an awful lot of non-trinitarian christians today (if you are still referring to the Nicene Creed). Read “The Jesus Wars”… what the church fathers were trying to do was come to grips (like Irenaeus) with the complexities of the writings they had and the nature of G!d behind them. It is called theology. Yes, they went overboard in terms of the violence. But it seems modern Christians can be just as bad (just look at the virulent attacks on Islam and the physical abuse of the Sikhs in the U.S.A. since 9-11). This is, perhaps a "mystical and philosophical" truth. Are you trying to argue for an inerrant truth? But that truth has changed… or at least the Traditional Christians do not try to kill and burn about it any more.

As for a man trying to find clarity, he did well in paraphrasing Yeshua, but apparently, he wasn't able to straighten out the crooked path of the Roman "Christian" church, and was unable to keep them from using this particular writing to further obsure the truth.

Again, pull in your horns. I am no Traditional Christian but the tone of you discussion indicates 1) you do not consider them Christians and 2) you have a very definite opinion of them. What is it? Start a thread, some of us may want to see it. Anyhow, this last paragraph does not seem to refer to anything in my post, nor can I relate it to anyone else’s on this thread

This is an interfaith forum. We show respect for all who come, if you want to rant or preach, find a steeple-house or soapbox. Otherwise, please do use a little more decorum (believe me, I have been quite vitriolic in some of my posts as well, I am not picking on you).

 

[showme]

Hi BMS —

The point is, there's nothing doctrinally in Nicea (325AD) that Irenaeus was not saying 100 years before.

God bless,

Thomas

I failed to read about the establishment of the date of the pagan festival of Easter in the quote given for Irenaeus, which was done at the Nicene council, nor does Irenaeus preach the Trinity in the excerpt. He noted that no one can know the Father but through the son, and no one can know the son but through the Father. This is two separate entities, one with a beginning and one with an end. There is no Trinity concept here.

 

[showme]

Pretty clear, I thought. Traditional Christianity (Catholics, Orthodox, and Oriental) hold (nor do most Protestant groups) that Revelation (a spiritual message coming from the same font that inspired the prophets) has ceased. Kinda like Muhammed building in "there will be no other Prophets until the end of days" (my understanding of 33:40)

I do not really understand your second sentence. Does it mean I should trace back my opinion? Or does it mean my opinion is of "no substance"? Read Irenaeus, it is hard to believe anyone could consider him anything but a trinitarian. If you want to refute that, refute it or start a thread on it.



Temporarily won. There are an awful lot of non-trinitarian christians today (if you are still referring to the Nicene Creed). Read “The Jesus Wars”… what the church fathers were trying to do was come to grips (like Irenaeus) with the complexities of the writings they had and the nature of G!d behind them. It is called theology. Yes, they went overboard in terms of the violence. But it seems modern Christians can be just as bad (just look at the virulent attacks on Islam and the physical abuse of the Sikhs in the U.S.A. since 9-11). This is, perhaps a "mystical and philosophical" truth. Are you trying to argue for an inerrant truth? But that truth has changed… or at least the Traditional Christians do not try to kill and burn about it any more.



Again, pull in your horns. I am no Traditional Christian but the tone of you discussion indicates 1) you do not consider them Christians and 2) you have a very definite opinion of them. What is it? Start a thread, some of us may want to see it. Anyhow, this last paragraph does not seem to refer to anything in my post, nor can I relate it to anyone else’s on this thread

This is an interfaith forum. We show respect for all who come, if you want to rant or preach, find a steeple-house or soapbox. Otherwise, please do use a little more decorum (believe me, I have been quite vitriolic in some of my posts as well, I am not picking on you).

The "non-Trinitarians" are considered non "Christians", and delegated to "perish everlastingly" by the majority, which is founded on the Athanasian Creed. Athanasian Creed

It seems that it is you who personalize your comments and give only opinion, whereas I have made referenced comments.

 

[radarmark]

I failed to read about the establishment of the date of the pagan festival of Easter in the quote given for Irenaeus, which was done at the Nicene council, nor does Irenaeus preach the Trinity in the excerpt. He noted that no one can know the Father but through the son, and no one can know the son but through the Father. This is two separate entities, one with a beginning and one with an end. There is no Trinity concept here.

Read him in his entirety or do a Google search on it. The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, a recently found Armenian text is especially rich in Trinitarian contructs. The Doctrine of the Trinity: Did It Develop Over Time? can provide a broad overview. Good luck.

 

[radarmark]

The "non-Trinitarians" are considered non "Christians", and delegated to "perish everlastingly" by the majority, which is founded on the Athanasian Creed. Athanasian Creed

It seems that it is you who personalize your comments and give only opinion, whereas I have made referenced comments.

That is free for you to believe. I take it you are a Traditional Christian then?

I personalize nothing, merely point out that the context of your statements ar (to me) a little over the top. For instance, you put quotes around Christian when referring to Catholics (which implies a certain opinion about them and other Traditionalists).

 

[radarmark]

The vast bulk of Christianity at the time of the Athansaian Creed did not accept it as doctrine (just look up the Creed even on wiki). At that point in time the Eastern Oriental and Orthodox (for the most point) probably thought anathemas were beyond the pale (neither the Nicene nor Apostle's Creeds include them). A real point of contention to this day. Most Eastern Christians (now a small minority) do not believe its alledged origion with Anathasius nor the curses.

 

[showme]

The vast bulk of Christianity at the time of the Athansaian Creed did not accept it as doctrine (just look up the Creed even on wiki). At that point in time the Eastern Oriental and Orthodox (for the most point) probably thought anathemas were beyond the pale (neither the Nicene nor Apostle's Creeds include them). A real point of contention to this day. Most Eastern Christians (now a small minority) do not believe its alledged origion with Anathasius nor the curses.

Hey, the majority of "Christians", reject anybody that does not accept your Trinity creed. And this is based on the Anathasius creed, which rejects them. The Trinity doctrine was first imposed on everyone via the original Nicene council, of which Constantine convened and chaired. Anyone not going along with the Trinity doctrine was excomunicated or sent packing. Any books by Arius were burnt, and anyone holding books was threatened with death. This order was by Constantine, who had the title of Pontifex Maximus, which was originally given to all emperors of the pagan Rome, and it was in this capacity he was able to convene the Council of Nicene. The Title Pontifex Maximus, Supreme Pontiff, Pope Papacy

 

[radarmark]

Again, you miss the point. First, as an aside, I am not a Traditional or Trinitarian Christian (most Quakers are not).

Secondly, the vast majority of Christians at the time of the Creed's first use (circa 550 ad) were Eastern, not part of the Western Roamn but the Byzantine Empire. The Eastern Chrisitian never did accept the Athanasian Creed (to this day). That Creed was not part of the Nicean Council Anathasius took part in (as a secretary, not a voting member).

He did not write the Creed (probably, sorry Thomas). And his followers (the Eastern Church) never, ever accepted it. The threat of Arianism (pretty much what it was penned to counter) was prevalent in the West, not in the East. In Milan through Bordeaux (which is why Ambrose of Milan is one of the prime suspects). The Athanasian Creed was used to persecute the heresies of Nestorianism and Monophysitism (hence the use of the filique, which to this day is not accepted in the East).

For goodness sake man, get your facts straight. Trinitarianism does not demand the Athanasian Crred. Tritnarianism existed well before Nicea. Look it up, do not rely on what you have been told (look up "athansiian creed AND othodoxy" and "trinitarianism AND pre-nicene" on Google Scholar).

The facts are not on your side, Friend.

 

[showme]

It means that what has been revealed is infinite in its scope and access.

Showme responds in red: Did I miss the notice? Is this double speak week?


With all due respect, where's the substance of your argument?

My arguement is in direct opposition to the original post where Constantine was not a major player in establishing the Roman church. I quote chapter and verse from Revelation, and gave Constantine's detailed dealings with the convening and chairing of the Nicene Council, which established the initial doctrines of the Roman Church. He used his purse and political power to crush any dissent to form a uniform pagan/Pauline "Chistian" amalgamation, which would unify his political power. Being he was already head of the pagan church, he chose the Pauline "Christian" faith because he, like Nimrod, seemed to be a momma's boy, and his mother was into Peter and Paul.


No, the facts are that what Nicea declared to be doctrine had already been doctrine for over a hundred years, so Constantine had nowhere near as much influence as you seem to think.

And who convened the Nicene council, and whose summer resort did it take place at, and who chaired the council, and who paid for the snacks?


You need to be carefully of retro-fitting moral models here ... the people of the day reacted as people of the day do, you can't hold them accountable to a post-modern sensibility. Sitz I'm leben, is the contextual term.

Truth is an absolute. Killing of saints is an absolute no-no. If you claim to walk with Yeshua, and you torture, kill, burn, and and confiscate property, you are according to 1 John 2:4 a "liar, and the truth is not in them. This irregardless of the time of day or time of the millenium.


Rubbish. The evidence, as I have demonstrated, refutes this.

You have given no such evidence. The church no longer has the power to burn books, torture, or kill to spread their doctrine. You will have to come up with more than twisted concepts taken from dead men.


Actually, the only contribution Constantine made to Nicea was the request (suggested by his own theological adviser, a Christian monk) to clarify the relation of the Son to the Father, to head off the Arian dispute. Thus the word 'consubstantial' was added to emphasise the relationship, but this did not stop Arius.

And what happened to that "Christian" monk? Was he exiled, and threatened with excommunication for not going along with the anti-Arian dogma? What happened to the others who would not go along with the Trinity concept? Arianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And was Arius actual poisoned to death by his opponents?

Your own argument, offered without a shred of evidence, is demonstrably false, from the evidence I have shown above. Also its seems riddled with anachronisms, as there was no such thing as the "Roman 'Christian' Church" — the majority of Bishops at Nicea were from the Greek East, Nicea is in the East, Constantinople became the city of the Eastern Empire ...


God bless

Thomas

Constantine was the emperor of both the Eastern and Western empire. He ruled Rome as well as Constantinople. Constantine glorified both Peter and Paul by building basilicas for both in Rome. http://www.americancatholic.org/features/saints/saint.aspx?id=1883
Peter and Paul where the two horns like a lamb, which Constantine used along with his Roman church to deceive "those who dwell on the earth" Rev 13:14) The whole ediface of the Roman church is built on sand (Mt 7:24-29)

 

[showme]

Quite. That's my point.


No he wasn't ... not sure where you've got this analogy from?

Showme's reply in red:
It comes from Revelation 13:11.


Anachronism. There was no such thing as 'the Roman church' — there was just the Church. It was mostly 'Eastern', 'Greek' or even 'Byzantine'.

Today there are around 38,000 different denominations. After the Roman church failed to be able to burn Martin Luther alive, the cat was out of the bag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations In the earlier years, there were somewhat fewer, but they were not in step with what wound up as the Roman church. Constantine was the Roman emperor, and the money used to support the Roman church came from Roman coffers, and the political power used to uphold the church, came from Roman soldiers.

Not really. Revelations was written a long time before Constantine, and refers to Rome at a time when Christians were being persecuted. Even before he became Emperor, Constantine did not persecute with anything like the vigour of his neighbours.

Revelation 17:8-10, written during the reign of the 6th head of the beast, refers to 8 heads of the beast, and two of those heads were to reign after Revelations was written. Constantine is the 7th head of the beast. It was approximately 1260 years of persecution by Constantine's church state which was beyond the pale.


I agree about Constantine's foresight, he was a politician with a good sense of 'the signs of the times' and saw that Christianity was the best glue to bind the empire together.

Constantine was the head of the pagan church, and his mother had a love for the Pauline church, the combination of the two seemed like a good move towards political unification.

The rest is the usual tosh. There's not a shred of evidence to show 'combining his nation's pagan rituals' so I don't know where you've got that from.

If you will look at what came out of the Nicene Council you will see that one of the doctrines was setting the date for the pagan feast of Easter, whereas Easter, or Astarte, was the queen of heaven.

Also, you'd need to define what you assume by 'Pauline 'Christianity'', as there was just Christianity.

Like I said before, there are 38,000 versions of "Christianity", and the Roman version is on the downturn, and the supporting nations such as Italy are now looking to consuming her flesh. They have already passed the laws to tax the churches properties. Greece, and Spain will be waiting in line. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/world/europe/italy-sets-tax-on-church-property.html

Seems a lot of polemical opinion, and precious little substance?

I don't know. I gave links and chapter and verse.

Your Irenaeus was not a member of the Roman church.[]/quote]
Another anachronism. He is a Father of the Church, the same Church that sat at Nicea.

If you would look to what Yeshua said in Mt 23:9, there is only one Father, and it isn't Irenaeus, who is dead.


Other way round. Nicea affirmed what Irenaeus had been teaching 100 years previously, that's my point, which rather makes a nonsense of your argument.

My point is that the quotation listed on this post did not, and can not establish the Trinity. Did Arius think that Irenaeus could and did establish the Trinity doctrine?

Never said it did. Just said that the Church was always Trinitarian. Scripture is Trinitarian. Christ's own words are Trinitarian.

God bless,

Thomas

I don't know about that. It seems that after Constantine died, his son canceled the Trinity doctrine, and deported Athanasius for his Trinity stance. As for Scripture, Yeshua described "Scripture" in John 10:35 as being the Law and the Prophets, as well as the testimony of Yeshua in Rev 19:10. You fall short on both counts.

 

[Thomas]

The point, which you consistently miss, is that Christian Doctrine was in place 100 years before Constantine, so most of your assumptions are wrong.

Today there are around 38,000 different denominations.

That many, eh?

In fact, America is more to blame than Luther. The Reformation churches were as quick, if not quicker, to burn those who disagreed with them, as Luther's support of the brutal suppression of 'The Peasant's Revolt' demonstrates only too clearly.

Constantine was the head of the pagan church, and his mother had a love for the Pauline church, the combination of the two seemed like a good move towards political unification.

You have yet to define 'the Pauline church' ...

If you will look at what came out of the Nicene Council you will see that one of the doctrines was setting the date for the pagan feast of Easter, whereas Easter, or Astarte, was the queen of heaven.

Oh not this old stuff again ... it's a common critique, but it's utterly without substance.

It seems that after Constantine died, his son canceled the Trinity doctrine, and deported Athanasius for his Trinity stance.

Indeed, but the point is, emperors do not decide doctrine. Athanasius was deported no less than five times during his life, as the emperors came and went ... but the doctrine stayed the same.

As for Scripture, Yeshua described "Scripture" in John 10:35 as being the Law and the Prophets, as well as the testimony of Yeshua in Rev 19:10. You fall short on both counts.

No, sadly it's your overtly literal and ill-informed reading of the text that falls short.

Too much faith in your own fancies, not enough focus on the facts ...

God bless,

Thomas