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

[showme]

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.

Let us get the facts straight. You are not my "Friend", and Constantine certainly supported the Trinity Creed and the Roman church, which is the topic of this thread.

And I did not say Athanasius wrote the Athanasiun Creed, it was only named for him because he was a major supporter of it. It is the Roman church that thinks highly of him, not me. It is the Athanasiun Creed by which main line Protestants and Catholics deny that non Trinitarians are "Christian". An example being the Utah Mormons, non Trinitarians, are considered not "Chirstian", whereas the Trinitarian, Independence, Missouri Mormons are considered "Christian".

As for the Trinity doctrine, it was addressed at the Nicene Council in 325 A.D., and became dogma, and naysayers were deported and excommunicated.

Constantine was the emperor of both the East and the West Roman Empire. It is the name of the "Roman" church you seem to be harping about. I didn't mentioned the Eastern Orthodox church.

As for what Quakers are or are not, seems to be somewhat nebulous. Somewhat like the "not hot and not cold" of Rev 3:15. A trait for which Yeshua said he would spit those who had it out of his mouth.

 

[showme]

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


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.

Showme's response in red:
You get me wrong. I don't support Luther or the Protestent church any more than I support the Roman church. And America had nothing to do with the "Peasant's Revolt".


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

I thing the Pauline church defines itself. Their leader and soul is Paul, and with respect to the Roman church, their foundation is Peter.


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


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.

False doctrines can linger in the shadows, but under Constantinus, the son of Constantine, it was the believers in Trinity that were deported. Apart from the political power of kings, the Roman church and her man made doctrines, are destined for desolation. (Rev 17:16)

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

You are free to give your own interpretations, but your fancies don't apparently seem to hold any content. Thrown stones do not make a structure. Try adding content to your replies.

 

[Thomas]

Showme

I have worked from the material evidence — The Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching, cited above. You've presented nothing but your own assumptions and errors of interpretation of Scripture.

The Book of the Apocalypse, like the works of Nostradamus, can be interpreted any which way one chooses — almost any name and any era in history can be put up as the 'beast' — from 2nd century Rome to 20th century Russia, with all stops in between. Your 'fancies' regarding the text are indicative of the fact that people really don't understand what it is they're talking about.

You say:
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.
But, as I keep saying, the evidence is that Christian doctrine was already established, so this is a false claim really.

Nor, once again, do you clarify what you mean by 'Pauline Christianity'.

The one thing you should understand is that the idea that Scripture should be self-evident to anyone who reads it is patently nonsense. Most people, it seems, find it difficult to understand a domestic appliance manual. 'Poetry' is often completely obscure to the lay reader, certainly informed commentaries open up a wealth of understanding.

And so it is with Scripture. Without the commentary of the Tradition that produced the text, it's unlikely you'll comprehend what the text is revealing. You would be wise to consider the following:

"And he (an Ethiopian) was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet ... And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readiest?" Who (the Ethiopian) said: "And how can I, unless some man shew me?" And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."
Acts 8:28,30-31

The point being, the deeper meaning of Scripture is obscure, without the commentary of Tradition.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Let us get the facts straight. You are not my "Friend", and Constantine certainly supported the Trinity Creed and the Roman church, which is the topic of this thread.

Oh, a little standoffish, are we? Sorryone cannot exchange pleasentries with you.

And I did not say Athanasius wrote the Athanasiun Creed, it was only named for him because he was a major supporter of it. It is the Roman church that thinks highly of him, not me. It is the Athanasiun Creed by which main line Protestants and Catholics deny that non Trinitarians are "Christian". An example being the Utah Mormons, non Trinitarians, are considered not "Chirstian", whereas the Trinitarian, Independence, Missouri Mormons are considered "Christian".

First, the so-called Athanasian Creed (as I stated elsewhere) did not even exist during Athanasius' lifetime, do some research. No, the Eastern Oriental and Eastern Orthodox also regard him very highly, you need to do a little reading on the various Christian communities. The nature of Christianity and the Trinity is what we discuss here. But I (and most here) do not accept the definition of Chistianity you are using here. We all realize the differences between Trinitatian and Non-trinitarian Churches, some of us just are not as hung up on the Athanasian definition as you.

As for the Trinity doctrine, it was addressed at the Nicene Council in 325 A.D., and became dogma, and naysayers were deported and excommunicated.

Constantine was the emperor of both the East and the West Roman Empire. It is the name of the "Roman" church you seem to be harping about. I didn't mentioned the Eastern Orthodox church.

No, what I was pointing out is that the Traditional Church (which you mstake for the Roman Catholic Chrurch) includes Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Oriental (and perhaps the Anglicans). They all followed Nicea. I was trying to gently remind you that it was not just the Catholic Church involved.

As for what Quakers are or are not, seems to be somewhat nebulous. Somewhat like the "not hot and not cold" of Rev 3:15. A trait for which Yeshua said he would spit those who had it out of his mouth.

Oh, please refrain from vitreol. Hate is unbecoming. This forum is not about religious debating, name-calling or race-baiting (not you, but we have seen this). It is about interfaith communications. I do not make fun of your faith (whatever it is), please do not make fun of mine.

 

[showme]

Showme

I have worked from the material evidence — The Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching, cited above. You've presented nothing but your own assumptions and errors of interpretation of Scripture.

Showme responds in red:
Yeah sure. This is what the "living word of God" says about your "Apostolic teachings". Is 3:12, "those who guide you lead you astray, and confuse the direction of your paths"... Not to mention that your Iraneous was not an apostle. Not even a self professed apostle. Or in Is 56:11," and they are shepherds who have no understanding;"

The Book of the Apocalypse, like the works of Nostradamus, can be interpreted any which way one chooses — almost any name and any era in history can be put up as the 'beast' — from 2nd century Rome to 20th century Russia, with all stops in between. Your 'fancies' regarding the text are indicative of the fact that people really don't understand what it is they're talking about.

I think the book of Revelation was by prefectated by the verse, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ..."

Feel free to give your representation as to who the beast with two horns like a lamb is, and give a meaning for all the heads of the beast, and for the women that sat on the beast, and please tie that in with the book of Daniel.

You say:
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.
But, as I keep saying, the evidence is that Christian doctrine was already established, so this is a false claim really.

The establishment of the Pauline Christian doctrine was fairly evident, but then that would require the nailing to the cross of the testimony of Yeshua. That is clearly what you and the "many" believe, but then again, according to Yeshua, the "many" are heading towards destruction (Mt 7:13)

Nor, once again, do you clarify what you mean by 'Pauline Christianity'.

"Pauline Christianity" is comprised of those who follow the teachings of the self professed apostle Paul, and in the case of the Roman church, also follow Paul, but claim Peter as the foundation of the church.

The one thing you should understand is that the idea that Scripture should be self-evident to anyone who reads it is patently nonsense. Most people, it seems, find it difficult to understand a domestic appliance manual. 'Poetry' is often completely obscure to the lay reader, certainly informed commentaries open up a wealth of understanding.

According to Yeshua, his testimony was spoken in parables, so that Isaiah 6:9 can be fulfilled," You will keep on hearing, but will not understand". And Yeshua was glad that the wise did not understand and that the babes did. (Mt 11:25) It is the "informed commentaries which are represented by the "wise", who "did not understand".

And so it is with Scripture. Without the commentary of the Tradition that produced the text, it's unlikely you'll comprehend what the text is revealing. You would be wise to consider the following:

I would be wise to follow the testimony of Yeshua, and not that of self proclaimed apostles and leaders of men. Yeshua clearly stated that no one is above another. (Mt 23:8) Your road is the road of Jim Jones. The Spirit of God is the "Helper", (John 14:26) and is the teacher, and it is not the "shepherds with no understanding" per Is 56:11.

"And he (an Ethiopian) was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet ... And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readiest?" Who (the Ethiopian) said: "And how can I, unless some man shew me?" And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."
Acts 8:28,30-31

The point being, the deeper meaning of Scripture is obscure, without the commentary of Tradition.

God bless,

Thomas

The point being, Scripture is hidden, and what is required is the "light", and that would be provided through the Spirit of God by way of the testimony of Yeshua, and not the leadership of dead men, and the disciples of dead men.

The whole gospel of Paul is a gospel of death. The Gospel of Yeshua is the gospel of the kingdom of God, and is the gospel of life. Two different gospels and two different outcomes.

 

[showme]

Let us get the facts straight. You are not my "Friend", and Constantine certainly supported the Trinity Creed and the Roman church, which is the topic of this thread.

Oh, a little standoffish, are we? Sorryone cannot exchange pleasentries with you.

Showme responds in red: I am not your friend, your brother, or your comrad.

And I did not say Athanasius wrote the Athanasiun Creed, it was only named for him because he was a major supporter of it. It is the Roman church that thinks highly of him, not me. It is the Athanasiun Creed by which main line Protestants and Catholics deny that non Trinitarians are "Christian". An example being the Utah Mormons, non Trinitarians, are considered not "Chirstian", whereas the Trinitarian, Independence, Missouri Mormons are considered "Christian".

First, the so-called Athanasian Creed (as I stated elsewhere) did not even exist during Athanasius' lifetime, do some research. No, the Eastern Oriental and Eastern Orthodox also regard him very highly, you need to do a little reading on the various Christian communities. The nature of Christianity and the Trinity is what we discuss here. But I (and most here) do not accept the definition of Chistianity you are using here. We all realize the differences between Trinitatian and Non-trinitarian Churches, some of us just are not as hung up on the Athanasian definition as you.

Who cares. I never said Athanasius wrote the creed, it was named after him because that was a pivotal part of his life. That and the initial list of the canon in 367 A.D.

It is what main stream "Christianity" uses to define entities as being "Christian". The Jehovah witnesses and the Utah Mormons are excluded because they do not hold on to the Trinity, and the Athanasius creed therefore excludes them.

As for the Trinity doctrine, it was addressed at the Nicene Council in 325 A.D., and became dogma, and naysayers were deported and excommunicated.

Constantine was the emperor of both the East and the West Roman Empire. It is the name of the "Roman" church you seem to be harping about. I didn't mentioned the Eastern Orthodox church.

No, what I was pointing out is that the Traditional Church (which you mstake for the Roman Catholic Chrurch) includes Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Oriental (and perhaps the Anglicans). They all followed Nicea. I was trying to gently remind you that it was not just the Catholic Church involved.

Let me point out to you that they have all fallen short. The participants that didn't follow the doctrine coming out of the Nicene Council were excommunicated, and by definition, were no longer "Christian", but by no means excluded from being saints.

As for what Quakers are or are not, seems to be somewhat nebulous. Somewhat like the "not hot and not cold" of Rev 3:15. A trait for which Yeshua said he would spit those who had it out of his mouth.

Oh, please refrain from vitreol. Hate is unbecoming. This forum is not about religious debating, name-calling or race-baiting (not you, but we have seen this). It is about interfaith communications. I do not make fun of your faith (whatever it is), please do not make fun of mine.

I am not making fun. I am stating my personal experience. It is called sharing. It is what is often encouraged at "Christian" churches. You fell back on your faith as a bull work protection for your position. I have the right to bring up my experience with your faith and the wikipedias explanation of your faith to counter your assertions. My sharing is accurate and to the point, and lessons could be learned. Be feel free to share what your form of Quakerism actual is. Wikipedia seemed to suggest that there is no actual form to it. It would kind of depend on the sect you are part of. It seems that Quakers can be for or against Trinitarism. It seems to be like the Unitarian church, any one can join, but then, that is the impression I get.

 

[radarmark]

Interesting, but still, I find, non-responsive. Thomas and I have both shown that Trinitarianism predated Nicea and Constantine. You offer your interpretation of Scripture verses in defense. We have shown that it is not just the "Roman" Catholic Chrch that followed Nicea and you have said "I never mentioned Othodoxy". We have asked for a definition of Pauline Christianity and you reply with some obscure phraseology about the "Gospel of Yeshua" and the "gospel of Paul".

In terms of communication, it is 3-0, in terms of factual history, it is 3-0. In terms of mythological estoterism it is 0-3. I can live with that.

 

[radarmark]

I am not making fun. I am stating my personal experience. It is called sharing. It is what is often encouraged at "Christian" churches. You fell back on your faith as a bull work protection for your position. I have the right to bring up my experience with your faith and the wikipedias explanation of your faith to counter your assertions. My sharing is accurate and to the point, and lessons could be learned. Be feel free to share what your form of Quakerism actual is. Wikipedia seemed to suggest that there is no actual form to it. It would kind of depend on the sect you are part of. It seems that Quakers can be for or against Trinitarism. It seems to be like the Unitarian church, any one can join, but then, that is the impression I get.

'Tis all besides the point, I believe. All you gave us in your responses was opinion based on personal experience. Fine, you communicated your opinions. That does not make them right or true or even understandable.

We just showed how Trinitarianism predated Nicea and Constantine. I shoed how the Athanasian Creed, first did not even exist in the time of Athanasius and was never accepted by the majority of Christians at the time. That is all. In the case of both of these issues (which is what this entire thread is about) you are just 100% off-target. When I replied that you may waht to do a little research (look up data and facts) you created this strawman of my Quakerism. This has nothing whatsoever to do with it. What it has to do with is your incorrect statements about Constantine, the Nicene Council, and Athanasius. Period.