Some Things Never Change - The Trinity and Tactics

[Snow]

After Church today I had a boring meeting about Girl's Camp which my two little ones are going to this summer. As it was boring I was ignoring it and reading a bit on the nature of God debates that raged in the 4th and 5th centuries AD.

Prior to that time, subordinationism was the de facto orthodoxy but consubstantiality had some very vociferous supporters. What I am referring to is that before that time the most widespread belief was that Christ, the Son, was subordinate to God, the Father. The Council of Nicea in 325 stated that they were co-equal and consubstantial - that they comprised of the exact same substance that the Son was co-equal with the Father.

Though the loud and vocal efforts of a minority and then the weight and power of the Roman Emperor (Constantine in 325 and Theodosius in 381) the trinitarians won out. One one of their tactics in winning the battle can be seen in the efforts of Gregory of Nazianzus. In his Orations he argues point by point for the non-subordinist point of view. - but not very convincingly. For example where Mark 13:32 says that no one except the Father, not even the Son, knows the last day or hour - which seems to preclude beings of the same substance, Gregory simply gets stuck. What does he do instead? He attacks. He basically says that his opponents - those devote Christians who believe differently than he, are not worthy, that they are sinners or not following Christ or kicking against the pricks, etc..

It's a simply and ancient rhetorical device - used much more extremely by other trinitarians such as Ambrose of Milan and the mighty Athanasius.

Some things never change - do they.

[Gatorman]

You are right Snow. Some things do never change. WE still have religious leaders of faith today, who like the Trinitarians, believe that through intelligence and the power of our own minds, we can overcome the beliefs of others or the teachings of the true Gospel. Many of these argument today are the mainstay of aethists, because you can not prove God exists, he must not exist. As you said, some things never change.

[Snow]

You are right Snow. Some things do never change. WE still have religious leaders of faith today, who like the Trinitarians, believe that through intelligence and the power of our own minds, we can overcome the beliefs of others or the teachings of the true Gospel. Many of these argument today are the mainstay of aethists, because you can not prove God exists, he must not exist. As you said, some things never change.

Interesting thought. Could you please share with us what you know of how the trinitarians were more disposed towards "the power of their own minds" than the subordinationists?

[dazed-and-confused]

I agree, snow. That tactic of saying that only I know the truth and anyone who disagrees is a sinner and should be....whatever. The quest for power over the quest for truth, age old, and still alive. I feel that it's one thing to be so filled with truth and spiritual experiences that you want to share it all or you might burst, and feel like weeping when you feel someone isn't getting it, and feeling so "blessed" that you must be so special and someone doesn't get they must be just so stupid and "not-blessed" that they wind up being laughed at.

Personally, I believe that this a perfect world, with all we need to grow spirtually as a person and as a race. If you don't get it, then I feel sorry for you.......ppfffttt.....LOL....jk.

[dazed-and-confused]

PS.....I really do enjoy listening to intelctuals talking about things because I always wind up learning something. So, go to it...LOL.

[pam]

I really do enjoy listening to intelctuals talking about things

Well darn. That leaves me out of this conversation.

[Moksha]

He basically says that his opponents - those devote Christians who believe differently than he, are not worthy, that they are sinners or not following Christ or kicking against the pricks, etc..

It's a simply and ancient rhetorical device...

Some things never change - do they.

So this device is used in modern times as well, eh?

Good thing we have none of that here on this forum!!!

[Gatorman]

Well, my understanding of the Nicean participants, in general, was that they were attempting to over come the objections of the various faiths and gel them into one belief. That what had been taught was no longer good enough. They needed to meld it, and include it in such a way as to be able to start to pull in other non Christian type religions. My take has always been creating one world church, in the world they knew it. They, through the power of their intellect, attempted to overcome the faith of others and bring them all in line with one belief. Faith was unimportant. Old dogma was ignored.

Interesting thought. Could you please share with us what you know of how the trinitarians were more disposed towards "the power of their own minds" than the subordinationists?

[Snow]

Well, my understanding of the Nicean participants, in general, was that they were attempting to over come the objections of the various faiths and gel them into one belief. That what had been taught was no longer good enough. They needed to meld it, and include it in such a way as to be able to start to pull in other non Christian type religions. My take has always been creating one world church, in the world they knew it. They, through the power of their intellect, attempted to overcome the faith of others and bring them all in line with one belief. Faith was unimportant. Old dogma was ignored.

I imagine that is what the trinitarians said of the subordinationists.

[Dr T]

I do see Jesus as always pointing to the Father, that is true yet when Jesus is talked about in being the same essence it is talking about God or divinity. It is not as though it is saying that He is the Father and I know u didn't say that but I wanted to be clear in that point for others. Jesus did not know the day or the hour of his return and only Jesus did and that is because of his emptying of himself or what is called kenosis. I thought about and it really didn't sit right for a while but I agree, Jesus, the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost as you say, and the Father are all equal divinity and the three make up one God. The counsels from years before were because a lot of things crept in and so they were trying to read only was was in scripture to lay out what is seen there.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Dr T

[bytebear]

The difference between their time and ours are two fold. First, they didn't have a prophet. And second, there was no freedom of religion, so even if they did have the truth, it got stamped out by the ruling authorities who were not men of God.

[dazed-and-confused]

snow, please believe me, i mean no disrespect whatsoever, and this probably has more to do with me than with you.....but it has been my experience that over-intellectualizing is a defense mechanism from feeling......and, also, from my experience, feeling is the "modem" of the spirit......you feel HF's and the spirits presence and input and responses to prayer...or you do not.

Beacause you can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true....look at history......earth as center...earth as flat......etc, etc......and i dare say that things that were disproved turned out to be true. Can i quote them?...no......does that mean that it never happened?

sometimes i want to weep.

[Snow]

The difference between their time and ours are two fold. First, they didn't have a prophet. And second, there was no freedom of religion, so even if they did have the truth, it got stamped out by the ruling authorities who were not men of God.

1. They certainly did have freedom of religion during the time period I referenced. There were pagans, trinitarian, eunomians, subordinationists, etc all living side by side.

2. Moreover, the universal church may not have have valid priesthood authority but it did have plenty of truth as do the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches today. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for the many truths and honorable traditions and institutions they have conveyed to us.

[Snow]

snow, please believe me, i mean no disrespect whatsoever, and this probably has more to do with me than with you.....but it has been my experience that over-intellectualizing is a defense mechanism from feeling......and, also, from my experience, feeling is the "modem" of the spirit......you feel HF's and the spirits presence and input and responses to prayer...or you do not.

Beacause you can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true....look at history......earth as center...earth as flat......etc, etc......and i dare say that things that were disproved turned out to be true. Can i quote them?...no......does that mean that it never happened?

sometimes i want to weep.

Oh - well thank heavens I don't "over" intellectualize; having found just the right balance between faith and intellect makes the world very rewarding.

[bytebear]

1. They certainly did have freedom of religion during the time period I referenced. There were pagans, trinitarian, eunomians, subordinationists, etc all living side by side.

2. Moreover, the universal church may not have have valid priesthood authority but it did have plenty of truth as do the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches today. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for the many truths and honorable traditions and institutions they have conveyed to us.

1. Not really. If you weren't a Trinitarian Christian you were burned as a heretic. Non-trinitarians didn't stand a chance.

2. All belief systems have truth. But the true nature of God can only be ascertained through the spirit, not debate. That is why Joseph Smith said that all people could be and should be prophets. You do not gain Godly truth through debate.

[Snow]

1. Not really. If you weren't a Trinitarian Christian you were burned as a heretic. Non-trinitarians didn't stand a chance.

Okay - here's something that we can sink our teeth into.

In the 4th century CE there were numerous powerful and important subordinationist bishops.

Which ones, specifically were burned as heretics?

What was the total count of such burned bishops in the 4th century?

What was the total count (estimates will do) of non-bishop, but nevertheless burned subordinationists?

Follow-up question. In the 4th century, the empire was still largely pagan. Of those, what was the burn count?

Edited July 27, 2009 by Snow

[bytebear]

Okay - here's something that we can sink our teeth into.

In the 4th century CE there were numerous powerful and important subordinationist bishops.

Which ones, specifically were burned as heretics?

What was the total count of such burned bishops in the 4th century?

What was the total count (estimates will do) of non-bishop, but nevertheless burned subordinationists?

Actually, this is an example of a debating technique called "Shift the Burden of Proof Onto Your Opponent." You claimed that freedom of religion existed, but rather than present your evidence, you shift the burden on me. Sorry, I don't play such games.

However, I will throw you a bone. Wikipedia states, "The emperor did not decide doctrine — that was the responsibility of the bishops — rather his role was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity. The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship consisted of was the responsibility of the church." I wonder how religious freedom existed when the emperor "ensured that God was properly worshiped". Hmmm...

Edited July 27, 2009 by bytebear

[Snow]

Actually, this is an example of a debating technique called "Shift the Burden of Proof Onto Your Opponent." You claimed that freedom of religion existed, but rather than present your evidence, you shift the burden on me. Sorry, I don't play such games.

Actually YOU are the one that claimed that non-Trinitarians were burnt as heretics. I am not asking you to bear the burden of my claim that freedom existed - I am simply asking you to substantiate your own claim.

Now - bytebear - let's be honest - you and I - together. We both know the reason that you are claiming that you don't have have the burden of proof of YOUR own claim of burning non-Trinitarians - Don't we. It's because you just made it up - isn't it.

Well anyway - here's your chance. I am not going to post again until tomorrow night, at which time I'll gladly substantiate my claims and I'll easily disprove your claims... you might want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that you just made it all up - you know, save yourself some embarrassment.

Here's a little hint: I don't make factual assertions I can't back up and I don't suffer well those that do.

And by the way - I can also demonstrate that the quote from wiki has some errors.

[bytebear]

Actually YOU are the one that claimed that non-Trinitarians were burnt as heretics. I am not asking you to bear the burden of my claim that freedom existed - I am simply asking you to substantiate your own claim.

Now - bytebear - let's be honest - you and I - together. We both know the reason that you are claiming that you don't have have the burden of proof of YOUR own claim of burning non-Trinitarians - Don't we. It's because you just made it up - isn't it.

Well anyway - here's your chance. I am not going to post again until tomorrow night, at which time I'll gladly substantiate my claims and I'll easily disprove your claims... you might want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that you just made it all up - you know, save yourself some embarrassment.

Here's a little hint: I don't make factual assertions I can't back up and I don't suffer well those that do.

You responded before I amended my response with information on the matter. I suppose I could be wrong about the method of punishment. But proper Christian worship was enforced by the state. I will give you credit though, you are good at using deceptive debating techniques, like trying to embarrass your opponent. Kudos to you.

[rameumptom]

I have to disagree with Dr T on his assertion that Trinity was the original concept until other concepts "crept in." The concepts of the Trinity did not emerge in actual discussion until the latter part of the 2nd century. Prior to this period, God was viewed as anthropomorphic.

Origen, one of the great early apologists, defended the concept of subordination, insisting it was the original intent and teaching of the Apostles. Eusebius the historian was an Origenist in his belief, when he attended the Council of Nicaea. His views were lost in the big battle between Arius and Athanasius, who looked at the two extremes (Arius: only one God, and so Jesus is not God, but Lord; Athanasius: God is one substance in 3 persons). Still, Eusebius was lumped in with the Arians and was exiled.

Jesus' teachings continually showed him, not as God's exact equal, but as his subordinate. When he was called "good master", he recanted by saying, "Why do ye call me good? There is none good, but God."

Or the strongest evidence of them being two individuals: "Not my will, but thine, be done." Regardless of the Hellenistic concepts of kenosis, you will not find such teaching in the Bible, but you will find three separate beings in the Godhead; which was continually taught even a century beyond Nicaea, when St Augustine finally trounced Origen and called him a heretic.

[rameumptom]

The reality is, after Nicaea, for a century the concept of Arianism (one form of subordinationalism) almost won out. The Arian Churches in Africa were just so strong that Athanasius was actually banished/exiled several times after Nicaea, and the Trinity was placed on hold for a century.

Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[StallionMcBeastly]

After Church today I had a boring meeting about Girl's Camp which my two little ones are going to this summer. As it was boring I was ignoring it and reading a bit on the nature of God debates that raged in the 4th and 5th centuries AD.

Prior to that time, subordinationism was the de facto orthodoxy but consubstantiality had some very vociferous supporters. What I am referring to is that before that time the most widespread belief was that Christ, the Son, was subordinate to God, the Father. The Council of Nicea in 325 stated that they were co-equal and consubstantial - that they comprised of the exact same substance that the Son was co-equal with the Father.

Though the loud and vocal efforts of a minority and then the weight and power of the Roman Emperor (Constantine in 325 and Theodosius in 381) the trinitarians won out. One one of their tactics in winning the battle can be seen in the efforts of Gregory of Nazianzus. In his Orations he argues point by point for the non-subordinist point of view. - but not very convincingly. For example where Mark 13:32 says that no one except the Father, not even the Son, knows the last day or hour - which seems to preclude beings of the same substance, Gregory simply gets stuck. What does he do instead? He attacks. He basically says that his opponents - those devote Christians who believe differently than he, are not worthy, that they are sinners or not following Christ or kicking against the pricks, etc..

It's a simply and ancient rhetorical device - used much more extremely by other trinitarians such as Ambrose of Milan and the mighty Athanasius.

Some things never change - do they.

Yup yup...

We still have the "you don't interpret the Bible MY way so you're going to hell"

or my favorite, "you believe in the wrong Jesus"

[Dr T]

Thanks for that Ram, yes, I meant the counsels that came up where for the things that crept in. :)

Edited August 25, 2010 by Dr T

[Justice]

Well, my understanding of the Nicean participants, in general, was that they were attempting to over come the objections of the various faiths and gel them into one belief. That what had been taught was no longer good enough. They needed to meld it, and include it in such a way as to be able to start to pull in other non Christian type religions. My take has always been creating one world church, in the world they knew it. They, through the power of their intellect, attempted to overcome the faith of others and bring them all in line with one belief. Faith was unimportant. Old dogma was ignored.

And there were some who simply wanted truth to reign. They had no agenda; no plan to seek power; no pride that "their belief" would be included. All they wanted was truth. They were the minority, much like today.

[Justice]

I believe Snow, changed, and bytebear have all stated things that are true. It's been a LONG time since I studied the early church in college, but I was left with lasting impressions.

I'd like to see the 3 of you work together and come up with some facts of what really happened.