Trinity is humanity's Father/Son Image!

[Artfuldodger]

It is evident from 1gr8bldr you need to be very careful as to where you get you info.

The councils were called to combat heresy in the church. Constantine wanted the church in the East, Constantinople, and the church in the West, Rome, to be in union on the doctrines and called a meeting of ALL the Church's bishops to decide on the Arian heresy.

The schism of 1054, I would argue, was the "Church" setting the church at Rome out until it got it's act together. Everyone loves to throw rocks at the Roman Catholics because Protestantism has taught that they are the "Great Satan", when in reality they are clueless what Rome believes. I don't hear any of them going after the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Coptic Church, or the Russian Church, or the Scotch Anglican Church.

The Council of Nicaea was called to combat the very heresy that 1gr8bldr is tauting. The word homoousios was used, claiming the Jesus and the Father ore of one essence.

Ignorance can cause great messes.

P.S. I am not Roman Catholic, and they are not the Great Satan.

I would also agree that the Catholic Church is as much Christian as any Protestant Church. I don't believe all Protestant Churches feel or believe that the Catholic Church is Satan.

That being said were not these councils held in Rome? If that wasn't the beginnings of the Catholic what was? Put a date on it for me.

Reading on the internet, which I know isn't the gospel;
"According to Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ."

My assumption, and I may be wrong, was that the Catholic Church have always thought of themselves as the "world" Church of which the first Church has always been. That the other branches later split from this original Catholic Church.

But I guess we are debating over the starting date of the "Roman" Catholic Church.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Constantine called the council of Nicaea but he did not preside over it.

Did he preside over the opening session?

 

[Artfuldodger]

1 John 2:22-23
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son.23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

 

[Madman]

Did he preside over the opening session?

according to some records he just gave opening remarks, pursuant to his position.

 

[1gr8bldr]

The trinity in it's exact wording that we have today was first taught by a man named Valentinus. Before the council of Nicea. However, the church officials had labeled him a knostic in all the early church writings. Thus the trinitarian church of today refuses to acknowledge him as the father of there faith. It was not formalized into a creed until the forth century.

 

[Madman]

I would also agree that the Catholic Church is as much Christian as any Protestant Church. I don't believe all Protestant Churches feel or believe that the Catholic Church is Satan.

I agree, but many do.

That being said were not these councils held in Rome? If that wasn't the beginnings of the Catholic what was? Put a date on it for me.

From the beginning the church spread over the known world and language, local customs, etc. entered into the worship and how that should best be manifest in a given region.

For instance the Coptic church walked out on one of the councils because they believed the council was speaking inappropriately about St. Cyril. In reality it was misunderstanding because of language.

There were many struggles over the centuries, but 1054 may be the easiest place to put a pin. The east and west split at the Great Schism.

The West claimed "Catholicity" and the East claimed "Orthodoxy"

Many of us are still all members of the catholic church because we adhere to the teachings and traditions, such as the Trinity, that were given to the Apostles by Christ.

Reading on the internet, which I know isn't the gospel;
"According to Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ."

"Catholic" means universal or a better definition is "according to the whole". At one time the entire church was "according to the whole". Yes the Church "Catholic" was started by Christ and his followers. That has been maintained for 2100 years.

My assumption, and I may be wrong, was that the Catholic Church have always thought of themselves as the "world" Church of which the first Church has always been. That the other branches later split from this original Catholic Church.

But I guess we are debating over the starting date of the "Roman" Catholic Church.

I agree, the Roman Catholic Church believes Peter to be the first Pope to whom were given the keys to the kingdom, yada, yada, yada. I will not argue with some of that history, but there are some other things that prevent me from being Roman.

 

[Madman]

The trinity in it's exact wording that we have today was first taught by a man named Valentinus. Before the council of Nicea.

Might want to do further research on that statement. It simply is not true.

 

[1gr8bldr]

Might want to do further research on that statement. It simply is not true.

That's not how it works.... If it's not true, then you will need to show where I am wrong. I will be glad to show my source.... But google works to

 

[Madman]

That's not how it works.... If it's not true, then you will need to show where I am wrong. I will be glad to show my source.... But google works to

Can't prove a negative. It was your statement of fact, yours for the proving. I do know that some 'oneness" folks have tried to use him but little can be found of his writings. None of the church father's writing on hereseies give him credit for what you claim.

 

[1gr8bldr]

That's not how it works.... If it's not true, then you will need to show where I am wrong. I will be glad to show my source.... But google works to

I have studied volumes of early church writings. The The opposition writings were mostly burned after Constatine made it a crime to have any unauthorized writings. But we can tell what the opposition believed by the self proclaimed "orthodox" rebuttals. I have only studied up to the forth century. After the fourth century, it's no longer interesting to me. Polycarp, those type, what they believed, what others tried to force into academia, that interest me. Valentinus's name and specifically what he believed was brought up at the council of nicea in an effort to belittle Arius by means of association. Just as the democrats are doing to anybody associated with Trump, however we have no real knowledge of to what extent Arius knew Valentinus. They specificallly spelled out what it is that he believed as if appalled over it. It is exactly the wording used in the trinity today.

 

[1gr8bldr]

Can't prove a negative. It was your statement of fact, yours for the proving. I do know that some 'oneness" folks have tried to use him but little can be found of his writings. None of the church father's writing on hereseies give him credit for what you claim.

I would have thought you would at least google it to see if it has any merit? If you do, you will find much on this

 

[1gr8bldr]

This from a google search, because I have no idea where to find this from 10 years ago studies. Wiki
"Valentinus's name came up in the Arian disputes in the fourth century when Marcellus of Ancyra, a staunch opponent of Arianism, denounced the belief in God existing in three hypostases as heretical. Marcellus, who believed Father and Son to be one and the same, attacked his opponents by attempting to link them to Valentinus:

Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God... These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.[11]"​

 

[1gr8bldr]

The irony is that when Tertullian first used the word “trinity” in his earliest Catholic writings, this term was used in reference to Gnostic doctrine. Tertullian actually described this doctrine with the words “Valentinian trinity” (in Latin: trinitas Valentiniana [8]). Hence the first mention of the trinity in ecclesiastical literature actually refers to an idea that belonged to the Valentinian Gnostics. Here is an example from Tertullian’s Treatise on the Soul:
“[The heretics] deny that nature is susceptible to any change, in order that they may be able to establish their three-fold theory, or ‘trinity,’ (“trinitas”) in all its characteristics as to the several natures, because ‘a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor a corrupt tree, good fruit; and nobody gathers figs of thorns, nor grapes of brambles’.” (Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 21)
Tertullian’s description of the Gnostic “trinity” shows no connection with the three persons but instead refers to a doctrine of three natures. What Tertullian actually describes is a Gnostic doctrine which maintains that the universe is comprised of three fundamental substances or natures, which are identified as spirit, soul and matter (ibid., pg. 202; see below). Tertullian here accuses the Gnostics of teaching that the three natures are not subject to change, which he construes to mean that there is no hope for salvation, because the soul’s nature can’t change. Of course he has misstated the Valentinian doctrine; which maintains that the soul is in fact subject to change, i.e. redemption. It is the natures of spirit and matter which are not subject to change. Tertullian correctly reports this doctrine in his later treatise Against Valentinians, 25, where he admits that the soul (animal) “oscillates between the material and the spiritual, and is sure to fall at last on the side to which it has mainly gravitated.” (ibid., pg. 515f.) What Tertullian half-hazardly describes is the “trinity” which was the central tenet of ancient Gnostic tradition, and which provided the structure by which Gnostics defined their concepts of the universe, theology, christology and human nature (see below).
Whether or not the “orthodox” Trinity was actually inspired by the Gnostics we can never know for sure. But it is interesting to see the way that the word “trinity” crept into Tertullian’s writing. He first mentioned this word in reference to Gnostic doctrine and jargon (“trinitas”). But later Tertullian began using the word in reference to his own doctrine (Against Praxeas). And it is a fact that Tertullian was the first known Christian to begin articulating the concept of a “trinity” doctrine that “orthodox” Christians would recognize—as compared with the “trinity” of Valentinus.

Here is the link, and lots of other sources have the same https://ogdoas.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/on-the-gnostic-trinity/

 

[Madman]

The irony is that when Tertullian first used the word “trinity” in his earliest Catholic writings, this term was used in reference to Gnostic doctrine. Tertullian actually described this doctrine with the words “Valentinian trinity” (in Latin: trinitas Valentiniana [8]). Hence the first mention of the trinity in ecclesiastical literature actually refers to an idea that belonged to the Valentinian Gnostics. Here is an example from Tertullian’s Treatise on the Soul:
“[The heretics] deny that nature is susceptible to any change, in order that they may be able to establish their three-fold theory, or ‘trinity,’ (“trinitas”) in all its characteristics as to the several natures, because ‘a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor a corrupt tree, good fruit; and nobody gathers figs of thorns, nor grapes of brambles’.” (Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 21)
Tertullian’s description of the Gnostic “trinity” shows no connection with the three persons but instead refers to a doctrine of three natures. What Tertullian actually describes is a Gnostic doctrine which maintains that the universe is comprised of three fundamental substances or natures, which are identified as spirit, soul and matter (ibid., pg. 202; see below). Tertullian here accuses the Gnostics of teaching that the three natures are not subject to change, which he construes to mean that there is no hope for salvation, because the soul’s nature can’t change. Of course he has misstated the Valentinian doctrine; which maintains that the soul is in fact subject to change, i.e. redemption. It is the natures of spirit and matter which are not subject to change. Tertullian correctly reports this doctrine in his later treatise Against Valentinians, 25, where he admits that the soul (animal) “oscillates between the material and the spiritual, and is sure to fall at last on the side to which it has mainly gravitated.” (ibid., pg. 515f.) What Tertullian half-hazardly describes is the “trinity” which was the central tenet of ancient Gnostic tradition, and which provided the structure by which Gnostics defined their concepts of the universe, theology, christology and human nature (see below).
Whether or not the “orthodox” Trinity was actually inspired by the Gnostics we can never know for sure. But it is interesting to see the way that the word “trinity” crept into Tertullian’s writing. He first mentioned this word in reference to Gnostic doctrine and jargon (“trinitas”). But later Tertullian began using the word in reference to his own doctrine (Against Praxeas). And it is a fact that Tertullian was the first known Christian to begin articulating the concept of a “trinity” doctrine that “orthodox” Christians would recognize—as compared with the “trinity” of Valentinus.

Here is the link, and lots of other sources have the same https://ogdoas.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/on-the-gnostic-trinity/

And here-in lies the problem with "Google theology" or "google science" or google anything else. From your link above. See the underlined at the bottom.


I believe Marcellus is basically twisting the facts in order to smear the followers of Arius [2]. .......... The problem here is that Marcellus is stretching the truth when he states that Valentinus’s concept of “Three Natures” is connected with the notion of “three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son and holy spirit.” The fact is, no other historical witness makes this claim about Valentinus; and there is no evidence in any Gnostic text that shows a connection of this sort. Gnostic texts do contain infrequent and obscure references to the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” as I have shown above. But again there is no evidence either in Catholic or Gnostic sources that there was a prevailing theological system in Gnostic tradition that revolved around the phrase “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Much to the contrary, the historic evidence available shows that the “trinity” of Valentinus, and of the Gnostics, referred to something entirely different and unique.

My point? Marcellus was trying to discredit the followers of Arius by linking them to the gnostic Valentinus, but no such connection existed.

 

[1gr8bldr]

And here-in lies the problem with "Google theology" or "google science" or google anything else. From your link above. See the underlined at the bottom.


I believe Marcellus is basically twisting the facts in order to smear the followers of Arius [2]. .......... The problem here is that Marcellus is stretching the truth when he states that Valentinus’s concept of “Three Natures” is connected with the notion of “three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son and holy spirit.” The fact is, no other historical witness makes this claim about Valentinus; and there is no evidence in any Gnostic text that shows a connection of this sort. Gnostic texts do contain infrequent and obscure references to the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” as I have shown above. But again there is no evidence either in Catholic or Gnostic sources that there was a prevailing theological system in Gnostic tradition that revolved around the phrase “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Much to the contrary, the historic evidence available shows that the “trinity” of Valentinus, and of the Gnostics, referred to something entirely different and unique.

My point? Marcellus was trying to discredit the followers of Arius by linking them to the gnostic Valentinus, but no such connection existed.

Think this through....Was it by means of association or by means of belief that Marcellus hoped to smear the Arian belief???? It was by belief.... We know that the Arians were not considering the HS to be a third coequal person. So technically they were not linked. It had nothing to do with "Tri" but had everything to do with multiple natures. Whether 2, 3 or 4. Marcellus believed the Father and Son to be one. Arius believed the Father to be a different nature than the son. The word nature...invites debate in itself, so don't read to much into that. So, the difference in Marcellus and Arius was actually Jesus is God, one nature, or Jesus and the Father are one, but 2 natures. Arius used verses like "the Father is greater than I" to make his case. ... Back to the point..... Once this is realized, it becomes apparent that Marcellus would have no motivation to make up a tri nature theology of Valentinus because it did not even apply to Arius. It had only to do with "natures".

 

[1gr8bldr]

Think this through....Was it by means of association or by means of belief that Marcellus hoped to smear the Arian belief???? It was by belief.... We know that the Arians were not considering the HS to be a third coequal person. So technically they were not linked. It had nothing to do with "Tri" but had everything to do with multiple natures. Whether 2, 3 or 4. Marcellus believed the Father and Son to be one. Arius believed the Father to be a different nature than the son. The word nature...invites debate in itself, so don't read to much into that. So, the difference in Marcellus and Arius was actually Jesus is God, one nature, or Jesus and the Father are one, but 2 natures. Arius used verses like "the Father is greater than I" to make his case. ... Back to the point..... Once this is realized, it becomes apparent that Marcellus would have no motivation to make up a tri nature theology of Valentinus because it did not even apply to Arius. It had only to do with "natures".

I realize a debate exists over whether Valentinus actually had this doctrine. Did Marcellus misunderstand? Had beliefs blended together later to cause Marcellus to misunderstand. Possible. We will never know. Or, just as possible, that it did come from Valentinous and since he was labeled a knostic by the early church, trinitarians of today debate this, seeking to discredit this statement by Marcellous because they don't want a Knostic as the Father of their faith? I don't know. All I can do in this age is take it at face value. However, it would make an interesting study to go back through all the writings of that day, that remain... and look for evidence of either side. But that degree of study is behind me these days

 

[1gr8bldr]

Madman, I don't know your belief on this... Do you think the trinity came from Tertillian? Or later? I'm not sure where your coming from. ? You stated I need to do more research. As if some better evidence exists. I'll say that I stated "I don't know" [when this happened] because trinitarian wording was tossed around in the days of Tertillian, but was not debated at the nicene council, was highly debated in the early 400's and was put in the creeds hardly ever challenged again at 4?? , dang, I can't remember. Point is that it's all up for debate. So for me, it's not etched in stone. I don't know. Been about 10 years ago since I studied all this. I shoot from the hip rather than going back to documents that I no longer recall. My points I can usually google as a short cut to find what I am trying to recall.

 

[Madman]

I realize a debate exists over whether Valentinus actually had this doctrine. Did Marcellus misunderstand? Had beliefs blended together later to cause Marcellus to misunderstand. Possible. We will never know. Or, just as possible, that it did come from Valentinous and since he was labeled a knostic by the early church, trinitarians of today debate this, seeking to discredit this statement by Marcellous because they don't want a Knostic as the Father of their faith? I don't know. All I can do in this age is take it at face value. However, it would make an interesting study to go back through all the writings of that day, that remain... and look for evidence of either side. But that degree of study is behind me these days

You claimed Trinitarian doctrine originated with Valentinus, I claimed foul that no historical evidence exists to support your claim. You have still failed to support your claim.

Apparently the Trinitarian despute was settled early on and the "One in essence, three in persons" theology held.

 

[1gr8bldr]

Might want to do further research on that statement. It simply is not true.

I hope you can agree that it is a debatable statement. The "research" does support the debate. Your statement , "simply not true", unless your saying Tertillian was the first, would just be your opinion on which side of the debate you landed on. Funny how all this spurred from my statement about the "Roman Catholic church" in regards to the 7 hills. Might have been better if I had said the early church "at Rome". I make no distinction over the Catholic church from a baptist church or other. I lump everybody together whom are trinitarian. So I don't adhere to the Catholic church as satan as was mentioned here. Actually, this was the first time I ever heard of that.

 

[Madman]

Madman, I don't know your belief on this... Do you think the trinity came from Tertillian? Or later? I'm not sure where your coming from. ? You stated I need to do more research. As if some better evidence exists. I'll say that I stated "I don't know" [when this happened] because trinitarian wording was tossed around in the days of Tertillian, but was not debated at the nicene council, was highly debated in the early 400's and was put in the creeds hardly ever challenged again at 4?? , dang, I can't remember. Point is that it's all up for debate. So for me, it's not etched in stone. I don't know. Been about 10 years ago since I studied all this. I shoot from the hip rather than going back to documents that I no longer recall. My points I can usually google as a short cut to find what I am trying to recall.

I don't follow any single person, I believe that the church opperates best as a body lead by the Holy Spirit. The last time this happened was with the 7th ecumenical council, everything else is just a Hodge podge of individual ideas.
I believe there is evidence of early church teaching that needed no definition until centuries later, especially once heresies started anew. An example of this is infant baptism. There was not much discussion until some time in the 4th century when Tertullian claims infants should not be baptised. From that we know that infants were being baptised and Tertullian did not like it. The church continued to baptize infants.

Language had to be developed to describe beliefs and teachings.
Hypostais vs. ousia for example.

In short, I yield to the decisions of the 7 ecuminical council's.

How about you? Where do you stand?