Anti- Catholicism

[Spammer]

The eastern liturgy was vastly different from the Roman. Perhaps you are confusing the Eastern Orthodox with the Church of the East. The Nestorian churches were not the same in theology at all, which is why they were declared heretical. Yes, they did adopt the Nicene Creed, but the theology was vastly different from modern Catholicism - no veneration of Mary, no transubstantiation, no indulgences, etc, etc. I am not alleging they preserved all the truth, but my point was and still is that Christianity would have been just fine without Roman Catholicism.

 

You're right when you say that Nestorianism is not Roman Catholicism and its theology differs.  What I said is that both churches belong to the Catholic tradition, they come from the same Nicene root.  The same goes for the Orthodox and the Copts.  Only Roman Catholicism believes in transubstantiation and indulgences; Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and the Copts all venerate Mary as the Mother of God; the Nestorians do not venerate Mary as the Mother of God (Theotokos).  Only the Roman Catholics and the Eastern churches still in communion with Rome are Roman Catholic, but the Nestorian, Orthodox, and Coptic churches are all Nicene Creedal, all are liturgical, and all believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ at the Liturgy (the Romans take it a step further and teach transubstantiation).   All of these churches come from the same, Nicene root and belong to the Catholic tradition.  That's all I was trying to say.

 

So....if Christianity would have been just fine without Roman Catholicism, I'd like to invite you to attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.  

[Spammer]

In this discussion, please don't forget that there are many Eastern Churches who have recognized Rome's primacy, and still continue to do so to this day.  And, in accordance with tradition, they have their own canonical laws and their own traditional liturgies.  To be "Catholic" does not mean you have to have the rites and canonical rules of the Roman Church.

 

Yes, exactly right on both points.  Thanks for pointing that out.  There are many other Catholic traditions than Roman Catholicism.  

[thesometimesaint]

To be fair this LDS believes that Priesthood authority was lost while Jerusalem was the headquarters of the Church. We don't believe in a first among equals.

[RevTestament]

Jude 1:14-15 is a quotation of Enoch 1:9.   The sole translation of the Greek OT for those who spoke and wrote Greek during the period the NT was written was the Septuagint.  Jesus' recorded Isaiah quotes in the oldest surviving Gospel manuscripts are quotations of the Isaiah verses as they're found in the Septuagint and in the Qumran scrolls.   These are facts.  

 

"I believe later compilers conformed the Greek NT manuscripts to the LXX."  What evidence is there to substantiate this claim? 

We don't really know where Jude got that from. It could have been the same source as those who wrote Enoch, like a surviving fragment of the Book of Jasher. But again, throwing in a surviving source, and then adding a bunch of stuff and calling your book Enoch, in no way makes the whole book valid. I do not believe the "Book of Enoch" is anymore inspired that the Maccabees, which I don't believe was spoken by YHWH.

- I don't accept the Book of Enoch we have as being valid - but of course you are free to do so.

What evidence do you have to support your allegation that the NT writers used the Septuagint? i showed the Peshitta which was translated at about the same time or possibly earlier, also quotes the Syriac version of its OT which usually does not follow the Septuagint. Why is your claim that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint or that the original authors of the NT books used the LXX more valid? There really is no more "evidence" for that claim than mine that later NT compilers used the Septuagint in translating NT books such as Matthew into Greek. If you want to get into that discussion, I will attempt to show how Matthew was first written in an Aramaic form, which was later translated into the Greek and the Syriac. Thus, we no longer seem to have the original source document for Matthew. There is actually substantial patristic evidence  for this - much more so than your apparent claim that the NT was originally written using the Septuagint, which appears to be based on merely circumstantial evidence, and later guesswork of scholars.

 

 

Do you know of an even older surviving manuscript that quotes the Isaiah verses as they're found in the MSS?

Just the Qumran Isaiah Scroll - which you have not shown to be inconsistent with the MT. Do you allege the LXX is accurate over the Qumran scroll as well?

[Spammer]

I don't agree with you here either. In the council of Nicea, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and I believe Alexandria were all listed as equal in deference and authority. with Rome. Any idea of "first among equals" came later. Nor do I agree that Rome only began to assert itself after the fall of the western Roman emperors. It began to do so in the 5th century as attested to the famous bishop of Carthage specifically calling a council to address the issue. Nor do I agree with you that that the barbarian hordes were pagan. Most were Arian Christian and did not rule with particular oppressiveness. The Catholics painted them as the cause of the dark ages, but that was really due to the fact that the Arians were eventually converted to Catholicism, and the rise of the papacy meant it was always pitting one country against another.

Regarding the two tribes who swept in and sacked Rome in the 5th Century, it's debatable whether the Goths were fully Arianized. Yes, Ulfilas preached among them and converted many, but Alaric was a practicing pagan when he took Rome. The Vandals were Arian, so thanks for sending me digging so I could correct my understanding. I didn't know how Arian they were at that time. Finally, none of the other tribes outside the borders and all were pagan ( Frank, Alemanni, Saxon) until their conversion to the Roman church after the Fall of Rome. The Saxons were those forcibly converted by Charlemagne on the Continent and who conquered England and were converted peacefully by the preaching of Augustine's monastic missionaries in the early 7th Century.

It's complex, fascinating history.

[RevTestament]

You're right when you say that Nestorianism is not Roman Catholicism and its theology differs.  What I said is that both churches belong to the Catholic tradition, they come from the same Nicene root.  The same goes for the Orthodox and the Copts.  Only Roman Catholicism believes in transubstantiation and indulgences; Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and the Copts all venerate Mary as the Mother of God; the Nestorians do not venerate Mary as the Mother of God (Theotokos).  Only the Roman Catholics and the Eastern churches still in communion with Rome are Roman Catholic, but the Nestorian, Orthodox, and Coptic churches are all Nicene Creedal, all are liturgical, and all believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ at the Liturgy (the Romans take it a step further and teach transubstantiation).   All of these churches come from the same, Nicene root and belong to the Catholic tradition.  That's all I was trying to say.

 

So....if Christianity would have been just fine without Roman Catholicism, I'd like to invite you to attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.  

And all I am saying is that Roman Catholicism did nothing special to help Christianity "survive." It would have without Roman Catholicism as is attested to by the existence of all these other churches some of whom had their own scripture translations. But, yes, I do agree that they are from the Nicene root. And although you haven't said so, I believe that makes them corrupted before God. God never told us that Jesus was "begotten before all ages or worlds." I believe to the contrary - that is that the Nicene Creed itself is corrupt. I don't believe it was ever valid. It wasn't even promulgated or sustained by a majority of the bishops - maybe a quarter of them. Where do the scriptures say bishops(who were judges) could promulgate new scripture or that less than a majority could accept new scripture for the rest of the church? But I digress. A form of Christianity existed at the time - even if it became more corrupted under Roman Catholicism. It was the Roman state church which was responsible for the Nicene Creed, and it was the threats of anathema from this church which was responsible for acceptance of the creed throughout the churches of the empire. That really had nothing to do with "Roman Catholicism" which simply took the ball from the emperors and ran with it when they fell - note that they accepted the office of the pontifex maximus which had been bestowed upon the emperors. The Nestorian churches should have put their foot down earlier.

[RevTestament]

Regarding the two tribes who swept in and sacked Rome in the 5th Century, it's debatable whether the Goths were fully Arianized. Yes, Ulfilas preached among them and converted many, but Alaric was a practicing pagan when he took Rome. The Vandals were Arian, so thanks for sending me digging so I could correct my understanding. I didn't know how Arian they were at that time. Finally, none of the other tribes outside the borders and all were pagan ( Frank, Alemanni, Saxon) until their conversion to the Roman church after the Fall of Rome. The Saxons were those forcibly converted by Charlemagne on the Continent and who conquered England and were converted peacefully by the preaching of Augustine's monastic missionaries in the early 7th Century.

It's complex, fascinating history.

Yes, it is complex. There were actually 10 of the tribes who each took some of the land of the Roman Empire. Of these, the ones from the East were mostly Arian which included the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Gepidae, Bergundians, Heruli, Vandals, and the Lombards. The Franks and the Saxons invaded from the west and as such were never Arian.  The Alemanni were Suevi. The Suevi took the area of Portugal. These 10 tribes became the horns of the beast of Revelation who gave their power to the beast when at first they fought for Rome, and then later converted to Catholicism.

[Spammer]

We don't really know where Jude got that from. It could have been the same source as those who wrote Enoch, like a surviving fragment of the Book of Jasher. But again, throwing in a surviving source, and then adding a bunch of stuff and calling your book Enoch, in no way makes the whole book valid. I do not believe the "Book of Enoch" is anymore inspired that the Maccabees, which I don't believe was spoken by YHWH.

- I don't accept the Book of Enoch we have as being valid - but of course you are free to do so.

What evidence do you have to support your allegation that the NT writers used the Septuagint? i showed the Peshitta which was translated at about the same time or possibly earlier, also quotes the Syriac version of its OT which usually does not follow the Septuagint. Why is your claim that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint or that the original authors of the NT books used the LXX more valid? There really is no more "evidence" for that claim than mine that later NT compilers used the Septuagint in translating NT books such as Matthew into Greek. If you want to get into that discussion, I will attempt to show how Matthew was first written in an Aramaic form, which was later translated into the Greek and the Syriac. Thus, we no longer seem to have the original source document for Matthew. There is actually substantial patristic evidence  for this - much more so than your apparent claim that the NT was originally written using the Septuagint, which appears to be based on merely circumstantial evidence, and later guesswork of scholars.

 

Just the Qumran Isaiah Scroll - which you have not shown to be inconsistent with the MT. Do you allege the LXX is accurate over the Qumran scroll as well?

 

If we don't have an ancient manuscript in hand on which to base our claims, it's just speculation.  It's obvious that Jude quotes Enoch 1:9.  He had access to at least that passage from Enoch.  It's reasonable to conclude that he had a copy of the Book of Enoch.  It's also reasonable he was referencing a source that quoted that passage in Enoch.  There's no way to tell.  Any conclusion about possible manuscript sources for Jude's quotation is speculative. 

 

Regarding the Septuagint, all I'm affirming is that the surviving Greek manuscripts we have in hand use the Septuagint reading for Jesus' Isaiah quotes, and that these readings are similar to passages in the Qumran scrolls.  Same as with Enoch in Jude, that can be interpreted either as the original authors wrote in Greek quoted the Septuagint or later translators and copyists used the Septuagint to create the Greek copies we actually have.  There's isn't a surviving ancient Aramaic manuscript or an older, surviving Greek manuscript that follows readings different from the LXX, so there's no way to tell which interpretation is correct.  Any assertion to the contrary is speculative.

 

Finally, I'm not saying anything against the MSS.  I'm only pointing out that the Isaiah quotes in the surviving Greek gospel manuscripts follow the LXX reading.  

 

A digression - if you're interested in exploring possible linkages between the ancient Hebrew religion, the Book of Enoch, and earliest Christianity see Margaret Barker.  

Edited October 23, 2015 by Spammer

[RevTestament]

All equal in authority, but Rome was always acknowledged as first among equals. When the Eastern bishops meeting in council could not agree over a point of doctrine, the pope was always referred to as the final word. However, the Eastern bishops never accepted papal claims to administrative supremacy. Assertion of that authority and actually acquiring it are two different things and Rome didn't actually acquire such primacy in Europe until after Arianism was defeated through the gradual conversion of the Germanic kings. That process took many centuries and wasn't complete until over three centuries after the Fall of Rome. Not until then could the popes reasonably be considered as 'supreme' on the Continent.

You have bought into the western or Roman version of things. Rome was not always "acknowledged as first among equals." The Roman government acknowledged basically the 5 biggest bishoprics as having a degree of authority over their respective areas as the Council of Nicea demonstrated.

"When the Eastern bishops meeting in council could not agree over a point of doctrine, the pope was always referred to as the final word." Ahem. Hogwash. There was no "pope" at the time of the first councils. In the fourth century there were a number of highly attended councils which disagreed with the Nicene Creed and tried to change it. They just don't get mentioned as an "ecumenical council" because the Roman Church later made that distinction and tried to erase them from history. One even excommunicated Athanasius. Arius was reinstated, and even recognized by Constantine.

 

 

 

The point is that the common claim among some Mormons and Protestants that the Roman popes forcibly converted and wiped out other Christianities in Europe is simply untrue. Arianism was defeated through preaching. Until Charlemagne, conversion to Roman Catholicism was solely the work of missionaries and monasteries, who understandably targeted the kings and nobles (as the king goes, so goes his subjects). The first of the kings to convert to the Roman Catholic faith was Clovis, baptized in 496. Forcible conversion to the Roman Catholic faith through force of arms didn't occur until Charlemagne's accession to power and his mid-8th Century war against the pagan Saxons. The popes weren't supreme in the West until after these events. They were never supreme in the East. The suppression of the Nestorian churches of the East was an action of the Byzantine Emperors, not the popes of Rome. (your original point that I sought to address)

Catholicism as the cause of the so-called "Dark Ages" is a Protestant myth that has been debunked through scholarship. The violence of the barbarian wars that ruined the Western Roman Empire and its urban centers is the cause of the the period referred to as "Dark". The ruination of the old way of life was the result of violence, not the rise of Roman Catholicism. The priests, monks, and bishops, were literate. Most of the Germanic settlers and their descendants were illiterate. The preservation of literacy was an action of the monasteries. Thank God for the Roman Catholic monks. Whatever light from classical civilization that remained in the West was preserved by the Church in its monasteries, whose monks salvaged ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts (including biblical manuscripts), stored them, copied and disseminated them. Monks established the first monastic schools after the Empire's fall. They created the first hospitals and were the seedbed for the first cathedral schools, which became the first universities. Roman Catholicism, the same faith as that of the Byzantine Empire until the two went their separate ways in the 11th Century, is older than the Fall of Rome and that faith saved the remnants of classical civilization in the West (the same civilization that continued to exist in the East until Islam conquered the Byzantines and took Constantinople in 1453). To blame the so-called "Dark Ages" on Roman Catholicism is sign of historical misunderstanding and ingratitude.

 

I never said the Arians were forcibly converted. That would be untrue. They were the victors in battle. The bishop of Rome appealed to the Eastern Emperor for help. I don't thank the Roman Catholic monks at all. There was always the eastern churches to preserve the Greek manuscripts and the Syrian manuscripts of the scriptures. You continue to buy into the Roman Catholic line that they were responsible for the survival of scripture which really is nonsense. We have Jerome to thank for corrupting the scriptures rather than preserving them. He was responsible for things like changing the ships of Chittim to the ships of Italy. If it hadn't been for the Masoretes, and Eastern monks and scribes, perhaps the true scriptures would have been totally lost BECAUSE of the Roman Catholic church. We don't need any of the Latin manuscripts to have valid scripture, and I contend these manuscripts contain the very corruptions which the Book of Mormon talks about being foisted on the church before they were "disseminated."

 

As for the "Dark ages" again you have bought into the Catholic version of history preserved in the West. Rome really fell because the Roman government had become quite corrupt, and each emperor only lasted a few years before he was murdered by another. So in a way the Teutons really made no "great victory" in taking Rome. Rome was collapsing under her own weight, so the Teutons moved in. The Catholics make it sound like they destroyed everything, but they did not. They did plunder Rome and other cities - that is not the end of life. It is not like complete anarchy and chaos entered in. But those who tried to take Rome were "plucked up by the roots" as scripture says, as the bishop of Rome used his connections with Constantinople to get rid of them - so we see by themselves these tribes were not overwhelmingly powerful. Indeed one could equally allege that it was his machinations to overthrow the new rulers which caused the anarchy to which you allege. I would say that the fall of the eastern churches to Islam was much more "dark" than that experienced under the Arian Teutons, but somehow our history never tells us about that. Again, I believe western Christianity would have been just fine under the Arians if even much more humane. At least the Arians didn't murder each other every other year. To each their own I guess.

Edited October 23, 2015 by RevTestament

[Spammer]

Yes, it is complex. There were actually 10 of the tribes who each took some of the land of the Roman Empire. Of these, the ones from the East were mostly Arian which included the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Gepidae, Bergundians, Heruli, Vandals, and the Lombards. The Franks and the Saxons invaded from the west and as such were never Arian.  The Alemanni were Suevi. The Suevi took the area of Portugal. These 10 tribes became the horns of the beast of Revelation who gave their power to the beast when at first they fought for Rome, and then later converted to Catholicism.

 

Lol, ok.  I'm down with the complex history, but not Protestant speculative interpretations of the Book of Revelation as a reliable predictor of future historical events.

[Spammer]

And all I am saying is that Roman Catholicism did nothing special to help Christianity "survive." It would have without Roman Catholicism as is attested to by the existence of all these other churches some of whom had their own scripture translations. But, yes, I do agree that they are from the Nicene root. And although you haven't said so, I believe that makes them corrupted before God. God never told us that Jesus was "begotten before all ages or worlds." I believe to the contrary - that is that the Nicene Creed itself is corrupt. I don't believe it was ever valid. It wasn't even promulgated or sustained by a majority of the bishops - maybe a quarter of them. Where do the scriptures say bishops(who were judges) could promulgate new scripture or that less than a majority could accept new scripture for the rest of the church? But I digress. A form of Christianity existed at the time - even if it became more corrupted under Roman Catholicism. It was the Roman state church which was responsible for the Nicene Creed, and it was the threats of anathema from this church which was responsible for acceptance of the creed throughout the churches of the empire. That really had nothing to do with "Roman Catholicism" which simply took the ball from the emperors and ran with it when they fell - note that they accepted the office of the pontifex maximus which had been bestowed upon the emperors. The Nestorian churches should have put their foot down earlier.

 

Whether Nicene Christianity makes them corrupted before God is speculative and an article of faith.  I say that because I'm a Nicene Christian.  Of course, I'm going to say that, just as you'll disagree.  Your not a Nicene Christian. We interpret the exact same verses of scripture differently.  I'm interested in debating neither speculative history nor whether Nicene Christianity is corrupted.  I'm only pointing out certain historical facts as I see them.

 

About the Council of Nicea, if you read the surviving first-hand accounts you'll find that the orthodox position was the majority position - and the pope didn't even attend the meetings.  He sent a legate to Nicea, instead.

 

"It was the Roman state church which was responsible for the Nicene Creed, and it was the threats of anathema from this church which was responsible for acceptance of the creed throughout the churches of the empire."   You don't seem to be aware that 1) the first proclamation by an emperor making Nicene Christianity the official state church was the edict of Theodosius I in 381; 2) Constantine indeed issued an edict anathemetizing the Arian bishops, but he later changed his mind, brought the Arian exiles back, and issued an edict against and exiled the Nicene faction.  The supremacy of the Nicene or Arian faction alternated along with imperial preferences among Constantine and his successors between 325 and 381.  Even after 381 and the final defeat of Arianism, just as during the period between 325 and 381, various theological controversies in the Empire were reflected in shifting preferences among the emperors in favor of Nicene Orthodoxy, Nestorianism, back to paganism (Julian the Apostate), back to Orthodoxy, and so forth.  The notion of a monolithic Roman state church enforcing Nicene Orthodoxy ever since 325 is a fabrication.  

[Spammer]

You have bought into the western or Roman version of things. Rome was not always "acknowledged as first among equals." The Roman government acknowledged basically the 5 biggest bishoprics as having a degree of authority over their respective areas as the Council of Nicea demonstrated.

"When the Eastern bishops meeting in council could not agree over a point of doctrine, the pope was always referred to as the final word." Ahem. Hogwash. There was no "pope" at the time of the first councils. In the fourth century there were a number of highly attended councils which disagreed with the Nicene Creed and tried to change it. They just don't get mentioned as an "ecumenical council" because the Roman Church later made that distinction and tried to erase them from history. One even excommunicated Athanasius. Arius was reinstated, and even recognized by Constantine.

 

I'm not discussing what the Roman government recognizes.  The honorific 'first among equals' is granted by the bishops and the Eastern bishops considered him or his representative as such at the seven ecumenical councils.    

 

The pope is the Bishop of Rome.  The pope did not attend the Council of Nicea.  His representative did.  The Eastern bishops often did consult Rome when a disagreement became intractable.  This is historical fact.  They didn't always so consult.  The point is that when a tie-breaker was needed for a squabble among the Greek bishops, it was typically the Bishop of Rome who was consulted.  That's my sole point.  

 

Again, the Roman Catholic church never had power over the Eastern churches.  Your claim that the popes are the ones who determine whether a council was 'ecumenical' is false.  It was all of the churches, Latin and Greek together, who make them ecumenical.  The first seven are called ecumenical, and the others held between 325 and 787 are called non-ecumenical, precisely because the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches together consider them to be so - not because the pope said so. Your claim would only be correct if there were any councils before 787 (the year of the Seventh Ecumenical Council) that the Eastern Orthodox consider to be ecumenical, but which Rome supposedly 'erased from history'.  Guess what?  There are none.  Rome and the Orthodox are in complete agreement about which of the various councils between 325 and 787 are to be called 'Ecumenical'.  

 

Yes, I'm presenting a somewhat different view of history than yours.  I think mine is grounded in historical fact.  Just so you know, when you say that I've bought into the Western or Roman version of things, that's an ironic statement given that I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian.  

Edited October 23, 2015 by Spammer

[RevTestament]

 There's isn't a surviving ancient Aramaic manuscript or an older, surviving Greek manuscript that follows readings different from the LXX, so there's no way to tell which interpretation is correct.  Any assertion to the contrary is speculative.

Not to quibble, but the oldest Old Syriac Gospels and the oldest Peshitta manuscripts are believed to be about as old as the oldest surviving Greek manuscripts - being Syriac they really are basically Aramaic, but are just written in the newer Estrangelo alphabet. So in this sense there are surviving Aramaic manuscripts which differ from the LXX - significantly.

 

 

 

Finally, I'm not saying anything against the MSS.  I'm only pointing out that the Isaiah quotes in the surviving Greek gospel manuscripts follow the LXX reading.  

 

I 'heard' you saying that the LXX is somehow basically more Christian and more accurate, so I apologize if you didn't mean that.

I still haven't seen you show how it is more accurate than the Masoretic Text or Great Isaiah Scroll of Qumran.

The reader should be careful not to buy into solely the westernized version of history as alleging how all the NT was written in Greek, and Jesus spoke in Greek using the Septuagint. This is hogwash. He would have used the law as known in the Temple Scrolls, and as translated into the Gallilaean Aramaic - a language much more known among the common people and consistent with the Hebrew as opposed to the Greek. I am not alleging that Jesus did not know the Greek - after all he did spend his earliest childhood in Greek Egypt, but there is nothing that really supports such a notion other than quotations of the Septuagint which appear in the later Greek manuscripts. However, the same manusripts clearly show some specific Aramaic words which were preserved by transliterating them into the Greek, and as I have pointed out the Syriac manuscripts follow the Syriac translation of the OT rather than the Septuagint, which argues against a Greek "primacy." Luke and the Acts were probably written in Greek, but beyond that, i believe the scriptures were translated in an irregular and unknown fashion.

Well, gotta go.

Cheers

[Spammer]

 

Not to quibble, but the oldest Old Syriac Gospels and the oldest Peshitta manuscripts are believed to be about as old as the oldest surviving Greek manuscripts - being Syriac they really are basically Aramaic, but are just written in the newer Estrangelo alphabet. So in this sense there are surviving Aramaic manuscripts which differ from the LXX - significantly.

 

I 'heard' you saying that the LXX is somehow basically more Christian and more accurate, so I apologize if you didn't mean that.

I still haven't seen you show how it is more accurate than the Masoretic Text or Great Isaiah Scroll of Qumran.

The reader should be careful not to buy into solely the westernized version of history as alleging how all the NT was written in Greek, and Jesus spoke in Greek using the Septuagint. This is hogwash. He would have used the law as known in the Temple Scrolls, and as translated into the Gallilaean Aramaic - a language much more known among the common people and consistent with the Hebrew as opposed to the Greek. I am not alleging that Jesus did not know the Greek - after all he did spend his earliest childhood in Greek Egypt, but there is nothing that really supports such a notion other than quotations of the Septuagint which appear in the later Greek manuscripts. However, the same manusripts clearly show some specific Aramaic words which were preserved by transliterating them into the Greek, and as I have pointed out the Syriac manuscripts follow the Syriac translation of the OT rather than the Septuagint, which argues against a Greek "primacy." Luke and the Acts were probably written in Greek, but beyond that, i believe the scriptures were translated in an irregular and unknown fashion.

Well, gotta go.

Cheers

 

 

I don't disagree with any of this.  Hopefully we got any confusions in our meanings cleared up.  Interestingly, my current Orthodox priest used to be a priest in the Syrian Church.  I'll have to ask him his views on things.  He was raised Roman Catholic.  Interesting, no?  it's a big Nicene family!

 

Have a good one.

[RevTestament]

Whether Nicene Christianity makes them corrupted before God is speculative and an article of faith.  I say that because I'm a Nicene Christian.  Of course, I'm going to say that, just as you'll disagree.  Your not a Nicene Christian. We interpret the exact same verses of scripture differently.  I'm interested in debating neither speculative history nor whether Nicene Christianity is corrupted.  I'm only pointing out certain historical facts as I see them.

Fair enough.

 

 

 

About the Council of Nicea, if you read the surviving first-hand accounts you'll find that the orthodox position was the majority position - and the pope didn't even attend the meetings.  He sent a legate to Nicea, instead.

Again, that is according to the official state history. What I am pointing out is that unofficially, there were probably more bishops against the creed for various reasons than for it, which was demonstrated by the calling of a subsequent council with more bishops than that of the Nicene, which your church and the Catholic church conveniently do not recognize as "ecumenical" because it was not sponsored by the Roman bishop nor the bishop of Constantinople. But, if one wants to talk about "majority" your "facts" don't seem to hold up. I believe basically, the eastern bishops were a little scared of the emperor, as his opponents had a way of turning up dead, so they tried to stay below the radar until they could determine his "true colors," but after seeing the damage done, they decided to meet on their own. So they weren't recognized by the official state church arising in Rome and Constantinople. This is the history which gets swept under the rug by simply ignoring these dissenting bishops as "non-ecumenical."

The "Doctrine of the Trinity" simply was not the "majority position" of the early church. There were a number of theories about the Godhead propounded in the first three centuries. A council of Ephesus had even declared the use of the "homoousious" doctrine used by the Nicene Creed as blasphemous about 50 years before, and excommunicated a bishop for using it. Strange how history always ignores  facts which disagree with the later writers of it.

 

 

"It was the Roman state church which was responsible for the Nicene Creed, and it was the threats of anathema from this church which was responsible for acceptance of the creed throughout the churches of the empire."   You don't seem to be aware that 1) the first proclamation by an emperor making Nicene Christianity the official state church was the edict of Theodosius I in 381; 2) Constantine indeed issued an edict anathemetizing the Arian bishops, but he later changed his mind, brought the Arian exiles back, and issued an edict against and exiled the Nicene faction.  The supremacy of the Nicene or Arian faction alternated along with imperial preferences among Constantine and his successors between 325 and 381.  Even after 381 and the final defeat of Arianism, just as during the period between 325 and 381, various theological controversies in the Empire were reflected in shifting preferences among the emperors in favor of Nicene Orthodoxy, Nestorianism, back to paganism (Julian the Apostate), back to Orthodoxy, and so forth.  The notion of a monolithic Roman state church enforcing Nicene Orthodoxy ever since 325 is a fabrication.  

Yes, I am aware that Constantine didn't pass the law requiring the creed to be read in the churches, and of the controversy between the Arian and Athanasian camps after the creed. Indeed, that is what I am pointing out as mitigating against your perceived "facts" and "majority position."

However, I am not rallying for the Arian Christians. However, I do believe they were not a threat to Christianity - maybe a threat to "orthodoxy" as it came to be called for the Nicean officially recognized state church. They were at least against adopting nonscriptural statements as creeds for the church. There is not a particular "article of Faith" about that, but YHWH did tell Joseph Smith that the creeds were an abomination to Him.

[Buckeye]

Sorry to stir the pot, but this actually pretty timely ... and on topic:  http://www.tubechop.com/watch/7051576

[RevTestament]

I'm not discussing what the Roman government recognizes.  The honorific 'first among equals' is granted by the bishops and the Eastern bishops considered him or his representative as such at the seven ecumenical councils.   

My guess is when you say "eastern" bishops you mean the bishops in the Grecian province of the Empire. At this point the other eastern bishops were kicked out of the church. ie after 431 AD. The Church of the East actually grew into a bigger church than the Eastern Orthodox with millions of members in present day Iraq and Iran in what was the Parthian Empire (where the wise men came from). This was the land of the "lost" 10 tribes who apparently readily converted. Unfortunately, Islam came along, and eventually they all left, died or were forcibly converted by Timurlane.

 

 

The pope is the Bishop of Rome.  The pope did not attend the Council of Nicea.  His representative did.  The Eastern bishops often did consult Rome when a disagreement became intractable.  This is historical fact.  They didn't always so consult.  The point is that when a tie-breaker was needed for a squabble among the Greek bishops, it was typically the Bishop of Rome who was consulted.  That's my sole point.  

The Bishop of Rome was not "the Pope" until later, but yes you are correct he did not attend the Nicene council. Perhaps he too was a little wary of Constantine.

Again when you say the "Eastern bishops" my guess is you mean the bishops under Constantinople. I believe at the time the bishops in favor of the state church did try to present a united front, and yes, they did consult.

 

 

Again, the Roman Catholic church never had power over the Eastern churches.  Your claim that the popes are the ones who determine whether a council was 'ecumenical' is false.  It was all of the churches, Latin and Greek together, who make them ecumenical.  The first seven are called ecumenical, and the others held between 325 and 787 are called non-ecumenical, precisely because the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches together consider them to be so - not because the pope said so. Your claim would only be correct if there were any councils before 787 (the year of the Seventh Ecumenical Council) that the Eastern Orthodox consider to be ecumenical, but which Rome supposedly 'erased from history'.  Guess what?  There are none.  Rome and the Orthodox are in complete agreement about which of the various councils between 325 and 787 are to be called 'Ecumenical'.  

 

Yes, I'm presenting a somewhat different view of history than yours.

I believe the term "ecumenical" arose after all the bishops of Syria and further East were kicked out. You can correct me if I'm wrong. But yes, probably at first the "state church" decided what was "ecumenical." It wasn't until approx 530 AD that the bishop of Rome began to make his break from your church which became a clean break with the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims centuries later.

 

 

 I think mine is grounded in historical fact.  Just so you know, when you say that I've bought into the Western or Roman version of things, that's an ironic statement given that I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

Pleased to make your acquaintance. I am by no means inferring that you are ignorant. I have a great deal of respect for the more peaceful Eastern Orthodox Church, however, it still was a product of the western or Roman state church, and as you note, most became "orthodox" after Nicea. I am just presenting more facts about the Arian-type bishops of the west as well as many other eastern bishops which were excommunicated so tend to get left out of "the Eastern church" even though they were your brethren in the gospel, and indeed many were probably converted because they were familiar with the principles of the gospel from their own history as Hebrews.

Well, again, I gotta go. Perhaps we can discuss these things more later.

[Spammer]

Fair enough.

 

Again, that is according to the official state history. What I am pointing out is that unofficially, there were probably more bishops against the creed for various reasons than for it, which was demonstrated by the calling of a subsequent council with more bishops than that of the Nicene, which your church and the Catholic church conveniently do not recognize as "ecumenical" because it was not sponsored by the Roman bishop nor the bishop of Constantinople. But, if one wants to talk about "majority" your "facts" don't seem to hold up. I believe basically, the eastern bishops were a little scared of the emperor, as his opponents had a way of turning up dead, so they tried to stay below the radar until they could determine his "true colors," but after seeing the damage done, they decided to meet on their own. So they weren't recognized by the official state church arising in Rome and Constantinople. This is the history which gets swept under the rug by simply ignoring these dissenting bishops as "non-ecumenical."

The "Doctrine of the Trinity" simply was not the "majority position" of the early church. There were a number of theories about the Godhead propounded in the first three centuries. A council of Ephesus had even declared the use of the "homoousious" doctrine used by the Nicene Creed as blasphemous about 50 years before, and excommunicated a bishop for using it. Strange how history always ignores  facts which disagree with the later writers of it.

Yes, I am aware that Constantine didn't pass the law requiring the creed to be read in the churches, and of the controversy between the Arian and Athanasian camps after the creed. Indeed, that is what I am pointing out as mitigating against your perceived "facts" and "majority position."

However, I am not rallying for the Arian Christians. However, I do believe they were not a threat to Christianity - maybe a threat to "orthodoxy" as it came to be called for the Nicean officially recognized state church. They were at least against adopting nonscriptural statements as creeds for the church. There is not a particular "article of Faith" about that, but YHWH did tell Joseph Smith that the creeds were an abomination to Him.

 

Ok, I understand that's the standard non-Catholic interpretation of events, but much of it is speculative.

 

"there were probably more bishops against the creed"

 

"I believe basically, the eastern bishops were a little scared of the emperor"

 

The orthodox accounts of the council are the only ones we have.  They record a majority of bishops voting in favor of the Creed. That's something grounded on something written by an actual ancient witness.  

 

Asserting that some of those bishops might have been scared is speculative.  There's no ancient witness that attests to the alleged fact.  Maybe some were, maybe none were.  Who knows?  We'll never know.  It's speculation either way.  Should someone assert that perhaps such a witness once existed, that's also speculative: there's no ancient witness to support that claim.  

 

It's my view that some of the bishops might have been scared of Constantine, but as the ancient witnesses attest, others wore the scars of their persecution at the hand of imperial authorities, having been tortured and mutilated during the final persecution before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313.  These formerly persecuted Christians weren't scared of Diocletian and were not among the lapsi, so it is unlikely they would have been scared of Constantine.  The ancient witness doesn't say anything one way or another about who was scared and how many, so all of this is speculative.  As I said, the only grounded, indisputable historical fact is that the majority of bishops voted for the Creed.

 

The facts are rather sparse and there are various interpretations.  None of the interpretations can be proved.  The interpretations rest on other grounds and none of those grounds can be proved.  I'm Orthodox because I've evaluated the evidence and am satisfied that claims for the existence of an ancient LDS church are ungrounded.  A big factor me is that key NT proof texts are ambiguous (including for baptism for the dead) and there isn't any evidence of unique LDS teachings being discussed or presented in the writings of any church father of the apostolic era (pre-Nicene, post-NT).  Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, the Didache, Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian,  Clement of Alexandria, Origen, all of them, clearly belong to the Catholic tradition.  It can't be proved that there wasn't an Apostasy in Rome, but if it happened, it must have been completed before Clement (90ad approx).  

 

So, that's the basis for my interpretations.  Mormons don't have an ancient witness of similar provenance with the church fathers named above, but they do have their testimonies and the witness of Joseph Smith.  That's fine.  All any of us can do is our best with what we have available.  I suppose if I'd ever had a powerful spiritual experience as a Mormon things might have been different, but I didn't and they weren't.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Spammer

[RevTestament]

It's my view that some of the bishops might have been scared of Constantine, but as the ancient witnesses attest, others wore the scars of their persecution at the hand of imperial authorities, having been tortured and mutilated during the final persecution before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313.  These formerly persecuted Christians weren't scared of Diocletian and were not among the lapsi, so it is unlikely they would have been scared of Constantine.  The ancient witness doesn't say anything one way or another about who was scared and how many, so all of this is speculative.  As I said, the only grounded, indisputable historical fact is that the majority of bishops voted for the Creed.

Well, I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe it is fairly widely accepted that there were more than 1200 bishops in the Empire at the time of Constantine, and that does not even count those bishops in the Parthian Empire. How many voted for the creed? History seems to show no more than 325. I can't understand how that gets represented as a "majority" by orthodoxy. Perhaps that is the Orthodox way? It was a majority of those who attended the council, but by no means a majority of the bishops in the church. That is why I speculate as to why the others did not show up. But Constantine did dispose of his rival, Licinius, after at first promising him clemency so some may have feared that his overtures to the church were a similar smoke screen for his true intentions. But you are right - we probably will never know.

Peace to you. I enjoyed our discussion.

[Spammer]

Well, I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe it is fairly widely accepted that there were more than 1200 bishops in the Empire at the time of Constantine, and that does not even count those bishops in the Parthian Empire. How many voted for the creed? History seems to show no more than 325. I can't understand how that gets represented as a "majority" by orthodoxy. Perhaps that is the Orthodox way? It was a majority of those who attended the council, but by no means a majority of the bishops in the church. That is why I speculate as to why the others did not show up. But Constantine did dispose of his rival, Licinius, after at first promising him clemency so some may have feared that his overtures to the church were a similar smoke screen for his true intentions. But you are right - we probably will never know.

Peace to you. I enjoyed our discussion.

Yep, the eyewitness accounts indicate a minority of bishops attended, as you say. Too bad BNS, the Byzantine News Service, didn't poll the 900+ who didn't attend the council. We'll never know their views or how representative the council actually was.

I do think it's clear that the precepts of Arianism, Nicene Orthodoxy, and the future Nestorian churches of the East all predated Nicea and I believe that the diversity of those beliefs were represented by bishops in attendance at the council and among those who didn't attend. It can't be proven which of those strands within the ancient Catholic Church is closest to the apostles' intent, though we can glean clues by reading the Catholic apostolic fathers who were ordained as bishops by apostles (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp). The clincher for me, though, distinct from the fact that all of the apostolic church fathers were in the Catholic tradition, is the fact that despite four centuries of controversy after Nicea; despite ecumenical councils, non-ecumenical councils, and 'robber' councils; despite the Fall of Rome and the disruption of urban life and learning in the West; despite all of that, Nicene-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, not the other strands, emerged victorious by the 8th Century. This is especially notable since in Europe this growing dominance and victory over Arianism was accomplished solely through missionary work while classical civilization was in the process of collapse and recovery; and in the remnants of Empire in the Byzantine East, Nicene-Chalcedonian Catholic Orthodoxy emerged victorious in the face of cyclic official state persecution by emperors helming a Roman state church that was variously Arian, Nestorian, Monophysite, and Iconoclastic. Despite periodic imperial and state church backing, none of those strands "won"; it was Catholic Orthodoxy that became entrenched. I see the work of the Holy Spirit in this process, preserving Catholic Orthodoxy through the controversies and persecutions of fickle emperors, working through the persuasive pens and preachings of great intellects: men such as St. Athanasius, Pope St. Leo, St. John Chrysostom, and the Cappadocian Fathers (Sts. Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus). But that's just me.

Peace to you as well. Great discussion.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Spammer

[saemo]

Constantine was a supporter of Ariansim, and was baptized by an Arian Bishop. Therefore, what would any alleged non-attendee supporters of Arianism fear, from Constantine?

It was common then, and is now, for councils to not have all Bishops in attendance. The West sent legates, who represented the entire Western Church. The West had already excommunicated Arius, who fled to the East, and found support from an Arian Bishop, who also was the Bishop for Constantine's court. Arius had fled to the East, long before the Council.

Edited October 24, 2015 by saemo

[Spammer]

Constantine was a supporter of Ariansim, and was baptized by an Arian Bishop. Therefore, what would any alleged non-attendee supporters of Arianism fear, from Constantine?

It was common then, and is now, for councils to not have all Bishops in attendance. The West sent legates, who represented the entire Western Church. The West had already excommunicated Arius, who fled to the East, and found support from an Arian Bishop, who also was the Bishop for Constantine's court. Arius had fled to the East, long before the Council.

That's another nail in the coffin of the hypothesis that Nicene Christianity was the creation of Constantine and his alleged Roman state church.

[RevTestament]

That's another nail in the coffin of the hypothesis that Nicene Christianity was the creation of Constantine and his alleged Roman state church.

I never said Constantine created Nicene Christianity. It was clearly a product of western bishops who for whatever reason despised Arius. I believe they are the ones who went to Constantine to propose the idea of a council to determine the issue. Although Niceans have painted Arius as a denier of Christ as God, this really isn't the case. All he was really saying is that it seemed possible for men to be like Christ, and he wasn't sure when or how Christ was begotten. So the Nicene Council met to settle this issue. While I say this was "unfortunate" for Christianity or "the Way", it really was just in God's plan.

You allege the defeat of Arianism was due to the Holy Spirit. I say it was due to the fact that the Western Bishops did not love the truth, and did not follow the Way. Instead they sought temporal power and "apostolic" authority which they never had.

2 Thessalonians 2:

 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

The scriptural truth is that God sent His only begotten Son who was raised again for us. Acts 13

There is nothing scriptural about being begotten "before all ages or worlds."

He was begotten when God said to Him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."

[RevTestament]

Constantine was a supporter of Ariansim,

I don't believe there is much evidence for this until considerably after the Council of Nicea.

 

and was baptized by an Arian Bishop.

Not until his deathbed. He didn't rule as a baptised Christian, but as a pontifex maximus like his predecessors.

 

Therefore, what would any alleged non-attendee supporters of Arianism fear, from Constantine?

Um he killed Licinius the same year the council was held. They may have feared he was just buttering up the Christians to win them over to his side against Licinius, and now with Licinius dead, he may strike against the Christians of the East? Not too unreasonable a fear given the treacherous history of imperial politics.

"Hey, I just killed your enemy Licinius guys, so I am your hero and deliverer you can trust - and did I say I am sole emperor now? Come to my council, and I will prove I really am a nice guy????" (Hmmm, maybe not).

 

It was common then, and is now, for councils to not have all Bishops in attendance. The West sent legates, who represented the entire Western Church. The West had already excommunicated Arius, who fled to the East, and found support from an Arian Bishop, who also was the Bishop for Constantine's court. Arius had fled to the East, long before the Council.

Which brings up the generally neglected fact that Arian thought was much more prevalent in the East than in the Western church.  Again I am not advocating Arianism, but it was about the only force against the imperial creedal machine, which ruled by threat of excommunication for one's belief rather than any sin.

[Spammer]

I never said Constantine created Nicene Christianity. It was clearly a product of western bishops who for whatever reason despised Arius. I believe they are the ones who went to Constantine to propose the idea of a council to determine the issue. Although Niceans have painted Arius as a denier of Christ as God, this really isn't the case. All he was really saying is that it seemed possible for men to be like Christ, and he wasn't sure when or how Christ was begotten. So the Nicene Council met to settle this issue. While I say this was "unfortunate" for Christianity or "the Way", it really was just in God's plan.

You allege the defeat of Arianism was due to the Holy Spirit. I say it was due to the fact that the Western Bishops did not love the truth, and did not follow the Way. Instead they sought temporal power and "apostolic" authority which they never had.

2 Thessalonians 2:

 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

The scriptural truth is that God sent His only begotten Son who was raised again for us. Acts 13

There is nothing scriptural about being begotten "before all ages or worlds."

He was begotten when God said to Him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."

 

I was speaking in general terms, not specifically about you.  It's a hypothesis I've encountered many times. 

 

We Nicene Christians believe it's possible for men to become like Christ.  We call it theosis.

 

Again, you attribute more power to Western bishops, especially the pope, than they really had.