Stephen said
Trinity was not the question, you are missing the point [being deceived with some anti-trinitarian sect[s]. I forgot theirs names at this moment], only because you’re pre learned with some kind of prejustices. Protestants deceived you it’s all about Trinity, but, it ain’t, I am sorry. West or East Church never questioned Trinity, you missed the point. There ARE 3 GODS, ELOHIM [plural], and that is not the problem, if you ask me. The problem persists somewhere else.
“Ok,” he said, slowly backing out of the room.
just don’t say we misunderstood each other – i’d feel sad
and i’ll back out only if somebody says my English is not good enough – the other flaws simply I don’t have
1stadam1stantiochian said
Stephen said
Trinity was not the question, you are missing the point [being deceived with some anti-trinitarian sect[s]. I forgot theirs names at this moment], only because you’re pre learned with some kind of prejustices. Protestants deceived you it’s all about Trinity, but, it ain’t, I am sorry. West or East Church never questioned Trinity, you missed the point. There ARE 3 GODS, ELOHIM [plural], and that is not the problem, if you ask me. The problem persists somewhere else.
“Ok,” he said, slowly backing out of the room.
just don’t say we misunderstood each other – i’d feel sad
and i’ll back out only if somebody says my English is not good enough – the other flaws simply I don’t have
I’ve said nothing about your english. On the other hand you told me I missed the point. Can you tell me what the point is? I’m darned cute but I’m not psychic.
Stephen said
1stadam1stantiochian said
Stephen said
Trinity was not the question, you are missing the point [being deceived with some anti-trinitarian sect[s]. I forgot theirs names at this moment], only because you’re pre learned with some kind of prejustices. Protestants deceived you it’s all about Trinity, but, it ain’t, I am sorry. West or East Church never questioned Trinity, you missed the point. There ARE 3 GODS, ELOHIM [plural], and that is not the problem, if you ask me. The problem persists somewhere else.
“Ok,” he said, slowly backing out of the room.
just don’t say we misunderstood each other – i’d feel sad
and i’ll back out only if somebody says my English is not good enough – the other flaws simply I don’t have
I’ve said nothing about your english. On the other hand you told me I missed the point. Can you tell me what the point is? I’m darned cute but I’m not psychic.
But what is your point?
The Trinity is not meant to make sense. It’s a Divine Mystery
I picked the side of Antiochia against Alexandria and official church narative. You are standing aside and calling out Trinity as the [misterios] problem in the beginning of the 4th century. I say that is not [and was not] the case, but we have to dive deeper.
>> then I have to deal with those I have less in common…
. . .
>> @Porphyry
No one but you has made you deal with me. I participated in this thread over a year ago; at the time, you were not a participant. Now you show up out of nowhere, resurrect it, and tagged me. If you didn’t want to “deal” with me, you could have just . . . done nothing. You were never a part of the conversation that I had contributed to. I never addressed you and you had no need to engage what I wrote more than a year ago unless you wanted to.
But since you have summoned my ghost . . .
>> I see exactly where you are heading with this, and your nickname is very familiar to me.
But no, you are completely misreading our foundation. We are Orthodox because we are liturgical and doxological,
Who is this “we” you claim to speak for, and where did I misread them?
You imply you are speaking for the Orthodox (capital ‘O’), yet you reject Athanasius and Nicaea, along with the entire Alexandrian school of interpretation. You claim the label of Subordinationist. If I recall, you have elsewhere–in your innumerable diatribes over the last week–disclaimed Chalcedon, thrown shade on Cyril, and held that Scripture is a merely human document. Oh, yeah, you also embrace tritheism.
For my life, I can’t imagine how I misread “them”, when I have no idea who “they” are nor do I recall ever engaging “them” in any of my posts.
>> We do not define our Orthodoxy through dry, academic, philosophical triangulation, nor do we exist simply as a reactionary middle ground just because certain heterodox or heretical camps existed…
Again, i don’t know who “we” is, so I can’t evaluate your intellectual genealogy. I am moderately confident I never addressed it though.
>> I don’t think the Trinity doctrine is crucial in this topic.
What is “this topic” from which the Trinity is, by your estimation, removed? The title of the thread is, “Evolution of the central doctrines of the undivided Orthodox Church i.e. The Trinity Godhead, The Incarnation, and everlasting life by God’s Grace.” You may notice that the Trinity is explicitly mentioned as one of the “central doctrines” of Christianity, to a discussion of whose evolution the thread is evidently dedicated. It is of course also one of the doctrines whose evolution was actually discussed in this thread at length before you showed up, and just as importantly, it is, as a simple matter of historical fact, a central dogma of mainstream Christianity, and its evolution played a prominent role in the development of Christianity.
Perhaps before dropping in out of nowhere and chiding us all as uninformed halfwits, you would do well to articulate clearly just what it is you mean to add to the actual conversation, who this mysterious group is you claim to speak for and that you insist we have misunderstood, and where precisely you think we have erred.
On the other hand, if actually engaging me–or “dealing with” me–is too onerous for you, then just shut up and go about your business.
Porphyry said
Who is this “we” you claim to speak for, and where did I misread them?You imply you are speaking for the Orthodox (capital ‘O’), yet you reject Athanasius and Nicaea, along with the entire Alexandrian school of interpretation. You claim the label of Subordinationist. If I recall, you have elsewhere–in your innumerable diatribes over the last week–disclaimed Chalcedon, thrown shade on Cyril, and held that Scripture is a merely human document. Oh, yeah, you also embrace tritheism.
- Ortho-dox (Orthodox): You think ‘Orthodox’ means submitting to a dry set of definitions drawn up by the Alexandrian school or institutional scribes. It does not. Etymologically, it comes from orthos (straight/true) and doxa (glory/worship). To be ortho-dox means to have the true, straight worship. It is a liturgical and doxological reality, not a bureaucratic one. Our ‘orthodoxy’ is found on the ground, in the pure acoustic resonance of praising the Father (Elohim) through the Son, completely free from the sacrificial matrix of the intruder. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- Katholike (Catholic): We—the liturgical community of the Beginning—are the true Catholic church in the original, organic sense of the word. Katholikos means ‘according to the whole’ or ‘universal.’ It represents the infinite, open dimension of the Father’s house with many dwelling places.
- The Roman-Catholic Distinction: Rome took the word ‘Catholic’ and trapped it in space. They turned it into ‘Roman’ Catholicism—attaching a universal spiritual reality to a specific geographical city, a throne, and a spatial hierarchy of power. They, along with the scribes who rewrite the lineages, are the ones obsessed with managing territory, administrative laws, and forced sacrifices.
- Where you have erred: You are looking for orthodoxy in the paperwork of the councils rather than the acoustic reality of the liturgy. Orthodox means straight worship, not blind adherence to the definitions of political bishops. You have allowed a territorial, sacrificial frequency to substitute the universal Elohim with a jealous, administrative construct. You trace an ‘undivided Church’ through the lenses of the imperial courts that fractured it in the first place.
- Who I speak for: I speak for the true Catholic (Universal) community of the Beginning—those whom Christ explicitly elevated from slaves to friends [John 15:15], and who recognize themselves as his brothers and mothers through shared action, not signed creeds [Matthew 12:50]. We are the ones who refuse to wear the ‘animal-skin’ disguise of a sacrificial theology to receive a blessing [Genesis 27:16].
- What I mean to add: I am adding the absolute contrast between your system of the Carcass and the Eagles [Matthew 24:28] and the system of the Mother Hen [Matthew 23:37]. Your historical dogmas are circling the dead letters of a long-concluded scholastic battle. I am pointing back to the living, bloodless Bread of Life that operates entirely outside your metrics of space, borders, and shortening time [John 6:35].
Porphyry said
You may notice that the Trinity is explicitly mentioned as one of the “central doctrines” of Christianity, to a discussion of whose evolution the thread is evidently dedicated. It is of course also one of the doctrines whose evolution was actually discussed in this thread at length before you showed up, and just as importantly, it is, as a simple matter of historical fact, a central dogma of mainstream Christianity, and its evolution played a prominent role in the development of Christianity.
- The Council of Nicaea (325 AD): This wasn’t a gathering of pure liturgy; it was an imperial assembly convened and dictated by an autocratic Emperor (Constantine). Those who refused to sign the theological formula weren’t met with the love of the Mother Hen—they were immediately anathematized, stripped of their property, and exiled under imperial death threats. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- The First Theological Murder (385 AD): Look at Priscillian of Avila. He was the first Christian to be executed by fellow Christians for heresy over dogmatic disputes. His death set the bloody blueprint for the next thousand years: if you did not bow to the institutional definition of the Godhead, the system shortened your life. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- The Reign of Justinian (6th Century): The ‘evolution’ was finalized by imperial law codes that made dogmatic deviance a capital crime. The state systematically hunted down anyone holding the original, non-sacrificial view of the Logos, forcing human beings into the slaughterhouse of institutional religion.
EVOLUTION?
Robert said
1stadam1stantiochian said
Let’s clear up the actual definitions of the words you are using as weapons …Why so aggressive, 1stadam1stantiochean? We try to, and mostly succeed in having, friendly discussions here, respecting each others’ perspectives.
Don’t we need the definitions? If we don’t call things rightly, than what? I don’t think anybody is offended, I just dropped in out of nowhere, as he said. Maybe provocative a bit… Maybe I need to be softer…
>>You think ‘Orthodox’ means submitting to a dry set of definitions drawn up by the Alexandrian school or institutional scribes. It does not. Etymologically, it comes from orthos (straight/true) and doxa (glory/worship).
No. Of course I know the etymology of “orthodox”. What sort of illiterate do you think you are talking to? But ‘Orthodox’ as a proper noun, or even as a common noun, has a specific, historical meaning, using the word properly doesn’t mean I accept their claim to following the straight worship.
>>Our ‘orthodoxy’ is found on the ground, in the pure acoustic resonance of praising the Father (Elohim) through the Son, completely free from the sacrificial matrix of the intruder
You still haven’t told me what community to claim to speak for; who is the “we”. (Let alone how I have shown a misunderstanding of them.)
>>You accuse me of rejecting Athanasius, Cyril, and Chalcedon.
That is only an accusation insofar as you insist that speak for the Orthodox. It is properly an factual observation borne out by your words.
>> I don’t reject them out of malice
I never breathed a word of your motive.
>I bypass them because they are later structural layers. They represent the moment human institutions tried to trap the Mother Hen into a dogmatic cage of words to justify their own authority.
Okay. So I was right. You are not Orthodox and you have no business speaking for the Orthodox.
By itself that is not an indictment. I’m not Orthodox either. But it is an indictment insofar as you attack me for not understanding Orthodoxy or historical orthodoxy.
>> You ask where you misread us? You misread us by looking for the Living Word in a legal archive.
That is unsubstantiated bullshit that dodges a straightforward question. Answer it or have the decency to slink away into the corners with your tail between your legs.
>> I do not need the approval of historical councils to be orthodox; my orthodoxy is anchored in the eternal Time of the Arche, where the Son calls us friends, and where we refuse to wear the animal-skin disguise of a counterfeit theology.
Blah blah blah, “I speak for God and everyone else is wrong,” blah blah blah.
>> What I mean to add: I am adding the absolute contrast between your system of the Carcass and the Eagles
You don’t seem to understand my “system” at all.
Maybe show curiosity before your come into a conversation swinging.
Robert said
Why assume Porphyry or anyone else here is using words as weapons against you?
Because he skipped the definition of orthodoxy I offered, and instead listed everything else he collected, which only looks like UN-ORTHODOX. Do you want wider/broader response?
‘Subordinationist,’ ‘Tritheist,’… sounded as accusations, in the same manner Roman Empire dealt with Arius, or Nestorius. I defend these 2, if you are interested to hear.
>> he skipped the definition of orthodoxy I offered
I explicitly engaged that 5 minutes before you posted.
>> ‘Subordinationist,’ ‘Tritheist,’… sounded as accusations,
“Subordinationist” is a title you explicitly embraced (“In fact, I am a subordinationist”).
“Tritheist” is a clean inference from what you wrote (“There ARE 3 GODS, ELOHIM [plural]”).
Porphyry said
You still haven’t told me what community to claim to speak for; who is the “we”. (Let alone how I have shown a misunderstanding of them.)
Look, my background is orthodox, but obviously I disagree about many things, how they perceive Constantine, for an example [equal to apostles], fusion of church and state etc. So, being in USA, I exercise my right to start a church named exactly by my nick-name. Now, your curiosity is satisfied.
>>You accuse me of rejecting Athanasius, Cyril, and Chalcedon.
That is only an accusation insofar as you insist that speak for the Orthodox. It is properly an factual observation borne out by your words.
I am ready to read about Alexandria vs Antiochia, or to debate. My position is clear against these 2 named.
Okay. So I was right. You are not Orthodox and you have no business speaking for the Orthodox.
By itself that is not an indictment. I’m not Orthodox either.
I already proved I am orthodox, even admitted overseas nationality, leaving the last link of my substack. I just decided to engage here with you after decades of exchanging in my native language, and mainly with my fellas ortodox.
Do you know the name of my orthodox patriarch and do you think he is respected as expected? Do you know to spell it? Almost the same as your nick-name. Voala, that should be enough proof. And if we are done with “familiarizing”, let’s get serious.
Blame my background: we either idolize or despise leaders. I personally feel shame Constantine is respected literally as a cult over the whole Balkan, starting from Greece.
How Constantine can be saint, even equal with apostles, if he killed his own son, and 2nd wife?
Porphyry said
>> he skipped the definition of orthodoxy I offered
I explicitly engaged that 5 minutes before you posted.
Forgiven.
>> ‘Subordinationist,’ ‘Tritheist,’… sounded as accusations,
“Subordinationist” is a title you explicitly embraced (“In fact, I am a subordinationist”).
…and Jesus, apostle Paul. I can quote again.
“Tritheist” is a clean inference from what you wrote (“There ARE 3 GODS, ELOHIM [plural]”).
Holy Trinity? Is Logos the God? Are we acknowledging when Thomas says for Jesus: my Lord and my God?
I am just calling everything right [properly], without playing games or using any verbal gymnastics.
>> Do you know the name of my orthodox patriarch and do you think he is respected as expected? Do you know to spell it?
How exactly should I know the name of your patriarch, when you have repeatedly refused to tell me what community you claim to speak for?
And it is rich for you to question my orthography given the linguistic challenges you have faced that I have not, up to this point, noted.
Porphyry said
>> Do you know the name of my orthodox patriarch and do you think he is respected as expected? Do you know to spell it?
How exactly should I know the name of your patriarch, when you have repeatedly refused to tell me what community you claim to speak for?
His name is your nick-name, just spelled little bit different [Porfirije]. I was double speaking before, and you got offended; now accept that I don’t lie when I claim orthodoxy. Baptized long time ago, and never belonged to any other denomination.
I picked you only because your transliterated PORFIRIJE nick draw my attention, never meant to offend you.
tri-theist means 3-theos, 3 gods, so which one or two are we denying in Holy Tri-nity?
TRI = number 3
You are not worth my time.
Get lost. And leave me out of your future screeds.
Oh, yeah. On this little gem:
Porphyry said
>> he skipped the definition of orthodoxy I offered
I explicitly engaged that 5 minutes before you posted.Forgiven.
You aren’t in a position to do the forgiving. I’m not sure what bizarre presumption makes you think you have some opportunity here to forgive me.
Porphyry said
You are not worth my time.
Get lost. And leave me out of your future screeds.
Oh, yeah. On this little gem:Porphyry said
>> he skipped the definition of orthodoxy I offered
I explicitly engaged that 5 minutes before you posted.
Forgiven.You aren’t in a position to do the forgiving. I’m not sure what bizarre presumption makes you think you have some opportunity here to forgive me.
You skipped my previous post about doxology, and now referring on later one, in which I elaborated ortho-doxy. But no problem, I am not your teacher. I myself just learned what screed means.
Think whatever you want. I mistakenly thought you were explaining why you skipped my 1st reply. Now, I am not pushing you away from learning about orthodoxy. I will not bother you.
>> You skipped my previous post about doxology
No, I didn’t.
>> I mistakenly thought you were explaining why you skipped my 1st reply.
Yeah, no. You can’t deescalate this and save face by pretending I missed something that was never there. It is all in the record.
>> I am not your teacher
Correct.
Porphyry said
>> You skipped my previous post about doxology
No, I didn’t.
>> I mistakenly thought you were explaining why you skipped my 1st reply.
Yeah, no. You can’t deescalate this and save face by pretending I missed something that was never there. It is all in the record.
>> I am not your teacher
Correct.
You skipped doxology part from my response and cherry picked things. Without doxology, there is no orthodoxy, think a little bit more about this.
1stadam1stantiochian said
Porphyry said
Well, for Sabellians the most direct support would be things in John, like, Jn 10:30, “The Father and I are one,” or Jn 8:58, “before Abraham was, I am,” Jn 14:9, “Who sees me sees the Father,” or even Jn 1:1, “and the Word was God”. But there were lots of other passages that could bear a Sabellian reading, like Col. 2:9 “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” or the Christ hymn in Philippians or Heb 1:3.
For Subordinationists, you had passages like Jn 14:28, “The Father is greater than I,” Mk 13:32, Mk 10:18, but also things like 1 Cor 11:3, or anywhere that Jesus prays to the Father.
Orthodoxy reconciles them by taking from the Sabellians that Son is God and is the same one God that the Father is. From the Subordinationists it takes that the Father and the Son are distinct–the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. But it also distinguishes: The Subordinationists are right that the Son is less than the Father, but only considered in his human nature.
You might put it this way: all three camps agreed that there was only one really truly fully divine God. The Subordinationsts insisted the Father was that God and the Son was distinct from the Father (by implication not that God). The Sabellians insisted Jesus was that God (and therefore he was the same one as the Father). The orthodox said it is both: The Son is both distinct from the Father and also fully that one true real God.
But no, you are completely misreading our foundation. We are Orthodox because we are liturgical and doxological, rooted directly in the pure praise of the Divine Reality from the Beginning (ARCHE). We do not define our Orthodoxy through dry, academic, philosophical triangulation, nor do we exist simply as a reactionary middle ground just because certain heterodox or heretical camps existed……
We are liturgical and doxological. We know that the Son is the perfect, eternal Image of the Father, existing before time, through whom the Father creates all things. But the Son always acts in perfect obedience to the Father, finishing His work at Pentecost and leaving the Living Leaven to transform the whole multitude. [1]
By standing firmly on this ground, I am completely entrenched in the original faith of Antioch—the faith before the ‘lords’ and the political bishops used imperial decrees to build their human power structures and impose their false, apocalyptic visions.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)