There is a glaring intellectual hypocrisy in the figures you praise. Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa completely rejected, ignored, or cast aside John’s Apocalypse from their official biblical canons because they didn't like its genre. They granted themselves total freedom to discard actual scriptural texts, but denied Arius the freedom to interpret biblical language using its own native Semitic or functional categories.

How can you trust the theological judgment of the Cappadocians when they treated the Book of Revelation as a forbidden text?

Bottom line: it is the exact same ancient political cynicism we find in John 11:50. Just as Caiaphas and the religious authorities sacrificed Christ to buy a fragile peace with the Romans, the Nicene establishment sacrificed the original biblical truth and crushed Arius to secure the stability of the Roman Empire.

• Why I am an Antiochene: I align with the School of Antioch because it prioritized the historical, rational, and literal truth of Scripture over the mystical allegories of Alexandria.
• The Legacy of St. Lucian: Arius was not a lone rebel; he was part of a brilliant network of thinkers trained by the martyr Lucian of Antioch, who fought to protect biblical monotheism.
• The Antiochene Reality: To an Antiochene, when the New Testament shows Christ weeping, suffering, and obeying the Father, it describes a functional and relational reality.
• The Rejection of Greek Fiction: Forcing the Greek metaphysical term Homoousios (one substance) onto these texts was viewed by Antioch as an infiltration of pagan philosophy that destroys the distinct reality of the Persons.
• Our Verdict on Arius: Consequently, rather than viewing him as a heretic, we praise Arius as a faithful biblical theologian who bravely stood up to defend the unique majesty of God the Father against imperial and philosophical corruption.

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.

 

 
  

Stephen said
1stadam, I appreciate that you have certain axes to grind.  That's what the thread is for.  But just so you'll understand why I don't readily respond to your comments let me reiterate that my primary focus of interest is ante-Nicene Christology.  By the time you get to Arius I begin to lose interest simply because it's such well worn ground.   But a couple points.
First, the main point I would make about Arius is that far from being the wild-eyed rebel, his thinking was a variation on what was in fact the current majority view of Christians.  What's come to be called "Hierarchical Subordinationism".  Nicene Trinitarianism was the "new-fangled" idea.  Arianism lasted for centuries east and west and was only rooted out finally at the point of a sword. 
Second, when I discuss "Trinitarianism", I invariably mean Nicene Trinitarianism; what became the orthodox viewpoint of the Church.  Three Persons, one Substance.  I fully understand that some quibble about the use of the term.  My own view is that trinitarianism in its various forms begins to apply only when we discuss the ontological relationship between its members.  Consequently I don't think there is any real trinitarianism within the New Testament or for most of the second century for that matter

• 1. On Arius and the Narrative: I agree that what we know about Arius has been heavily researched through the lens of narratives written by his enemies. Even figures like Athanasius eventually became enemies of the Empire. However, a total reversal ultimately took place, and the official Church secured its victory with the help of the sword.
• 2. On Hierarchical Subordinationism: You mention "hierarchical subordinationism," but isn't every form of subordinationism inherently hierarchical? This phrasing confuses me.
• 3. On Nicene Trinitarianism as a Novelty: I do not understand your point that Nicene Trinitarianism was a "new-fangled idea" or a novelty.
• 4. On Three Persons and One Substance: The concept of "Three Persons" is not the issue here. The problem lies with "substance" (substantia), which is a material concept as opposed to a spiritual one. In my view, it should never have been introduced in the first place—it was weaponized precisely as a linguistic sword.
• 5. On Ontological Relationships and Motives: You state that trinitarianism applies only when discussing the ontological relationship between its members. This is my central objection to the Nicenes: who put them in heaven to even be in a position to debate the relationship between the Father and the Son? Furthermore, why did they forget the Holy Spirit, the third member, at that time? Therefore, we absolutely must investigate their motives [and I would continue from here]...
• 6. On Trinitarianism in the New Testament: You claim that real trinitarianism does not exist within the New Testament. This is exactly where we disagree.

because early on the nature of these entities was expressed functionally rather than ontologically.  The NT is concerned with Christ's soteriological role not his nature.  That said the Triad of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost appears quite early.  But it is a mistake to refer to this Triad as a Trinity for the reasons I just elaborated.  
Third, any scholastic worthy of the name will admit that there is an aspect of mystery to the Trinity. A component that transcends our ability to quantify logically.  Now that certainly can become a tactic to ward off close examine of the doctrine's inner incoherencies but it's a mistake to think that the doctrine's formulators were unconscious of that aspect.  As I've already pointed out elsewhere, their motives are occluded but contemplation of the Trinity can certainly function as a way to experience Divine Mystery.    

• 7. On Greek Philosophy and Semitic Roots: Terms from Greek philosophy, such as "substance" and "ontology," were introduced, but it is highly questionable how much they actually have to do with religion. We replaced the Semitic concept of Memra with the Greek philosophical concept of Logos. As a result, our entire framework of logic became theirs. I am no scholastic, and I have no love for "mysteries."
• 8. On Soteriology vs. Nature: Your statement that “The NT is concerned with Christ’s soteriological role, not his nature” is an excellent point. However, this line of thought needs to be thoroughly expanded and elaborated upon
• Ultimately, you leave me confused. Are we simply not going to investigate their motives? You accept the orthodox definition of 'Three Persons, One Substance,' but you choose to call the early framework a 'Triad of entities' instead of a 'Trinity of Persons.' Why split hairs over these terms? If you acknowledge the three entities exist from the beginning, why is it a mistake to call them the Trinity?
• On the other hand, I accept 3 Persons, but reject "substance" because it is material term.

First, the main point I would make about Arius is that far from being the wild-eyed rebel, his thinking was a variation on what was in fact the current majority view of Christians.  What's come to be called "Hierarchical Subordinationism".  Nicene Trinitarianism was the "new-fangled" idea.  Arianism lasted for centuries east and west and was only rooted out finally at the point of a sword. 

Second, when I discuss "Trinitarianism", I invariably mean Nicene Trinitarianism; what became the orthodox viewpoint of the Church.  Three Persons, one Substance.  I fully understand that some quibble about the use of the term.  My own view is that trinitarianism in its various forms begins to apply only when we discuss the ontological relationship between its members.  Consequently I don't think there is any real trinitarianism within the New Testament or for most of the second century for that matter because early on the nature of these entities was expressed functionally rather than ontologically.  The NT is concerned with Christ's soteriological role not his nature.  That said the Triad of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost appears quite early.  But it is a mistake to refer to this Triad as a Trinity for the reasons I just elaborated.  

Third, any scholastic worthy of the name will admit that there is an aspect of mystery to the Trinity. A component that transcends our ability to quantify logically.  Now that certainly can become a tactic to ward off close examine of the doctrine's inner incoherencies but it's a mistake to think that the doctrine's formulators were unconscious of that aspect.  As I've already pointed out elsewhere, their motives are occluded but contemplation of the Trinity can certainly function as a way to experience Divine Mystery.    

St. Andrew of Caesarea explains in his Commentary on the Apocalypse that the one-third destruction of creatures is fulfilled through warfare that ravages both people and resources. He posits that this earthly destruction acts as a form of divine punishment that mitigates more severe eternal consequences. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

OK, the link works, here you have the quote, and you tell me how this looks like to you -

S EC T ION E IG H T

C h a pter 22

Copyright © 2011. Catholic University of America Press. All rights reserved.

About the Seven Angels Whose First Blow of the Trumpet Brings Hail, Fire, and Blood on the Earth 8.7. The first angel blew his trumpet, and there were hail and fire mingled with blood. And it was thrown on the earth; and a third of the earth was burnt, and a third of the trees was burnt, and all of the green grass was burnt. ome think these things imply in an obscure way the variety of punishment of sinners in Gehenna, figura tively described through physical pains.1 We, however, think it does not mean that, especially because not one-third is to be punished in the future out of all the people, but the majority—“for the road is wide that leads to destruction” 2— but that these things mean rather the plagues prior to the final consummation of the world, and hail from heaven means those afflictions that will come according to the just judgment of God, the fire mingled with blood the destruction by fire and the daily murders taking place at the hands of barbarians. From these, as we see, not less than one-third of all the creatures living on earth will be killed in a perceptible manner, destroying by wars not only people, but also [91] all the things that the earth brings forth. And the blessed Joel strengthens our own opinion regarding the things set forth, saying that “blood and fire and vapor of smoke” are to come “before the great day.”3 1. Oik. 5.9.1–2. 3. Jl 2.

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. 

Robert said
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking me about whether or not I agree?  Western proactive vs Eastern retroactive approach to what exactly?
  

1962 Vatican 2 decides to include The Book of Revelation [more] in Holy Mass - why 1962? They expected nucl. apocalypse, that is why. So I said - proactive approach.

On the other hand, Russians tried to include it after Napoleon defeat, so I said RETROACTIVE, but failed in that attempt. And we all know the book of Revelation is excluded from holy liturgy on the east from the beginning of Christianity. 

So, how you comprehend these info and my dialectic approach? I think the subject is worth of much more attention...

p.s. I wish my English is good as AI's. I have spent decades using my native language on forums, and now I am in trouble relying on AI.

Robert said

1stadam1stantiochian said

If you are crafting your post around these concepts, let me know if you want to focus on:
The geopolitical fallout of Tsar Alexander's Holy Alliance.
The Cold War survival strategies debated inside the Vatican during the 1960s.  

Are you looking to frame this as a critique of how institutions survive, or do you want to lean heavily into the geopolitical rivalry between East and West?

1stadam1stantiochian, it is obvious that you are simply posting quotations of discussion you've had with AI on this forum. Please be aware this is against our rules, specifically #6:

6. Content gleaned from Artificial Intelligence (eg, Claude or ChatGPT) may be helpful, but posting long conversations with a bot, as if the bot were a contributing member of this forum, is not allowed, except perhaps in threads specifically discussing the capabilities, limitations, and recommended strategies for the best use of artificial intelligence as it continues to evolve.

Please refrain from such extensive quoting of AI. This is a discussion forum for readers of Bart's blog.
  

I understood, but this opening of the topic was for informational purpose. Let's say western proactive VS eastern retroactive approach, don't you agree? And it is something relatively new, from 19 and 20 century.

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.

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
>> 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

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
>> 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.