Robert said

1stadam1stantiochian said

Robert said
From my perspective, it was a worthwhile thread. I got to refresh my recollections of Eusebius and deepen my knowledge of some details and unresolved questions involved in the centuries long process of canonization. That’s pretty much the most I could hope for in an Internet discussions with apologists. I never understood why Bart bothered debating apologists, but he justified it as seeking to plant a seed of intelligent questioning in at least one person’s mind. That’s a worthy goal, I’m sure, but debates tend to be contentious, which limits the likelihood of that actually happening. I could have been less contentious here and just posed questions. Maybe that would be more effective or constructive?

I am not Mike kind of an apologist; tell me what you think…
This essay analyzes the historical shift from the literal, historical-grammatical interpretation of the Antiochene School to the allegorical approach favored by the Alexandrian School, which was adopted by the Roman Empire. It argues that this 4th-century consolidation, particularly through the Council of Nicaea, transformed Christianity into an instrument of imperial power. The text examines how the “sub-stack” of allegorical, philosophical, and apocalyptic interpretations was used to solidify ecclesiastical control. By returning to the original context, the author advocates for a deconstructed faith that rejects institutional manipulation. The work suggests further research into early, non-imperialized church structures.
Antiochian Realism and the Imperial Hijacking of the Logos
The mainstream calendars of both the Eastern and Western churches commemorate Alexander on May 29, but his cult remains faint, formal, and forgotten. The system did not need to glorify Alexander because he was merely the quiet architect of the fraud. The system required a mega-cult out of his successor: Athanasius.
When Alexander died in 328 AD, the twenty-something Athanasius took the throne, and the empire immediately erupted into theological civil war. The Eastern bishops realized they had been blackmailed and deceived at Nicaea by an unscriptural formula. As the emperors began to switch sides to restore peace, Athanasius became the ultimate street fighter for the Alexandrian monopoly. He survived five separate exiles, weaponized the imperial grain supply of Alexandria to starve his opponents, utilized a thuggish monastic police force to terrorize dissenting parishes, and wrote hundreds of self-serving texts painting himself as the lone defender of truth (Athanasius contra mundum).

This post seems completely unrelated to the discussion topic of this thread.
  

How come? The christian believer MIKE GANTT states that ancients “fathers” new better than modern scholars, right? And I am questioning what really they new better. Do you think I don’t have that right, to question?

mikegantt said
Signing off, as promised.
  

that guy MIKE GANTT even signed off?! Don’t tell me you’re not interested to investigate everything? Are you boldly saying I missed the subject/topic? I am in disbeleif

Robert said
The thread is about whether ancient or modern scholars were/are in a better position to identify the authors of New Testament texts. If you would like to discuss a different topic, feel free to start a new thread.
  

and we mentioned Athanasius regarding the Revelation – so, how I missed the topic? I don’t get it… but if you want to stick only to the the Trinity doctrine, I have no problem, let it be, give us some mental food to think about it, what is so wrong about Trinity? And how is that connected to the ancients “fathers”?

you know what amuses me? from atheist perspective you support official narrative – you do not want me to elaborate this pont

Stephen said

1stadam1stantiochian said

Stephen said
Critical scholars do in fact have presuppositions but they are very different from the ones that support religious apology. 
  

Explain it to me, I don’t get “very different” part.
“what is permitted of Jupiter is not permitted of oxen”?
  

Critical scholars operate on the assumption that these texts can be analyzed and explicated using the same literary and historical methods as any other form of ancient lit.  Apologists assume these texts are magical in some way and require direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost to understand. 
  

Exactly; although my background seems as apologetic, I am going further in critical scholarship, saying this:

from Antiochian perspective, Alexandrian theology is modern deviation through forging/falsifying the “inspiration” 

1. The Clash of the Two Schools

• The Antiochian School (Literal/Historical): Think of figures like Theodore of Mopsuestia or John Chrysostom. They viewed Scripture through the historical-grammatical lens. To them, a parable is a logical linguistic tool, and human history matters. They preserved the true, distinct humanity of Jesus and the literal integrity of the texts. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
• The Alexandrian School (Allegorical/Mystical): Led by figures like Origen and Cyril. They viewed Scripture through a heavily Platonized, allegorical lens. To them, the literal text was almost a hindrance; they sliced and diced the words to find hidden, mystical codes. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

2. How Alexandria “Falsified” Inspiration

From your Antiochian standpoint, Alexandria committed a academic crime. By turning everything into an otherworldly allegory, they laid the groundwork for the very pagan/Gnostic copycat arguments you are fighting on the forum.

• When Alexandria stripped away the historical, Jewish, and literal context of the Servant (Talya), they opened the door for people to view Jesus as an abstract, mythological figure—like Dionysus or Serapis.
• They turned “inspiration” into a magical, trance-like state where human words didn’t matter, rather than seeing it as the Logos naturally inducing spirit and teaching WORDS to a conscious mind (like Adam).

---

Stephen said

Well to me these intercollegiate disputes are of purely historical interest.   To me it’s like arguing who would win in a fight, Superman or The Mighty Thor. 

And that is how I understood the topic: modern vs ancient scholars, in broader view – theological schools, which I named, 2 , 1st Antiochian, and 2nd Alexandrian. My point is early Christianity, but looks like some ppl are more interested in late Christianity, or Hellenism which preceded it [old era].

 
I would only comment that Hellenistic philosophy was present already in the texts of the New Testament.   Paul’s vocabulary and theoretical framework reflects what’s come to be called Middle-Platonism.  This is not unexpected for a mid-First Century educated Hellenized Diaspora Jew.   Same with whoever wrote the gospel of John.  He may not have actually known Philo’s speculations but they were certainly both drinking from the same well. 

So? You may say beloved disciple shared gnostic terms as well. And? Maybe I drink from the same well.

Gentile Christianity is impossible without Hellenistic philosophy.  Second Temple Judaism was thoroughly Hellenized.   The old idea of a pure unsullied Judaism is simply not defensible. 
  

I am not holding judaistic perspective [except prophetic], but gentiles’, in the same time when admitting Hellenistic influence, even before new era. Also, I named minor Asia, and capitol Ephesus from where emerged Paul’s enemies, and that I proved

Robert said

What does the authorship of the New Testament texts have to do with the doctrine of the Trinity?

  

That was my point. Let me search the thread again, page 8… I was referring on your reply #152, but somebody else, in reply #151, involved the Trinity, you just agreed.

Then I apologize for my misunderstanding of your reply, page 8:

Robert said
Easier said, than done.