I can’t find any ideas similar to those of Athanasius before the late Third Century and early Fourth.   Nobody in the NT or the Second century thought like Athanasius.  (This is a common strategy when introducing innovations into the tradition.  Claiming that you’re “getting back to the original” apostolic teaching.  See the Protestant Reformation.)  

Who do you compare with Protestants, me or Athanasius? I am trying to be logical: the reason why I am getting back to the roots is exactly Athanasius.

Take it up with Aristotle although the idea predates him.  Once again this just shows how essential Greek philosophy was to Christianity. 

If we are intellectually honest, we have to decide whether substance means in a general sense material, or living being. If we are talking about BEINGS, then we are looking at what is common to, at least, 2 PERSONS if not more. If that is how we define “substance” or"essence" - OF LIVING BEING, that has to be added. Otherwise, it means material, without any spirit. I'm driving you, of course, toward the definition of God - Spirit.

The early church Fathers used Hellenistic concepts to formulate their views of Christianity.  This was the sea they swam in.  Second Temple Judaism was thoroughly Hellenized.  By this time the Aramaic Memra and the Greek Logos were functionally identical.  Both described a divine intermediary between the transcendent God and the material world, God’s active principle at work in creation and salvation.   Some thought the Word was an emanation of God which achieved a kind of independent existence.  Some thought the Word itself was the “Firstborn of all Creation”. 

This is very wide subject, huge.

Surely you would prefer someone more adept at it than me?   

No, I like you historians, to debate with you about religion. History is my weakest point, and I am always willing to learn, just pickiness is my problem.

You claim that real trinitarianism does not exist within the New Testament. This is exactly where we disagree.

OK, can you provide an example? 

I don't know how we don't understand each other? The doctrine of Trinitarianism explains Trinity. You have to reject the Gospel in order to reject the doctrine of 3. [TRI]: tri explicitly means the number 3 (from the Greek tria and Latin tres).

A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church

Frank who? Why don't you brief me, if think, I am missing something?

1. Trias (Trinity) was explicitly used by Theophilus of Antioch around 180 AD - do you see my nick-name? This I accept;
2. by 200 AD, Tertullian explicitly formalized the logic of 'One Substance, Three Persons. - this is a potential problem: PERSONS I accept, and "substance" we need to define, as said above.

Why problem you may ask. We have to make a clear distinction between celestial beings and earthly creatures. Earthly creatures are material, but celestial beings are Spirit, which is totally another level of existance.

John 10 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/john/10.htm
10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy;
I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
11 “I am the good shepherd.
The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Matthew 26:31 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/26.htm
Then Jesus told them,
“This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written:
“ ‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’

=======================
I recall reading somewhere an account of shepherds within the last 200 years who struggled mightily to fend off a ferocious pack of wolves or hyenas.
I don't recall whether any of the shepherds ended up dying.

Wolf Attacks in France in the Early 1800s (2018)
https://www.geriwalton.com/wol.....rly-1800s/
By 1800, in most areas throughout France, there were reports of wolves causing problems and stories were regularly printed in newspapers highlighting their attacks against people.
Here are seven stories reported between 1809 and 1829.

The first story about wolf attacks in France occurred in 1819 in the little commune of Combrée, located in the Maine-et-Loire department.
A youthful shepherd was tending his flock of sheep when a wolf suddenly pursued a sheep, seized it, and was about to devour it.
At that point the shepherd intervened and flung the wolf to the ground.
Another wolf then came to the aid of the first wolf.
A shepherdess was nearby and witnessed the scene.
She then left her goats to help the shepherd, and according to the Windsor and Eton Express:
“Both of them exerting all their strength and courage, succeeded in rescuing the sheep, and held the wolves until a peasant, armed with a pitchfork, hearing their cries, came and killed the furious animals on the spot.”[1]
...
Another of the reported wolf attacks in France involved a ferocious wolf spreading terror throughout the department of Gard in 1810.
The attack happened on 2 October near the village of Planzolles, when a wolf attacked a little 6-year-old boy who was tending a flock of sheep with his 80-year-old grandfather.
A goat had strayed, and the grandfather ordered the boy to go and retrieve it.
When the child did not return, the grandfather conducted a search but never found the child until the next morning when he discovered blood-stained clothing and some of the boy’s remains.
Four days later, a 7-year-old girl was strolling near her house in Malenches when her parents discovered her missing, and again only her remains were found “with her clothes bloody and torn.”[2]

hat tip
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_0455cda5-f3f1-4236-967a-758806bd476d

“You cannot pick the term lamb, and discard the sheep”
If I call an animal a ‘lamb,’ I am also calling that animal a ‘sheep.’

This is just scholarspeak to delineate the view that whether the Son and the Spirit were emanations and shared in the Father's substance in some way, or were in fact creations, the Father retains his primacy and rank of authority over them. 

I do not understand your point that Nicene Trinitarianism was a “new-fangled idea” or a novelty.

Orthodox Trinitarians claim that their interpretation was the original apostolic view and only later that corrupting ideas sneaked in.  I can't find any ideas similar to those of Athanasius before the late Third Century and early Fourth.   Nobody in the NT or the Second century thought like Athanasius.  (This is a common strategy when introducing innovations into the tradition.  Claiming that you're "getting back to the original" apostolic teaching.  See the Protestant Reformation.)  

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.

Take it up with Aristotle although the idea predates him.  Once again this just shows how essential Greek philosophy was to Christianity. 

You claim that real trinitarianism does not exist within the New Testament. This is exactly where we disagree.

OK, can you provide an example? 

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.”

The early church Fathers used Hellenistic concepts to formulate their views of Christianity.  This was the sea they swam in.  Second Temple Judaism was thoroughly Hellenized.  By this time the Aramaic Memra and the Greek Logos were functionally identical.  Both described a divine intermediary between the transcendent God and the material world, God's active principle at work in creation and salvation.   Some thought the Word was an emanation of God which achieved a kind of independent existence.  Some thought the Word itself was the "Firstborn of all Creation". 

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...

Surely you would prefer someone more adept at it than me?   

A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church

Ultimately, you leave me confused.

Well if I cannot enlighten then I must settle for confusion. Either way I have presented you with an opportunity.

Are we simply not going to investigate their motives?

How would you do that?

You accept the orthodox definition of ‘Three Persons, One Substance,’

Because that is the "orthodox definition".  Once again, for me this is a purely historical question. 

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?

I've already explained the distinction I am making.  If you disagree with the distinction then clarify what problems you have with it.  But I am ever helpful.  For example-

The Father and I are one.

- John 10,30  NRSV 

What does this statement mean?  Orthodox Trinitarians will say this is an ontological claim.   Jesus is claiming divine identity with the Father.  An ontological claim.  Scholars point out however that this is anachronistic, reading a later viewpoint back into the text.   In context what Jesus is saying is that both he and the Father are united in authority and purpose and will.   This is a claim about roles, functionality, soteriology. 

This distinction hardly seems to be "splitting hairs".   

David you obviously aren't aware that on the Nazi's first list of proscribed books was a little tome entitled Origin of Species.   If you had the slightest idea what evolution meant you'd immediately see why.  

Darwin to Asa Gray (22 May 1860)
https://www.darwinproject.ac.u.....T-2814.xml
With respect to the theological view of the question;
this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.—
I had no intention to write atheistically.
But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I sh^d wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us.
There seems to me too much misery in the world.
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.
Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.
On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force.
I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.
Not that this notion _at all_ satisfies me.
I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect.
A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.
— Let each man hope & believe what he can.—

Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical.
The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws,
—a child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by action of even more complex laws,—
and I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws;
& that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence.
But the more I think the more bewildered I become;
as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.

Second, on Orthodoxy as proper noun: even granting you everything. Say you were baptized Orthodox. Say you hold the liturgy dear. Fine--none of that is in dispute and none of it is my business. I'm not preventing you from identifying culturally with whatever label you find resonates with you. But no Orthodox patriarch, synod, or canonical body on earth would recognize a tritheist Arian as in communion with them. That's not gatekeeping on my part. It's just what the word has meant, institutionally and historically, since 325. You can claim the personal attachment, but that doesn't give you the authority to speak for the Orthodox communion.

Third, on doxa. You've built an entire argument on doxa--in "orthodoxy"--meaning "worship" to the exclusion of "belief." That's not a neglected second meaning you've recovered--it's an inversion of the primary and accepted sense of the word 'orthodoxy', in which doxa is taken as principally, if not exclusively, opinion or belief. "Right worship, no content required" isn't a live and accepted meaning of the term.

Fourth, as to what Arius held. You quoted your own material, from 139, back at me, so let's look at it again--

>> To defend Arius’s theology, the Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia contains a key phrase that uses an if-then structure to argue that the Son, having been begotten, must have a beginning, and therefore 'was not' before that point. The quote, “If the Father begat the Son, then he that was begotten had a beginning of existence; and from this it is evident, that there was [a state] when the Son was not,” supports this position. This argument highlights a strict, one-God theology and uses scriptural phrasing that depicts the Son as being brought forth prior to time.

The thing is, I'm fairly confident that that text was generated by AI. And it is correct. But you misinterpreted it as saying it was a mere hypothetical, rather than Arius using the Trinitarian party's own position against them to derive his own conclusion. The force is: If the Son was begotten, as Athanasius and co. say, then it follows he had a beginning in time, as I say.

But you missed that and glossed it as "the analogy in which he does NOT claim anything, but sets a structure IF-THEN"

And it's why "not as one of the creatures" in your last post doesn't survive the sniff test. Arius said the opposite--ktisma, created out of nothing, first and greatest of creatures, but a creature. There was a when when he was not. That was his well documented position. You quoted parts of this yourself. You just didn't understand what you'd posted.

Fifth, on the Cappadocians and Revelation. I never asked you to trust them. I'm not Orthodox. I'm not a believer. I never suggested anyone ought take them as authorities.

Leon Zitzer, _Darwin’s Racism:  The Definitive Case, Along with a Close Look at Some of the Forgotten, Genuine Humanitarians of That Time_ (2016)

Samuel Butler, _Evolution, Old & New:  Or the Theories of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, as compared with that of Charles Darwin_ (1882)
https://www.gutenberg.org/cach.....g23427.txt
1879:

We have seen, that up to a certain point there is very little difference between Lamarck and Mr. Darwin.
Lamarck maintains that animals and plants vary:
so does Mr. Darwin.
Lamarck maintains that variations having once arisen have a tendency to be transmitted to offspring and accumulated:
so does Mr. Darwin.
Lamarck maintains that the accumulation of variations, so small, each one of them, that it cannot be, or is not noticed, nevertheless will lead in the course of that almost infinite time during which life has existed upon earth, to very wide differences in form, structure, and instincts:
so does Mr. Darwin.
Finally, Lamarck declares that all, or nearly all, the differences which we observe between various kinds of animals and plants are due to this exceedingly gradual and imperceptible accumulation, during many successive generations, of variations each one of which was in the outset small:
so does Mr. Darwin.
But in the above we have a complete statement of the fact of evolution, or descent with modification--wanting nothing, but entire, and incapable of being added to except in detail, and by way of explanation of the causes which have brought the fact about.
As regards the general conclusion arrived at, therefore, I am unable to detect any difference of opinion between Lamarck and Mr. Darwin.
They are both bent on establishing the theory of evolution in its widest extent.

“Can a mystery survive within a field of absolute awareness?” is better than anything in my post, and it is the same question. Thank you for putting it that way.

Your second point goes further than mine, and I think you are right. To objectify the Resurrection into a fact that forces assent is not only the wrong measure of revelation. It is self-defeating. You can grant a proven fact and remain wholly untouched by it. James saw this a long time ago: even the demons believe, and shudder. Assent extracted by proof is exactly the belief that changes nothing. The apologist who finally compelled agreement would have produced trembling, not faith.

So the compulsion project hollows itself out from the inside, and you see that as clearly from outside as I do from within.

Where I would hesitate is the next step. It is tempting to conclude that the Resurrection must then be purely a matter of “interior spiritual transformation,” with no factual claim attached at all. I do not go there, and not because I want to smuggle the proof back in. If nothing happened that the testimony is testimony to, then betrayed trust could not wound faith in the way I argued above that it can. The claim has to remain vulnerable to the discovery that the witnesses invented it. A purely interior reading buys immunity from that kind of defeat, but at the price of the very exposure that keeps it honest.

I would put it this way: the Resurrection asks to be received, not proven, but received is not the same as internalized. Something is still being received, from outside, that could have been otherwise. That is the narrow ledge I am trying to stand on, between the apologist who wants it compelled and the reading that makes it wholly inward.

Which lands us back at your question. The mystery survives exactly where awareness is not absolute: where there is enough to be addressed by, and not so much that there is no room left to refuse.

Darwin to Asa Gray, September 17 [1861?]
https://www.charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-ii/ebook-page-78.asp
https://www.charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-ii/ebook-page-79.asp
I have lately been corresponding with Lyell, who, I think, adopts your idea of the stream of variation having been led or designed.

1872 edition of _Origin_
https://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1872/1872-429-dns.html
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;
and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), _Zoonomia_ (1818)
https://archive.org/details/zoonomia00darwgoog/page/395/mode/2up?q=contrivances
https://archive.org/details/zoonomia00darwgoog/page/395/mode/2up?q=BOLD
Page 395 — The contrivances for the purposes of security extend even to vegetables, as is seen in the wonderful and various means of their concealing or defending their honey from insects, and their seeds from birds.
On the other hand swiftness of wing has been acquired by hawks and swallows to pursue their prey;
and a proboscis of admirable structure has been acquired by the bee, the moth, and the humming bird, for the purpose of plundering the nectaries of flowers.
All which seem to have been formed by the original living filament, excited into action by the necessities of the creatures which possess them, and on which their existence depends.

Page 395 — From thus meditating on the great similarity of the structure of the warm-blooded animals, and at the same time of the great changes they undergo both before and after their nativity;
and by considering in how minute a proportion of time many of the changes of animals above described have been produced;
would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind,
would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which the great First Cause endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations;
and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end?

Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), _Zoonomia_ (1794) (read many 'f's as 's's)
https://archive.org/details/b287728540003/page/504/mode/2up?q=bold
Page 505 — From thus meditating on the great fimilarity of the ftructure of the warm-blooded animals, and at the fame time of the great changes they undergo both before and after their nativity ;
and by confidering how minute a portion of time many of the changes of animals above defcribed have been produced ;
would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, fince the earth began to exift, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the hiftory of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arifen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propenfities, directed by irritations, fenfations, volitions, and affociations ;
and thus poffeffing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down thofe improvements by generation to its pofterity, world without end?

============
Charles Darwin read Erasmus Darwin's _Zoonomia_ at-least twice.

_The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With Original Omissions Restored_ (1993)
https://archive.org/details/autobiographyofc0000darwo8r9/page/18/mode/2up?q=grandfather
Page 49 — He one day, when we were walking together burst forth in high admiration of Lamarck and his views on evolution.
I listened in silent astonishment, and as far as I can judge, without any effect on my mind.
I had previously read the Zoonomia of my grandfather, in which similar views are maintained, but without producing any effect on me.
Nevertheless it is probable that the hearing rather early in life such views maintained and praised may have favoured my upholding them under a different form in my _Origin of Species_.
At this time I admired greatly the _Zoonomia_;
but on reading it a second time after an interval of ten or fifteen years, I was much disappointed, the proportion of speculation being so large to the facts given.”

_Charles Darwin's Notebooks, 1836-1844: Geology, Transmutation of Species, Metaphysical Enquiries_ (1987, which is the same as a 2008 copy), 747pp.

https://archive.org/details/charlesdarwinsno0000paul/page/544/mode/2up?q=zoonomia
Page 544 — hours of sleep during prolonged starvation], were usually (though not invariably,) of a pleasant character, being very often about the enjoyments of feasting.’
In Erasmus Darwin 1794, 1:23, is the following penciled marginal notation made by Charles Darwin (in his personal copy of _Zoonomia_),
“This is strange as hungry men never dream of hunger’.

=========================
Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), _Zoonomia_ (1794, modern spelling 1818)
https://archive.org/details/zoonomia00darwgoog/page/393/mode/2up?q=contest
https://archive.org/details/zoonomia00darwgoog/page/397/mode/2up?q=gradual
Page 394 — The birds... are armed with spurs for the purpose of fighting for the exclusive possession of the females, as cocks and quails.
It is certain that these weapons are not provided for their defence against other adversaries, because the females of these species are without this armour.
The final cause of this contest amongst the males seems to be, that the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species, which should thence become improved.

Page 394 — Another great want consists in the means of procuring food, which has diversified the forms of all species of animals.
Thus the nose of the swine has become hard for the purpose of turning up the soil in search of insects and of roots.
The trunk of the elephant is an elongation of the nose for the purpose of pulling down the branches of trees for his food, and for taking up water without bending his knees.
Beasts of prey have acquired strong jaws or talons.
Cattle have acquired a rough tongue and a rough palate to pull off the blades of grass, as cows and sheep.
Some birds have acquired harder beaks to crack nuts, as the parrot.
Others have acquired beaks adapted to break the harder seeds, as sparrows.
Others for the softer seeds of flowers, or the buds of trees, as the finches.
Other birds have acquired long beaks to penetrate the moister soils in search of insects or roots, as woodcocks;
and others broad ones to filtrate the water of lakes, and to retain aquatic insects, as ducks.
All which seem to have been gradually produced during many generations by the perpetual endeavour of the creatures to supply the want of food, and to have been delivered to their posterity with constant improvement of them for the purposes required.

Page 397 — Other changes seem to have arisen in them by their perpetual contest for light and air above ground, and for food or moisture beneath the soil.
As noted in Botanic Garden, Part II.
Note on Cuscuta.
Other changes of vegetables from climate, or other causes, are remarked in the note on Curcuma in the same work.
From these one might be led to imagine, that each plant at first consisted of a single bulb or flower to each root, as the gentianella and daisy;
and that in the contest for air and light new buds grew on the old decaying flower stem, shooting down their elongated roots to the ground, and that in process of ages tall trees were thus formed, and an individual bulb became a swarm of vegetables.
Other plants, which in this contest for light and air were too slender to rise by their own strength, learned by degrees to adhere to their neighbours, either by putting forth roots like the ivy, or by tendrils like the vine, or by spiral contortions like the honey-suckle;
or by growing upon them like the misleto, and taking nourishment from their barks;
or by only lodging or adhering on them, and deriving nourishment from the air, as tillandsia.

Page 397 — If this gradual production of the species and genera of animals be assented to...
Page 398 — This idea of the gradual formation and improvement of the animal world accords with the observations of some modem philosophers...
Page 398 — This idea of the gradual formation and improvement of the animal world seems not to have been unknown to the ancient philosophers. ...

Page 399 — ...the immense beds of limestone, chalk, marble, from the shells of fish; and the extensive provinces of clay, sandstone, ironstone, coals, from decomposed vegetables;
all which have been first produced by generation, or by the secretions of organic life;
he [David Hume] concludes that the world itself might have been generated, rather than created;
that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution of the whole by the Almighy fiat. —
What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of THE GREAT ARCHITECT!
THE CAUSE OF CAUSES!
PARENT OF PARENTS!
ENS ENTIUM! [Being of beings? Entity of entities?]

Page 414 — This idea of the gradual generation of all things seems to have been as familiar to the ancient philosophers as to the modem ones;
and to have given rise to the beautiful hieroglyphic figure of the ... or first great egg, produced by NIGHT, that is, whose origin is involved in obscurity, and animated by ... , that is, by DIVINE LOVE;
from whence proceeded all things which exist.

Page 437 — 6. This perpetual chain of causes and effects, the first link of which is rivetted to the throne of GOD, divides itself into innumerable diverging branches, which, like the nerves arising from the brain, permeate the most minute and most remote extremities of the system, diffusing motion and sensation to the whole.
As every cause is superior in power to the effect, which it has produced, so our idea of the power of the Almighty Creator becomes more elevated and sublime, as we trace the operations of nature from cause to cause, climbing up the links of these chains of being, till we ascend to the Great Source of all things.

"why don’t you call him sheep instead of lamb"
A lamb, a ram, and an ewe are all sheep.
Rams are male sheep, lambs are very young sheep, and ewes are female sheep.

"You cannot pick the term lamb, and discard the sheep"
If I call an animal a 'lamb,' I am also calling that animal a 'sheep.'

"somebody inverted, look your quoting what is 1st and what is 2nd:
'He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
Do you have the explanation why this inversion of sheep and lamb between OT and NT?"
No.
What if any significance is there in such an inversion?

"he compared himself with a mother HEN"
As Grok noted.

"He looked like sacrificial animal in the eyes of his murderers, IN THE SENSE – the job has to be done, but who ever loved him"
I've heard that lambs killed during passover were kept by the family for some time prior to the passover, and often became a pet loved by the host family.

"Let’s say I see sacrificial animal – do you think I’d be a Christian?"
What's involved in being "a Christian"?

The book of John was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek.

Charles Cutler Torrey, _Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence_ (1936)
https://archive.org/details/ou.....5/mode/2up
PDF:
https://archive.org/download/O.....y_text.pdf

C.F. (Charles Fox) Burney (1868-1925), _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922)
https://archive.org/details/ar.....5/mode/2up

The case is closed, we humans were genetically engineered by beings in Ancient Sumer.
We were not created by a Hebrew god in a Hebrew bible.

The Chromosome 2 fusion
explained in this YouTube video
We might be the experiment. The Sumerian texts said this 4000 years ago.
YouTube Channel: The Archivist's Journal

Reference:
Atrahasis
and
Enki and Ninmah

psc=1

The Cosmic Serpent — Jeremy Narby: https://amzn.to/4eZW9hZ
Forbidden Archaeology — Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson: https://amzn.to/3SMFK99
The Ancestor's Tale — Richard Dawkins: https://amzn.to/3SJVsSt
Sapiens — Yuval Noah Harari: https://amzn.to/4viiOfn

The Sumerian texts describe our creation in detail. A trial and error process. Failed early versions. A final stable version that could reproduce. Most people call that mythology. Then scientists mapped what makes human DNA different from every other primate on the planet.

Inquiries: thearchivistsjournal@gmail.com

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.

"There are accounts of the effect of Darwin’s work in the 19th century. And there are discourses on the implications of the theory"

Paul Popenoe and Roswell Hill Johnson, _Applied Eugenics_ (1920), on 147-148

https://archive.org/details/ap.....=logically
The science of eugenics is the natural result of the spread and acceptance of organic evolution, following the publication of Darwin’s work on _The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection_, in 1859.
It took a generation for his ideas to win the day;
but then they revolutionized the intellectual life of the civilized world.
Man came to realize that the course of nature is regular;
that the observed sequences of events can be described in formulas which are called natural laws;
he learned that he could achieve great results in plant and animal breeding by working in harmony with these laws.
Then the question logically arose,
‘‘Is not man himself subject to these same laws?
Can he not use his knowledge of them to improve his own species, as he has been more or less consciously improving the plants and animals that were of most value to him, for many centuries?”

The evolutionist answered both these questions affirmatively.
However great may be the superiority of his mind, man is first of all an animal, subject to the natural laws that govern other animals.
He can learn to comply with these laws; he can, therefore, take an active share in furthering the process of evolution toward a higher life.

That, briefly, is the scope of the science of eugenics, as its founder, Sir Francis Galton, conceived it.

Hat tip
Michael Flannery, _Intelligent Evolution: How Alfred Russel Wallace's World of Life Challenged Darwinism_ (2026), 288pp., on 74