Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDylan
i.e. the catholic church and the trinitarian doctrine??? If you AGREE with the catholic church and dogma, then anything disagreeing with it would be heresy... but if you DO NOT agree with the catholic dogma, then NOT EVERYTHING that isn't compliant is necessarily heresy. Now let me ask you a question. Do you agree with, and wholeheartedly subscribe to, the dogma, decrees, and doctrines of the Catholic church? If not, then YOU sir (and ME) are a heretic in their eyes!!!!
The 6th or 7th century Catholic church preserved and venerated writings and teaching that supported it's conclusions then, and destroyed and disregarded writings and teaching that opposed it's perspective. The "history" was in effect "rewritten" in retrospect to support the 6th-7th century Catholic church's dogma...
This type of rewriting history has occurred many times in history. Think of the library in Alexandria being set ablaze? Entire volumes of human history was wiped out, to be rewritten by the victors.
Let's start by saying this: the men, whose early writing many trinitarians appeal to, were given the boot as well. For instance, Hippolytus was rejected and led a schismatic movement against Biship Callistus or Rome. Tertullian became a Montanist and the church of his day excommunicated him, Origen was excommunicated by the bishop of Alexandria etc. etc. etc. Which one of the "highly esteemed" trinitarians are we to appeal to in support of what is ecclesiastical doctrine? Actually, if you do a thorough study of history, Sabellius, Noetus, and monarchians were very properous in many areas of the world throughout history. Monarchianism WAS the only church doctrine until around the late 2nd century... |
I want to comment on the above statement. I have studied this subject and many scholars have studied and wrote extensively on this subject and very few if any agree with your assertion.
You're attempts to rewrite history is astounding to say the least. You only bring your opinion that Manarchianism was the only church doctrine until the late 2nd century. As my signature states, there is no one arguing for or against this until the late 2nd or early 3rd century.
Let me give you some more proof that the first century Christian held to the plurality within the Godhead. Lets discuss Hermas (A.D. 120)
Church Historian says of Hermas: But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epsitle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.3)
The Shepherd, Hermas clearly contradicts the Oneness doctrine of the non-eternal Son.
“The Son of God is older than all His creation, so that He became the Father’s adviser in His creation. Therefore also He is Ancient.” (Hermas, The Shepherd, Ninth Similitude, 12, in ANF, vol 2)
Polycarp of Smyrna (A.D. 130-150) He claimed to have been a Christian for eighty six year.
And according to Irenaeus, a disciple of the Apostle John. Eusebius also made this claim.
“…wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.” (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14, in ANF, vol 1)
Threaded Mode
