- This topic is empty.
- Posts
In this thread:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=310
MikeBoll made the following assertion:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2011,12:36) As opposed to say, the murderers who concocted and developed the comically flawed trinity doctrine, for example? 
I asked him three times to name them (he used the plural “murderers” so there must be more than one) and after ignoring my initial requests he acknowledged them and made the following statement:Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 06 2011,06:25) (If you'd like to go into a discussion on murdering Trinitarians, start a thread. There's likely already a couple of them on this site.)
Which I have now done. So I invite Michael to produce a list of names of murderous trinitarians along with the attendant proof of their pernicious deeds. Bear in mind that this list is to be of subjects who “concocted and developed” the trinity doctrine.Michael, the floor is yours.
“To enforce the decisions (about the trinity)
of the Council of Nicea, Constantine commanded,
with the death penalty for disobedience…….”
– A History of Christianity
Volume 1 1997
Kenneth Scott LatouretteHe helped to concoct. He helped to establish. He helped to murder.
“The day was to come
when the Nicene party won out completely
and then the emperors,
who wished to prevent any more such quarrels,
decreed that one who denied the Trinity
should be put to death.”
-The Church of our Fathers – 1950, pg. 46“The doctrine
that Jesus Christ the Son of God
was God the son
was decreed by worldly
and ecclesiastical powers.
Men were forced to accept it
at the point of the sword or else,
Thus, the error of the trinity
was propounded to the end
that ultimately people believed it
to be the truth.
Thus Christianity became in essence
like Babylonian heathenism,
with only a veneer of Christian names.”
— Forgers of the Word -1983 Victor Paul WierwilleEncyclopedia Britannica 1968
“The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325. Constantine himself presiding, actively guiding the discussion, and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. 'of one substance with the father.' Over-awed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them against their inclination. Constantine regarded the decision of Nicaea as divinely inspired. As long as he lived no one dared openly to challenge the creed of Nicaea.”
Can you imagine if people were allowed to speak freely back then? (Without threat of death)?
Shortly after concocting the nicene council (like most rulers, he wanted unity) he put his son to death.
How hard would it be for him to put to death those who disagree with him? Not hard.
A History of Christianity Volume 1 1997 Kenneth Scott Latourette
“To enforce the decisions of the Council of Nicea, Constantine commanded, with the death penalty for disobedience, the burning of all books composed by Arius, banished Arius and his closest supporters, and deposed from their sees Eusebius of Nicomedia and another bishop who had been active in the support of Arius.”
The Role of Constantine
The controversy greatly agitated Emperor Constantine, and he sent a letter to Arius and Alexander in an attempt to persuade them to lay aside their differences. He wrote, “This contention has not arisen respecting any important command of the law, nor has any new opinion been introduced with regard to the worship of God; but you both entertain the same sentiments, so that you may join in one communion. It is thought to be not only indecorous, but altogether unlawful, that so numerous a people of God should be governed and directed at your pleasure, while you are thus emulously contending with each other, and quarrelling about small and very trifling matters.”It has been suggested that because Constantine referred to the issue as “trifling” that he did not really understand it. Strangely, it is recorded in a letter by Eusebius of Caesarea that the Emperor suggested the key word “homoousious” that appears in the Nicene Creed. He says the Emperor explained the term as well, showing its difference from the heretical usage by Paul of Samosta. It has been speculated that the Emperor made his suggestion at the prompting of Hosius of Cordova, the Emperor's advisor and a man who was persecuted under Maximian.
Constantine did play an important role at the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea reports that he played an key part in calming, convincing, and bringing all to agreement on contested points. The account of Eusebius fairly glows in regard to the Emperor, and he is portrayed as a key figure. It is nowhere suggested, however, that he was permitted to vote with the bishops nor that he used any form of force to obtain an outcome.
It may be that the eloquence and glory of the Emperor had sway with some, however it should be remembered that he did eventually (years after the Council) support the Arian party. A few years after the Council of Nicea, Arius discovered a new way to interpret the word “homoousius” that agreed with his doctrines. He then asked to be readmitted to communion, but the Church refused. Arius then appealed to the Emperor. Emperor Constantine's favorite sister, Constantia, on her deathbed, implored Constantine to support Arius and he did so. A date was set for the forcing of the Church to readmit Arius, but while he was waiting for Constantine to arrive Arius stopped to relive himself and his bowels burst and he died. (See Arians of the 4th Century, Chapter III, Section II by John Henry Newman)
It is hard to imagine how a man who had supposedly argued with eloquence for the Nicene Creed and who supposedly formulated the key phrase and explained it would simply abandon it for a mere submission to the words and not the meaning of the Creed. It is also hard to imagine how the account of Eusebius can be reconciled to the Emperor's apparent failure to grasp the issue apparent in his letter. It is also hard to imagine how a man who had been such a humble servant of the Church at Nicea would attempt to force the Church to accept his decisions at this later date. It seems reasonable on these grounds to suppose that Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a less than accurate account designed to give credit and flattery to the emperor.
Nor was Constantine the last emperor to side with the Arians. Athanasius writes concerning this in “The Monks' History of Arian Impiety' (AD 358) saying, “When did a decision of the Church receive its authority from the emperor?” and “never did the fathers seek the consent of the emperor for them [councilar decrees of the Church], nor did the emperor busy himself in the Church.” He goes on to say that the heretics banded with the emperor. (See Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, by William Jurgens).
The Church was willing to accept the help of an emperor, to listen to what he had to say, but not to accept the rule of an emperor in matters of faith. However one describes the role of Constantine at the Council of Nicea, it must be remembered that the Creed of Nicea expressed what the great majority of bishops at the council found to be traditional, Biblical, and orthodox of the Christian faith, a faith in which they believed so firmly that they were willing to die for it.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htmThe Role of Constantine:
While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible at the council that omitted books he did not approve of, although he did later commission Bibles. In fact, Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church. This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons, under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….tantineConstantine was simply present at the Ncene council in a mediatory capacity. Remember also, the Nicene council in 325AD was not where the trinity was concocted at all – it's purpose was to codify the doctrine and put to bed the Arian controversy. So you'll have to go further back than 325AD to find a concoctor of the doctrine.
The council of Nicea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. Over a century earlier the use of the term “Trinity” (“trinitas” in Latin) could be found in the writings of Origen (185-254) and Tertullian (160-220), and a general notion of a “divine three”, in some sense, was expressed in the second and third-century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….tantineQuote (Is 1:18 @ June 06 2011,03:49) The council of Nicea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. Over a century earlier the use of the term “Trinity” (“trinitas” in Latin) could be found in the writings of Origen (185-254) and Tertullian (160-220), and a general notion of a “divine three”, in some sense, was expressed in the second and third-century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….tantine
True Paul and a good thread!Blessings!
Keith
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 07 2011,02:40) The Role of Constantine:
While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible at the council that omitted books he did not approve of, although he did later commission Bibles. In fact, Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church. This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons, under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….tantine
PaulAdoption of the term in the Nicene Creed
The Nicaean Creed is the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican Church, and most mainline Protestant churches with regard to the ontological status of the three persons of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Origen seems to have been the first ecclesiastical writer to use the word “homoousios” in a Trinitarian context,[5] but it is evident in his writings that he considered the Son's divinity lesser than the Father's, since he even calls the Son a creature.[6] It was by Athanasius and the Nicene Synod that the Son was taken to have exactly the same nature or essence with the Father, and at the Nicene Creed the Son was declared to be as immutable as his Father is.[7] Some theologians preferred the use of the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoioúsios, from ὅμοιος, hómoios, “similar” rather than ὁμός, homós, “same”) in order to emphasize distinctions among the three persons in the Godhead, but the term homoousios became a consistent mark of Nicene orthodoxy in both East and West. According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of Logos (or the divine word) and consequently possesses all of the inherent, ineffable perfections which religion and philosophy attribute to the Supreme Being. Three distinct and infinite minds or substances, three co-equal and eternal realities, participate in (or share) the same, single Divine Essence (ousia).
This doctrine was formulated in the 4th century during the extraordinary Trinitarian or Arian controversy. The several distinct branches of Arianism which sometimes conflicted with each other as well as with the pro-Nicene homoousian creed can be roughly broken down into the following classification:
Homoiousianism which maintained that the Son was “like in substance” but not necessarily to be identified with the essence of the Father.
Homoianism which declared that the Son was similar to God the father, without reference to substance or essence. Some supporters of Homoian formulae also supported one of the other descriptions. Other Homoians declared that God the father was so incomparable and ineffably transcendent that even the ideas of likeness, similarity or identity in substance or essence with the subordinate Son and the Holy Spirit were heretical and not justified by the Gospels. They held that the Father was like the Son in some sense but that even to speak of ousia was impertinent speculation.
Heteroousianism (including Anomoeanism) which held that God the father and the son were different in substance and/or attributes.this explain the word Homoousian what you forgot to comment on.
Pierre
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 06 2011,02:49) The council of Nicea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. Over a century earlier the use of the term “Trinity” (“trinitas” in Latin) could be found in the writings of Origen (185-254) and Tertullian (160-220), and a general notion of a “divine three”, in some sense, was expressed in the second and third-century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….tantine
Yet Origen thought Christ to be a “creature”, as did Eusebius. And Tertullian recognized Christ to be someone other than and lessor to God. He called Jesus “god from God” and opted that “He who makes is one, and he through whom the thing is made is another”.Read the Tertullian quotes that t8 put on the Syriac Writings thread. It seems strange to me that later Trinitarians claim Tertullian and Origen as benefactors of their cause, when they obviously didn't hold the views that today's Trinitarians embrace.
Btw Paul,
I didn't take your question, “Which murderers?” seriously. I thought for sure you were joking at first.
“It is important to see that the Trinity was not simply something that was accepted right away, and many people were persecuted for maintaining even the slightest disagreement. It was only through much force, fear, and political influence that the doctrine of the Trinity has become Orthodox.”
“The origins of the Trinity doctrine are appalling……..there was much deceit and bloodshed. Many lives were lost before 'Trinitarianism' was finally adopted.”
“Anti-Trinitarianism was one of the few heresies that were pursued consistently and vigorously from King Henry VIII to Charles I. There were a number of individuals who suffered death as heretics for their divergent views of the Trinity and of Christ in the eyes of the English Church.”
“It was under King James I (1603-1625) that public burning of heretics was ended, rather that they would just rot in prison in private. James I had many heretical books burned including a Latin edition of the Racovian catechisme in 1614, a major Unitarian text.”
“In 529 AD Emperor Justinian revamped the Roman Civil Law and heresy was big on his list of crimes. The two heresies that were now punishable by death were not accepting the Nicene Creed and rebaptism.”
“The Imperial law code from Justinian's time (A.D. 529) on, made rebaptism one of the two heresies penalized by death, the other being Anti-Trinitarianism.”
“Many thousands of people were killed by the state in the following centuries for their refusal to accept this doctrine as Biblical. Even as late as the 1700's, people were still being burned at the stake for their denial of this man-made doctrine (Michael Servetus was burned at the stake by Calvin for this reason).”
“Fighting, confusion, and killing is not Gods way of converting people to believe in a Biblical doctrine. However; this is what early Trinitarian advocates did. “The day was to come when the Nicene (Trinitarian) party won out completely and then the emperors, who wished to prevent any more quarrels, decreed that one who denied the Trinity should be put to death. This law was later to be used against the Unitarians. At the earlier time; however, the bishops were horrified that truth (or the Trinity) should be defended by the shedding of blood.” (or murder). Also, in the laws written and compiled by Emperor Justinain (called the code of Justinian) we find that the practice of murdering all non-Trinitarians continued well past A.D. 550. “The code says that any who refuse to believe in the Trinity and any who repeat baptism shall be put to death.” The Church of our Fathers by R.H. Bainton page 46, and 63. Think of it, a little helpless six year old girl could be beaten by Knights, and Clergymen and put to a brutal death simply because she was not a Trinitarian! Many modern day Trinitarians would be shocked of their Trinity Doctrine's true origin and history.”
“After the council, Trinitarian doctrine became official dogma in the Church, but the controversy did not end. In the next few years, more Christians were killed by other Christians over the Trinity doctrine, than were killed by all the pagan emperors of Rome.”
“It was not until the fourth century that many theologians and bishops began to argue over the identity of Christ. Many, who would not believe in the deity of Christ were burned as heretics and their souls damned by the Church. Even today those who deny the Trinity are considered heretical or involved in a cult. Many times they are told that they are not even saved because they deny the deity of Christ. It is no wonder that with so much social persecution very few people actually take the time to consider the doctrine of the Trinity and the implications that it carries.”
“Those who believe in the Trinity are not “holding God in accurate knowledge.” (Romans 1:28) That verse also says: “God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting.” Verses 29 to 31 list some of those 'unfitting' things, such as 'murder, strife, being false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless.' Those very things have been practiced by religions that accept the Trinity….For instance, Trinitarians have often persecuted and even killed those who rejected the Trinity doctrine.”
“The whole idea of a triune godhead is absurd in the extreme and makes a mockery of logic. In that regard, it might be well to reflect for a moment on the many innocent people, such as Michael Servetus the founder of Unitarianism, who were tortured, imprisoned or burnt at the stake for having had the courage to deny this false doctrine.”
“At his trial, Servetus was condemned on two counts, for spreading and preaching Nontrinitarianism and anti-paedobaptism (anti-infant baptism)”
“The burning of Michael Servetus….Had one visited the town of Geneva on the 27th of October 1553, one would have been witness of that tragic scene which William Osler describes so poignantly and dramatically: ……”Shortly after twelve o'clock, a procession started from the town-hall of Geneva-the chief magistrates of the city, the clergy in their robes, the Lieutenant Criminel and other officers on horseback, a guard of mounted archers, the citizens, with a motley crowd of followers, and in their midst, with arms bound, in shabby, dirty clothes, walked a man of middle age, whose intellectual face bore the marks of long suffering. Passing along the rue St. Antoine through the gate of the same name, the cortege took its way towards the Golgotha of the city. Once outside the walls a superb sight broke on their view: in the distance the blue waters and enchanting shores of Lake Geneva, to the west and north the immense amphitheater of the Jura, with its snow-capped mountains, and to the south and west the lovely valley of the Rhone; but we may well think that few eyes were turned away from the central figure of that sad procession. By his side, in earnest entreaty, walked the aged pastor, Farel, who had devoted a long and useful life to the service of his fellow citizens. Mounting the hill, the field of Champel was reached, and here on sight eminence was the fateful stake, with dangling chains and heaping bundles of faggots. At this sight the poor victim prostrated himself on the ground in prayer. In reply to the exhortation of the clergyman for a specific confession of faith, there was the cry, 'Misericordia, misericordia! Jesu, thou Son of the eternal God, have compassion upon me!' Bound to the stake by the iron chains, with a chaplet of straw and green twigs covered with sulphur on his head, with long dark face, it is said that he looked like the Christ in whose name he was bound. Around his waist were tied a large bundle of manuscript and a thick octavo printed book. The torch was applied, and as the flames spread to the straw and sulphur and flashed in his eyes, there was a piercing cry that struck terror into the hearts of the bystanders. The faggots were green, the burning was slow, and it was long before in a last agony he cried again, 'Jesu, thou Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me!' Thus died in his forty-fourth year, Michael Servetus Villanovanus, physician, physiologist, and heretic. Strange, is it not, that could he have cried, 'Jesu, thou Eternal Son of God!' even at this last moment, the chains would have been unwound, the chaplet removed, and the faggots scattered; but he remained faithful unto death to what he believed was the Truth as revealed in the Bible.”
Enough said? Or should we take you through a history lesson? (That is rhetorical, for I really don't have the time right now.)
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 06 2011,18:34) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 06 2011,02:49) The council of Nicea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. Over a century earlier the use of the term “Trinity” (“trinitas” in Latin) could be found in the writings of Origen (185-254) and Tertullian (160-220), and a general notion of a “divine three”, in some sense, was expressed in the second and third-century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….tantine
Yet Origen thought Christ to be a “creature”, as did Eusebius. And Tertullian recognized Christ to be someone other than and lessor to God. He called Jesus “god from God” and opted that “He who makes is one, and he through whom the thing is made is another”.Read the Tertullian quotes that t8 put on the Syriac Writings thread. It seems strange to me that later Trinitarians claim Tertullian and Origen as benefactors of their cause, when they obviously didn't hold the views that today's Trinitarians embrace.
Mike,
Why don't you believe that Tertullian teaches the trinity? Read this:Chapter XIII.—The Force of Sundry Passages of Scripture Illustrated in Relation to the Plurality of Persons and Unity of Substance. There is No Polytheism Here, Since the Unity is Insisted on as a Remedy Against Polytheism.
Well then, you reply, if He was God who spoke, and He was also God who created, at this rate, one God spoke and another created; (and thus) two Gods are declared. If you are so venturesome and harsh, reflect a while; and that you may think the better and more deliberately, listen to the psalm in which Two are described as God: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee or made Thee His Christ.” Now, since He here speaks to God, and affirms that God is anointed by God, He must have affirmed that Two are God, by reason of the sceptre’s royal power. Accordingly, Isaiah also says to the Person of Christ: “The Sabæans, men of stature, shall pass over to Thee; and they shall follow after Thee, bound in fetters; and they shall worship Thee, because God is in Thee: for Thou art our God, yet we knew it not; Thou art the God of Israel.” For here too, by saying, “God is in Thee,” and “Thou art God,” he sets forth Two who were God: (in the former expression in Thee, he means) in Christ, and (in the other he means) the Holy Ghost. That is a still grander statement which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” There was One “who was,” and there was another “with whom” He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand.” And Isaiah says this: “Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony we have also in Genesis: “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations? If, indeed, you follow those who did not at the time endure the Lord when showing Himself to be the Son of God, because they would not believe Him to be the Lord, then (I ask you) call to mind along with them the passage where it is written, “I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are children of the Most High;” and again, “God standeth in the congregation of gods;” in order that, if the Scripture has not been afraid to designate as gods human beings, who have become sons of God by faith, you may be sure that the same Scripture has with greater propriety conferred the name of the Lord on the true and one only Son of God. Very well! you say, I shall challenge you to preach from this day forth (and that, too, on the authority of these same Scriptures) two Gods and two Lords, consistently with your views. God forbid, (is my reply). For we, who by the grace of God possess an insight into both the times and the occasions of the Sacred Writings, especially we who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according to the principle of the divine economy, which introduces number, in order that the Father may not, as you perversely infer, be Himself believed to have been born and to have suffered, which it is not lawful to believe, forasmuch as it has not been so handed down. That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God; but because in earlier times Two were actually spoken of as God, and two as Lord, that when Christ should come He might be both acknowledged as God and designated as Lord, being the Son of Him who is both God and Lord. Now, if there were found in the Scriptures but one Personality of Him who is God and Lord, Christ would justly enough be inadmissible to the title of God and Lord: for (in the Scriptures) there was declared to be none other than One God and One Lord, and it must have followed that the Father should Himself seem to have come down (to earth), inasmuch as only One God and One Lord was ever read of (in the Scriptures), and His entire Economy would be involved in obscurity, which has been planned and arranged with so clear a foresight in His providential dispensation as matter for our faith. As soon, however, as Christ came, and was recognised by us as the very Being who had from the beginning caused plurality (in the Divine Economy), being the second from the Father, and with the Spirit the third, and Himself declaring and manifesting the Father more fully (than He had ever been before), the title of Him who is God and Lord was at once restored to the Unity (of the Divine Nature), even because the Gentiles would have to pass from the multitude of their idols to the One Only God, in order that a difference might be distinctly settled between the worshippers of One God and the votaries of polytheism. For it was only right that Christians should shine in the world as “children of light,” adoring and invoking Him who is the One God and Lord as “the light of the world.” Besides, if, from that perfect knowledge which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become less courageous to endure the martyr’s sufferings, from which an easy escape would everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a plurality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One. I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I
shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father “God,” and invoke Jesus Christ as “Lord.” ] But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him “God,” as the same apostle says: “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” For I should give the name of “sun” even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.from here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xiii.html
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 07 2011,10:53) I didn't take your question, “Which murderers?” seriously. I thought for sure you were joking at first.
You made an assertion. I asked you to substantiate it. You avoided answering the question and suggested I start a thread. I don't get the joke.Quote Enough said? Or should we take you through a history lesson? (That is rhetorical, for I really don't have the time right now.)
Not enough said. Ask asked you for the murderers that supposedly concocted and developed the trinity doctrine. This was your claim. You haven't listed a single one yet.May I have at least two names of subjects who concocted and developed the trinity doctrine and the requisite evidence of their murderous acts. Constantine has already been ruled out, yes he was a bad, bad man – but he had no part in concocting it (he was ambivalent toward theology and by all accounts inept with it).
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 06 2011,08:41) In this thread: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=310
MikeBoll made the following assertion:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2011,12:36) As opposed to say, the murderers who concocted and developed the comically flawed trinity doctrine, for example?
I asked him three times to name them (he used the plural “murderers” so there must be more than one) and after ignoring my initial requests he acknowledged them and made the following statement:Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 06 2011,06:25) (If you'd like to go into a discussion on murdering Trinitarians, start a thread. There's likely already a couple of them on this site.)
Which I have now done. So I invite Michael to produce a list of names of murderous trinitarians along with the attendant proof of their pernicious deeds. Bear in mind that this list is to be of subjects who “concocted and developed” the trinity doctrine.Michael, the floor is yours.
I see you are putting Mike on the Hot Seat. There is actually a forum for that.I suppose it could also have something to do with the traditions of the establismen of religion he is influenced by.
That is not what I thought truth and traditions was for but I have been mistaken in the past.
It does not look like this conversation has anything to do with me so except for my above comments I may not stop by again.
God give us wisdom to take care with the word of God so as to be guided by it and not to corrupt it.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 08 2011,01:29) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 07 2011,10:53) I didn't take your question, “Which murderers?” seriously. I thought for sure you were joking at first.
You made an assertion. I asked you to substantiate it. You avoided answering the question and suggested I start a thread. I don't get the joke.Quote Enough said? Or should we take you through a history lesson? (That is rhetorical, for I really don't have the time right now.)
Not enough said. Ask asked you for the murderers that supposedly concocted and developed the trinity doctrine. This was your claim. You haven't listed a single one yet.May I have at least two names of subjects who concocted and developed the trinity doctrine and the requisite evidence of their murderous acts. Constantine has already been ruled out, yes he was a bad, bad man – but he had no part in concocting it (he was ambivalent toward theology and by all accounts inept with it).
IS 1;18i will only ask you one question;in respond to your request to MIKE
how many people or men did SATAN kill that is by his own hands ? none, but how then is he called a murderer since the beginning by Christ ?
Pierre
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 07 2011,01:29) asked you for the murderers that supposedly concocted and developed the trinity doctrine. This was your claim. You haven't listed a single one yet.
Paul,If you are serious, I'll make it a point sometime to find some names for you.
I specifically said “concocted AND DEVELOPED” for a reason. Do you believe the trinity doctrine to have been “fully developed” because people were coerced into signing the Nicene Creed?
Not at all, that creed was later rejected and voted out, only to be reinstated at a later time. There were many murders during the 2000 year DEVELOPMENT of today's trinity doctrine.
Don't make the mistake of thinking I refer only to the members of the Council of Nicea.
But I seriously don't have the time for this right now. I have a hard time keeping up with my current correspondence on this site as it is. Perhaps someone with more time will help you Google the bloody history of the Trinity Doctrine before then? (Hint: Google “Trinity Doctrine + Bloody + Murder”. There are many sites to go on to from there.)
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 08 2011,15:02) If you are serious, I'll make it a point sometime to find some names for you.
That'd be good, thanks.Quote But I seriously don't have the time for this right now. I have a hard time keeping up with my current correspondence on this site as it is. Perhaps someone with more time will help you Google the bloody history of the Trinity Doctrine before then? (Hint: Google “Trinity Doctrine + Bloody + Murder”. There are many sites to go on to from there.)
A WORD OF ADVICE – If you don't have time to defend your generalised assertions, don't make them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
