Sold my soul, but not to the devil.

[Xar]

Just to interject: According to "Western" history the first mention of monotheistic religion happened around 1356 BC under Pharaoh Akhenaten in Eqypt....

That's the first recorded one, but current historians date Zoroastrianism back to at least the 11th or 10th century BCE, possibly even earlier (based on linguistic features of the text of the Avesta); however, since scholars haven't reached a consensus yet as to the exact date (and it's unlikely they will in the near future), while it is possible that Zoroastrianism may be older than worship of Aten, I concede that Aten worship is the monotheistic religion with the oldest confirmed beginning. However, Aten worship died with Akhenaten, whereas Zoroastrianism still exists, making it the oldest surviving monotheistic religion

[Avatar]

Is it strictly monotheistic though? Isn't Angra Mainyu equivalent to another deity that it recognises?

(Actually, Now that I think about it, maybe not. As I recall, it teaches that good/order/Ahura Mazda) will inevitably prevail in the end...a true dualistic system should offer no more than a 50% chance.)

--A

[danlo]

I said "mention", that's all...

[Xar]

Is it strictly monotheistic though? Isn't Angra Mainyu equivalent to another deity that it recognises?

(Actually, Now that I think about it, maybe not. As I recall, it teaches that good/order/Ahura Mazda) will inevitably prevail in the end...a true dualistic system should offer no more than a 50% chance.)

--A

Angra Mainyu wasn't considered the equal of Ahura Mazda in the original texts; he was raised to an equal status later on, with Zurvanism and other currents of Zoroastrian beliefs. However, even in those sects, it was always clear that Ahura Mazda would triumph; as a consequence, even if equal in power, Angra Mainyu was the lesser, if only because it was certain he would be defeate in the end. Even later, the Parsi current of Zoroastrianism was influenced by Western thinkers and came to the belief that Angra Mainyu was the destructive emanation of Ahura Mazda, and that its opposing spirit was not Ahura Mazda itself, but the creative emanation, Spenta Mainyu. This belief however, was brought by Western thinkers as a way to introduce Christianity to the Parsis; as such, it is an artificial and deliberate modification of the original beliefs.

[Avatar]

Since the original beliefs state that Ahura Mazda was purely benevolent, and explicitly say he was not the source of evil. Gotcha. As I said, if the triumph of good is inevitable, then the two parties are not equal.

(And I don't recall anybody worshipping Angra Mainyu, which would also be a requirement for it to be a dualist system.)

--A

[Orlion]

Isn't it itself evolved from Judaism, which in itself isn't the world's oldest monotheistic religion?

Right, just to interject: According to "Western" history the first mention of monotheistic religion happened around 1356 BC under Pharaoh Akhenaten in Eqypt....

Was it monotheisitc religion, or monalatrous religion? The difference? One claims only one universal god, the other worships one god but acknowledges the existence of others. Israel was actually monalatrous until around after 550-ish BC...

[Avatar]

Interesting...don't think I've heard the term. Makes me think of how, when the first missionaries brought Christianity to Ireland, Jesus et al was refered to as the new god.

Hey, and there's those psalms...

Psalm 82:1 - God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

Psalm 138:1 - I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.

And of course John 10:34 but that's about the divinity of humanity.

--A

[rusmeister]

But the doctrine of the Trinity is a deal-breaker for many Christians. Not just rus. A woman I was talking to at work several years ago said there are three requirements if you want to call yourself a Christian: Accept Christ as your personal savior; the Trinity; ... (Damn. I forget the third.) I suspect rus, and many others, feel the same? I find it hard to believe that one of the required beliefs of Christianity was not, somewhere or other, taught by Christ. You know, the guy who actually established Christianity. It doesn't sound like "references" to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are teachings of a doctrine. References are fine for something like how tall a church should be, or how to greet a person in a particular position in the church. But a fundamental, required belief of Christianity??? A cornerstone of the religion?? A specific, detailed doctrine? Christ couldn't have skipped over that.

Thanks, Fist!
It certainly is a deal-breaker. The most commonly accepted definition of what a Christian is - by Christians - so if you are not Christian, you really don't have much to say about it - is the Nicene Creed, which specifically formulates the Trinity. If you don't accept the Nicene creed, you won't be accepted as christian by the overwhelming majority of Christians, no matter what you may call yourself.

Xar, I'm fully aware that nothing official was formulated until the 4th century, for the good - and simple - reason that the faith itself was unofficial until then. As soon as it became legal to practice it, they began working on "officialness".

The fact that Christ didn't say, "Hey, guys, there's this thing called a "Trinity"..." doesn't mean that it cannot be directly inferred from what he did say. As it, in fact, was. And He did refer to both the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Dogma is a thing that appears only when necessary for clarification. It does not appear when there is no confusion or need for it. The general tendency is to keep things as simple as possible. The entire Gospel can be reduced to the Resurrection of Christ, the Son of the living God. But when people start making stuff up, then doctrine becomes necessary to keep fatal errors - that would make nonsense of the faith - from spreading. Thus, "dogma" (aka 'doctrine", aka "teaching").

Purely as examples, two quick thoughts to illustrate the necessity of the dogmas (from a layman who is neither an official representative of the Church nor a trained theologian):

1) The Aryan/montanist heresies in extreme short - if Christ is not fully God, He cannot save us. If He is not fully human, He can't really relate to us. Thus, either heresy makes nonsense of the faith. The dual nature of
Christ makes Him both.

2)The Trinity - 3 in 1: If the deity is only 3, then it is mere polytheism. If only one, then it is a solitary Being. The Trinity is actually a Society in one being. Thus, it is capable of love from the outset - as love is only a virtue in relation to an Other (unlike the Islamic 100% unitarian God). This is actually of tremendous importance. When we say "God is love", it is not an idle platitude. It is stating an absolute fact, one that is possible only because He is a Trinity.

That'll probably generate as many questions as it answers - I'm just trying to show how dogma really makes sense internally and is not just arbitrary attempts to control a mob by a bunch of guys in robes - as is so often unreasonably assumed from the outset, making all "inquiry" hypocritical.

Again, I apologize for the dozen posts I have not responded to.

[Fist and Faith]

If you don't accept the Nicene creed, you won't be accepted as christian by the overwhelming majority of Christians, no matter what you may call yourself.

A question that springs to this non-Christian(by any definition)'s mind is: Will you be accepted by Christ? Did the Nicene folks get carte blanche to speak for Christ, and tell who He will accept and who He will not? Obviously, you know my stance on that question, but I'm genuinely wondering what yours is. Well, I assume your answer is Yes. But what I'm asking is, how did they get this permission? What do you believe happened at the time that makes it more than just a group of guys getting together and deciding what Christ's official position on these things is?

[Xar]

Xar, I'm fully aware that nothing official was formulated until the 4th century, for the good - and simple - reason that the faith itself was unofficial until then. As soon as it became legal to practice it, they began working on "officialness".

The fact that Christ didn't say, "Hey, guys, there's this thing called a "Trinity"..." doesn't mean that it cannot be directly inferred from what he did say. As it, in fact, was. And He did refer to both the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Just because Christianity was an underground religion until the late third century, it doesn't mean that Church leaders had not begun defining the faith in clearer terms before. The Church Fathers began writing their apologetics long before the end of the persecution, and despite this, there was no explicit mention of a Trinity anywhere until the 4th century.

Purely as examples, two quick thoughts to illustrate the necessity of the dogmas (from a layman who is neither an official representative of the Church nor a trained theologian):

1) The Aryan/montanist heresies in extreme short - if Christ is not fully God, He cannot save us. If He is not fully human, He can't really relate to us. Thus, either heresy makes nonsense of the faith. The dual nature of
Christ makes Him both.

The Arian heresy (which of course wasn't a heresy until the Council of Nicaea) had nothing to do with the dual nature of Christ; rather, it argued that the Son wasn't eternal, but was an emanation of the Father and thus lesser than the Father, even though still divine. The Gospels were somewhat ambiguous on this, with the mainstream Christians pointing out to quotes claiming that "Jesus and the Father were one" and the Arians pointing out quotes from Jesus stating that "the Father is greater than I". Arians in essence believed that the Son wasn't eternal, but had been created by the Father at some point in eternity. It is worth noting that the Arian doctrine had great influence in the East, and that it was this influence (which even extended to Roman emperors after Constantine) which eventually caused the Council of Nicaea to be called on to address the doctrine. Even after the Council, the schism between Nicenes and Arians continued, especially in the East, where the Arians were particularly powerful (Arius himself had come from the Eastern Roman Empire). It is also worth noting that eventually, the victory of the Nicenes over the Arians wasn't a matter of religious righteousness: rather, it was the doing of Theodosius, a Roman emperor who adhered himself to the Nicene Creed and therefore took drastic measures to ensure "his" Christianity won - including the exiling of all non-Nicenes and the confiscation of their churches.

2)The Trinity - 3 in 1: If the deity is only 3, then it is mere polytheism. If only one, then it is a solitary Being. The Trinity is actually a Society in one being. Thus, it is capable of love from the outset - as love is only a virtue in relation to an Other (unlike the Islamic 100% unitarian God). This is actually of tremendous importance. When we say "God is love", it is not an idle platitude. It is stating an absolute fact, one that is possible only because He is a Trinity.

Nevertheless the fact remains that the doctrine of the Trinity isn't explicitly mentioned in the Gospels, and the statements regarding the relationship between Christ and God the Father are ambiguous enough to have generated that much controversy. It is a testament to how ambiguous they are, in fact, that even today there are non-trinitarian sects which flourish. That said, and given that the Nicene-Arian controversy was arbitrarily resolved by an emperor who followed the Nicene Creed, it seems likely that if Theodosius had followed Arianism instead, today we would be living in a world where Christianity is non-trinitarian. And because the controversy was not solved based on the righteousness of a group's belief but simply on the fact that the most powerful political figure was on their side, it is impossible to use this historical victory as an argument for the validity of the doctrine itself, I think.

[Avatar]

If you don't accept the Nicene creed, you won't be accepted as christian by the overwhelming majority of Christians, no matter what you may call yourself.

As a non-christian, I consider anybody who believes that Christ was the son of god, that he was crucified, buried, rose on the third day and ascended into heaven for the redemption of their sins.

That's the only requirement I have in terms of classification. Everybody who believes in Christ is a Christian.

(I realise that the various sects of christianity do not agree with me. )

--A

[High Lord Tolkien]

It certainly is a deal-breaker. The most commonly accepted definition of what a Christian is - by Christians - so if you are not Christian, you really don't have much to say about it - is the Nicene Creed, which specifically formulates the Trinity. If you don't accept the Nicene creed, you won't be accepted as christian by the overwhelming majority of Christians, no matter what you may call yourself.

The Trinity concept is fascinating.
Most Christians that I've talked to about it had no idea what it was, which always amused me.
I've never heard it described as a deal breaker though in the definition of being a Christian.
I think if a Christian group said that it was part of the fundamentals of their group then it's as important as you describe.
"Christian" is too broad a term to be defined like that though despite what the Nicene Creed says (which was itself created but a small gathering of people).

Best example of this would be with the Catholic's belief of the infallibility of the Pope.
Tell a Catholic that if they don't believe that the Pope is infallible then they're not really a Catholic and they get all pissed off.
Despite the fact that it's part of the definition of being a Catholic.

[Xar]

It certainly is a deal-breaker. The most commonly accepted definition of what a Christian is - by Christians - so if you are not Christian, you really don't have much to say about it - is the Nicene Creed, which specifically formulates the Trinity. If you don't accept the Nicene creed, you won't be accepted as christian by the overwhelming majority of Christians, no matter what you may call yourself.

The Trinity concept is fascinating.
Most Christians that I've talked to about it had no idea what it was, which always amused me.
I've never heard it described as a deal breaker though in the definition of being a Christian.
I think if a Christian group said that it was part of the fundamentals of their group then it's as important as you describe.
"Christian" is too broad a term to be defined like that though despite what the Nicene Creed says (which was itself created but a small gathering of people).

Best example of this would be with the Catholic's belief of the infallibility of the Pope.
Tell a Catholic that if they don't believe that the Pope is infallible then they're not really a Catholic and they get all pissed off.
Despite the fact that it's part of the definition of being a Catholic.

The concept of papal infallibility is, however, restricted to ex cathedra pronouncements, not papal opinions. For example, if the Pope comes to you and says that Christianity denounces dog owners, papal infallibility does not apply to that statement because he is not saying it "officially"; vice versa, if he writes in one of his encyclics that "dog owners are not granted paradise", then papal infallibility would apply there. As many pronouncements by the Pope are proclaimed at the Angelus or in private audiences, it is unclear without reading all the ex cathedra documents from all Popes to know exactly which of those pronouncements should be considered "infallible" and which should not.

[High Lord Tolkien]

As many pronouncements by the Pope are proclaimed at the Angelus or in private audiences, it is unclear without reading all the ex cathedra documents from all Popes to know exactly which of those pronouncements should be considered "infallible" and which should not.

Thank you for the clarification.
I did know it wasn't regarding the mundane things but I didn't know how restricted the pronouncements were.
That amuses me too.

The Catholic Church believes the Pope is infallible but they're going to be selective about what gets out to the people.
Probably for our own good.