Debates about when to celebrate "Easter".

 First, a reminder that "Easter" is a word used only in English and sometimes other Germanic languages.  All of the Greek and Latin speaking ancients I'm about to talk about actually said "Pascha" everywhere modern English discussions/translations of them like Wikipedia say "Easter".

Also, by the First Century the word Peshach/Pascha was being used for all the Nisan Holy Days together and not just the 14th, but this looser application is anticipated by Deuteronomy 16 and Ezekiel 45 21-24.  That's why in Acts 12 it's still Pascha after the Days of Unleavened Bread have started.

First I want to discuss how the Quartodecimanism debate that went on in the Second Century was not the same thing as the arguments modern Hebrew Roots/Torah Observant Christians have with mainstream Western Christianity, or even the same thing as the debate that was had at the Council of Nicaea.

Both sides of the original Quartodeciman controversy were using the same calendar, and it seems like it was a lunar Calendar, if it was exactly the same Calendar the Jews of the time were using or not I don't know for sure but I think it probably was.  The debate was about whether the main celebration (Feast being the word used) should be on the 14th of Nisan (the position of the Quartodecimans) or the following Sunday which seems to be what most Christians were doing. The Sunday observers fasted through the 14th till Sunday morning.

It wasn't a debate between two entirely different methods of when to calculate anything, but a debate about whether the day Jesus was Crucified, or the Day He Rose from the Dead should be the day of the Feast.  Or in the context of Leviticus 23, Exodus 12 and Numbers 28, the day the Passover Lamb is killed or First Fruits, which is always on the morning after the Sabbath hence Sunday.

Modern Torah observant Christians often assume the Quartodecimans were the ones on their side of the dispute, and anyone who wanted to do anything but hide under their beds on a Sunday must have been closet Pagan sun worshipers.

The truth is both sides of the dispute were adding to the Torah by seeing a full Fast as being required at all.  But if you read Leviticus 23 more closely, specifically verses 9 through 14 which are about First Fruits.  Verse 14 says.

"And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for this age throughout your generations in all your dwellings."

So, it sounds like a fast of sorts ends on First Fruits.  It's also interesting that Esther's fast was at the time when Passover would normally be celebrated, but it lasted three days trough the 14th and 15th days of the month, leading to her final victory on the 17th.

Melito of Sardis' Passover teaching clearly teaches the Torah being done away with, so no the Quartodecimans were not the Hebrew Roots people of their time.

To Christians the two most important events in history are the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  I would argue that the Resurrection is more important, in the Sermon on Mar's Hill in Acts 17 Paul's presentation of The Gospel to a gentile audience does not directly refer to the Death of Jesus at all, but the climax is definitely The Resurrection.  In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul refers to both the Crucifixion and the Resurrection at the beginning, but the rest of the chapter is primarily about the Resurrection.

Crucifixion Day is a day to mourn (which is often an appropriate time to Fast in Jewish thought), The Resurrection is what we celebrate.

Polycrates_of_Ephesus defended the Quartodeciman position by citing the long established traditions of the Churches in Asia.  But I've already talked about how The Bible itself gives us reasons to suspect that region was where things first started going wrong.

The debate about Easter at the Council of Nicaea is also highly misunderstood.  This debate was only about first if Christians should use the same Lunar Calendar as the Jews, and then if all Churches should use the same calendar.  There was not even any disagreement that it should be a Lunisolar Calendar.

The Council's final decision was that it should be determined independent of the Jewish calendar, and that there should be a universal agreement.  But what that final calendar was took a long time to form.

And it wasn't till centuries later that the Roman Church started making a deliberate effort to make sure Christian Passover never lines up with Jewish Passover, doing that is arguably just as much in violation of Nicaea's decision as adopting the Jewish reckoning would be, since that's not a truly independent decision.

Nicaea was addressing a disagreement that began in the late 3rd Century, so it predated Constantine's influence but was still a century after the Quartodeciman controversy.

One of the arguments against the Jewish Reckoning made at this time was that it sometimes had Passover happening before the Spring Equinox.  Now that makes it seem to me like a form of the modern Rabbinic Jewish calendar is what they were breaking with here, and indeed it seems to have developed at the same time this Christian disagreement started.  The modern Kariate reckoning has if anything the opposite problem, a tendency to happen maybe a little too long after the Equinox.  

Did the Church's developing Anti-Semitism play some factor in why this happened?  Possibly, but just as Anti-Semites criticizing Israel doesn't make criticism of the Israeli Government inherently Anti-Semitic, there is likewise disagreement even among Jews on if the Rabbinic calendar is correct.

I'm not a legalist, I don't think it's a big deal if we're technically observing things on the wrong day.  But I wanted to clarify how neither of these disputes were an Ancient Hebraic Christian practice being suppressed by a Solar Calendar using organized Church.  The origin of the current method the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant Churches use is much longer and more complicated.

I have come to think we should abandon the Lunar Calendar assumption altogether, but that's not something any of these Early Christians are known to have considered.

Homoousion Stoicism

The Irony is I began my flirtation with Christian Stoicism by considering certain assumptions all sides of the Nicene V Arian controversy agreed on regarding the Usias of God possibly wrong in my God and the Universe post.  But I have since found that the Stoics did sometimes use the word Usias in defining their distinction between God as the Active Matter and the visible material world as Passive Matter.  Meaning in that sense even Stoic Christians could agree that Humans other then Jesus are not exactly Homousian with God in the same way Jesus is.

However my argument was never that the Nicene Creed was wrong, and I still consider the fixation on various forms of Usias a partial distraction from the original point of the Arian heresy.  And what I've learned reading Early Arianism shows that Arius and Athanasius arguments did hinge a lot on both agreeing with Divine Immutability.

The reason why I'm making this new post on the subject is Tertullian.  Many Scholars have observed a degree of Stoicism in Tertullian including his willingness to argue that God is in a sense Corporeal.

https://williamhemsworth.com/2017/11/28/tertullian-and-stoic-materialism/

https://www.tertullian.org/articles/roberts_theology/roberts_04.htm

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2005/07/tertullian-and-stoicism.html

Now Tertullian's Stoicism is definitely tainted a bit by later Roman Stoicism when it comes to things like Sexual Morality so he's still fallen away from the New Testament in that sense.  But the Metaphysics is the point of discussion here.

He was still critical of some Stoic ideas just like I am, but what baffles me is how he thought Marcion who was more Gnostic then the Gnostics in his attitude towards the material world owed anything to the Stoics?

Tertulian is also famously cited as the only Pre-Nicene Father who even comes close to defining the Trinity in Nicene-Homousian terms with his use of Substantia which is arguably the Latin equivalent of Usias. So could even Tertulian's use of Substantia be influenced by Stoic uses of Usias?

According to Eusebius of Caesarea it was Constantine himself who insisted on the Homousian thermology.  But we also know that at Nicaea Constantine didn't know Greek very well, he was a firmly Western Latin in his language.  And since Tertullian was the first Latin Church Theologian, I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest Constantine got this Homousian idea from Tertullian's Trinitarian use of Substantia.

So it could be that in-spite of how much Platonism was already running strong in the Fourth Century Church that Homoousionism was one final win for the Stoic Theology.

God and The Universe

The more I've thought about the issues I first discussed in Semi-Arianism and the Second Ecumenical Council the more I've come to think that the Homoousion controversy became a distraction from the actual point of the Arian Heresy.  But that's not me saying Homoousionism is wrong, per se.

So first we need to ask the question of why even did the full Arians (and even many Semi-Arians) object to the Homoousion formula so strongly?  It was not relevant to Arius's original explanation of his Theology at all.  And Arians did believe Jesus was the Son of God.  Aren't most children made from the Substance of their parents?

It's because of how by this time the Pythagorean and Platonic understanding of The Divine had influenced all schools of thought in the Greco-Roman world.  To them no Created Being could be described as being of the same Substance as the True Original God.  The Demiurge of Timaeus could be considered in some sense Homousian with the matter it was merely rearranging, but even the Demiurge was not Homousian with the True God (at least during this later post Numenius of Apamea period of Platonism and Pythagoreanism).  And the Arians were essentially Platonists who identified The Logos/Jesus with the Demiurge not the ultimate Supreme Being.  However what the Arians and Athanasians and Trinitarians who were iffy on Homoousianism like Eusebius of Caesarea all agreed on was that Creation itself is not Homousian with The Father.

I am making this post to suggest that this assumption everyone at Nicaea agreed on is actually something that The Bible maybe doesn't agree with.

I know that many Christians are used to thinking God must be completely outside The Universe in order to be it's Creator.  But if you know what you're doing, you can construct a circular wall in such a way that you are within it when you are done making it.  And maybe the Substance of God is Infinite enough that He could create the Universe from His own Substance without lessening Himself at all?

When The Bible says that The Heavens are His Throne and The Earth His Footstool, that imagery tells me He's within The Universe not outside of it.  Remember both the Ancient Hebrew and Greek words for "Heaven" at their core just meant The Sky and what we would call Outer Space.  I already made a post arguing that the Light that lightened the Universe before the Sun, Moon and Stars were created was the same Light that Jesus is identified with.  And then there is the fact that Adam became a Living Soul when God Breathed Life into him.  Breath in that verse is also a word for Spirit.  To me that is pretty strong support for at least our Spirits and/or Souls being homousian with The Holy Spirit.

InspiringPhilosophy in his video on Panentheism said there is supposed to be a strong distinction between Creator and Creation, but the only verse he cited was what Paul said in Romans 1.  First of all that verse was only about what we're supposed to Worship and nothing else.  And also Romans 1:18-32 is Paul quoting the beliefs of the Platonic Hellenized Jews of Rome he spent the rest of the Epistle refuting.  In Romans 11 Paul tells us what God is doing in grafting Gentiles into Israel is "Para phusis" thus utterly destroying the world view of Romans 1 where being "Para Phusis" is presented as inherently evil.

Materialism is often assumed to be inherently Atheistic.  However the Theology of the Ancient Stoics was a Materialist Monotheism.  (IP for some reason defined Soticism completely wrong in the Panentheism video), and so was the Theology of Dutch Jewish Philosopher Spinoza.

God being in The Universe doesn't mean He would be in it in a way that our currently limited ablity to perceive it could detect.  We now know there are at least 10 dimensions but we live in or perceive only 4 of them, the 3 spatial dimensions and time.  "Dark matter" is just a term for matter scientists are pretty sure exists but we are not currently capable of detecting with any of our 5 senses, and it's estimated to make up 85% of all matter.  The 6 colors our eyes can see are only a small piece of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, and it's the same with the other senses.

In other words No I'm not arguing that God and His Angels simply live on a Planet orbiting Polaris that we could fly a space ship to.

[Update November: See this post which is kind of a follow up.]

[The below digression into Stoicism I am more iffy on now, I don't want to erase it, it should have maybe always been a separate post.]

Semi-Arianism and the Second Ecumenical Council

The first Canon of the First Council of Constantinople is commonly read as follows, emphasis mine.

The Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm.  And every heresy shall be anathematized, particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomæans, the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.

However some variants read "Macedonians" instead of "Semi-Arians" and most scholars believe that is probably the original reading.  The context and grammar here clearly intends to use this name as a synonym for the Pneumatomachi who were founded by a Macedonius, and every other Hersey on this list is identified by it's founder.  Macedonius may have also qualified as a type of Semi-Arian but the heresy he's uniquely associated with is denying the Divinity of The Holy Spirit.

Also the term "Semi-Arian" was probably not actually used at the time of the Council, it seems like a term scholars made up later to refer to various attempted compromises between the Nicene position of Athanasius and proper Arianism.

There were different forms of Semi-Arianism, many opposed the term Homusian as much as the proper Arians, but others did not.  Indeed some were specially trying to make their Semi-Arianism compatible with the Nicene Creed.  Meletius of Antioch was the main example of this variety, many will deny he qualified as Semi-Arian but he was opposed by Athanasius and within Antioch by the students of Eustathius.

The basic gist of Semi-Arianism is believing Jesus was Begotten before or at the beginning of Creation.  That in essence He did already exist as the Word of God before then, but this Begetting was the beginning of His existence as a distinct Person.

People constantly present the history of the Second Ecumenical Council as when even Semi-Arianism was condemned as no longer compatible with Orthodoxy.  But the additions to the Nicene Creed tied to this Council are mainly focused on addressing other heresies with a different focus, particularly issues related to The Holy Spirit.

In fact, if anything, Semi-Arianism is more compatible with the Nicene-Constantinople Creed then it was the Original Creed.  Both versions refer to Jesus being "Begotten not Made", but in the original Nicene Creed it's entirely possible to interpret the Begetting as being in reference to His being Begotten in Mary's Womb at the Incarnation, in fact I hope that was exactly the intent.  The Constantinople version however declares that Jesus was...

 "Begotten of The Father before all Aions(Eons/Ages, commonly mistranslated Worlds)".

That declaration is not only compatible with Semi-Arianism, but I would argue is inherently Semi-Arian.  The only way to make this compatible with proper Athanasianism is to say that The Word already had a distinct personality before this Pre-Creation Begetting, but why would that be the case?  What's the point of this Begetting in that case?

Just take a look at this Arian Compromise Creed proposed by the 359 Council of Seleucia.

We confess then, and believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of things visible and invisible. We believe also in his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of him without passion before all ages, God the Word, the only-begotten of God, the Light, the Life, the Truth, the Wisdom: through whom all things were made which are in the heavens and upon the earth, whether visible or invisible. We believe that he took flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, at the end of the ages, in order to abolish sin; that he was made man, suffered for our sin, and rose again, and was taken up into the heavens, to sit at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Saviour has denominated the Comforter, and whom he sent to his disciples after his departure, according to his promise: by whom also he sanctifies all believers in the church, who are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Those who preach anything contrary to this creed, we regard as aliens from the catholic church.

It is awfully close to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed on this issue at least with the only significant difference being the lack of Homoousion.

My study into the history of Emperor Theodosius I implies to me a compromise settlement is what he was going for on the Arian debate, but not one that could be seen as in any way a rejection of Nicaea.  His support of Meletius of Antioch is evidence of that.  Also the second canon of the council explicitly tolerates the Arianism of the Council of Rimmi which was that of the Germanciii Barbarians, and the later Theodsian Code further upheld that.  Theodosius was politically motivated by wanting peace with the Barbarian Arians.

The Scriptural Basis usually cited for this Pre-Creation Begetting is Proverbs 8:22-29 and sometimes Psalm 45:1.  The idea that Proverbs 8 refers to a Pre-Creation Begetting of Jesus goes back at least as far as Tertullian in Against Praxeas Chapter 5. They've also used Psalm 110:3 and Psalm 2.

Building Doctrine on something you can only find even alluded to in Poetic books is very shaky.  Especially ones written by the highly suspect Solomon.  But these Greek Christians were also basing this on the Septuagint Greek Translations of these chapters, the Masoretic/KJV/YLT readings don't support this interpretation, Psalm 110 doesn't say "begat" in the Hebrew.  Also I believe Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is The Holy Spirit not Jesus.  Regardless Psalm 110:3 actually supports my view by specifically referring to the Womb in all versions.

As far as Jesus being called the "Firstborn of Creation", the Firstborn is a status sometimes given in the Hebrew Bible to individuals who were not literally the Firstborn like Joseph.  It is only because of the Incarnation that Jesus qualifies as being "born" at all, but he's The Firstborn because of Who He Is not when He was born.

Jesus was called the Beginning, but that doesn't mean He had a Beginning, it just means that Creation Began with His actions, as I talked about a few days ago.  When Jesus said "Before Abraham was I Am" even if you question that as a direct reference to the I Am of the Torah, it implies not just preexistence but a lack of beginning, He didn't just say He existed before Abraham.  I've also already talked about how John 1:3 proves Jesus isn't a created being, if He created everything that was created then He Himself wasn't created.

So if they wanted to rule out even Semi-Arianism, they should have done the opposite of what they did on the Begetting issue and clarified Jesus's only Begetting was in the Womb of Mary, while affirming Him as Co-Eternal with The Father.

The Calcedonian Definition also contains this Semi-Arian statement "before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead", this issue is not really relevant to the main issue Chalcedon was discussing, but still, Chalcedonian Christianity is officially Semi-Arian.

I want to further show that the begetting of Jesus can only be in The Womb of Mary.

Hebrews 11 refers to Isaac as Abraham's "Only Begotten" (same Greek term used in John 3:16) Son at the time of the Offering of Isaac in Genesis 22.  The Author of Hebrews (who I believe was Paul who talked about Hagar in Galatians, but regardless of that) clearly knew enough about Genesis to know Ishmael was alive at this time.

Judges 8 refers to the 70 sons of Gideon's Wives as being Begotten but not Abimelech the son of the Concubine.

So contrary to what we at first assume, being a Begotten Son at least in part technically depends on having the right Mother, of being the Son of a Wife rather then a Concubine.  YHWH's Wife is Israel, Mary is an Israelite.  So Jesus is the only Begotten Son of God because He is The Son of an Israelite.

Every Old Testament example of Jesus being called a Son either of God or of Man or of David is prophetic including Psalm 2, as is any reference to Him being Begotten, in the present tense the Second Person of The Hebrew Bible's Trinity is The Word of YHWH and The Angel of YHWH.  

John 1 likewise doesn't use Monogenes till it describes the Incarnation in verse 14.

Other Platonic Heresies also factor into this.  With both early Patristics and modern Christian Philosophers arguing that since God does not "Change" then The Father was always a Father and The Son was always a Son.  However this way of defining God is incompatible with Hebrew Theology, The Hebrew Bible tells us that YHWH "repented' a number of times.  That God Is Love is what doesn't Change.  The Father was already Father in The Hebrew Bible because He was a Father to Humanity and to Israel.  But the Logos was not yet The Son.

Update September 30th 2020: So the Nicene-Constantinople Creed was not actually formally a part of the Second Ecumenical Council, it was in fact unheard of until Chalcedon in 451, the Council of Ephesus 20 years earlier was still using the original Nicene Creed.

The Doctrine in question was still partially popularized by that Council since it indirectly affirmed the Creed of Rimmi as acceptable which includes the same clause, and it was also taught by Cyril of Alexandria.  It's possible this Creed was before Chalcedon just a Creed used locally in the area of Constantinople.  It actually seems like it's possibly a hybridization of the original Nicene Creed and the Creed of the 360 Council of Constantinople.

And the thing is this "begotten before all ages" doctrine was part of how Arius expressed his theology from the beginning, it was in his Profession of Faith from 320 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_creeds

The decision not to include it in the original Nicene Creed must have been intentional, unfortunately we don't have the minutes of the council to document for us if it was discussed.  And we don't have the minutes of this Council either.

The fact is too many people have it in their heads that Homousian is the core of the Arian Controversy when originally that word wasn't a factor at all.  That's why now I've seen Catholic and Orthodox blogs discussing this phrase as if it's inherently Anti-Arian even though Arius himself taught it.  

The root of the Arian Heresy is the Platonic Theology of Timaeus where The Monad is the original supreme God but a lesser Demiurge who emanates from the Monad is the Creator.  Arius used the word Monad in his Profession of Faith, but didn't use Demiurge since that term had come to be associated with the Gnostics.  Philo of Alexandria referred to his version of the Demiurge as The Logos and identified it with The Angle of The Lord, Third Century Neoplatonists also used the word Logos in a similar way.  The Heretic Cerinthus was perhaps the first Christian Heretic to teach a version of this.  But Arius's ideas probably more directly descended from Origen's.

I've decided this statement is no longer my only objection to the revised Creed.  The "One Baptism" comment also contradicts Scripture.  And the "One Apostolic Church" comment is technically acceptable but I know what they meant by it is something I don't like.

I still support all the additions about The Holy Spirit (but not the Western Filioque) and the "Kingdom Shall Have no End" statement.  But I also wish that like the Old Roman Symbol and Apostles Creed it included a clarification that the Resurrection is Bodily/Of The Flesh.

I'm not interested in whether or not I agree with the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

 First, for people who don't know what I'm referring to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_ecumenical_councils

I want to state that this goes both ways, I'm not so Anarchic that I'm gonna act like whatever decision the councils made must be wrong, that attitude also gives them too much power.  I feel like I basically agree with the main Theological decisions of the first four Ecumenical Councils, but those Councils also made smaller decisions on things like Church Hierarchy that I can't get behind.  The issue around which the 6th Council was convened I haven't even looked into enough to know if I'd have an opinion on it.  The rest are issues I have and will continue to look into on this Blog.

To me The Bible is not just the Final Authority but the only Authority. Now people will point to Acts 15 as Biblical Support for the idea of Church Councils.  First of all that Council was attended by The Apostles, I've already refuted the notion that Apostolic Authority can be passed on.  So this is the only Council that has Apostolic Authority, and it's decision and historical context is recorded for us in Scripture.

But secondly, even if you convinced me some Councils, like the Pre-Nicene/Pre-Constantine ones, mattered even a little bit.  The Ecumenical Councils wee in direct violation of passages like 1 Corinthians 6 and Matthew 18 that forbid Christians from turning to Civil Authorities to settle disputes.  It doesn't matter if a head of state is a Christian, their authority is Civil not Ecclesiastical.  The Council of Nicaea was presided over by Constantine himself, and the Bishops asked him to do it, maybe because they felt he'd be a neutral party.  Constantine was not Baptized till he was on his death bed.  To me Baptism has nothing to do with Salvation, but to most Ecumenical Council affirming Christians you at least have to be Baptized to be considered a part of The Church.

The second Ecumenical Council was convened by the Emperor who first made Christianity the state religion of the Empire for the purpose of defining what his new state religion was.  The first Council of Ephesus basically became two councils and it was Theodosius II who decided which one was right.  Chalecdon wasn't even headed by a Bishop but by a committee of Senators and government officials  The 5th Ecumenical Council was entirely a product of Justinian's misguided agenda to try and fix the Chalcedonian schism by further pushing away the Nesotrians and others who were simply associated with them.

So for this reason the Ecumenical councils are the least authoritative councils not the most.  They are The Church marrying the State, the Sin of Pergamos.

There is also debate about how many of these even fit what the word "Ecumenical" is supposed to mean.  The first two councils held in Constantinople had less then half as many attendees as Nicaea.  For Nicaea Constantine had invited 1,800 Bishops, 1000 in the east and 800 in the west, but only 318 max showed up.  Now it'd be easy for a moderner to throw a "if you don't vote you can't complain" argument at those who didn't attend, but maybe the majority of Bishops actually understood the Biblical Arguments against doing a council like this I laid out above.  Only 5 Bishops represented the entire Western half of the Empire.

One Bishop known to be missing is Lyon's, Lyon was the oldest Church in Gaul the one founded by Irenaeus and other immigrants from Asia Minor but principally Smyrna in the second century.  But neither Maximus of Lyon or Tetradius of Lyon attended instead Gaul was represented by a Bishop of a much less significant city, Nicasius of Die.  We also know Britannia had 3 bishops at this time including one for York, but whether or not any attended Nicaea is disputed.  But it's not just looking West, East of the Empire there were Papa bar Aggai and Simeon Bar Sabbae leading the Church in Babylonia/Persia, there's no evidence they attended the council either.

The 7th and last Council had only 35 attendees and no Frankish Bishops were represented which agitated Charlemagne.  Only Chalcedon had significantly more attendees then the first one, and that was still only 520.  The 3rd and 4th Councils caused Schisms, not even everyone who attended consented to their outcomes.

The fact is I don't consider any of the issues these Councils debated all that important to whether one is a "True Christian" or not.  Now ultimately nothing besides if you call Jesus Lord and believe He's the Son of God matters to if you're a "True Christian" or not.  In other words there pretty much are no false Christians in my view, I firmly believe that because of 1 John 4:15 and 1 Corinthians 12:3.

But even after that the issues discussed at these Councils are not at the top of the list of issues I consider it important to be right on.  Being right on the issue of The Bodily Resurrection and Soterology are certainly above them in importance based on 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5.

Some of my allies on Universal Salvation insist they don't want to make it a core essential doctrine of the Faith, and yet are certainly Ecumenical Christians to some extent.  To me being right or wrong on this issue is ultimately more important even then if you're right on The Trinity.  And after those two vital issues I may even consider the Virgin Birth and Pre-Millenialism more important then The Trinity.

Again to be clear my view of the Trinity is a Nicene one, especially in the context of my research into Old Testament Trinity passages.  But I am sympathetic to those at the Council who weren't even slightly Arian but still uncomfortable with the word Homusias because it was Unbiblical and condemned by an earlier Pre-Nicene council for it's association with Modalism, and some claim it was Constantine himself who insisted on this word being in the Creed.

And there are some passages like Hebrews 1-2 that I'm not sure how to refute the Arian interpretation of.  So I can't consider people like Arians or Unitarians damnable heretics, especially not the ones around today who are with me on Universal Salvation.

I know I may be reinforcing the notion among critics of Universal Salvation that it is a heresy by  admitting to it making me feel some kinship with Untarians and Mormons.  But my point is you should consider Salvation more important whatever your position on Salvation is.  And no Universal Salvation is not a reason for me to break with the Ecumenical Councils, the 7th and final one declared Gregory of Nyssa a "Father of the Fathers", and numerous people have already debunked the notion that Universal Salvation was condemned by the fifth council.  (It's not an Ecumenical Council but the council of Orange condemned both Pelagianism and Double-Predestination equally.) C Baxter Kruger very strongly ties The Trinity to his view of Universal Salvation.

Soteorlogy was not directly the subject of any of the Ecumenical Councils, though I know Ryan Reeves likes to explain how it's all indirectly relevant. But the fact is none of these hard to understand nuances of Theology or Christology matter so long as you simply believe what The Bible says about Jesus being without Sin and dying for our Sins and being Risen to a Bodily Resurrection.

Protestant Christianity is divided between three different positions on the Councils.  The Anglican Church and I think some others uphold all Seven of them.  Some other High Church Protestants like Lutherans uphold the first four but not the last three.  (I'd like to know more about their reasons for doing so, I haven't looked into it yet.)  And then there are people like Independent Baptists and the Hebrew Roots movement who like me don't feel bound to any of them, though too many of those take the overly contrary attitude I also warned about at the start.

I've coined the term Justinianity for all denominations that uphold the fifth Ecumenical Council (to my knowledge there are none that keep the 5th but drop either of the final two).  That's Roman Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and maybe some others.

John 1:3 refutes Arianism regardless of John 1:1

Even if you can justify an "a god" translation of John 1:1, John 1:3 says The Word created everything that was created, therefore The Word can't be a created being.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

That's the KJV translation.

I've been looking into the Coptic texts of the Gospel attributed to John for various reasons.  And I've found JWs will use Coptic Texts of John 1:1 to support their translation of that verse.  But the same Coptic texts have this same implication in John 1:3.

Everything came into being through him, and without him nothing came into being. That which came into being

https://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml

Even the JWs own translation doesn't solve this implication of John 1:3.

 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/

When discussing the Nicene Creed it's often made out as if in that Creed only the word Homousias makes Arianism incompatible with it.  (Of course that word only conflicts with Arianism in an Ancient Greek Platonic conception of what Divine Substance meant, to us every Son is made of the Substance of their parents.)  In fact full Proper Arianism is incompatible with the Creed simply from saying "begotten, not made", Arius and JWs see Jesus as a Created Being.

Now Semi-Arianism may accept the "begotten, not made" part, but some Semi-Arians were fine with Homousias as well.

The Trinity in The Hebrew Bible

Inspiring Philosophy did a video on The Trinity in The Old Testament.

Where he says there are additional arguments one could make.  He also then did a Video about Jewish Sources recognizing these facts.

At any-rate the first of these two videos impressed me so much that I think it more so then any New Testament arguments are what are keeping me Trinitarian.  You see what a lot of modern attempts to refute Arianism ignore is that at least modern Arians tend to identify YHWH with Jesus not The Father, supported by IP's own observation that in the New Testament Kurios/Lord usually refers to Jesus.  So this video building a Trinity Doctrine just from the references to YHWH is actually the best refutation of Arianism.  And then this blog post about the Fatherhood of YHWH in the Old Testament.

I've touched on some of these subjects before, in Greek words commonly viewed as Gnostic and Arguing for the Divinity of the Messiah from The Hebrew Bible.

Here I want to list some additional arguments I find interesting, but they aren't as compelling as the above video, they're merely interesting observations to back up that argument.

First is that a Triune Nature of God is possibly hinted at in The Holy Name itself.  It is commonly called the Tetragramaton because it's four letters, Yot-Heh-Vav-Heh, but there are two Hehs meaning the name is really constructed from just three letters.  The Heh has been associated with The Holy Spirit before. 

Some like to view Psalm 2 as a Trialouge between The Trinity, but I've become more hesitant to endorse that given how my views on the Davidic Psalms have developed.

Genesis 48:15-16

And he blessed Joseph, and said, "God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.?

That sounds an awful lot like a Trinitarian Formula.

But perhaps The Trinity is hinted at in one of the most popular titles of The Jewish God.  The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel.  Which appears in some form Twelve times in The Bible, Seven of them in The Hebrew Bible, Four of those in The Pentateuch.  Exodus 3:6, 15, 16, 4:5, 1 Kings 18:36, 1 Chronicles 29:18, 2 Chronicles 30:6, Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:26, Acts 3:13 and 7:32.

Q: Why stop at Jacob/Israel?  Joseph was a main protagonist for a lot more of Genesis then Isaac was?

A: Because it's identifying the Patriarchs all Twelve Tribes share.

Well then why did it take three generations for God to stop narrowing it down?  The Issues that broke apart Abraham and Isaac's descendants could have just as easily done the same to Jacob's.

Abraham means "Father of a Multitude" and Abram meant "High-Father", Paul in Romans 4:11 calls Abraham "The Father of All them that Believe".  Christians see Abraham as playing the role of The Father typologically in Genesis 22&24.

Isaac was the Promised Seed of Abraham, who plays the role of The Son typologically in Genesis 22&24.

Jacob aka Israel is the one who's names become synonymous with God's People.  And it's in God's People that His Spirit dwells.

Update December 7th 2019:

Here is another YouTube video on the subject from a Paul Humber.  Watching this video I noticed how the Hebrew word for "One" is spelled with three letters, E-CH-D.  Interestingly the Greek word often used to translate that in New Testament quotes is similarly a three letter word.  As is "One" in English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlrLueWXDTs

Pre-Nicea and Post-Nicea Universal Reconciliation

I don't need a doctrine to be supported by the "Early Church" for me to consider it true.  But I study the Early Church because history interests me, and I'd like to think that in every era there was someone somewhere who understood what I consider to be the True Gospel.

Here is a Website on Early Church History that doesn't agree with Universalism.

I definitely feel my fellow Universalists often overstate their case on this issue.  Outside of Origen I'm not currently aware of any Pre-Nicene fathers clearly indisputably expressing Universalist views.  However outside of maybe Tertulian and Tatian no one was clearly contradicting it either, and they were both influenced by Heretical movements.  The writings of the Pre-Niene Fathers were mostly either Apologetics or refuting Heresies, and yet Universalism was not ever listed among those Heresies, the Soterology they objected to was the Predestination of the Gnostics and Valentinians.

I can also understand why during the era of persecution Christians might have been less inclined to emphasize it, they found comfort in emphasizing the Judgment that will fall on their persecutors.

It's become popular in Protestant/Evangelical and Hebrew Roots circles to think anything that became more popular after the Edict of Milan must be bad.  But that's an oversimplification in my view.  For those who were already believers before, the weight of that threat being removed may have allowed them to dig into questions they weren't likely to before.

Not to mention how both Origen and whoever wrote the version of the Apocalypse of Peter that supports Universal Reconciliation held the view that this truth should be hidden from the casuals because fear is a good motivator.  This of course is another area where I disagree with Origen and don't like him being propped up as the standard bearer of Unviersalism.  Our motivation to do good should be Love not Fear.

The above linked to site concedes that Aionios and Aonion comes from words for Age and don't inherently mean Eternal.  But they try to insist it does mean that in the context of Aionios fire or punishment for reasons that I responded to in the post I made yesterday.

This site I feel overstates the extent to which Post-Origen Universalists held that view because they were influenced by him.  But of course I feel Pro-Unviersalists do the same thing.  Yes Gregory of Nyssa and Athanasius of Alexandria probably had read Origen.  But the fact is they clearly disagreed with Origen on issues like the Pre-Existence of Souls and and whether or not the Resurrection is of the Flesh.  And Origen's version of Apokastasis was tied to his views on those matters.  So the Universalism expressed by the Cappadocian Fathers and people of the Antiochian school was in-spite of not because of Origen.

As far as any Universalists who signed the Nicean Creed and opposed Arianism goes.  Many of them blamed the origins of Arianism in part on Origen's view that Jesus was originally just another Pre-Existent Human Soul that got untied to the Logos.

And evidence that it existed before Origen is implied in how Augustine described Origen as different from other Univeralists, saying he didn't go as far as them, not that they went further then he did.

But let's go on to some people who this site wants to insist weren't Universalist.

Theophilus of Antioch I can now agree can't clearly be proven to have been a Universalist.  But here is what this site says on him.

Theophilus

He quotes Theophilus as saying:

And God shewed great kindness to man, in this, that He did not suffer him to continue being in sin for ever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be recalled.

I didn't look this up. I'm sure he did say this. However, the context is clearly Adam to Christ, not the eternal kingdom. The punishment to man, being cast out of paradise, was not forever. Now, in Christ, paradise is offered again to us.
On the subject of eternity, here's what Theophilus said:

But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries, fornications, filthiness, covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the very end everlasting fire shall possess such men. Since you said, "Show me your God," this is my God, and I counsel you to fear him and to trust him.

That is the very last sentence of book 1 of To Autolycus.
To publicize the first quote while ignoring the second is the product either of ignorance—in which case this man shouldn't be writing on the subject—or dishonesty unworthy of a Christian.

For the latter quote, if Theophilus said Aionios/Aionion then he's just quoting what Scripture says and not interpreting it.

On the above quote being about "Adam to Christ" I agree what we don't know what Theophilus thought that meant.  The problem to me is what Paul said about contrasting Adam and Christ in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 should be viewed as unambiguously Universlaist.  In Adam all are made Sinners and in Jesus all are made Righteous.  If the number made righteous is less then the number made sinners then Jesus was lesser then Adam, which is clearly not what Paul taught.

His attempt to show Clement of Alexandria didn't teach Universal Salvation I also find similarly inadequate, they're quotes about the Judgment but do not prove it would be endless.

And likewise with the attempt to prove Methodius of Olympus believed in Eternal Punishment, it is again just a quote that proves the Judgment will happen.  And the article doesn't include every Methodius quote from On the Resurrection that can be interpreted as supporting Universal Reconciliation, only two of them.  Some others are

"The Scriptures usually call 'destruction' the turning to the better at some future time." 

 "The world shall be set on fire in order to purification and renewal."

 "Christ was crucified that he might be adored by all created things equally, for 'unto him every knee shall bow,'"

Not all believers, all Created things.

Methodius died in 311 AD, two years before the Edict of Milian.  And he wrote On the Resurrection specifically against Origen defending the Resurrection as being Bodily.

Regardless of how long the Early Church Fathers thought God's Anger would last.  Psalm 30 defines His Anger as being but a moment.

Constantine and the Council of Nicaea

In Protestant, Evangelical and Hebrew Roots sects of Christianity it is popular to vilify Constantine.  I consider myself to some decree part of the last two of those groups.  Yet my view of Constantine is different.

I'm by no means inclined to view Constantine as the ideal Christian or an Ideal Ruler.  But I think the extent to which many people pin everything they don't like about mainstream Christianity on Constantine greatly oversimplifies things.

All the core doctrines of Catholicism had their seeds planted among the Church Fathers who came before Constantine.  The reverence for the Greek Philosophy of Plato, Aristotle and Philo had already started.  And to varying decrees so did the desire to reconcile Christianity with Rome.

Constantine did not formally make Christianity the state religion.  In fact the Edict of Milan was actually an edict granting Freedom of Religion to all Religions.

"When you see that this has been granted to [Christians] by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity of any religion."

The common statement that Christianity didn't become the State Religion till Theodosius I is also perhaps an oversimplification.  Christianity had certainly become a state sponsored religion before then.  But only Gratian removed the state sponsored status of any element of the old Roman Religion.

It is with Theodosius I that Christianity as the state religion to the exclusion of other faiths began.

The original Nicene Creed of 325 AD contains nothing I object to (I just did a post defending the Homoousion doctrine).  Nor anything I would expect to be objected to by most Protestants, Evangelicals, or other Christians who like to vilify Constantine and use Pre-Nicene and Post-Nicene to distinguish which Early Church Fathers they consider worth quoting.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. 

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]"

Later the Creed was revised at the Council of Constantinople of 381 AD under Theodosius I.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead. ; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

I don't mind the removing the Condemnation part.  As a former supporter of Eternal Security and now a Universalist, I have no desire to question the Faith of people I disagree with, even Arians.

It is mainly the last paragraph I object to, firmly establishing a terrestrially organized Church.

[Update: Turns out I do have another issue with this revision.]

The other differences seem to be influenced by the earlier Old Roman Symbol and Rule of Faith creeds that goes back to the Second Century.

The Donations of Constantine were a forgery made by the Roman Catholic Church, though it gets used by Papal Antichrist theorists.  That Constantine moved the Capital from Rome to Constantineople makes him if anything more a founder of the Eastern Orthodox Church more then the Roman Church.

Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion and outlawed other faiths with the Edict of Thesselonica.  I'm surprised more Historicists and other Papal Antichrist theorists haven't made a big deal out of that Edict being in the same city Paul directed his most Eschatologically concerned Epistles to.

However I feel Justinian's reign was equally important to formalizing what I consider corrupt mainstream Christianity.  It was under his reign that Universalism was first condemned as a Heresy.

Update Aprils 7th 2017: Thing is while I agree with the Nicean Creed, other decisions the Council of Nicea made I'm not too fond of. Like their further elaborating on Ingaitus Church Governmental Scripture. 

InspiringPhilosophy's video on Nicea is pretty good.