Trinty is gnostic? Please help

This “scholar” says that the early Holy Apostolic Church didn’t believe in the Blessed and Most Holy Trinity but was semi-Arian and the “true church” was also pneumatomachians aka a 4th century heresy that denied the Holy Spirit was God but a force and the Blessed and Most Holy Trinity was a gnostic concept invented by the gnostic heretic named Valentinus and from pagan worship. He has a lot of sources but they’re mainly from the late 19th and early 20th century.How do I debunked this? And he also says that Roman Catholicism and the Protestantism practice Mithraism and their rituals are based in Mithraism. Can anyone help me to debunked this? And is he a legitimate scholar if you don’t think so why not?:frowning: :confused:

cogwriter.com/christianity-mithraism.htm

cogwriter.com/trinity.htm

There were a lot of heresies in the early church, and many were led astray. That doesn’t mean those heresies are the true religion that was passed down by Jesus and the Apostles.

Also note that the Church of Rome never believed in any of these heresies, and in fact was the only consistent force opposing them. So it doesn’t matter if the Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosota, is teaching adoptionism in the 3rd Century. The true Christian faith has always been preserved immaculately in Rome.

Ah I see then so Rome has always preserve the truth and fought against heresies and the founders of said heresies,correct? So it doesn’t matter if a bishop was teaching heresy because the Church of Rome fought against the heretical doctrines of said heretic

Yes that is how the history of the early church appears from my reading. Atheist critics of Christianity point to all the early heresies that various sects believed in various regions of the early days of the church. But they cannot show a single instance where the Church of Rome fell for any of these heresies, because the Church of Rome was founded on the pillars of the Apostles Peter and Paul, who gave their lives in martyrdom to found the Holy See at Rome.

A good saint to read is Irenaeus of Lyons. He wrote a famous treatise “Against Heresies” in which he specifically fought against gnostic heretics who were trying to lead the Church astray. In it he affirms that the true Christian religion has been preserved faithfully in Rome, and that all churches must follow the Church of Rome.

Ah I see then so the Church of Rome never believed in those heresies and they taught only orthodoxy and they always excommunicated heretics and never taught those damnable heresies and alright I will and I’ve read some of it

These are really two long articles to address in their entirety on a forum such as this, but the Mithras “connections” are often ridiculously overstated and greatly simplified/misconstrued to make them seem stronger.

As for the Trinity, the early Church didn’t receive a new language on how to speak of this great mystery. What we received was that God is one and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are worthy of divine worship. How to speak of that developed over time, and was formulated into the Trinity. Old doctrine, but how to more clearly speak to and defend it took some development.

Yes…this article I would suggest, is also quite enlightening:

calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

. St. Peter and his Successors in Rome hold the Keys

Who then, in St. Optatus’ time, holds the Keys of the Kingdom? Repeatedly St. Optatus declares that the one holding the Keys must receive them from St. Peter. First, he points out that among all the Apostles, only St. Peter received the Keys. He writes:

When He * praises One, He condemns the others because, besides the one which is the true Catholc Church, the others amongst the heretics are thought to be churches, but are not such. Thus He declares in the Canticle of Canticles (as we have already pointed out) that His Dove is One, and that she is also the chosen Spouse, and again a garden enclosed, and a fountain sealed up. Therefore none of the heretics possess either the Keys, which Peter alone received, or the Ring, with which we read that the Fountain has been sealed.24

Later in the work he shows that St. Peter, the Head of the Apostles, was the first to occupy the Episcopal Cathedra in Rome, and that the purpose of this Cathedra was to preserve unity among all Christians, including even the other Apostles. He writes:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25*

Thank you for the link to the article

Ah I see then can you at least try address some of the mistakes on his article concerning the Mithras-Catholic connections ?

Actually n Gnosticism, the world of the demiurge is represented by the underworld, which is associated with flesh, time, and more particularly, the imperfect ephemeral world.

They did not believe in The Trinity and they did not hold that Jesus Christ is God.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Just nonsense.

Dismiss the persons ideas.

The Holy Trinity is NOT gnostic.

Period.

Exactly. Irenaeus was writing against exactly this in the 2nd Century. OP should read Irenaeus, it will give him a first-hand account of the early Christian church fighting against all the nonsense being spouted in those links OP posted.

Alright I will read him hopefully it’ll help me to debunk the claims

You will find this enlightening and very informative…equip.org/article/the-two-babylons/

I realized that citing a similarity does not provide proof. There must be a legitimate connection. Let’s suppose on May 10 a man was stabbed to death in Seattle. There were strong reasons for believing a certain person did it. He had motive. He was physically strong. He owned a large knife. He had a criminal record. He was known to have a violent temper and had threatened the victim in the past. All of these things would connect him to the murder, except for one thing: on May 10 he was not in Seattle; he was in Florida. So it is with the claims that are made about pagan origins. They may appear to have a connection, but on investigation, often there is no connection at all.

ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-mystery.html

This is a part of the article can you debunked this ?

"In the fourth-century, Marcellus of Ancyra declared that the idea of the Godhead existing as three hypostases (hidden spiritual realities) came from Plato through the teachings of Valentinus,[9] who is quoted as teaching that God is three hypostases and three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:

Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God… These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him ‘On the Three Natures’. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.[10]

Since Valentinus had used the term hypostases, his name came up in the Arian disputes in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra was a staunch opponent of Arianism, but also denounced the belief in God existing in three hypostases as heretical, and was later condemned for his teachings. Marcellus attacked his opponents (On the Holy Church, 9) by linking them to Valentinus:

Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons — father, son, and holy spirit.[11]"

Thank you very much for the link to the article I’ll read it :slight_smile:

Hope this helps…the responder is I think Orthodox…religiousforums.com/threads/the-trinity-a-gnostic-concept.50105/

*anks for the reply;

I would like to point out that the first two quotes you give are not explicitly Trinitarian, the could just as easily be Modalist. And the third quote is from the Comma Johanneum, a later Trinitarian interpolation to the epistle.

Ignoring that for the moment, how do you reconcile the belief that the Trinity is biblical when Marcellus of Ancyra, an early Church bishop present at both the councils of Ancyra and Nicaea, declares Valentinus to be the originator of the Trinity of hypostases concept?
My response is that you should have quoted a little more from that article as doing so would have answered the question for you.
*
In a text known as Pseudo-Anthimus, Valentinus is quoted as teaching that God is three hypostases (hidden spiritual realities) and three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:
Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God…These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him ‘On the Three Natures’. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato. (Source: AHB Logan. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), ‘On the Holy Church’: Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).
This is not the Trinity teaching. It appears that you are being confused by the term Hypostasis. Originally hypostasis and ousion had identical meanings, both basically being substance. The Fathers chose to use ousion for the Divine essence and hypostasis for the personal essence (Person, however ubiquitous is a poor translation). It is quite evident that the Valentinian use of Hypostasis is not the same as the Patristic use of it and his use of prosopon is thoroughly heretical and not something that can be used in the context of the Trinity. In short then, Valentinus neither believed in nor could be the originator of the Trinity, he merely borrowed the same Greek terms for his theology that the Fathers used for theirs.

Since Valentinus had used the term hypostases, his name came up in the Arian disputes in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra, who was a staunch opponent of Arianism but also denounced the belief in God existing in three hypostases as heretical (and was later condemned for his views), attacked his opponents (On the Holy Church, 9) by linking them to Valentinus:
“Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons — father, son, and holy spirit.” [1]

And this quote clearly shows that any Trinitarian Christian is right to question any statement of Triadology from Marcellus of Ancyra. His condemnation for Triadological errors is sufficient to dismiss his views. In any case, his is very much a minority view and utterly unrepresentative of the Patristic concensus (and was almost certainly an overreaction to the use of a term, albeit in a different manner, famously used by a heretic. We have similar overreactions to this very day when certain terms are used in a heretical manner by other churches - it’s not an uncommon attitude for certain ultra-traditionalist Orthodox towards Orthodox use of RC terms, for instance).

Why would Marcellus reject the Trinity and declare it as a Valentinian creation, when his fellow bishops also held a Trinitarian view? Do you think he (Marcellus) believed the Trinity to be a false doctrine, a Gnostic doctrine, and that’s why he did not accept it?

He doesn’t seem to have rejected the Trinity. He agreed with the Council of Nicea and was a staunch opponent of Arianism (which posited three separate gods that made up a Godhead, rather like the modern LDS do). That speaks rather loudly of the fact that he actually agreed with the Trinity but disagreed with the use of the term Hypostasis because it had been coopted by a heretic to mean something else. In doing so he went overboard and actually espoused a position which looks heretical himself, but it seems pretty clear that he misunderstood the Orthodox use of the term hypostasis to mean what Valentinus meant by it, even though it meant no such thing. Such was common. There were many rather bloody fights over semantic issues and the worst (in my opinion) is that which engendered the schism after Chalcedon. We used terminology that looked Nestorian to the opposing party and they used language which looked Monophysite to us but you’ll never convince me that the schism was over anything more than some misunderstood terminology - we believe precisely the same thing.

James

The article on the “Holy Ghost” in the Catholic Encyclopedia contains references supporting the divine personhood of the Holy Spirit from Sacred Scripture and other early Church writers.

Thank you for the link I’ll read on it when I have time :slight_smile:

And this quote clearly shows that any Trinitarian Christian is right to question any statement of Triadology from Marcellus of Ancyra. His condemnation for Triadological errors is sufficient to dismiss his views. In any case, his is very much a minority view and utterly unrepresentative of the Patristic concensus (and was almost certainly an overreaction to the use of a term, albeit in a different manner, famously used by a heretic. We have similar overreactions to this very day when certain terms are used in a heretical manner by other churches - it’s not an uncommon attitude for certain ultra-traditionalist Orthodox towards Orthodox use of RC terms, for instance).

Why would Marcellus reject the Trinity and declare it as a Valentinian creation, when his fellow bishops also held a Trinitarian view? Do you think he (Marcellus) believed the Trinity to be a false doctrine, a Gnostic doctrine, and that’s why he did not accept it?

He doesn’t seem to have rejected the Trinity. He agreed with the Council of Nicea and was a staunch opponent of Arianism (which posited three separate gods that made up a Godhead, rather like the modern LDS do). That speaks rather loudly of the fact that he actually agreed with the Trinity but disagreed with the use of the term Hypostasis because it had been coopted by a heretic to mean something else. In doing so he went overboard and actually espoused a position which looks heretical himself, but it seems pretty clear that he misunderstood the Orthodox use of the term hypostasis to mean what Valentinus meant by it, even though it meant no such thing. Such was common. There were many rather bloody fights over semantic issues and the worst (in my opinion) is that which engendered the schism after Chalcedon. We used terminology that looked Nestorian to the opposing party and they used language which looked Monophysite to us but you’ll never convince me that the schism was over anything more than some misunderstood terminology - we believe precisely the same thing.

James

Thank you very much for the link and it did help

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.