The Athanasian Creed - in Latin and in English -:

Latin Version:

"Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes. Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti: Sed Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus. Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus, et unus immensus. Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens. Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus. Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus [est] Dominus. Quia, sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compellimur: Ita tres Deos aut [tres] Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur. Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus. Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens. Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus: Sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales. Ita, ut per omnia, sicut iam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat.

Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Iesu Christi fideliter credat. Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus [pariter] et homo est. Deus [est] ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus. Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens. Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem. Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum. Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus. Qui passus est pro salute nostra: descendit ad inferos: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis. Ascendit ad [in] caelos, sedet ad dexteram [Dei] Patris [omnipotentis]. Inde venturus [est] judicare vivos et mortuos. Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis; Et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem. Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum. Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit."

English Version:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

I’m not familiar with much in the way of documented kabbalistic influence on Christianity... — Noble Dust

Neither do I.

Tri-Unity is logically contradictory on its face, as it means 1 is 3. — Hanover

In Trinitarian doctrine, God exists as three persons or hypostases, but is one being, having a single divine nature. The members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As stated in the Athanasian Creed, the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are eternal without beginning.

You're getting it wrong - as most people do -. Its not "1 is 3" but that the "3 proceeds from the 1". Its not like God is 1 and 3 at the same time, God made himself into 3 to become mortal, but his essence - and He - still is 1.

According to the Eleventh Council of Toledo (675):

"For, when we say: He who is the Father is not the Son, we refer to the distinction of persons; but when we say: the Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, and the Holy Spirit that which the Father is and the Son is, this clearly refers to the nature or substance"

The Catholic trinity doctrine traces itself back to 1215. — Hanover

Did you simply ignore the fact that I stated the Athanasian creed about the trinity - The Athanasian Creed was written in the early 6th century -?

but we are WAY off the topic of this thread now. — Pro Hominem

Agreed. If you want, just start another discussion about the topic, or otherwise, send me a message.

I would venture that it appears (although I may be mistaken) that your analysis is from a decidedly Christian perspective, so it seems problematic to me to cite examples that predate Christianity. I am making some assumptions there, but I am trying to be up front about them. — Pro Hominem

My view is not tied to the christian perspective, because secularism is something that arises from the concept of "Religion", be it monotheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, etc ... The Roman Republic fell, like the Bronze Age civilizations - the latter was very more indirect than directly but still applies - thanks to the definitions I have described that arise from secularism.

You don't necessarily need a christian society to have the secular term applied:

Ex:

Disbelief in the established pantheon of Gods;
Worldliness instead of a spiritual life;
Cultural diversification and tolerance;
Denial of the established authority;
Social decadence caused by the corrupt morality and politic.

That's how you die as a Republic and is reborn as an Empire.

secularism — Pro Hominem

"Indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations; worldly rather than spiritual; the act or process of diversifying; a complete denial of all established authority and institutions; state of deterioration or decay, especially due to being excessively morally corrupt or self-indulgent."

Sefirot — Noble Dust

As Kabbalah is a school of thought of jewish mysticism, I have no doubt that this has been adapted to christian philosophy and theology. But direct connection, I don't think so.

This interjection of Christianity into the mix seems far fetched. I really don't follow how you see a child of God based religion to flow from the Akhenaten concept that predated it by over 1000 years, so maybe better explain that. — Hanover

My assumption is that through the direct or indirect influence of Akhenaten's religion, through Judaism, certain characteristic aspects of what made up God - here referring to the Abrahamic God - and his iconography persisted from Akhenaten's time until the advent of Christianity . Ideas last for an unimaginable time, however, with the mixture of cultures and localized cults, they are shaped to something diferently. Obviously, the concept of God for the Jews of the first century was completely different from the concept of Akhenaten, however, some basic characteristics, which support all other more complex ones, are there in the structure of the religion.

I guess my direct question to you is whether you see Christianity as monotheistic, and, if you do, how do you conclude that if you reject the triunity theory? — Hanover

The Catholic canonical faith is quite explicit in the question of how God manifests himself through three different persons. The position of the Catholic Church declared in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), is again stated in the following pronouncement of the Vatican Council:

"The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself."

In question of the trinity, these are the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

God, being omnipotent, to feel and live as a mortal, became mortal - through Jesus - however, Jesus was a distinct person but united in essence to God, who after creating himself mortal, was now the Father. God the Holy Spirit was conceived of God's divine will to become Man, so we have 3 persons of God:

The Holy Spirit - his will as finite -, The Son - his mortal incarnation - and The Father - His divine version, conceived by us mortals -.

For a better understanding, here is an illustration of the relationship of the trinity with God:



"The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are not names for different parts of God, but one name for God because three persons exist in God as one entity."

In most cases, people don't get the concept of the trinity because they forget that God is omnipotent, he made himself Mortal, and he made himself Will because he can and wanted to. God "Is"

higher entity than himself? — Yozhura

I don't think so. This discussion in leading nowhere, so I'm out. Thank you for your time.

even if he is the actual God of everything. — Yozhura

If he is all-powerful, omniscient, and omnipresent, he would not need a God, because he already is the maxim of Being. He is but he is not.

But the question still remains, is there a supreme god among all the gods, that we've created? — Yozhura

We are trying to answer this question for more than 5.000 years. And at least until now, no one has any clue...

By Satanists — Gregory

"Satanist Christians". You have a contradiction there, one of your propositions is wrong, and I think it is that of "Satanists".

That is what i think at least, not sure if it's a correct way to think. — Yozhura

It is the correct way to think.

Concept of God:

"The sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes"

If we are in a simulation, we can guarantee that there is a creator, or creators, and that they would therefore be God. Finally, the simulation hypothesis is necessarily theistic because it believes that our Universe is the creation of some other higher being.

The chance of us being the base reality is highly improbable. — Yozhura

If there are creators, the simulation hypothesis could be considered a theist hypothesis? — Gus Lamarch

we're at a point, where every year will bring huge changes and those changes can't be imagined. — Yozhura

I still think we are going to fall in the near future.

or that we are in a simulation. — Yozhura

If this is true, whats the meaning of this simulation? If there are creators, the simulation hypothesis could be considered a theist hypothesis?

Technology advances at an exponential rate, which means, how many more folds do we need? — Yozhura

If that is true, humanity as organic beings will not be the future.

Saint" Augustine was a self-worshipper who said babies burn in hell. — Gregory

And he has been known as a Saint for more than a thousand years. That's a win to me.

Isn't this what the large hadron collider is for? To learn more about our universe, because we know so little? — Yozhura

That's why I said that the future can be completely different than we hope. It could be much worse.

How does that compare to the monumental dimensions of the Universe, though? — god must be atheist

The enormous scale of the Universe cannot be compared. We like to pretend that we can achieve this greatness of it.

Are you knowledgeable of the Great Filter? — Yozhura

Yes.

You could say that there was nothing, before our universe began. If this is not correct, it would change a lot. A big bang, the beginning of our universe, that is the moment when everything was whole. Individuality started to split from the whole, creating everything in our universe. — Yozhura

I still prefer not to give an opinion on the beginning of the Universe, because the most advanced scientific theories that we have today - such as the Big Bang - bring us at most an "possibly" as an answer.

Would be interesting to hear your point of view on that. — god must be atheist

I was referring to humanity's stereotyped concept of projecting itself into the future and controlling the galaxy, bringing democracy to other species and being technologically highly evolved. The most plausible view today is that the entire contemporary society will collapse in the next 100 or 150 years and we will enter a new dark age. But you never know what the future can bring us; it can be much worse.

We started as a whole, which split apart at the beginning. — Yozhura

When did this happen? My knowledge - which I admit to be basic - in biology says that the only point where we "all" were the same was more than 3.5 billion years ago when the first forms of life began to emerge. Humanity - as far as Homo Sapiens Sapiens is concerned - appeared less than 200 thousand years ago, and even then, we were never from a hegemonic culture, or biological race. When you become, you are already unique and individual.

We as humanity need to be able to change that battery, before our universe comes to an end. — Yozhura

If we are going to get into astronomy here, I'll already tell you my position on this subject: Humanity will not go beyond our solar system - if it continues to act and think in the way it currently does and has always done -, imagine becoming "One". At the monumental dimension of the Universe - whatever it is - we are nothing.

Hivemind is a pretty close term for that. — Yozhura

Humanity has idealized this since its beginnings – God.

we need not always be disagreeing. — ChatteringMonkey

Sure.

Yes, I think I could agree with that. I don't think anything I said is at odds with that. Is there some point I'm missing? — ChatteringMonkey

I just wanted to comment because of the whole discussion, that statement of yours was the one that interested me the most.

Right now I'm watching at my screen and there doesn't seem to be an entire universe attached to it... so
I'm not sure what to make of that statement. Maybe if you explain it, it might make some sense, or maybe not, I don't know. — ChatteringMonkey

The world is egocentric, that is, it revolves around your perception of existence. As an individual, I have no other possibility of perceiving the world besides my own, as you can only perceive the world through your Being.

I'm watching at my screen — ChatteringMonkey

This use of "I" that makes my proposition correct.

I don't think anybody really believes that they are the only thing that exists, even if logic would show that is the only thing we can be certain of. — ChatteringMonkey

Going through this discussion, this statement made me uneasy. You may not be the only thing that exists, however, the entire outer Universe is egocentrically attached to your perception of existence.

“Sōma pneumatikos” in 1 Corinthians 15:44 — Josh Vasquez

If this is right

1:3-4 — Josh Vasquez

and this is right too, something is wrong about their faith.

Quoting Craig L. Blomberg on his 1987 book The Historical Reliability of the Gospels:

"For the Christian tradition, the bodily resurrection was the restoration to life of a transformed body powered by spirit, as described by Paul and the Gospels."

The "transformed body" - sōma pneumatikos - is the spirit of Jesus being brought to heaven through hypostasis with God the Holy Spirit. If Paul aimed to speak of a physical resurrection, he could have very well used the term "psychikos", but he instead preferred the term "pneumatikos" because he was explicity talking about the spirit of Christ.

Christian teaching traditionally interprets Paul as comparing the resurrection body with the mortal body, saying that it will be a different kind of body; a "spiritual body", meaning an immortal body, or incorruptible body. But that is open to interpretation, as everything in the Bible is.

However, it is entirely possible that the apostles were irrational and had intense belief without sufficient evidence — Josh Vasquez

For me - and a lot of people -, this is the canonical thing that happened. The resurrection was not an objective historical fact, but a subjective "recollection" of Jesus, transfiguring the dead Jesus into an imaginary, or "mythical", risen Christ. The appearance, or Christophany, of Jesus to Paul and others, was "internal and subjective". Reflection on the Messianic hope, and Psalms 16:10, led to an exaltated state of mind, in which "the risen Christ" was present "in a visionary manner", concluding that Jesus must have escaped the bondage of death.

Psalms 16:10:
"For you do not give me up to Sheol, or let your faithful one see the Pit."

All of this also leaves a technical quibble. In your OP, you asked if Islam, Judaism, and Christianity would best be called Akhenatenic as opposed to Abrahamic. I'd say not because the Abraham story pre-dates the Akhenaten monotheism by possibly as much as 600 years. The origin of the 3 major religions clearly pre-dates Akhenaten and they all attribute Abraham as their paternal forefather. — Hanover

Yeah, this information clearly ends the discussion about if the Abrahamic religion could be categorized as Akhenatenic by historical standarts. Thank you for bringing this up.

Akhenaten's new monotheistic theology influenced the evolving Judaic theology of the time. — Hanover

As you said yourself, there are still no historical records to support the theory that the characteristics of the Abrahamic monostatic god have not been taken completely from Akhenaten's version of Aten, but there is neither proof that it didn't influence the religions. The theological question still remains. I could even say that the religious iconography of Atenism influenced the judaic-christian iconography.

Akhenten adoring Aten:



See the representation that Akhenaten intended to convey with his relationship with Aten. He - Akhenaten - worships and adores God - Aten - for he is the son of God. I very much doubt that in this period the concept of hypostasis - which was used extensively by Christianity - was if even an idea, that is why Akhenaten placed himself below Aten, and not as an equal to him- Aten -.

Aten was represented by a Disc - halo - in the sky with arms reaching out:



Christianity - through Judaism - would evolve this concept, causing the son to become God together and co-equal with the father. For this reason, iconography brings together both concepts - mortal man, next to the divine - the father - who now was also part of the divine -.



Early 4th century iconography of Jesus Christ - notice the disc with the arms reaching out from the head of Jesus -.

Again I quote Redford:

"The close relationship between father and son is such that only the king truly knows the heart of "his father", and in return his father listens to his son's prayers. He is his father's image on earth, and as Akhenaten is king on earth, his father is king in heaven."

I still maintain my position that in at least the theological characteristics of what makes up God in the abrahamic religions, the influence of Akhenaten's religion was direct or at least indirect.

The scientific revolution and the decline of monarchy were more responsible for the rise of secularism, in my opinion. — Pro Hominem

True enough.

I'd say he lent more to the development of democracy and individualism than secularism. — Pro Hominem

Individual freedom and democracy are bubbles of secularism too. - Examples could be the Roman Republic period, the Classical Greek period and the Late Bronze Age period -

I do agree that human ego is the driving force of humanity, because we are finite, we need to obtain more as fast as possible. That is possible only, because of our ego. — Yozhura

I would go so far as to say that human nature is that of egoism. The moment we move from the state of Not Being to the state of Being, we become egoists. Existence demands the realization of the individual.

Piety is not a virtue. — Gregory

In that we agree.

Are there indications Jesus was evil? Yes. — Gregory

So let me read them...

He said you had to hate your family in order to be his disciple. He said he came to bring violence — Gregory

Can you please find and write down the sources for these intriguing findings of yours, because I never read any of this in the Bible, neither did any of the bibliologists and historians that I studied about.

If I am not mistaken, you said earlier you didn't believe in God. — Gregory

That's right, but I'm not proud of it.

If you want Christianity to win over Islam — Gregory

All of us - who live in western society - should want, and help in any way possible, that our future is this.

but are willing to be Muslim if you have too — Gregory

You again distorted information. I explicitly said that if I had no more choice, and that western society had already lost - as was the case with the roman civilization when saint Augustine converted to Christianity - I would convert by pure pragmatism.

I don't think your stupid. — Gregory

That quote is for Flight and not for you.

I just have studied this matters in depth for many years — Gregory

Yeah, we both know thats not true, but ok.

By benefiting humanity, you increase the chances of getting a new battery, new battery gives you a certain amount of time, until that battery runs out again. Do you benefit humanity enough, that you'll be able to obtain a new battery, before the time of your clock ends? — Yozhura

Immortality can only be achieved by egoism. You, a human Being, is finite in existence, but your ego is not – as in the meaning of legacy –. Egoism is the only way to exist that eternalizes something finite – like Being – in something infinite– in ideas and in the world outside the individual –.

We don't know enough about Jesus to say anything definite. He could have been a black magician whom the devil raised from the dead and who deceived everyone in think he was God, had died for them, and should be worshipped as equal to anything divine and above all creation — Gregory

But what is more probable:

1 - That Jesus was a jewish apocalyptic heretic preacher that eventually was killed and made legend, then god by his followers and after centuries of mixing political, cultural, economic and even personal opinions on the myth, Christianity was born.

2 - Jesus was really a transcendent person that was killed and resurrected by Satan.

3 - You will say that you believe in what you want.

Religion has been proven to be a drug. — Gregory

I think @JerseyFlight would agree with that, but only after saying how much of a stupid person I am from saying how he should agree.

Are you seriously proposing that Jesus was revived not by the divine grace of God the Father, but by Satan for some reason that even you can't argue in favor of? — Gus Lamarch

Can you please asnwer my question?

Luther was mean, and polemic person, against minorities. Such as Jews, and perhaps one key figures behind the antisemitic holocaust. Perhaps even inspired Hitler, and other Nazis with his work that he dedicated to Jews. He was an author behind "On the Jews and their lies.". And Hitler mentioned in Mein Kampf that Luther was his inspiration. Also Nazis did commit the horrors, literally in many ways as mentioned in his book. Luther is nowadays kinda famous among Neo-Nazis. — batsushi7

Martin Luther was not bad for destroying a structure that kept Europe stable and hegemonic for over 500 years. He was horrible because he was a Nazi.