I think Holland had it right. Sarapion was a “man living a truly good life” except that he didn’t believe in the make up of God of that era. Paphnutius tried to convince him but couldn’t so along came Photinus who said “that unmeasurable, incomprehensible, invisible majesty cannot be limited by a human frame or likeness. His nature is incorporeal (having no material body or form), uncompounded (having no bounds), simple, and cannot be seen by human eyes nor conceived adequately by a human mind” ()- means I added dictionary meaning. Then as you state they took the anthropomorphic image of god away from him…and that is when he threw himself on the ground.
I’m catching up slowly but at this era God had no body as has been stated in previous posts. I guess that will come along even after the time of the Nicene Creed when the Constantine confirmed the legislation of the council, without the presents of Pope Silvester. I’m puzzled why the Pope who is to receive revelation wasn’t present and he could have cleared up the misconceptions amoungs the Bishop’s and yet he allowed Constantine the emperor to confirm the legislation of the council.
Another question - could you point me to doctrine which would explain why man was not created in god’s image as Bishop Theopphilus letter seemed to state? This seems to be the issue with the monk Sarapion, and the heretics of Egypt, and ascetic brotherhood.
You’re really confused.
Trying to decipher what you got going here, I’d say the first problem is that you need to understand the Trinity, as Christians understand it.
God the Father
God the Son - eternally incarnate
God the Holy Spirit
There is precedence for this, in Sacred Tradition, going back to the Apostles. The Nicene Creed did not change What God Is, any more than the Bible changed the message of Christ. Both emerged for the same reasons. Addressing error. Declaring what Christians have always believed.
Also, Serapion was adhering to a belief of the day…paganism. Creating God in man’s image. This was his error, as said by Abbot Isaac:
And against this mistake of theirs this text may be used: “And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man.” (Romans 1:23)
And honestly, if you are reading the letters of Theophilus, you should know immediately that they are Catholic teachings. What Catholics know and believe, to this day. I am not sure what bit you have picked out and are questioning, but if you are accepting one line of Theophilus, then you must read it all and accept it all, otherwise, it is not an honest reading.
When I read Theophilus, everything he relates in regards to the Creation is what Catholics believe, and in fact, the copy at CCEL notes where the Nicene Council used Theophilus explanations, directly.
I’m pulling out this bit, I don’t know if this is what you are referring to though:
But as to what relates to the creation of man, his own creation cannot
be explained by man, though it is a succinct account of it which holy
Scripture gives. For when God said, “Let Us make man in Our image,
after Our likeness,” He first intimates the dignity of man. For God
having made all things by His Word, and having reckoned them all mere
bye-works, reckons the creation of man to be the only work worthy of
His own hands. Moreover, God is found, as if needing help, to say, “Let
Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” But to no one else than
to His own Word and wisdom did He say, “Let Us make.”
His Word is His Son, Jesus Christ, please understand that at least. If you understand that, and understand that God has always said He is One God, then you’re beginning to understand the concept of the Trinity.
If you are truly seeking to understand, I pray you succeed.
