Ideal truth and political strategy 

I want consider a question that isn’t absolutely actual, because I took condemnation the Nestorian think about nature of Christ, that he has took also influence of Manichean think, because in his book, this is The book of Heraclides, he has written, to imaginary question: “Why the Manichean don’t admitted that Christ is a man, but they believe that he is alone God?”, to this question he answered: “The Manichean and their follower believe that Christ is alone a God, to miracles, and regard his humanity he has hided it under a human imagine…”, we can consider that it is think felt directly influence of Manichean, although moderately. The Fotinian(300-376) has been a heretical man that has thought that Christ was adopted from God, although he was born to Saint Spirit, and he accepted that the Trinity is distinguished but alone to God father is identifiable, Nestorius explained because this theological belief: “…he isn’t God, but a man alone to his birth and his death; and the miracles are happened because he as a saint. Other question of Nestorius is regard to Arian belief: “Why the Arian don’t believe the Christ as a God perfect and independent, neither they believe a man. They allege to believe that Christ is demigod and demi man, a body that isn’t animated and a divinity created…they mixt the goodness nature to human nature”, Other question: “What the words regard God and the Verb is become flesh, without body?”, explication is very clear: “They accused the Manichean that the body of Christ isn’t true, but alone appearance…”, and the interesting step is so: “…regard to miracles, they consider that it are the will of God alone…”, the interesting step is that alone God has given possibility to Christ fro miracles, because it is belief of orthodox religion, this is  Christ is emanation of God. These controversies about nature of Christ could certainly to be boring, but behind these disputations is other, this is a mere political motive, this is, if Christ has had alone the divine nature he on the cross hasn’t suffered, thereby he hasn’t redeemed the mankind, therefore the Church is useless, because it brings the learns of a god certainly, but he hasn’t saved us, thereupon believe to Church is useless, and it could lost its rule. Same motive, alone political, is that of Luther; he wanted remove the power to Church; in fact he has removed the mess and sacraments and saints and other, why? Because the land of Church could be took from German principles, and it is clear from a confession of Socini(1539-1604), that on a letter he has said that Luther has had back the principles, this is the aristocracy that wanted take the proprieties of Church; thereby the human behavior and no certainly theological disputes. We must consider also that during first time of Christian religion, the orthodox belief was not, thereby it is very easy use some heretic think; for this wre necessarie the councils, where was decided what have to be the doctrine. In 1945 an important discovery, in city of Nag Hammadi, Egypt, so called the discovery of Skeptical library, some papyrus, threteen codics that have apocrypha gospels, the Gospel according to Thomas, to Philip, to Egyptian, to Truth, and Apocalypses of Paul, of James, second of James, of Peter and  of Adam and other traits; these aren't orthodox texts, but interpretations that are in gnosticism. This writtens attest that the dictrine of Christian religion were again longe from a right canonization, thereby the Councils were fundamental to belief. But we can consider the first school, called the Didaskaléion, from ancient Greek, means learn, that is first attestation of a school to Christian doctrine, this school was in Alexandria in Egypt, and we can think that in 180 a.Ch. was present, and that doctrine was just orthodox is attests by a fragment of Ireneus(130 a.Ch) that has title Adversus haereses, this is Against the hereticos, thereupon the doctrine was become right belief.   

Alessandro Lusana