Theological Thread

[DRSmith]

To try to cut down on thread derailment I am going to try an open theological thread. Let the discussion go where it may.

To start off something I was wondering if you were with a girl who subscribes to Calvin's teaching of predestination, could you cheat on her and say you were just predestined and therefore it is not your fault?

[twa]

Would it matter?
You could claim Judas was predestined to betray Jesus...the results are what matters imo.
Predestination vs Foreknowledge is a interesting diversion ,though I clearly do not subscribe to Calvin's theory(or at least hyper Calvinism,which is where many take it)

added
I suppose I should clarify...It certainly might matter in her mind(deluding herself imo) ,but her opinion is not the main issue for me.

[DRSmith]

Just so you know it was tongue in cheek, I personally do not subscribe to this idea if things are predestined then obedience is meaningless.

[visionary]

if you were with a girl who subscribes to Calvin's teaching of predestination, could you cheat on here and say you were just predestined and therefore it is not your fault?

I just realized what you meant

(cheat on her) lol

I kept trying to figure out what "cheat on here" meant.

I couldn't understand how she would be cheating on here.

:doh: I feel stupid.

[twa]

I figured that,it is just a exercise of the mind.
I flip between hating philosophy and indulging too much in it:evilg:

For me the answer is in this quote

'That which exists in fact and in the mind is greater than that which exists in the mind alone'

[Mickalino]

You can change predestination by changing your mind.

[twa]

You can change predestination by changing your mind.

No, it would have been predetermined that you would do so.

[twa]

Is God's existence self evident? :)

[DRSmith]

Is God's existence self evident? :)

You mean is creation and the design that went into it evidence of a creator?

[twa]

You mean is creation and the design that went into it evidence of a creator?

Not necessarily(though I think nature proclaims the existence of God),but rather can you know there is a God w/o instruction.

added
Perhaps a better way is to use the example of a person that is never exposed to religion or philosophy.

Could a total recluse come to recognize the existence of God?

[Perky72]

On predestination yeah, you could argue with your g/f that you were predestined to cheat, but that wouldn't change that you're a predestined scumbag. And she should probably be better off to kick you to the curb and find a partner with better predestinations. So, I'd hope the predestination of most chicks whose partners predestine them to cheat would predestinately break up with him.


Is God's existence self evident? :)

Not unless I'm God, or God shows himself to me as clearly as my self-evidenced existence. If he/it wants me specifically believe (in a way that's independent of objective evidence), that's what he/it needs to do. So far, no go.

[twa]

Not unless I'm God, or God shows himself to me as clearly as my self-evidenced existence. If he/it wants me specifically believe (in a way that's independent of objective evidence), that's what he/it needs to do. So far, no go.


Do you believe there are things that exist that you cannot conceive yourself in your mind?

[Perky72]

Do you believe there are things that exist that you cannot conceive yourself in your mind?

Yes, but if these things want me to think they're omnipotent, omnisicient, all good, conscious, and inable to be evaluated by science they really need to let me know directly. Otherwise I'm fine being ignorant and not leaping to faith that they exist when there's little or no evidence they do.

Without such a direct epiphany, I don't see any more reason to believe in a god than I do bigfoot or unicorns. Possibly even less reason, depending on strength of evidence.

[twa]

Perky, you are going beyond the scope of the question of existence all the way to the nature or order of it.

[Perky72]

Perky, you are going beyond the scope of the question of existence all the way to the nature or order of it.

No, I'm going to evidence or demonstration of existence, as to whether God is self-evident. My own existence/consciousness is very self-evident to me. "God" is as self-evident as Thor or a leprauchan. I.E. it's not.

[DRSmith]

Not necessarily(though I think nature proclaims the existence of God),but rather can you know there is a God w/o instruction.

added
Perhaps a better way is to use the example of a person that is never exposed to religion or philosophy.

Could a total recluse come to recognize the existence of God?

I think it would depend on what the recluse was doing.

[twa]

I think it would depend on what the recluse was doing.

How so?
Are you referring to studying scripture ect...or engaging in reflection and observation?

[DRSmith]

How so?
Are you referring to studying scripture ect...or engaging in reflection and observation?

I was thinking more of engaging and relection, if one reads of course one comes into contact with those who give voice to their beliefs concerning God.

I often find it interesting see how one's belief in God is reflected in their actions and views.

[Hubbs]

http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Spaghetti_Monster.jpg

[twa]

I often find it interesting see how one's belief in God is reflected in their actions and views.

And how one's beliefs are projected onto their idea of the nature of God?;)

They seem to go together in many cases.

[twa]

Hubbs,I'm sorry to inform ya I ate his noodly appendages and meatballs.

I find Tabasco sauce adds a bit to his message,though too much makes his passage to reincarnation a bit distressing.:toilet:

I did gain from his existence though.:)

[polywog999]

I would like to bring up a topic that I enjoy discussing; seeming contradictions in the books of Mark and Luke.

http://www.equip.org/hank_speaks_outs/do-mark-and-luke-contradict-on-the-death-of-jesus-

http://atheism.about.com/od/gospelcontradictions/p/EmptyTomb.htm

There are quite a few of these that have been argued for a long time.

[twa]

Might be more effective to simply pose a question rather than link and let us guess;)

[polywog999]

Might be more effective to simply pose a question rather than link and let us guess;)
Too late! I guess just don't click the link!

[DRSmith]

I would like to bring up a topic that I enjoy discussing; seeming contradictions in the books of Mark and Luke.

http://www.equip.org/hank_speaks_outs/do-mark-and-luke-contradict-on-the-death-of-jesus-

http://atheism.about.com/od/gospelcontradictions/p/EmptyTomb.htm

There are quite a few of these that have been argued for a long time.

Most of this seems to be nitpicking and not actual contradictions. Just because someone does not include a detail it does not make it a contradiction it is just being reported differently.

The other problem is the person doing the empty tomb is ignorant of both the law and the fact that at that time Rome was trying allow the Jews freedom to practice their faith, which would not allow for person to be left over night.

Deuteronomy 21:22 “And in case there comes to be in a man a sin deserving the sentence of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hung him upon a stake, 23 his dead body should not stay all night on the stake; but you should by all means bury him on that day, because something accursed of God is the one hung up; and you must not defile your soil, which Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance.

[polywog999]

Most of this seems to be nitpicking and not actual contradictions. Just because someone does not include a detail it does not make it a contradiction it is just being reported differently.

The other problem is the person doing the empty tomb is ignorant of both the law and the fact that at that time Rome was trying allow the Jews freedom to practice their faith, which would not allow for person to be left over night.

Deuteronomy 21:22 “And in case there comes to be in a man a sin deserving the sentence of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hung him upon a stake, 23 his dead body should not stay all night on the stake; but you should by all means bury him on that day, because something accursed of God is the one hung up; and you must not defile your soil, which Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Not saying that I agree with the links, just offering them as ideas about the so called 'inconsistencies' of the books of the New Testament.

[Bostic Hog]

Still waiting for ECU-ALUM to weigh in -- he has a masters in theology and is a minister. We met him in Canton and he comes to a few ES tailgates every year. Would be interesting to hear his take on this crap that is way over my beer-drinking, stripper-watching, shallow head :silly:

[Burgold]

I guess my biggest question on this topic is if there is such a thing as predestination than can there be such a thing as sin at all. Murder can't be wrong if you were assigned by Fate, God, St. Something or other to do it. It wasn't your choice. You're just a puppet following a script.

I can sort of believe in the predestination argument in the way I believe in nature/nurture. Nature provides numerous potentialities. It makes you more inclined to do something or be better at other things, but it doesn't force your hand. Nurture can make you choose to be something or do things which you are less genetically apt for and the training can make you superior in it.

So, is there a predestined roadmap where we have some choice on where to turn or stop? Does our life not follow a storyline, but a crude outline or even just a barebones plot? That seems philosophically somewhat more likely to me... especially since I rather like the notions of free will and liberty.

[DRSmith]

I guess my biggest question on this topic is if there is such a thing as predestination than can there be such a thing as sin at all. Murder can't be wrong if you were assigned by Fate, God, St. Something or other to do it. It wasn't your choice. You're just a puppet following a script.

I can sort of believe in the predestination argument in the way I believe in nature/nurture. Nature provides numerous potentialities. It makes you more inclined to do something or be better at other things, but it doesn't force your hand. Nurture can make you choose to be something or do things which you are less genetically apt for and the training can make you superior in it.

So, is there a predestined roadmap where we have some choice on where to turn or stop? Does our life not follow a storyline, but a crude outline or even just a barebones plot? That seems philosophically somewhat more likely to me... especially since I rather like the notions of free will and liberty.


One can since we are imperfect we are predestined to sin, but the nature of our sins are completely of our making for the most part.

[twa]

One can since we are imperfect we are predestined to sin, but the nature of our sins are completely of our making for the most part.

I like that answer,but it brings up a question as far as the 'most part' part:)

Are you speaking of as when the consequences of sin are visited upon future generations.... or simply inadvertent sins?

[boobiemiles]

You make your own destiny. Yuo have free will. If we don't the whole basis of religion, Satan, and God is false.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Predestination question: Sure you can argue that you were predestined to sin, but she can respond with the fact that she is predestined to leave your butt.

God being self evident: Yes, and the evidence is that the vast majority of humanity throughout our entire history understands that there is a divine. What is not self evident is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Inconsistencies: This is brought up so much that it really gets old, because those who bring it up are without fail 20th-21st century thinkers reading their own logic and reasoning into 1st century documents which are more sermons than biographies this simply shows how badly they understand what they are trying to criticize and critique. Its like a 2 year old getting mad at a cello for their inability to play it.

[twist]

God being self evident: Yes, and the evidence is that the vast majority of humanity throughout our entire history understands that there is a divine. What is not self evident is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


Worshiping the sun as a God because you don't understand it doesn’t mean you are keying into the truth of the universe.

The beliefs of humanity say more about the nature of what humanity is prone to believe in than saying anything about God.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Worshiping the sun as a God because you don't understand it doesn’t mean you are keying into the truth of the universe.
True, but then that's more like missing the target rather than there not being a target at all. Your claim is "Oh you missed the target, therefore there must not be a target." Which is obviously just silly.


The beliefs of humanity say more about the nature of what humanity is prone to believe in than saying anything about God.

Well that's certainly the glass half full version, because how can you possibly separate the self-evident nature of God from our human ability to perceive what God is making known to humanity? Simple answer...you can't.

[alexey]

http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Wont-Go-Away/dp/034544034X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262550689&sr=8-1-spell



Researchers Newberg and D'Aquili used high-tech imaging devices to peer into the brains of meditating Buddhists and Franciscan nuns. As the data and brain photographs flowed in, the researchers began to find solid evidence that the mystical experiences of the subjects "were not the result of some fabrication, or simple wishful thinking, but were associated instead with a series of observable neurological events," explains Newberg. "In other words, mystical experience is biologically, observably, and scientifically real.... Gradually, we shaped a hypothesis that suggests that spiritual experience, at its very root, is intimately interwoven with human biology."
Spiritual experiences have evolutionary value, so it's no wonder that they are a part of our biology. Interpretation of such experiences depends on individual beliefs and cultural context.

Reading, for example, is an invention that greatly improves the performance of the human brain. It is no wonder that 3 major religions today are "religions of the book".

[techboy]

Interesting, alexey. Can you think of any other possible reason why humans would appear to have a biologically based desire to seek the divine?

For that matter, could there be perhaps some other reason that people would seek to record important events and teachings in writing?

[techboy]

On another note, there seem to be a lot of people in this thread confusing the doctrine of predestination with determinism.

Predestination generally only deals with a person's salvation status. It doesn't mean that people are puppets on strings, with every action controlled.

A person can be a Calvinist and believe in predestination without agreeing to the concept that it's God's fault a person sins, because He made him do it.

[brandymac27]

http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Wont-Go-Away/dp/034544034X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262550689&sr=8-1-spell


Spiritual experiences have evolutionary value, so it's no wonder that they are a part of our biology. Interpretation of such experiences depends on individual beliefs and cultural context.

Reading, for example, is an invention that greatly improves the performance of the human brain. It is no wonder that 3 major religions today are "religions of the book".

I don't have any clear cut answers, but I think that people believe in God or are religious b/c they want to (be). Simple as that. For me, I personally want to believe that there is more out there than what I can see. I want to know that after I'm dead, it's not the end. I want to believe in eternal life, and I want to also believe that people will be rewarded and punished for their actions.

Without religion, no matter what your faith is, you really have none of that. It's just what happens here and now. I have to believe that there is more to this short life that we live here on earth.

I struggle with faith on a daily basis, and maybe my reasons for "believing" are all selfish and will eventually condemn me b/c of my selfishness. I dunno. But what I do know is that I don't want this life to be it. I want more. And if that means believing in God or Jesus, than so be it.

[alexey]

Interesting, alexey. Can you think of any other possible reason why humans would appear to have a biologically based desire to seek the divine?

For that matter, could there be perhaps some other reason that people would seek to record important events and teachings in writing?
I can think of an infinite number of possible reasons :)

The underlying idea is that spirituality has evolutionary significance because it helps give meaning and motivate reverence of important behaviors. Customs, traditions, dances, oral stories passed from generation to generation, etc, all of those have historically had religious significance in human societies. This is what allowed the cultural evolution of humanity.

[alexey]

I don't have any clear cut answers, but I think that people believe in God or are religious b/c they want to (be). Simple as that. For me, I personally want to believe that there is more out there than what I can see. I want to know that after I'm dead, it's not the end. I want to believe in eternal life, and I want to also believe that people will be rewarded and punished for their actions.

Without religion, no matter what your faith is, you really have none of that. It's just what happens here and now. I have to believe that there is more to this short life that we live here on earth.

I struggle with faith on a daily basis, and maybe my reasons for "believing" are all selfish and will eventually condemn me b/c of my selfishness. I dunno. But what I do know is that I don't want this life to be it. I want more. And if that means believing in God or Jesus, than so be it.
There are ways of making this work without having to be religious. However short our presence here may be, our actions still have consequences. Each one of us contributes to the overall flow of things.

Also, imho making unforced choices > doing things for a reward or in fear of punishment

[brandymac27]

There are ways of making this work without having to be religious. However short our presence here may be, our actions still have consequences. Each one of us contributes to the overall flow of things.

True, but it still doesn't really address eternal life. I think that, more than anything, is what I really want. I don't want this to be all there is, and Christianity is a vessel (so to speak), IMO, to eternal life.

[alexey]

True, but it still doesn't really address eternal life. I think that, more than anything, is what I really want. I don't want this to be all there is, and Christianity is a vessel (so to speak), IMO, to eternal life.
I don't want this to be all there is... heck, there is a number of things that I don't want to be the case, ranging form global warming to my credit card balance :silly:

On the other hand, if this is all there is, it actually has more meaning. Use that as motivation.

Another comforting thought, at least to me, is that whatever is going to happen to us has already happened to millions and millions of other people. For vast majority of them it happened much earlier and in much more violent ways. We have much to be grateful for. Whatever is going to happen to us, we are not alone in that.

[techboy]

I can think of an infinite number of possible reasons

Start listing. I'll let you know when you've reached infinity. :)

[alexey]

Start listing. I'll let you know when you've reached infinity. :)
Because the magical sentient XYZ wants that, replace XYZ with any noun in a dictionary ;)

[techboy]

Because the magical sentient XYZ wants that, replace XYZ with any noun in a dictionary ;)

That's around 45,000. Keep going. :)

[alexey]

That's around 45,000. Keep going. :)
Now we move onto combinations of nouns - forks and knives making it happen against the will of the spoons, and so on... ;) Complex alliances should keep us busy for a while ;)

But yes, eventually I will die and you, in theory, will be able to keep going ;)

[Vicious]

http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Wont-Go-Away/dp/034544034X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262550689&sr=8-1-spell


Spiritual experiences have evolutionary value, so it's no wonder that they are a part of our biology. Interpretation of such experiences depends on individual beliefs and cultural context.

Reading, for example, is an invention that greatly improves the performance of the human brain. It is no wonder that 3 major religions today are "religions of the book".

People meditating are affected biologically? This is not news.

There are monks that can meditate and stay out in the freezing cold overnight with a single blanket by raising their body temp.

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

I don't have any clear cut answers, but I think that people believe in God or are religious b/c they want to (be). Simple as that. For me, I personally want to believe that there is more out there than what I can see. I want to know that after I'm dead, it's not the end. I want to believe in eternal life, and I want to also believe that people will be rewarded and punished for their actions.

Without religion, no matter what your faith is, you really have none of that. It's just what happens here and now. I have to believe that there is more to this short life that we live here on earth.

I struggle with faith on a daily basis, and maybe my reasons for "believing" are all selfish and will eventually condemn me b/c of my selfishness. I dunno. But what I do know is that I don't want this life to be it. I want more. And if that means believing in God or Jesus, than so be it.
this is exactly how i feel, however it is very difficult for me to believe that there is something after death. Just because i want there to be something doesnt mean there is going to be something. I have no faith, which would explain why i am afraid of death.

also alexey the fact that it has happened to millions of people does not comfort me in the slightest.

[polywog999]

this is exactly how i feel, however it is very difficult for me to believe that there is something after death. Just because i want there to be something doesnt mean there is going to be something. I have no faith, which would explain why i am afraid of death.

also alexey the fact that it has happened to millions of people does not comfort me in the slightest.
It's good to fear death. Stave it off as long as possible!

[alexey]

People meditating are affected biologically? This is not news.

There are monks that can meditate and stay out in the freezing cold overnight with a single blanket by raising their body temp.
That source attempts to deal with questions of human spirituality in the context of human biology and evolution. A big thing there is to try and see commonalities in human spiritual experiences throughout history and in various cultures. Underlying biology was examined in that context.

Biological effects of meditation, or any brain training, for that matter, are indeed not news.

[alexey]

also alexey the fact that it has happened to millions of people does not comfort me in the slightest.
Sorry to hear that - hopefully you will find something comforting somewhere.

I think it's important to start with a premise that you will die, it's inevitable, and it's okay. You know this is true. You may not think it's okay, you may not feel that it's okay, but you have decide that it is and tell yourself that it is. If you push that thought away, your fear will always be there. You may find some comfort once you massage that thought into your brain... at least that's my perspective on dealing with that.

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

Sorry to hear that - hopefully you will find something comforting somewhere.

I think it's important to start with a premise that you will die, it's inevitable, and it's okay. You know this is true. You may not think it's okay, you may not feel that it's okay, but you have decide that it is and tell yourself that it is. If you push that thought away, your fear will always be there. You may find some comfort once you massage that thought into your brain... at least that's my perspective on dealing with that.
what i find comfort in is what scares me the most, i dont know what will happen when i die. when i was younger i would actually go days without sleeping because once i started thinking about it i couldnt stop. I am no longer as afraid, but there still is a hint of fear.

[DRSmith]

I like that answer,but it brings up a question as far as the 'most part' part:)

Are you speaking of as when the consequences of sin are visited upon future generations.... or simply inadvertent sins?

You are going to sin, but there are sins one can avoid

But nature and nuture do play a big part in our tendancy for certain sins.

There are things that I will never avoid no matter how hard I try like saying the wrong thing.

[JMS]

To try to cut down on thread derailment I am going to try an open theological thread. Let the discussion go where it may.

To start off something I was wondering if you were with a girl who subscribes to Calvin's teaching of predestination, could you cheat on her and say you were just predestined and therefore it is not your fault?


I think you could say that. But Modern Calvinists have a loop hole around the predestination thing. Claiming if you act bad, it's actually a sign you aren't saved. If you act good, it's a sign you are one of the saved. Key to this teaching is Calvinists don't believe folks know who is and who isn't saved, even if they believe God does know.

In this way Calvinists dont' really see their belief in predestination to be any different than other Christians, who don't believe in predestination.

[DRSmith]

I think you could say that. But Modern Calvinists have a loop hole around the predestination thing. Claiming if you act bad, it's actually a sign you aren't saved. If you act good, it's a sign you are one of the saved. Key to this teaching is Calvinists don't believe folks know who is and who isn't saved, even if they believe God does know.

In this way Calvinists dont' really see their belief in predestination to be any different than other Christians, who don't believe in predestination.

Sort of like the thinking with once saved always saved that if you end up acting bad you were never really saved?

[JMS]

Sort of like the thinking with once saved always saved that if you end up acting bad you were never really saved?

Exactly right. Or to use your metiphore.

When you tell your girlfriend you were predestined to cheat... she breaks up with you and tells you she was predestined to do so too....

It's a confusing and counter intuitive teaching. But no more so than the trinity (three separate god heads, making up one god in a monotheistic religion), transubstantiation ( wine becoming blood), ecclesiology ( different faiths making it to haven or not), and Papal Infalibility( Pope can be wrong, only not when he says he's not wrong).

[DRSmith]

Exactly right. Or to use your metiphore.

When you tell your girlfriend you were predestined to cheat... she breaks up with you and tells you she was predestined to do so too....

It's a confusing and counter intuitive teaching. But no more so than the trinity (three separate god heads, making up one god in a monotheistic religion), transubstantiation ( wine becoming blood), ecclesiology ( different faiths making it to haven or not), and Papal Infalibility( Pope can be wrong, only not when he says he's not wrong).

Interesting as I subscribe to none of the above :D

[JMS]

Interesting as I subscribe to none of the above :D

Unitarian then? Or perhaps Arian? (not to be confused with the Nazi ideology Aryanism)...

Most Christians including Catholic, Protestants and Orthodoxy do subscribe to the Nicene Creed which confirms the divinity of the holy spirit / trinity.

[AsburySkinsFan]

On another note, there seem to be a lot of people in this thread confusing the doctrine of predestination with determinism.

Predestination generally only deals with a person's salvation status. It doesn't mean that people are puppets on strings, with every action controlled.

A person can be a Calvinist and believe in predestination without agreeing to the concept that it's God's fault a person sins, because He made him do it.

I agree that the two are separate however they are very much linked to the same thought patterns. The theology of Predestination stresses the sovereignty of God and establishes that if God is truly sovereign then everything is within God's control and order, as such while Predestination focuses on the aspect of salvation it is not a giant leap from there to determinism, not to mention double predestination where God not only determines who is saved but also predetermines who is damned. IMO theology like that is not Good News but luck of the draw.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Interesting as I subscribe to none of the above :D
You don't subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity?


Most Christians including Catholic, Protestants and Orthodoxy do subscribe to the Nicene Creed which confirms the divinity of the holy spirit / trinity.
Most? Well, I'd say most for sure, especially considering that even we as United Methodists consider religions who don't hold to the Holy Trinity as not being Christian.

[Zguy28]

You don't subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity?


Most? Well, I'd say most for sure, especially considering that even we as United Methodists consider religions who don't hold to the Holy Trinity as not being Christian.You Methodists are so intolerant. :D

[techboy]

Well, I'd say most for sure, especially considering that even we as United Methodists consider religions who don't hold to the Holy Trinity as not being Christian.

And when the Methodists exclude you, you know you've gone off the reservation. :)

[techboy]

You Methodists are so intolerant. :D

To be fair, I believe they are still invited for cookies and punch in the Fellowship Hall. ;)

[AsburySkinsFan]

You Methodists are so intolerant. :D


And when the Methodists exclude you, you know you've gone off the reservation. :)


To be fair, I believe they are still invited for cookies and punch in the Fellowship Hall.

You guys rock. :D

[Zguy28]

To be fair, I believe they are still invited for cookies and punch in the Fellowship Hall. ;)No potluck?
http://forums.somd.com/images/smilies/cdsulhoff.gif

[AsburySkinsFan]

No potluck?
http://forums.somd.com/images/smilies/cdsulhoff.gif
We can't take credit for that, we obviously stole the potluck from the Baptists, but we sanctified it.;)
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.(BTW, for the uninitiated, Christian Sanctification is a major theological point in United Methodism)

[jpillian]

No potluck?
http://forums.somd.com/images/smilies/cdsulhoff.gif

Speaking of which -- my brother owns a screen printing/embroidery business -- and our family is extremely Lutheran. Potlucks are a big deal to Lutherans. In that spirit, he came up with a rather simple shirt that we've gotten a kick out of(http://www.illiancrafts.com/WEBSTORES/tabid/203/CategoryID/21/List/1/Level/1/ProductID/76/Default.aspx).

[JMS]

Most? Well, I'd say most for sure, especially considering that even we as United Methodists consider religions who don't hold to the Holy Trinity as not being Christian.

Actually the Nicene Creed was written a a laundry list of heretical beliefs to be purged from Christianity in order to creat a single religion out of a quickly expanding and increasingly fragmented one....

The Pagan Roman Emporor Constintine the Great, who called the church councel of Nicene saw the courage of the Christians being killed in the forum and believed if he had a few legions of those guys he could unit his empire. They believed in something bigger than themselves and they were willing to die for that something. Perfect soldiers! Problem was before Constantine could use Christianity to unit the empire, first Constintine had to unit the Christians....

Christianity was a fractious diverse set of beliefs all with their own leader isolated in the major cities of the empire. Mostly underground, and mostly didn't agree with each other on major doctrinal issues. Like the diviinity of christ etc.

So the Pagan Constintine called the church counil in Nicea outside of his capital in modern day turkey and personally wrote the Nicene Creed or yardstick as to what it was to be a Chrisitan.

Each line directed at major groups within his fractious group of religions. Then after the creed was crafted those who would not sign up to it, were pursecuted, exhiled, or even executed... Giving us the mostly homogionous acceptance to the creed we see today.

Notable exceptions are the followers of Arius, the cardinal from Libya, Arians. Coptics. Who would not agree to the trinity and who in Constintines time were pursecuted, but who returned after Constintines death to reclaim control of all of christianity under future empororors for a time until they were finally expelled from the main stream movement.

Interestingly enough, since the Pagan Constantines entire motivation for setting up the church was to unify Christians into a single church; he wrote the belief of a single united or catholic church into the creed. Which protestants continue to profess today...

catholic meaning 'universal', 'general', or single church.



We believe in One God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is of the substance of the Father. God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten and not made; Himself of the nature of the Father, by whom all things came into being in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate, was made man, was born perfectly of the Holy Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. By whom he took body, soul and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance. He suffered and was crucified, and was buried and rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven with the same body and sat at the right hand of the Father. He is to come with the same body, and with the glory of the Father to judge the quick and the dead, of Whose kingdom there is no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated and the perfect, who spoke in the law and the prophets and the Gospel, Who came down upon the Jordan, preached to the Apostles and dwelt in the saints. We believe also in only one, catholic, and apostolic, holy Church, in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; in the resurrection of the dead, and in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, in the kingdom of heaven and in the life eternal

[AsburySkinsFan]

So the Pagan Constintine called the church counil in Nicea outside of his capital in modern day turkey and personally wrote the Nicene Creed or yardstick as to what it was to be a Chrisitan.

Seriously, did you seriously suggest that Constantine personally wrote the Nicene Creed. You know seriously, I've heard some very bad revisionist history in my time but this one has to take the cake.

BTW, the reality is that the branches of early Christianity that denied the fundamental aspects of the Trinity (1 God, Divine Son, Holy Spirit) were rejected by Christians well before the Nicene Creed. The thinking that Constantine cherry picked the theology he liked best is simply mind numbing.

[techboy]

No, JMS, Constantine didn't decide anything. He called the meeting, but the decision was made by the bishops in attendance.

Second, lest we think that they were forced by Constantine to do anything, keep in mind that these bishops were, just a few years earlier, running their church in violation of Roman law, facing down the prospect of torture, death, etc. They had defied emperors before (on pain of death), and would no doubt have done so again, had they seen the need.

Third, the vote wasn't close. It was nearly unanimous, which is reflective of the beliefs of the Christian Church throughout the centuries (that Jesus was God). There was no debate, per se, and it wasn't controversial.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm)

The creed they settled on:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

The vote:


The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria. The lists of the signers have reached us in a mutilated condition, disfigured by faults of the copyists. Nevertheless, these lists may be regarded as authentic. Their study is a problem which has been repeatedly dealt with in modern times, in Germany and England, in the critical editions of H. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, and O. Contz on the one hand, and C. H. Turner on the other. The lists thus constructed give respectively 220 and 218 names. With information derived from one source or another, a list of 232 or 237 fathers known to have been present may be constructed.

Here's a list of the other issues discussed:


Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.
Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.
Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.
Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.
Canon 5: Concerning the excommunicate.
Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.
Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.
Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.
Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.
Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.
Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.
Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.
Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.
Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.
Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.
Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.
Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.
Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.
Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.
Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.
The business of the Council having been finished Constantine celebrated the twentieth anniversary of his accession to the empire, and invited the bishops to a splendid repast, at the end of which each of them received rich presents. Several days later the emperor commanded that a final session should be held, at which he assisted in order to exhort the bishops to work for the maintenance of peace; he commended himself to their prayers, and authorized the fathers to return to their dioceses. The greater number hastened to take advantage of this and to bring the resolutions of the council to the knowledge of their provinces.

Just to head another thought off at the pass, they never discussed the books of the Bible at all, and it was never a close vote as to Jesus' divinity. Those are two historical myths. Constantine died soon after, and the councils that closed the Canon occured after that.

Executive summary: The Council of Nicea formalized the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (which almost everyone held to already), banned self-castration (ouch!), pronounced anathema on a few people and things, and went home.

As a final historical note, you're wrong about the return of Arianism being post Constantine. Constantine was baptised by an Arian bishop before his death.

[AsburySkinsFan]

No, JMS, Constantine didn't decide anything. He called the meeting, but the decision was made by the bishops in attendance.

Second, lest we think that they were forced by Constantine to do anything, keep in mind that these bishops were, just a few years earlier, running their church in violation of Roman law, facing down the prospect of torture, death, etc. They had defied emperors before (on pain of death), and would no doubt have done so again, had they seen the need.

Third, the vote wasn't close. It was nearly unanimous, which is reflective of the beliefs of the Christian Church throughout the centuries (that Jesus was God). There was no debate, per se, and it wasn't controversial.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm)

Just to head another thought off at the pass, they never discussed the books of the Bible at all, and it was never a close vote as to Jesus' divinity. Those are two historical myths. Constantine died soon after, and the councils that closed the Canon occured after that.

Executive summary: The Council of Nicea formalized the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (which almost everyone held to already), banned self-castration (ouch!), pronounced anathema on a few people and things, and went home.

As a final historical note, you're wrong about the return of Arianism being post Constantine. Constantine was baptised by an Arian bishop before his death.

No, no, no don't you know that the revisionist history does not need facts to be true, all it needs is a couple web sites and a History channel special.

BTW, nice post techboy.

[JMS]

Seriously, did you seriously suggest that Constantine personally wrote the Nicene Creed. You know seriously, I've heard some very bad revisionist history in my time but this one has to take the cake.


By wrote, I mean he drafted the final document, as well as introduced words. There is no record Constintine voted on the creed. The bishops of the churches voted on the final work, again under Constantines watchful eye. The entire church council was Constantine's show. Held at his request, at his expense, at a location proximal to his capital which he determined, and it's outcome was what he pre ordained. A common set of beliefs creed in order to standerdize and unify the fractious Christians of the time.



BTW, the reality is that the branches of early Christianity that denied the fundamental aspects of the Trinity (1 God, Divine Son, Holy Spirit) were rejected by Christians well before the Nicene Creed. The thinking that Constantine cherry picked the theology he liked best is simply mind numbing.

I didn't say he cherry picked the theology he liked best. I don't think the Pagan Constintine cared at all about the content of the creed. His letters who he didn't really even understand the controversy with the Arians. Constantine was concerned solely with the production of the creed as an artifact to standardized beliefs across all the churches. Thus his motivation was to create a document which most, if not all the bishops could or would sign. Thus Unifying Christians so they could better be use as an instrument of the Roman state.

As for your claim the Christians had rejected the Arian believes before Nicea; that's very hard to support. The fact is After Constintine died, The Arian belief became the accepted one inside the main stream church and the believers in the trinity were considered heritics and pursecuted.

The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337-361) and Valens (364-378) were both Arians.

The leson is Constantine tried to Unify Christianity, but failed in his lifetime. What he did was draw the lines. The issue was settled in the hundred years following the first chuch council at Nicea long after Constantine the Great had died.. ( Converted to Christianity on his deathbed, along with severl other religions ).

[AsburySkinsFan]

Constantine is to blame for a lot of things and deserves much of that blame, but revising history to cast more blame on Constantine and call into question the historic faith of Christianity is ridiculous. I suggest less National Geographic and History channels and more actual church history readings...oh and skip the Christopher Hitchen's versions as well.

[DRSmith]

Unitarian then? Or perhaps Arian? (not to be confused with the Nazi ideology Aryanism)...

Most Christians including Catholic, Protestants and Orthodoxy do subscribe to the Nicene Creed which confirms the divinity of the holy spirit / trinity.

Arian no as I disagree with his view on God being unknowable, if that we true how could Jesus say we worship what we know.

Since I believe there is only one Almighty God and Jesus refers to his God both in John and Revelation and he has so many terms associated with him that put him as part of creation, including the being described as the beginning of creation by God.

I agree with Justin Martyr on his view that Proverbs 8:22-30 describe the creation of Jesus and then his role in creation.

[DRSmith]

You don't subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity?




No, something I have pondered, when God had the Jews lift up the copper seprant in the wilderness in order for them to be saved from death and Jesus said that he would be lifted just as the serpant was. After that when the Jews decided to worship the serpant they were guilty of idolatry, it does not seem to be a good idea to worship the means God uses to save mankind.

[alexey]

Constantine is to blame for a lot of things and deserves much of that blame, but revising history to cast more blame on Constantine and call into question the historic faith of Christianity is ridiculous. I suggest less National Geographic and History channels and more actual church history readings...oh and skip the Christopher Hitchen's versions as well.
Which sources would you consider worthwhile to examine when researching the history of Christianity as it relates to political maneuvering in European history?

[Fred Jones]

Just remember, thoughts are energy. If your energy is angry you will project that out.

My thought for the day.

[twa]

No, something I have pondered, when God had the Jews lift up the copper seprant in the wilderness in order for them to be saved from death and Jesus said that he would be lifted just as the serpant was. After that when the Jews decided to worship the serpant they were guilty of idolatry, it does not seem to be a good idea to worship the means God uses to save mankind.

But do Christians worship the being or simply who He represents?

The Jews were actually investing belief in a object,whereas Jesus is (purportedly) a part of God(a physical manifestation).

Christians certainly should not worship his carcass(which would be a neat trick if it ain't here;))

[JMS]

No, JMS, Constantine didn't decide anything. He called the meeting, but the decision was made by the bishops in attendance.


Again I think you are attributing beliefs to my comments which are too strong, and counter weighing them too strongly in the oposite direction.

Certainly Constantine didn't vote on the Nicene Creed. Certainly words he suggested were incorporated into the creed. His role in the councel was to creat compromises and seek agreements of the factions.

Thus the Pagan Constantine did contribute to the final product, more than just transcribing it.



Second, lest we think that they were forced by Constantine to do anything, keep in mind that these bishops were, just a few years earlier, running their church in violation of Roman law, facing down the prospect of torture, death, etc. They had defied emperors before (on pain of death), and would no doubt have done so again, had they seen the need.


? No Doubt? Constantine legalized Christianity after the battle at Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. Pursecution of Christians was ended early 313 AD by the Edict of Milan. The Nician councel was heald in 325 about 12 years later and was heald on Constantines home court. The bishops having to travel from all over the empire to reach Nicea. It's a hell of a pursasive home court advantage for Constantine.

Also lets not forget the emperor did in fact use the power of the state to give the Council's orders effect. So it's not like the power of the Roman state wasn't a player what so ever in the words of the majority.

In fact Constantine himself wrote leters to the Arian Bishops seeking their endorsements of the creed.




Third, the vote wasn't close. It was nearly unanimous, which is reflective of the beliefs of the Christian Church throughout the centuries (that Jesus was God). There was no debate, per se, and it wasn't controversial.


Also lets not forget Constantine had invited about 1800 bishops from across his empire. estimates of attendance range from 250-320 attendees. About 15% of those who had been invited with the GREAT MAJORITY of the bishops coming from the East.

Of three people known to have attended...
Eusebius of Caesarea counted 250.
Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318.
Eustathius of Antioch counted 270.

It wasn't exactly a representative crowd rather it was a group dominated by one viewpoint.




Just to head another thought off at the pass, they never discussed the books of the Bible at all, and it was never a close vote as to Jesus' divinity. Those are two historical myths. Constantine died soon after, and the councils that closed the Canon occured after that.


In reality the next two Emporors after Constantine the Frist, constantine II and Valens were both Arians. and they set about prosecuting those who believed in the Trinity.



As a final historical note, you're wrong about the return of Arianism being post Constantine. Constantine was baptised by an Arian bishop before his death.



It was not until the co-reigns of Gratian and Theodosius ( began 65 years after Nicea) that Arianism was effectively wiped out among the ruling class and elite of the Eastern Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Theodosius_and_the_Council_of_Constantino ple





Two days after Theodosius arrived in Constantinople, November 24, 380, he expelled the Homoian bishop, Demophilus of Constantinople (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Demophilus_of_Constantinople), and surrendered the churches of that city to Gregory Nazianzus (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Gregory_Nazianzus), the leader of the rather small Nicene community there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Theodosius_and_the_Council_of_Constantino ple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Theodosius_and_the_Council_of_Constantino ple)




Although much of the church hierarchy in the East had opposed the Nicene creed in the decades leading up to Theodosius' accession, he managed to achieve unity on the basis of the Nicene creed. In 381, at the Second Ecumenical Council (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople) in Constantinople, a group of mainly Eastern bishops assembled and accepted the Nicene Creed of 381 (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Nicene_Creed#The_Nicene_Creed_of_381),[10] (http://www.extremeskins.com/#cite_note-9) which was supplemented in regard to the Holy Spirit (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Holy_Spirit), as well as some other changes: see Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381 (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_between_Creed_of_325_and_C reed_of_381). This is generally considered the end of the dispute about the Trinity and the end of Arianism among the Roman, non-Germanic peoples.


Then Arianism lived on in Germanic Kingdoms due to inroads it had made in the time of Constantine the II...



However, during the time of Arianism's flowering in Constantinople (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Constantinople), the Gothic convert Ulfilas (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Ulfilas) (later the subject of the letter of Auxentius cited above) was sent as a missionary to the Gothic barbarians across the Danube (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Danube_River), a mission favored for political reasons by emperor Constantius II. Ulfilas' initial success in converting this Germanic people to an Arian form of Christianity was strengthened by later events. When the Germanic peoples entered the Roman Empire (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Roman_Empire) and founded successor-kingdoms in the western part, most had been Arian Christians for more than a century

[DRSmith]

But do Christians worship the being or simply who He represents?

The Jews were actually investing belief in a object,whereas Jesus is (purportedly) a part of God(a physical manifestation).

Christians certainly should not worship his carcass(which would be a neat trick if it ain't here;))

If read the account of the golden calf in Exodus worshipping something as representing the Almighty did not go over well either.

[JMS]

Constantine is to blame for a lot of things and deserves much of that blame, but revising history to cast more blame on Constantine and call into question the historic faith of Christianity is ridiculous. I suggest less National Geographic and History channels and more actual church history readings...oh and skip the Christopher Hitchen's versions as well.

1 - I don't know what you are talking about?

2- How am I blaming Constantine for anything?

3- who is christipher hitchens?


I don't think I've said anything that is even controversial historically speaking.

[DRSmith]

Again I think you are attributing beliefs to my comments which are too strong, and counter weighing them too strongly in the oposite direction.

Certainly Constantine didn't vote on the Nicene Creed. Certainly words he suggested were incorporated into the creed. His role in the councel was to creat compromises and seek agreements of the factions.

Thus the Pagan Constantine did contribute to the final product.




In reality the next two Emporors after Constantine the Frist, constantine II and Valens were both Arians. and they set about prosecuting those who believed in the Trinity.


Then Arianism lived on in Germanic Kingdoms due to inroads it had made in the time of Constantine the II...


No matter what happened I feel in the matter the state had no business and the main focus for the church should have been worshipping according to scripture and not trying to please the state.

Before Constantine you already had things being accepted as Christian. It would seem at times things were done to get wider acceptance.

[JMS]

No, no, no don't you know that the revisionist history does not need facts to be true, all it needs is a couple web sites and a History channel special.

BTW, nice post techboy.

I have my University Text which states Constantine transcibed the Nicene Creed. I can not find that on the Internet. So I will conceed that point.


However I have many sources which show the Arians made a comeback after the death of Constantine the Great and did eclipse believes in the Nicene Creed for decades in the 100 years following Nicea.

I also have sources which show only about 15% of the bishops invited attended Nicea with the vast majority comeing from the East. So I think you should conceed both of those points.

Finally, if you are going to discuss something in a forum like this, personal insults and taunts are unproductive and juvinile. They are no subsitutes for facts and sources. Facts and Sources which to date only I have presented.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Which sources would you consider worthwhile to examine when researching the history of Christianity as it relates to political maneuvering in European history?

For starters
http://www.amazon.com/Story-Christianity-Early-Church-Reformation/dp/0060633158

then:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060633166/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0060633158&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1SBW1S1K1Q6TPY64KTM5

[AsburySkinsFan]

No, something I have pondered, when God had the Jews lift up the copper seprant in the wilderness in order for them to be saved from death and Jesus said that he would be lifted just as the serpant was. After that when the Jews decided to worship the serpant they were guilty of idolatry, it does not seem to be a good idea to worship the means God uses to save mankind.

Are you saying then that Jesus was only the equivalent of the bronze snake?

[JMS]

No matter what happened I feel in the matter the state had no business and the main focus for the church should have been worshipping according to scripture and not trying to please the state.


Well you can feel that way. In the reality we live in the state had much to do with the Church. Hell the entire Catholic Church which was set up and created by Nicea and the Romans was based upon the Roman government... With an Emproror - Pope; A Senate - Cardinals; and a plebicit - bishops.

The Romans fingers are all over it. Just like the pagan barbarian fingers are on western christianity tradition after Rome fell and the church co-existed with and influenced it's new governments.. So those governments also influenced the church.



Before Constantine you already had things being accepted as Christian. It would seem at times things were done to get wider acceptance.

Fact is before Constantine the Great Christians didn't agree on what what being Christian meant. Nor did they agree with modern christans for nearly 100 years after Nicea. or until the second ecumentical counci in Constantinoplel 381..

[alexey]

No matter what happened I feel in the matter the state had no business and the main focus for the church should have been worshipping according to scripture and not trying to please the state.

The nature of relationships between the church and the state were drastically different back then. It was much more direct. Separation of these is a relatively recent concept.

[JMS]

If read the account of the golden calf in Exodus worshipping something as representing the Almighty did not go over well either.

Sounds to me like you are an Orthodox Christian. Orthodox Chrisitans are very concerned with Idolitry and the story of the golden calf. That whole icon thing. Western Christianity including Catholics and Protestants aren't generally as concerned with idolitry.

I will note however it is generally accepted that Orthodox Christians who's rituals were not influenced by the barbarians who continously threatenned and sacked Rome have a closer ties to that of the early Christians.

[DRSmith]

Are you saying then that Jesus was only the equivalent of the bronze snake?

John 3:
14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life.

One of many prefigurments in the OT that helps us understand exactly what was going to happen.

There are far more similarities betwen Moses and Jesus than anyone else in the OT

[DRSmith]

The nature of relationships between the church and the state were drastically different back then. It was much more direct. Separation of these is a relatively recent concept.

When Jesus walked the Earth and the apostles after it was a very seperate existence of the two.

[DRSmith]

Well you can feel that way. In the reality we live in the state had much to do with the Church. Hell the entire Catholic Church which was set up and created by Nicea and the Romans was based upon the Roman government... With an Emproror - Pope; A Senate - Cardinals; and a plebicit - bishops.

The Romans fingers are all over it. Just like the pagan barbarian fingers are on western christianity tradition after Rome fell and the church co-existed with and influenced it's new governments.. So those governments also influenced the church.



Fact is before Constantine the Great Christians didn't agree on what what being Christian meant. Nor did they agree with modern christans for nearly 100 years after Nicea. or until the second ecumentical counci in Constantinoplel 381..

Jesus and Paul both spoke on the fact there would be much trouble after a while.

[DRSmith]

Sounds to me like you are an Orthodox Christian. Orthodox Chrisitans are very concerned with Idolitry and the story of the golden calf. That whole icon thing. Western Christianity including Catholics and Protestants aren't generally as concerned with idolitry.

I will note however it is generally accepted that Orthodox Christians who's rituals were not influenced by the barbarians who continously threatenned and sacked Rome have a closer ties to that of the early Christians.

Funny how the apostles never took arms against the Jews or the Romans instead allowing their faith to help them over come.

[JMS]

John 3:
14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life.

One of many prefigurments in the OT that helps us understand exactly what was going to happen.

There are far more similarities betwen Moses and Jesus than anyone else in the OT



Jesus isn't in the old testiment. John and Jesus are in the new testimont.

What similarity does Jesus have to Moses or visa versa? Jesus actually shares similarities with Zorastrian tradition.

[alexey]

When Jesus walked the Earth and the apostles after it was a very seperate existence of the two.
That's true, for the first few centuries the church did not play as an important role in politics as it did after that.

[Jumbo]

I've always assumed TB is well versed (pun intended) on "secular" explanations as to why humans (in general) might have developed a strong behavior towards exploring/embracing what he termed the "divine" (and what I might call metaphysical/spiritual constructs) and is probably checking to see if alexy (or I assume anyone else so interested) can effectively provide such.

Or for that matter (as they may be connected ;)) similar "secular" explanations as to why you (like me) might find things like star-filled nights, sunsets, and various flora/fauna "beautiful" to the point of often feeling a very pleasant sense that runs deep and strong (without getting into implications of having similar sensations from what we'd term "man-made art").

And, no, I choose not to do it beyond this comment. I respectfully and appreciatively have told TB and a few others some time ago that I pretty much "retired" from such in all but the most specific of circumstances. These days I choose to make most commentary on such of a passing (well-intentioned) or respectfully humorous nature. :)


This post reminds me that I am often to parentheses what Larry is to underlining.

[JMS]

Jesus and Paul both spoke on the fact there would be much trouble after a while.


Well Paul would know. He himself was a Pharisee and actively involved in hunting down and pursecutor/murdering of Christians until his conversion on the road to Domascus.



You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.
—Paul's Letter to the Galatians 1:13-14




If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
—Paul's Letter to the Philippians 3:4-6

[JMS]

That's true, for the first few centuries the church did not play as an important role in politics as it did after that.

I think politics and Christianity were joined at the hip from almost the beginning.

Why was Jesus put to death, if not for political reasons. He was gaining too many followers, and his followers had dangerous ideas which threatenned the centers of power both spiritual and secular.

Didn't they ask Jesus "Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?" Wasn't Jesus and his followers hip deep in politics from almost the first?

The State was used as his instrument of execution and the trigger was politics.

Likewise, Isn't the entire Mesiah title bestowed upon Jesus by early christians( Jews ) and how we still reffer to him a political title as much as or even more than a religous title? Gentiles / non Jews are given that title in the old testiment... Cyrus the Great of Persia.... The title is that of the pretold great Jewish leader who would free the Jews from Rome... The other annointed ones in the old testemont were Great Military Leaders like David, Saul all called annointed ones in the Bible.

Oh by the way I got it... Jehova Witness... Bingo... Final Answer Regis.

[alexey]

I've always assumed TB is well versed (pun intended) on "secular" explanations as to why humans (in general) might have developed a strong behavior towards exploring/embracing what he termed the "divine" (and what I might call metaphysical/spiritual constructs) and is probably checking to see if alexy (or I assume anyone else so interested) can effectively provide such.

Or for that matter (as they may be connected ;)) similar "secular" explanations as to why you (like me) might find things like star-filled nights, sunsets, and various flora/fauna "beautiful" to the point of often feeling a very pleasant sense that runs deep and strong (without getting into implications of having similar sensations from what we'd term "man-made art").
Well, why do we find the shape of a female body so sublime and beautiful, so far beyond the "I wanna mate with that" kind of way?

Because that increases our chances of mating, of course. Same goes for all that other artsy-fartsy stuff :D

[JMS]

Well, why do we find the shape of a female body so sublime and beautiful, so far beyond the "I wanna mate with that" kind of way?

Because that increases our chances of mating, of course. Same goes for all that other artsy-fartsy stuff :D

Actually it's because God designed womans curves after the Corvette.

[alexey]

So why was Jesus put to death, if not for political reasons. He was gaining too many followers, and his followers had dangerous ideas which threatenned the centers of power both spiritual and secular.

Didn't they ask Jesus "Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?" Wasn't Jesus and his followers hip deap in politics from almost the first?

Isn't the entire Mesiah title bestowed upon Jesus by early christians ( Jews ) the title of the pretold great Jewish leader who would free the Jews from Rome... The other annointed ones in the old testemont. Great Military Leaders like David, Saul, even Cyrus the Great of Persia who are all called annointed ones in the Bible.

Oh by the way I got it... Jehova Witness... Bingo... Final Answer Regis.
That conversation was more about the cooperative interplay of church and state. But yeah, until Christianity became useful the relationship was an adversarial one, and it started sooner :)

[DRSmith]

These days I choose to make most commentary on such of a passing (well-intentioned) or respectfully humorous nature. :)


This post reminds me that I am often to parentheses what Larry is to underlining.

I find religion makes for some of the best humour.

[JMS]

That conversation was more about the cooperative interplay of church and state. But yeah, until Christianity became useful the relationship was an adversarial one, and it started sooner :)

I guess my point was the interplay began almost immediately when the Christan movement started to get legs.

I wouldn't term the relationship cooperative or adversarial but parasitic and exploitative.....

Polititians were looking to exploint christians for their own means and sometimes that was done in cooperatively and sometomes it was not. But it was usually done for selfserving reasons.

It was always about power. Keeping it, controling it. that's basically what Politics is all about.

[DRSmith]

Jesus isn't in the old testiment. John and Jesus are in the new testimont.

What similarity does Jesus have to Moses or visa versa? Jesus actually shares similarities with Zorastrian tradition.

Moses was a prince in the house of pharoah and chose to leave that life to suffer with the Jews and bring them out of exile.

Jesus was in heaven with God and chose to leave that life to suffer with men in order to lead them out of slavery to sin and death.

Moses deleivered a covenant, as did Jesus.

Both men came out of Egypt

Moses even prophecied concerning Jesus in Deuteronomy 18:15

[techboy]

No Doubt?


No doubt. From Reinventing Jesus (http://books.google.com/books?id=GtdzmykR_XMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=reinventing+Jesus&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false), page 210:


The bishops at Nicea were more accustomed to persecution than pampering. Many of them had lived through the injustices of Emperors Diocletian (ruling c. 284-305) and Maximian (ruling c. 286-305). Diocletian was eager to confiscate Christian writings, burn Christian buildings, and arrest Christian clergy. Maximian didn't hesitate to execute, disable, or exile those who refused to renounce Christ. At least one of the bishops at Nicea had personally experienced Maximian's cruelty. Paphnutius lost his right eye and gained a limp in his left leg- before being banished to the mines - as a result of confessing his faith. (5) There were more victims of persecution at the hands of others. Some lost use of their fingers because their nerves had been seared with hot pokers. Still others lost limbs all together. The marks of persecution were so prevalent that one ancient writer said, "The council looked like an assembled array of martyrs"! (6) Of course, men who had suffered such physical injuries for the sake of spiritual integrity were not about to be told what they should believe about Christ- imperial pressure or not."

These guys didn't and wouldn't compromise their faith for anybody. The Nicene Creed truly reflected the beliefs of the vast majority of Christians, which is why the vote was almost unanimous.

You are correct that Constantine, basically a pagan, had no interest beyond ending the squabble that had sprung up because of the Arian controversy. He wanted unity. He wasn't a theologian, so he relied on his nephew Hosius to help him.

Where you are very wrong, though, is your suggestion that there were many different Christianities in competetion. The vast majority of the churches were in agreement about the essentials. In point of fact, apparently one of the reasons there was an Arian controversy at all is that most bishops didn't really understand what Arius was teaching. From page 211-212:


Concerned more with imperial unity than theological precision, Constantine was eager to adopt a solution that would appeal to the largest number of bishops- no matter what that solution might be. (8) The Arians unwittingly helped him on this front. Shortly after the council went into session, a call was made for clarification of the Arian position. Arius' friend and stand-in (Arius could not sit on the council since he was not a bishop), Eusubius of Nicomedia, took the opportunity to present the Arian position in no uncertain terms. He strenuously asserted that the Son was in no way equal to the Father and was, in fact, a finite creature. The bishops were scandalized. Church historian Roger E. Olson describes the scene:

"Some of the bishops were holding their hands over their ears and shouting for someone to stop the blasphemies. One bishop near Eusebius stepped forward and grabbed the manuscript out of his hands, threw it on the floor, and stomped on it. A riot broke out among the bishops and was stopped only by the emperor's command." (9)

The bishops straddling the fence were suddenly staring at Arius from the other side. Apparently, they didn't previously understand how black and white the issue really was. Jesus was either finite, or he was not. The majority of bishops couldn't stand the thought of the former.

There was a bit of squabbling after this about how to exactly word things, but again, at the end (pg.213):


All of the bishops signed the creed- with the exception of Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais.

Perhaps even more importantly, as noted on page 207:


No one with a seat at the Nicene Council thought that the fact of Jesus' divinity was on the table. It was simply assumed. By the time the bishops had convened at Nicea on May 20, 325, the divinity of Jesus had been affirmed by the majority of Christians for almost three centuries.

So, it's inaccurate to talk about different Christianities. They all believed that Jesus was divine, even the Arians. A minority (the Arians) thought that Jesus was finite, but once the concept was fully explained, the vast majority of bishops were horrified and rejected it. They knew what they believed, and there wasn't any doubt, and Constantine certainly wasn't going to influence it (and didn't even care to, as long as they stopped squabbling).



It wasn't exactly a representative crowd rather it was a group dominated by one viewpoint.


Actually, many of the bishops were fence sitters until they heard what Arianism actually entailed. Then, it was dominated by one viewpoint because that was the view of the vast majority across Christendom.



Facts and Sources which to date only I have presented.

Ahem. :)

[JMS]

Moses was a prince in the house of pharoah and chose to leave that life to suffer with the Jews and bring them out of exile.

Jesus was in heaven with God and chose to leave that life to suffer with men in order to lead them out of slavery to sin and death.

Moses deleivered a covenant, as did Jesus.

Both men came out of Egypt

Moses even prophecied concerning Jesus in Deuteronomy 18:15

Thanks for answering my question... Just trying to understand your reasoning.

How did Jesus come out of Egypt? I thought he was born in Bethlehem.
Did Joseph and Mary come out of Egypt traveling to Bethlehem? Or is that where they flead the reach of Harod from?

[techboy]

Thanks for answering my question... Just trying to understand your reasoning.

It's not really much of a stretch (for Christians, at least) to see Jesus in the Old Testament. There are the prophecies of course, and certain other passages can be interpreted as early manifestations of the Son as well, though of course, the name "Jesus" isn't there.

[DRSmith]

Thanks for answering my question... Just trying to understand your reasoning.

How did Jesus come out of Egypt? I thought he was born in Bethlehem.
Did Joseph and Mary come out of Egypt traveling to Bethlehem? Or is that where they flead the reach of Harod from?

They fled to Egypt there until Herod died

[alexey]

These guys didn't and wouldn't compromise their faith for anybody. The Nicene Creed truly reflected the beliefs of the vast majority of Christians, which is why the vote was almost unanimous.
It seems that there is a big difference between "compromising faith" as in rejecting the divinity of Christ, and "compromising faith" as in modifying some "non-essential" aspects of one's belief system.

In other words, I do not think that the process JMS is describing would be viewed as compromising of faith by majority of it's participants.

Was the view of the Holy Trinity, which appears to have started this discussion, one of the essentials that was already agreed upon by most participants?

[alexey]

Found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity


In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted a term for the relationship between the Son and the Father that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy; it declared that the Son is "of the same substance" (ὁμοούσιος) as the Father. This was further developed into the formula "three persons, one substance". The answer to the question "What is God?" indicates the one-ness of the divine nature, while the answer to the question "Who is God?" indicates the three-ness of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit".[58]

Saint Athanasius, who was a participant in the Council, stated that the bishops were forced to use this terminology, which is not found in Scripture, because the Biblical phrases that they would have preferred to use were claimed by the Arians to be capable of being interpreted in what the bishops considered to be a heretical sense.[59] They therefore "commandeered the non-scriptural[60] term homoousios ('of one substance') in order to safeguard the essential relation of the Son to the Father that had been denied by Arius."[61]

[techboy]

It seems that there is a big difference between "compromising faith" as in rejecting the divinity of Christ, and "compromising faith" as in modifying some "non-essential" aspects of one's belief system.


If we're talking about theological differences among Christians on, as you say, non-essentials, then that probably happened more in the early days than it does now, because people were still hammering things out. It certainly goes on today (I'm still waiting for Zguy28 to challenge Asburyskinsfan to a cage match over his diss of Calvinism :silly:).

That, though, can be accurately described as Christians disagreeing with each other on some point, not as a bunch of different Christianities all struggling for supremacy.



In other words, I do not think that the process JMS is describing would be viewed as compromising of faith by majority of it's participants.


Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but it sure sounds to me like the language he's using is suggesting that there wasn't just one faith, but a whole bunch of different faiths wrestling for control. That's just historically false.



Does your point about them agreeing on essentials prior to this gathering hold for views of the Holy Trinity as well?

The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't really formally stated until Nicea, but given that they believed that Jesus was God, and they were monotheistic, something like the Trinity was an inevitable conclusion, yes.

[alexey]

If we're talking about theological differences among Christians on, as you say, non-essentials, then that probably happened more in the early days than it does now, because people were still hammering things out. It certainly goes on today (I'm still waiting for Zguy28 to challenge Asburyskinsfan to a cage match over his diss of Calvinism :silly:).

That, though, can be accurately described as Christians disagreeing with each other on some point, not as a bunch of different Christianities all struggling for supremacy.



Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but it sure sounds to me like the language he's using is suggesting that there wasn't just one faith, but a whole bunch of different faiths wrestling for control. That's just historically false.



The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't really formally stated until Nicea, but given that they believed that Jesus was God, and they were monotheistic, something like the Trinity was an inevitable conclusion, yes.
Sounds good, so they were just shaking things out, no biggie :)

JMS seems to have been approaching this from a political angle, and from that perspective these can indeed be viewed as different, i.e. not united politically, faiths. From a theological perspective, though, they were united in their beliefs but just needed to get together, iron out some kinks, and arrive to the inevitable and correct view of things... I think I got it, thanks!

[techboy]

Oh, there is no doubt that in a political and even structural sense, Constantine changed the Church dramatically (and not for the better, in my view), having an impact that lasted at least until Martin Luther. He's the one that first merged Church and State.

[nonniey]

I guess my biggest question on this topic is if there is such a thing as predestination than can there be such a thing as sin at all. Murder can't be wrong if you were assigned by Fate, God, St. Something or other to do it. It wasn't your choice. You're just a puppet following a script.

I can sort of believe in the predestination argument in the way I believe in nature/nurture. Nature provides numerous potentialities. It makes you more inclined to do something or be better at other things, but it doesn't force your hand. Nurture can make you choose to be something or do things which you are less genetically apt for and the training can make you superior in it.

So, is there a predestined roadmap where we have some choice on where to turn or stop? Does our life not follow a storyline, but a crude outline or even just a barebones plot? That seems philosophically somewhat more likely to me... especially since I rather like the notions of free will and liberty.


I think the basic idea of pre-destination is that you can't surprise God.

[JMS]

These guys didn't and wouldn't compromise their faith for anybody. The Nicene Creed truly reflected the beliefs of the vast majority of Christians, which is why the vote was almost unanimous.


Again the "vote" reflected the will of 200-300 bishops out of 1800 invited to the council. And the followers of the creed were persecuted as heritics under Constantine II and Valens.



Where you are very wrong, though, is your suggestion that there were many different Christianities in competetion. The vast majority of the churches were in agreement about the essentials. In point of fact, apparently one of the reasons there was an Arian controversy at all is that most bishops didn't really understand what Arius was teaching.


:doh: There were eight great original Hericies in the early Catholic Church.
All were stuck down by the Nicene Creed. That's not by accident. That's by design.

The creed reads like a check list of the early herisies.

The entire reason for the convention and people traveling for hundreds and thousands of miles was to get a concensus BECAUSE THESE HERECIES DID EXIST and were fracturing Christian dogma.


(1) Arianism, - Christ was not Eternal. If he was the son, he had to have come second. The father predates the son.
(2) Manichearism - Affirmed Gnostic beliefs in determinism and worked them into Chrisitanity. Man did not have free will. The body is evil, only the soul is good. St. Augustine of Hippo was a Manichee before he converted to Christianity.
(3) Apollinarianism - denied the human nature of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not have a human soul, and thus could not be tempted.
(4) Monarchianism - It stressed the unity of God to the point of denying the Trinity
(5) Modalism - God is a sinlge person who represents himself as the father in the old testiment, son in new testiment, and holy spirit after Jesus's assension.
(6) Patripassianism - Believed Jesus was the human part and Christ was the father/god part and that both suffered on the cross
(7) Sabellianism - Believed the trinity was based upon the perspective of man, not reality of three god heads making up God.
(8) Forget the name - The belief God would not abandon his only son on the cross and that Jesus was actually spared crusifiction and lifed out his days on earth in another location after God Spirited him away before he died.


So, it's inaccurate to talk about different Christianities. They all believed that Jesus was divine, even the Arians. A minority (the Arians) thought that Jesus was finite, but once the concept was fully explained, the vast majority of bishops were horrified and rejected it. They knew what they believed, and there wasn't any doubt, and Constantine certainly wasn't going to influence it (and didn't even care to, as long as they stopped squabbling).

But Constantine did try to influence it. Constantine did pursecute the Arians; Not at the Convention but after they returned home. It was also understood at the chuch council at Nicea that Rome would be enforcing the decisions reached there.
Constantine did pursecute those who would not submitt to the Nicene Creed, Just like Constantine the II and Valens pursecuted those who believed in the Creed a few years latter when Constantine the Great died..

None of them likely cared about the issue. Likely all were seeking unity. But to claim unity existed from the beginning is to make the claim the Pagan Constantine and his sucessors did have theological beliefs they were promoting, rather than self interest.

After all, why would a empiror of Rome involve himself in a chuch council unless he got something. To be a nice guy? In my version he was seeking unity. In your version unity existed so he created a check list of what Chrisitanity was not to seek unity, but what? What is important in the adoption of the creed for constantine if not unity. Unity which did not exist but was the purpose for the Creed...

Unity which the creed did not deliver.




Actually, many of the bishops were fence sitters until they heard what Arianism actually entailed. Then, it was dominated by one viewpoint because that was the view of the vast majority across Christendom.


As represented by 10-15% (2-300 out of 1800 invited) of the bishops who in your version didn't understand the central herietical issue of their day, but could claim to understand the beliefs of 80%+ of Chrisitan bishops not in attendance at Nicea?

Think they got off the fense because the Emporor was taking such a large interest in their viewpoint? Remember most of these 2-300 bishops were from the east and had Constantine for a proximal neighbor. The only desentors were the north african Arians who did not have to contend with a proximal constantine.

I think your belief that Constantines presense wasn't in and of itself pursuasive to some of these Bishops is not reasonable.

Did it create the consensus, maybe not. Two thoughts (1) Constantine didn't want to dictate a consensus so much as to empower it. (2) The the "consensus" of the 10-15% of the bishops in attendance didn't represent a christian concensus anyway. Which was Constantines real problem. Which is why Christians needed a second church council to settle the issue 70 years later. after power had gone back and forth between the Arians and the Nicene supporters several times.

[JMS]

JMS seems to have been approaching this from a political angle, and from that perspective these can indeed be viewed as different, i.e. not united politically, faiths. From a theological perspective, though, they were united in their beliefs but just needed to get together, iron out some kinks, and arrive to the inevitable and correct view of things... I think I got it, thanks!

The first chuch councel in Nicea did not produce a Christian consensus on doctrine. The issue in the east between the Arians and Nicean supporters continued for 70 more years until 381 and the second church council of Constantine which reiterated Nicia.

[JMS]

If we're talking about theological differences among Christians on, as you say, non-essentials, then that probably happened more in the early days than it does now, because people were still hammering things out. It certainly goes on today (I'm still waiting for Zguy28 to challenge Asburyskinsfan to a cage match over his diss of Calvinism :silly:).

That, though, can be accurately described as Christians disagreeing with each other on some point, not as a bunch of different Christianities all struggling for supremacy.


I think you are being nieve. As a catholic I can say we just recognized protestants ability to reach heaven without the Catholic church in 1963. Likewise our new Pope Benidict recently "modified" this position twice in Papal teachings attempting to turn back church teaching on this point.

Likewise if I had a nickle for every time I heard the phrase, "Catholics aren't Christians" I would be a part owner of the Skins by now.

Heard in this very thread, Christian religions who don't subscribe to Nicean creed aren't really christians....

There is no concensus between Christians. Not in how you get to hevan, Not in how Christ said to live your life. Not in Christs central teachings, Not even in the Nicene Creed. I believe Baptists and Johova Witnesses don't believe in the creed. I also believe they consider themselves Christians.



Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but it sure sounds to me like the language he's using is suggesting that there wasn't just one faith, but a whole bunch of different faiths wrestling for control. That's just historically false.


Fact is Christian dogma has always changed. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Just like it changed in the 300 years after Christ died as it spread across the empire.

300 years ago Usery was a sin and we were still burning witches and protestants at the stake. Think of how far we've come. Now why is it outragous to think the early christians struck up competing theries about theocracy in their isolated cities in the 300 years after Christ?




The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't really formally stated until Nicea, but given that they believed that Jesus was God, and they were monotheistic, something like the Trinity was an inevitable conclusion, yes.

It wasn't just the Trinity which was in question. Arians took issue with the eternal nature of Christ. How could the father's life not predate the son? Common sense questions like that. How could Christ be eternal if he was begotten from the father? Which is why the Creed says begotten from the father an ETERNAL.... How could a loving God leave his only son to die a horrable death like that. Some early Christians believed he didn't... the Mormons I believe think this. Which is why the NICENE creed says who died on the cross!.

Every line of the Creed corrects a divergent path of chistianity...


Those are the kinds of question which cost thousands of people their lives in wars in the olden days. Another contribution from Constantine and the Romans I suspect. See how far we've come?


Lastly I would recommend the movie "Last temptation of Christ" which was banned by the Catholic Church as Hericy in the mid 1980's.. 87 I think. Martin Scorsesee. It basically plays out all the ancient hericies into a nice little story. Would have gotten him burned at the stake a few centuries ago. As it is it's a nice little walk down historical herecy row.

[JMS]

Was the view of the Holy Trinity, which appears to have started this discussion, one of the essentials that was already agreed upon by most participants?

I actually don't really believe anybody knew what "most" christians believed. There was no modern poll, and the Christians were a secretive lot due to centuries of pursecution....

That's why Constantine called the Church Councel.

Problem was the turn out for the council was slight to say the least. Not even the bishop of Rome who would latter be called the Pope attended. Travel was dangerous and most of the bishops were old men.

Constantine was lucky to get 300 out of the 1800 bishops invited. Then he had to trust their concensus would persuade all Christians. Which it didn't.

The trinity was only one of the issues. There were a bunch of them. Where common sense clashed with the supernatural teachings of early Christianity......

[DRSmith]

I always found it interesting that having gods in threes was something found in the nations surrounding the Jews but was not found in Jadaism.

[twist]

True, but then that's more like missing the target rather than there not being a target at all. Your claim is "Oh you missed the target, therefore there must not be a target." Which is obviously just silly.

Obviously I said nothing of the sort, my position is that God is not self evident, and especially not because humanity is prone to telling stories about stuff they don’t really understand.

It would be silly to assume there is a target simply because humanity is prone to shoot arrows wildly about in obviously wrong ways...



Well that's certainly the glass half full version, because how can you possibly separate the self-evident nature of God from our human ability to perceive what God is making known to humanity? Simple answer...you can't.

Because God changes its mind so much about what truth it is making known to humanity. It's almost as if the whole mess is being made up by the various cultures of humanity. Certain key values of society always seem to be present and yet the message as a whole gets to be so different.

Perhaps we should ship you to the ancient Aztec empire (which you used as part of your sweeping assertion of why God is self evident), where they can rip your heart out on an alter to keep the sun in the sky.

Maybe then you could think clearly about how this might all be silliness and it’s certainly not self evident that there is a God because of these crazies about to rip your heart out.

[brandymac27]

Is there a link to something that explains everything that was discussed at the Council?

[PeterMP]

I actually have two questions:

1. Does anybody else find the idea that the sacrafice of the curcification isn't all that great of a sacrafice? It isn't like the Romans didn't crucify anybody else. There were various people that did various things knowing that the likely punishment if caught was crucifiction. Buddist monks have burned themsleves alive (and I think that likely is the worse way to die), and Jesus didn't even stay dead and had a good understanding of the entire plan (I personally find the worse part about dangerous/painful things is the anxiety of the unknown in cases where the end result is unknown. An activity where one doesn't know the final out come is much more "fearful" than when one can be pretty certain of the final outcome (and Jesus presumably KNEW the final out come)).

It seems to me that there must have been something post-crucification, but pre-ressurection that we are unaware of that would have really "troubled" Jesus.

2. On a related point, does anybody ever wonder about the meeting between Moses, Elijah, and Jesus? That it is odd that Jesus clearly placed some importance in it post-crucification (i.e. ordered the disciples with him to not tell the others until later), but then is never mentioned again in the Bible). I don't believe the originiality of that part is really doubted by "main stream" Biblical scholars (i.e. I don't think it makes it into Misquoting Jesus as being a likely "later" addition to the Bible).

And yes, I know the "modern" interperation about the symbolism going from the old law and convenant to that laid out by Jesus.

Anybody have an opinion?

[twa]

If read the account of the golden calf in Exodus worshipping something as representing the Almighty did not go over well either.

Certainly not,idolatry was rampant in those days.

Can Christians worship Jesus w/o worshiping the Father?
I suppose it is possible,but seems rather foolish and counter to Jesus's own words.

[twa]

Peter, the crucifixion was about more than simply dying or punishment

Jesus took the sins of mankind upon himself,which goes well beyond any physical suffering.

Once it occurred,God turned away from him.

[techboy]

Again the "vote" reflected the will of 200-300 bishops out of 1800 invited to the council.


You keep tossing out that number, but offer nothing but your assumption that others felt differently. They did not, as the various sources I have provided (including one that I spent half an hour typing up) have shown.



And the followers of the creed were persecuted as heritics under Constantine II and Valens.


This is irrelevant to the beliefs of the Church of the 1st 3 centuries, which is what I am talking about.




The creed reads like a check list of the early herisies.


That's true. One thought in Christian scholarship is "Thank God for heretics" (seriously), because without them, nobody would bother codifying or writing down sound doctrine. Most of the writings we have from the early Church fathers are in response to one heresy or another.

There were lots of heresies. That doesn't mean that they were widely held by the church.



But Constantine did try to influence it.


Not in any particular direction. Without his nephew, he probably wouldn't even have known what direction to influence, had he wanted to. He cared only about consensus.



Constantine did pursecute the Arians; Not at the Convention but after they returned home. It was also understood at the chuch council at Nicea that Rome would be enforcing the decisions reached there.


After Constantine got his consensus, he tried to enforce it. Proof that he didn't care about which doctrine was held is found in the fact that he waffled back and forth. From page 215:


Constantine, on the other hand, would die embracing Arians before letting go of his vision for unity. His alternating favor towards Athanasius then Arius makes sense when we realize that Constantine's main agenda was not to support orthodoxy or suppress heresy. It was to promote harmony. To suggest that Constantine had the ability- or even the inclination- to manipulate the council into believing what it did not already embrace is, at best, a silly notion. At worst, the emperor was merely a speed bump in the church's march toward a deeper understanding of the nature of Christ. And although Constantine may have called himself "bishop of bishops", the church was going to believe what it knew it must believe- with or without him. And it believed, as it had from the beginning, that Jesus is God.(13)

Be silly if you like, though. :)



In my version he was seeking unity. In your version unity existed so he created a check list of what Chrisitanity was not to seek unity, but what?


I have no idea what you are talking about. The sources I have cited say directly that Constantine wanted unity, and for the bickering to stop. Where you go off the tracks, and in defiance of history, is when you assume that the fact that there was bickering somehow means that there were multiple Christianities, and nobody agreed with anybody else.

The fact is (to borrow a phrase from a prolific poster on this board) ;), that idea is not valid historically, as I have shown you (and Asburyskinsfan, seminary educated in Church history has also tried to tell you).

It doesn't take many dissenters to cause a conflict.



Think they got off the fense because the Emporor was taking such a large interest in their viewpoint?


No, I think they got off the fence for the reasons offered by the scholars I quoted (and the historian they quoted): they came face to face with the stark reality of Arianism.

Your speculation doesn't hold much weight with me in light of the historical evidence, especially when you consider how many of them had endured torture at the hands of previous rulers rather than bend.


I think you are being nieve.


Thanks. :)



There is no concensus between Christians.


We've discussed this before, but I'll just say that you are seriously overstating the case. A total outsider that walked into any church, Catholic or Baptist or Methodist, would be hard pressed beyond stylistic issues to identify any differences.



300 years ago Usery was a sin


This is an example of exaggerating non-significant doctrines.



Lastly I would recommend the movie "Last temptation of Christ" which was banned by the Catholic Church as Hericy in the mid 1980's.. 87 I think.

I'd recommend a good book on Church history. :)


Is there a link to something that explains everything that was discussed at the Council?

I provided this link (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm) earlier. It's pretty basic, but it discusses the 20 canons and the creed that came out of Nicea.

[techboy]

It seems to me that there must have been something post-crucification, but pre-ressurection that we are unaware of that would have really "troubled" Jesus.

There wasn't. Jesus says to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise".

[JMS]

Is there a link to something that explains everything that was discussed at the Council?

Like a History Book? Or an Introduction to theology text? I personally like Jesuit Texts on the subject because they tend to be scientifically based with a minimum of dogma. I would find a historical text on the subject and then see how the religious treatements of the subject conform or not to the historical perspective.

[twa]

JMS...on your comment about Baptists not agreeing with the Nicene Creed, they most certainly do endorse it.
The only issue I know of is some denominations interpretation of this line

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Lotta people died over that one.

[JMS]

You keep tossing out that number, but offer nothing but your assumption that others felt differently. They did not, as the various sources I have provided (including one that I spent half an hour typing up) have shown.


Follow this argument. You are saying that Christians overwhelmingly agreed with the Nicean Creed and that is reflected by the fact the vote of the bishops who attended the first church council was nearly unanomous.

I am saying #1 the Bishops who attended the council were mostly from the east and thus were dominated by a pretty narrow part of chrisondom. 2-300 bishops attended the first church council.... 1800 were invited.

#2 I am saying nobody challenged the creed openly while Constantine the Great who was heavily invested in the Creed having dedicated himself to produce it, lived. But as soon as he died, the next two longest serving Emporors spaning nearly 4 decades were Arians and pursecuted those who believed in the Creed. Clearly Arians weren't the minority you propose if they dominated the creed followers for decades after Nicia. control of the empire sea sawed back and forth between the two groups for 6 decades!

#3 I am saying your Unity of christian dogma didn't exist in the time of Constantine either before or after the creed was written. The early Christians were not unified. And thus did not unify the empire as constantine had hoped. In fact the entire empire was cast into several civil wars until these questions were finally decided seventy years after the first chuch council. At the second Church council of Constantanopal




This is irrelevant to the beliefs of the Church of the 1st 3 centuries, which is what I am talking about.


I thought we were talking about the Nicean Creed which occured in the 4th century. 325 AD.



There were lots of heresies. That doesn't mean that they were widely held by the church.


It does when the heritics take over the church and empire for decades as the official policy of Christianity sea saws back and forth between those who beieve in the Creed and those who believe in Arius for seven decades.

Constantine the Great Reign from 306 - 337 AD.

Both Arians.

Constantine II Reign from 337 - 361 AD (*) - 23 Years
Valentinian I 364 - 375 AD - 11 Years.

(*) Reiged under his father for 10 years beginning in 324.




Not in any particular direction. Without his nephew, he probably wouldn't even have known what direction to influence, had he wanted to. He cared only about consensus.


To agree with constantine meant acceptance, profit, relivance and even riches. To disagree with him meant obscurity, pursecution, imprisonment, and isolation. Clearly he was all about influence.

The direction he "influenced" was towards what he believed was the concensus reached at Nicea. But as I've already stated Nicea represented only 10-15% of christian bishops. it's wasn't a real mandate much less a concensus.





I have no idea what you are talking about. The sources I have cited say directly that Constantine wanted unity, and for the bickering to stop. Where you go off the tracks, and in defiance of history, is when you assume that the fact that there was bickering somehow means that there were multiple Christianities, and nobody agreed with anybody else.


Yeah where I go wrong is in thinking that Constantine desired consensus, dedicated himself personally to getting concensus by calling and presiding over the Church council, and that means that THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS BEFORE THE COUNCEL.

Where I go wrong is in noting the lack of concensus after Constantine died resulted in multiple civil wars AND THAT STRONGLY SUGGESTS THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS on Arians or Nicean Creed Supporters.

Where I go wrong is all this evidence of lack of consensus, actually means there was no consensus.





It doesn't take many dissenters to cause a conflict.


Nor to take over the empire and hold it for decades evidently.



We've discussed this before, but I'll just say that you are seriously overstating the case. A total outsider that walked into any church, Catholic or Baptist or Methodist, would be hard pressed beyond stylistic issues to identify any differences.


Yeah Catholics believe good works and faith lead to salvation. Can't get to heaven without both. Methodists and Baptists believe Faith alone saves. The two don't even agree on the fundimental message of faith.





This is an example of exaggerating non-significant doctrines.


Non significant is all in the eyes of the beholder. The fact is christianity in many forms have changed significantly in the last 300 years. Yet you seem incapable of accepting that the same thing happenned over the 300 years after Christ died when communication and travel was harder and pursecution was greater.




I provided this link (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm) earlier. It's pretty basic, but it discusses the 20 canons and the creed that came out of Nicea.

Again I wonder why Constantine thought it was necessary to have a church law ( Cannon ) against self circumcision.



Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics (http://www.extremeskins.com/../cathen/04049b.htm) mutilated by choice or by violence (http://www.extremeskins.com/../cathen/15446a.htm).


The actual Cannon.

1. prohibition of self-castration (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Castration); (see Origen (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Origen))

[JMS]

JMS...on your comment about Baptists not agreeing with the Nicene Creed, they most certainly do endorse it.
The only issue I know of is some denominations interpretation of this line

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Lotta people died over that one.

TWA, I don't think that's accurate. the Baptists don't add things to the bible. since the Nicean creed doesn't appear in the bible, Baptists offiicially don't subscribe to it.



Among the Baptist's many refreshing qualities is their love for the Bible, to them the only authoritative, inspired source of religious truth and knowledge. To that source they look in all matters relating to doctrine, to policy, to ordinances, to worship, and to Christian living.
They hold that the Bible is for all, and that the right of private and individual interpretation is an inalienable right. They have no doctrinal formulas to supplement the Bible. In keeping with their "Bible only" stand, they reject the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and all others. For them the Bible is final

http://www.biblehistory.com/Baptist.html



If you are baptist and you guys do say the Nicean Creed I'd be interested in hearing why.

[techboy]

But as soon as he died, the next two longest serving Emporors spaning nearly 4 decades were Arians and pursecuted those who believed in the Creed.

Constantine died an Arian, and the people that followed him to the throne were Arians. To say that because the emperor is Arian, the vast majority of Christians in the world must be Arian is baseless speculation, equivalenty to suggesting that because Domitian was anti-Christian, all Christians in Rome must have also been anti-Christian. :rolleyes:

This is representative of your entire argument. You have presented nothing but baseless speculation and conjecture, which often flies directly in the face of recorded history, as explained by the various scholars and sources I have taken the time to provide.

The stuff I have provided speaks for itself. I'm done with this. If you don't want to interact with the historical record, fine. There is enough information in this thread that any sincere seeker after truth should be able to figure things out (or at least get started on his or her own research, perhaps using the texts Asburyskinsfan linked to earlier).

Have a nice night. :)

[twa]

TWA, I don't think that's accurate. the Baptists don't add things to the bible. since the Nicean creed doesn't appear in the bible, Baptists offiicially don't subscribe to it.




If you are baptist and you guys do say the Nicean Creed I'd be interested in hearing why.

Endorse does not mean recite...we ain't much for recitals
Endorse might have been to strong a word:D

What exactly does the creed ADD to the bible?

Nothing in the creed contradicts our beliefs or statement of doctrine,in fact it reflects it(our definition of it)
We certainly differ from others use and interpretations:) though

[brandymac27]

Ok serious question here. It isn't meant to incite anyone/anything, but I still have a lot of questions that I really don't have anyone else to ask.

Jesus was a Jew, who for the most part, followed Jewish law. Would Jesus really want us to worship him (in the way that Christians do)? I mean, since he was Jewish, why wouldn't Jesus want us all to be Jewish?

I understand the crucifixion, he died for our sins, but that doesn't change the fact that he was still a Jew. I mean, he lived and died a Jew. So, if he were here on earth today as he was 2,000 years ago, would he tell all of us Christians we're wrong or even blasphemous to worship/pray/whatever Him than worship/pray to God (of the OT, the one he worshiped)? I mean, Jesus didn't worship himself or pray to himself, so why as Christians do we not pray to the same God that He prayed to?

[twa]

Jesus was the atoning sacrifice represented throughout the Jewish faith,a completing or fulfilling of it.
Christianity does not do away with it ,but rather expands it.

You could say I consider myself a Jew by adoption:)

Anyone worshiping Jesus(in and of himself) is doing it wrong by my estimation.

His last words on the cross point ya to it.

Psalms 22
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+22&version=NIV

added
He is the high priest after the order of Melchizedek,a intercessor between us and God that allows access

[techboy]

Jesus was a Jew, who for the most part, followed Jewish law. Would Jesus really want us to worship him (in the way that Christians do)? I mean, since he was Jewish, why wouldn't Jesus want us all to be Jewish?

I understand the crucifixion, he died for our sins, but that doesn't change the fact that he was still a Jew. I mean, he lived and died a Jew. So, if he were here on earth today as he was 2,000 years ago, would he tell all of us Christians we're wrong or even blasphemous to worship/pray/whatever Him than worship/pray to God (of the OT, the one he worshiped)? I mean, Jesus didn't worship himself or pray to himself, so why as Christians do we not pray to the same God that He prayed to?

First, a joke...

Two Jewish men are talking, and the one says to the other, "I'm a little depressed. I sent my son to Jerusalem to become a better Jew, and would you believe it, he came back a Christian!"

The other man says, "Funny you should mention it, but the same thing happened to me! Let's talk to the rabbi about it."

They go to the rabbi, and ask him, and he says "Funny you should mention it, but I sent my son to Jerusalem, and the same thing happened. I don't understand how G-d could allow this to happen. We should pray about it."

They begin to pray, and suddenly they hear a voice from heaven: "Funny you should mention it..."

I first heard that joke from a rabbi stand-up comedian. :)

More seriously, I can tell you with certainty that Jesus would not rebuke us for worshipping him today, because he claimed to be God, and accepted worship even then.

I think you've seen it before, but in this post (http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=7163832&postcount=108) I discuss the very strong evidence that Jesus claimed to be God.

Part of that evidence is that he did things like forgive sins (in Jewish thought, only God could do this) and accept worship without rebuke (follow the link in the post above for an extensive list of verses that discuss this).

[PeterMP]

There wasn't. Jesus says to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise".
I'd be willing to bet that Jesus was speaking metaphorically there under any circumstance as I'd guess that time is irrelevant to God and/or the dead.

Important, "dangerous", and "troubling" things can take place in short periods of time. How long did the crucification take?

[techboy]

Important, "dangerous", and "troubling" things can take place in short periods of time. How long did the crucification take?

About 6 hours.

[PeterMP]

Peter, the crucifixion was about more than simply dying or punishment

Jesus took the sins of mankind upon himself,which goes well beyond any physical suffering.

Once it occurred,God turned away from him.
This would suggest to me that you don't believe in the trinity or some how make a distinction between Jesus and the son in a manner that is unclear to me.

[twa]

This would suggest to me that you don't believe in the trinity or some how make a distinction between Jesus and the son in a manner that is unclear to me.

I certainly believe in the Trinity,Jesus is the Son.. what distinction is there?

Turning away is not leaving

[PeterMP]

I certainly believe in the Trinity,Jesus is the Son.. what distinction is there?

Turning away is not leaving
Can Jesus leave?

So God has turned away from part of himself?

Would you then say that part of God has sin?

[DRSmith]

Certainly not,idolatry was rampant in those days.

Can Christians worship Jesus w/o worshiping the Father?
I suppose it is possible,but seems rather foolish and counter to Jesus's own words.

What did Jesus say regarding worship in Matthew when the devil asked for an act of worship.

[twa]

Can Jesus leave?

So God has turned away from part of himself?

Would you then say that part of God has sin?

There can be degrees of separation within a whole,we even do it as humans

Yes a part of God took on the burden /penalty of sin...has is not correct

If I assume a debt you owe,it does not mean I incurred it,simply that I took the burden and liability for you.

[DRSmith]

I actually have two questions:

1. Does anybody else find the idea that the sacrafice of the curcification isn't all that great of a sacrafice? It isn't like the Romans didn't crucify anybody else. There were various people that did various things knowing that the likely punishment if caught was crucifiction. Buddist monks have burned themsleves alive (and I think that likely is the worse way to die), and Jesus didn't even stay dead and had a good understanding of the entire plan (I personally find the worse part about dangerous/painful things is the anxiety of the unknown in cases where the end result is unknown. An activity where one doesn't know the final out come is much more "fearful" than when one can be pretty certain of the final outcome (and Jesus presumably KNEW the final out come)).

It seems to me that there must have been something post-crucification, but pre-ressurection that we are unaware of that would have really "troubled" Jesus.

Unless of course one believes that Jesus died and ceased to be until God raised him up, for someone who has been alive for possibly billions of years to come face to face with ceasing to be would be pretty scary.


2. On a related point, does anybody ever wonder about the meeting between Moses, Elijah, and Jesus? That it is odd that Jesus clearly placed some importance in it post-crucification (i.e. ordered the disciples with him to not tell the others until later), but then is never mentioned again in the Bible). I don't believe the originiality of that part is really doubted by "main stream" Biblical scholars (i.e. I don't think it makes it into Misquoting Jesus as being a likely "later" addition to the Bible).

And yes, I know the "modern" interperation about the symbolism going from the old law and convenant to that laid out by Jesus.

Anybody have an opinion?

Or was it to show prophecy was fulfilled

[JMS]

Endorse does not mean recite...we ain't much for recitals
Endorse might have been to strong a word:D

What exactly does the creed ADD to the bible?


The entire Nicene Creed is an addition. Meaning it doesn't appear in the bible. Which is the documented objection of the Baptists and other more "fundimental" christian groups to subscribing to the Creed.



Nothing in the creed contradicts our beliefs or statement of doctrine,in fact it reflects it(our definition of it)
We certainly differ from others use and interpretations:) though

Well many Christian churches use the Nicene Creed to define their beliefs. I believe the Baptists use the bible for that purpose and put less value in documents other than the bible.

[twa]

The entire Nicene Creed is an addition. Meaning it doesn't appear in the bible. Which is the documented objection of the Baptists and other more "fundimental" christian groups to subscribing to the Creed.



Well many Christian churches use the Nicene Creed to define their beliefs. I believe the Baptists use the bible for that purpose and put less value in documents other than the bible.

We also put out statements of faith and declarations of those things we believe....such is not a addition,nor is the creed (though some have used it as such)

You put the restriction too tight,though you are correct we don't hold it as a document we are 'subject' to

[PeterMP]

There can be degrees of separation within a whole,we even do it as humans

Yes a part of God took on the burden /penalty of sin...has is not correct

If I assume a debt you owe,it does not mean I incurred it,simply that I took the burden and liability for you.
If I have a debt and you take over responsibility for it, then you have a debt, unless of course you have the ability to pay it off instantly, which I guess you could argue that Jesus/God has.

It is as good an answer as any other I've ever seen.

[PeterMP]

Unless of course one believes that Jesus died and ceased to be until God raised him up, for someone who has been alive for possibly billions of years to come face to face with ceasing to be would be pretty scary.



Or was it to show prophecy was fulfilled
Then Jesus didn't enter heavan upon his death?
What prophecy?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ok serious question here. It isn't meant to incite anyone/anything, but I still have a lot of questions that I really don't have anyone else to ask.

Jesus was a Jew, who for the most part, followed Jewish law. Would Jesus really want us to worship him (in the way that Christians do)? I mean, since he was Jewish, why wouldn't Jesus want us all to be Jewish?
Christianity is for all intents and purposes a 1st century Jewish sect, it was the Jews who expelled the Christians from the synagogues in 90 AD.

[DRSmith]

Then Jesus didn't enter heavan upon his death?
What prophecy?

Where does it say Jesus went to heaven upon dying?

The prophecy was he would go in to sheol and that is what the disciples confirmed in Acts and Jesus himself confirms in John when he says he had not yet ascended to his God.

The prophect was Elijah had to come and that a prophet like Moses God would raise up.

[DRSmith]

Ok serious question here. It isn't meant to incite anyone/anything, but I still have a lot of questions that I really don't have anyone else to ask.

Jesus was a Jew, who for the most part, followed Jewish law. Would Jesus really want us to worship him (in the way that Christians do)? I mean, since he was Jewish, why wouldn't Jesus want us all to be Jewish?

I understand the crucifixion, he died for our sins, but that doesn't change the fact that he was still a Jew. I mean, he lived and died a Jew. So, if he were here on earth today as he was 2,000 years ago, would he tell all of us Christians we're wrong or even blasphemous to worship/pray/whatever Him than worship/pray to God (of the OT, the one he worshiped)? I mean, Jesus didn't worship himself or pray to himself, so why as Christians do we not pray to the same God that He prayed to?

Being Jewish meant following the law, all 613 many of which are not practical today since Christiany is better represented by the Jews in exile. Those commandments or requirements that are needed to be practiced by the indivual get restated throughout the NT.

[PeterMP]

Where does it say Jesus went to heaven upon dying?

The prophecy was he would go in to sheol and that is what the disciples confirmed in Acts and Jesus himself confirms in John when he says he had not yet ascended to his God.

The prophect was Elijah had to come and that a prophet like Moses God would raise up.
As techboy has pointed out Jesus tells the thief, he will see him in heaven this day. I wouldn't take that literally as I stated before w/ respect to our understanding of time, but you seem to be suggesting it was REALLY an inaccurate statement.

Even in sheol, he would exist.

The conventional wisdom is that Elijah had to come BEFORE Jesus, and that John the Baptist was Elijah as laid out in the Gospel of Mark.

[DRSmith]

As techboy has pointed out Jesus tells the thief, he will see him in heaven this day. I wouldn't take that literally as I stated before w/ respect to our understanding of time, but you seem to be suggesting it was REALLY an inaccurate statement.

Even in sheol, he would exist.

The conventional wisdom is that Elijah had to come BEFORE Jesus, and that John the Baptist was Elijah as laid out in the Gospel of Mark.

He does not say he would see him in heaven that day, he said you will be in paradise. But the thief was never made part of that covenant and Jesus did not ascend to heaven.

The bible does not say people in sheol exist.

John the baptist was Elijah and Jesus was Moses.

[PeterMP]

He does not say he would see him in heaven that day, he said you will be in paradise. But the thief was never made part of that covenant and Jesus did not ascend to heaven.

The bible does not say people in sheol exist.

John the baptist was Elijah and Jesus was Moses.
Okay, but we still see Jesus going some place with thief.

So the rich man didn't see Lazarus or he only saw a non-existant Lazarus?

Okay, but then the meeting on the mountain isn't relevant to any prophecies.

[techboy]

He does not say he would see him in heaven that day, he said you will be in paradise.


No, he says you will be with me in Paradise.

Luke 23:39-49 (ESV)


39(BH) One of the criminals who were hanged(BI) railed at him,[d] saying, "Are you not(BJ) the Christ? Save yourself and us!" 40But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 42And he said, "Jesus, remember me(BK) when you come into your kingdom." 43And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in(BL) Paradise."

The Death of Jesus
44(BM) It was now about the sixth hour,[e] and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour,[f] 45while the sun’s light failed. And(BN) the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46Then Jesus,(BO) calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father,(BP) into your hands I(BQ) commit my spirit!" And having said this(BR) he breathed his last. 47Now(BS) when the centurion saw what had taken place,(BT) he praised God, saying, "Certainly this man was innocent!" 48And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, returned home(BU) beating their breasts. 49And all(BV) his acquaintances and(BW) the women who had followed him from Galilee(BX) stood at a distance watching these things.

Notice also that he says "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!", not "Father, I go to Hell to suffer"!

Jesus went immediately to Heaven. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that he suffered in Hell.

[DRSmith]

He did not suffer anywhere he died and ceased to be

Acts 2:31*he saw beforehand and spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in Ha′des nor did his flesh see corruption. 32*This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses

John 20:17*Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’

Jesus own words show he had not gone to heaven yet.

Jesus entrusted his life to God and God gave it back to him when he raised him up.

[techboy]

Acts 2:31*he saw beforehand and spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in Ha′des nor did his flesh see corruption. 32*This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses


He did not go to Hell to suffer, this passage notes.



John 20:17*Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’


This is talking about his bodily ascension, not where his spirit went after he died on the cross.

On the other hand, he quite clearly tells the thief that today "you will be with me in Paradise[/i]. Kind of hard for that to happen if he ceases to exist.

That saying, plus the "into your hands I commit my spirit", makes it clear that Jesus went to Heaven.

By the way, neither of those passages (or anything else in Scripture, for that matter), even hint that Jesus ceased to exist.

[DRSmith]

No it says he died and he ceased ot be just as prophecied

You may subscribe to neoplatonic thought as regards the spirit but since the bible clearly shows that when man dies he goes into sheol and ceases to be.

Jesus went into sheol as prophecied but was taken up before corruption set in 3 days

Heaven is not paradise, that was the garden and what God said he wanted Adam to make the entire Earth

[techboy]

No it says he died and he ceased ot be just as prophecied


You've yet to cite a single verse that even hints that he ceased to exist, and you've still failed to explain how he can be in Paradise with the thief if he doesn't exist.



You may subscribe to neoplatonic thought as regards the spirit but since the bible clearly shows that when man dies he goes into sheol and ceases to be.

I'm not sure how clear that is, but it doesn't apply in any case, because Jesus wasn't just a man. This is one of the numerous problems with denying the Trinity.

[DRSmith]

I tell you this day you will be with me in paradise is what is said, not you are going to paradise today.

It would be like me saying to you "here and now you will die" now I am not saying you will die here and now, I am stating here and now you will die but it will be in the future.

Jesus was the son of man fully human he was made lower than me elohim (the god like ones) as per the prophecy in Psalms which Paul quotes in Hebrews.

Jesus death had to replace that which Adam lost so he could be the last Adam so it had to be perfect balance eye for eye

Are you saying Adam was a godman or god.

Never understand why mormons get such grief on certain things when they state the same things others do in a different way.

[JMS]

Constantine died an Arian, and the people that followed him to the throne were Arians. To say that because the emperor is Arian, the vast majority of Christians in the world must be Arian is baseless speculation, equivalenty to suggesting that because Domitian was anti-Christian, all Christians in Rome must have also been anti-Christian. :rolleyes:


Constantine only converted to christianity once. Thus he only ever was an Arian. Then again my theology text says he also converted to several other religions on his deathbed as well as had the last rights for his Pagan religion. Covering all his bases as it were. Although I haven't been able to find that on the internet.

I don't think the Arian baptism tells us much for our discussion. I think we agree Constantine was a pragmatist from the start seeking to use Christianity for his own means. He was enamored with the faith and strength of early christians and wanted to use those properties to help him unify his empire. Key to this goal was in catagorizing and Organizing the early Christians. Before he could use them to stengthen the empire, he had to scale up their faith by unifing their belief system. Which he set out to do by calling the first church councel at Nicea. Constantine created a creed which all christians could subscribe too to define their faith. Constantine clearly put his weight behind the Nicene creed during his rule.

I think Constantine's deathbed conversion by an Arian Bishop could be explained in several ways. Constantine was very sick, it's possible the Bishop was the only one proximal. Also constantines three sons took over rule for him. Only One was considered an Arian. Constantine II. Maybe his father's conversion was a show favoratism, to that son. Or maybe it was to not show favoritism to his other two sons.

I think what it also tells us however is that Arianism did in fact rival those who believed in the Nicene Creed in the late 4th century BC. How else can you explain Emperors who's primary goal was unity, flip flopping back and forth between the two beliefs? He brands it herisey 321AD He exonerates it 335AD. Then he leaves his empire to two sons who support his Nicene Creed and One son who is openly Arian.



This is representative of your entire argument. You have presented nothing but baseless speculation and conjecture, which often flies directly in the face of recorded history, as explained by the various scholars and sources I have taken the time to provide.


Actually you have presented only speculation. And rather convoluted speculation. You agree Constantine sought unity among Christian leaders, yet speculate It existed before Constantine's efforts?

You agree Constantine was a pragmatist, but suggest Constantines flip flopping back and forth between Arianism and Creed was based upon ideology.

You understand the power and motivations of the Empirors, yet fail to align that understanding with their actions in the 70 years following Nicea.

You claim that 200-300 eastern dominated Bishops out of 1800 speak for the majority at the Church Council of Nicea in 321 AD.
Yet you dismiss that 310 eastern dominated Bishops could speak for the majority at the First Synod of Tyre in 335 AD.
Also you dismiss the fact that unity did not exist before Nicea, nor did it exist after Nicea. Evidence of this is the civil wars and struggle which you yourself catagorize as "squabling".

I have presented facts that the Arian ideology was catagorized as a crisis in the early church.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FKvo3szVq_sC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=arian+crisis&source=bl&ots=CxgY_Hil7C&sig=klhdXJtu7sPOt2QkV9FrUyll7gw&hl=en&ei=5G9DS7mpGsK7lAfjsayRBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=arian%20crisis&f=false

That The Church Council at Nicea deemed Arianism heresy in 321AD.

That ten years after the Church Council at Nicea Arianism was deemed unherietical (exonerated) at the First Synod of Tyre in 335 AD also called by Constantine the great.

Then proclaimed herietical again at the First Council of Constantinople of 381 AD

I also presented the facts that the empireors flip floped back and forth between Arianism and Nicene Creed folks for 6-7 decades after Nicea....

All of these facts highlight the unity constantine sought, and worked for eluded him in his life time and the empire for decades after Constantines death. Indeed as a instrument of Unity to bind the empire, Christianity never worked very well for Constantine or his immediate sucessors. In fact it was the "cause" of several civil wars; well at least it was the battle cry of the legions as the Empire sea sawed back and forth between the two ideologies.

I also presented the facts that the Emperors Constantine the II and Valens both were Arians with the longest rules after Constantine the Great, yet ultimately Arianism failed.



The stuff I have provided speaks for itself. I'm done with this. If you don't want to interact with the historical record, fine. There is enough information in this thread that any sincere seeker after truth should be able to figure things out (or at least get started on his or her own research, perhaps using the texts Asburyskinsfan linked to earlier).

Have a nice night. :)

I think that's the issue. Is theology is the study of religions, or is it about studing the ideology of a religion?
Historically speaking the record is clear and agrees with me. From a religious perspective you have a problem with the fact that disunity existed in the early christian church. Hell you have a problem with acknowledging that modern christians exist in a state of disunity. This basically frames you as someone coming to this discussion from the standpoint of your religious doctrine, rather than someone who is capable of dispationately analysing the historical record.

To some people historical facts support and bolser their beliefs. To others their faith exists independent of that record. When history is introduced to them, which seemingly challenges their beliefs, they dismiss it and deny it, rather than trying to use it to bolster their faith or their understanding of that faith.

[DRSmith]

You've yet to cite a single verse that even hints that he ceased to exist, and you've still failed to explain how he can be in Paradise with the thief if he doesn't exist.






What is the condition of those in Sheol?

This is the prophecy concerning Jesus

Pslam 16:10 For you will not leave my soul in She′ol.You will not allow your loyal one to see the pit

Now what does the bible say about those there

Eccl 9:
5 For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.

10 All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in She′ol, the place to which you are going

Once your dead you are dead you cease to be, if Jesus was just going to wander off to heaven for three days no big deal no need for stress or worry but if you are going to cease to be and you have never faced that then it is stressful.

[techboy]

I tell you this day you will be with me in paradise is what is said, not you are going to paradise today.

Check the comma again. It comes before today. The Greek is clear he's not saying "I tell you today", the phrase is "today you will be with me in Paradise".

There's only one translation that does it the way you're saying, the one done by the Jehovah's witnesses, and they mistranslate it intentionally because they know that verse blows the theory you're espousing out of the water.

As to the rest, Jesus was fully man and fully God, as the link I provided earlier clearly states. Follow it and read all the verses, if you haven't already. You could possibly nitpick one or two, but as it says at the top, you can't stop an avalanche boulder by boulder.



From a religious perspective you have a problem with the fact that disunity existed in the early christian church. Hell you have a problem with acknowledging that modern christians exist in a state of disunity. This basically frames you as an ideolog, rather than someone who can dispationately analyse the historical record.

To some people historical facts support and bolser their idealogy. To others their faith exists independent of that record. When history is introduced to them, they dismiss it and deny it.

That's the truly ironic thing here, because in no way are my theological beliefs in any way tested by schism, real or imagined, in the early Church (or the present one). I couldn't care less, from a faith perspective, what Christians in the 3rd century thought or taught. I'm interested only in the
1st, and the texts that talk about it.

Even if 99% of the Christian world believed the totally wrong things, it wouldn't affect the truth, or its accessibility to us.

The reason I bothered to engage in this discussion is that I care about good history, and I hate to see bad history and baseless speculation presented as fact.

I'm sorry that you felt it necessary to resort to accusing me of distorting the truth to fit my beliefs, but the fact that you did so probably says more about the weakness of your argument than it does anything about me.

Have a good afternoon. :)

[techboy]

This is the prophecy concerning Jesus

That prophecy just says won't go to Sheol. It doesn't mean he vanishes.

[DRSmith]

Check the comma again. It comes before today. The Greek is clear he's not saying "I tell you today", the phrase is "today you will be with me in Paradise".

There's only one translation that does it the way you're saying, the one done by the Jehovah's witnesses, and they mistranslate it intentionally because they know that verse blows the theory you're espousing out of the water.

As to the rest, Jesus was fully man and fully God, as the link I provided earlier clearly states. Follow it and read all the verses, if you haven't already. You could possibly nitpick one or two, but as it says at the top, you can't stop an avalanche boulder by boulder.




They had commas in the greek manuscripts?

You show me one vese that clearly states Jesus is Almighty God or Most High God by name, because so far there is only ever one name identified as such.

As for you asserting only one translation does this you should read up on some of the older bibles out there.

In a footnote on Luke 23:43, German Bible translator L. Reinhardt uses some
strong words when he says: "The punctuation presently used [by most translators]
in this verse is undoubtedly false and contradictory to the entire way of
thinking of Christ and the evildoer. . . . [Christ] certainly did not understand
paradise to be a subdivision of the realm of the dead, but rather the
restoration of a paradise on earth."


Although many translators punctuate Luke 23:43 according to church tradition,
some punctuate it like Professor Wilhelm Michaelis rendering: "Truly, already
today I give you the assurance: (one day) you will be together with me in
paradise." The Emphasised Bible translated by J. B. Rotherham and the Curetonian
Syriac of the fifth century C.E. give the same thought.

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1996-07/14013.html

[JMS]

That's the truly ironic thing here, because in no way are my theological beliefs in any way tested by schism, real or imagined, in the early Church (or the present one). I couldn't care less, from a faith perspective, what Christians in the 3rd century thought or taught. I'm interested only in the
1st, and the texts that talk about it.


4th century. Not 3rd. We are talking about the 4th century 321-381 AD specifically, When Christianity and the world entered the middle ages.

And you are contradicting yourself.



Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but it sure sounds to me like the language he's (JMS) using is suggesting that there wasn't just one faith, but a whole bunch of different faiths wrestling for control. That's just historically false.


You are judging the entire discussion based upon your faith. and whether the differences of the early christians represents "significant" differences to how you understand your faith.

I would argue people died for the differences between Arianism and Nicene Creed. Clearly the differences were very significant to the Early Christians. That is how they should be interpreted. From their perspective, not ours.



The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't really formally stated until Nicea, but given that they believed that Jesus was God, and they were monotheistic, something like the Trinity was an inevitable conclusion, yes.


Again, interpreting history based upon your modern religious doctrine. Failing to grasp that your modern doctrine is the result of strugles which lasted centuries with people of good will on both sides sacrificing their lives for their perspectives.

inevitable conclusions indeed. Inevitable conclusion after a thousand years of pursecuting the crap out of anybody who said otherwise!....

Even today there are major religions who classify themselves as christian who do not believe in the Trinity, or the divinity of Christ. But I guess from your perspective, you just wave your hand and dismiss all that.

Doesn't fit your religious model, so you dismiss it; rather than consider it and how it fits into and even shapped your religion.




Even if 99% of the Christian world believed the totally wrong things, it wouldn't affect the truth, or its accessibility to us.


Again, I guess that's another difference between us. The history of the early christians framed the basis of the religions which were passed down to us. These issues certainly "affected" what we understand as the truth today. How could 2000 years of "squabling", interpretation, and conflict over the former not "affect" the truth passed down historically?

I'm guessing from your above statement that challenges your religious beliefs. WHICH IS MY ENTIRE POINT OF THIS POST.



The reason I bothered to engage in this discussion is that I care about good history, and I hate to see bad history and baseless speculation presented as fact.


I hate it when people come strong to the board, get spanked and then pretend like they never really cared about the discussion. That's weak and dishonest. Intellectually and spiritually so.

[AsburySkinsFan]

John the baptist was Elijah and Jesus was Moses.
Jesus was the perfection of Moses, and the only way that could be done is through God's own Son, His only Begotten.


John 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. 12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth.

And that's all I have to say about that. On the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity I'll not compromise, this is usually when the JW's decide to leave my front door.

[techboy]

They had commas in the greek manuscripts?


You know they didn't have punctuation in the Greek texts, and that's not what I said. :)

Jesus says "Truly I say unto you" more than 50 times in the New Testament. Every time, even in the New World Translation, the comma comes after you. Yet suddenly, in the NWT, the comma is placed differently this one time. Funny, huh?



You show me one vese that clearly states Jesus is Almighty God or Most High God by name, because so far there is only ever one name identified as such.


John 20:26-29:


26Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them.(AM) Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27Then he said to Thomas, (AN) "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." 28Thomas answered him,(AO) "My Lord and my God!" 29Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me?(AP) Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Verse 28.

See also any translation of John 1:1 that hasn't been mangled out of theological motivation by the Watchtower, and any number of other places as well.

The truth is, the only reason you can get away with this kind of misreading at all is that you are a 21st century Westerner, not a 1st century Palestinian Jew. Jesus claimed to be God, and Jesus' contemporaries knew it.

Mark 2:5-8 (ESV):


5And when Jesus(D) saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son,(E) your sins are forgiven." 6Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7"Why does this man speak like that?(F) He is blaspheming!(G) Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

This is just one of many prerogatives reserved to God alone that Jesus claimed.

Read the link.



As for you asserting only one translation does this you should read up on some of the older bibles out there.


There have been a couple of rogue translators over the years, but no good modern translation (or even most of the older ones), uses that mangled comma, again found that way only in one place.

It's not an issue of theological bias, either. Every translation from the most liberal to the most conservative sees it the same way.

Take, for example, the New Revised Standard Version, which had fundamentalist Christians burning it because it translated, using the Hebrew, Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman" instead of virgin. They prized integrity over theology, and yet guess what? They put the comma where everybody else does.

I'm puzzled in any case why you would intentionally rely on a much older, obscure translator, when there have been many important advances in textual criticism, as well as important manuscript finds that need to be accounted for in order to get the greatest accuracy.

[brandymac27]

JMS,

How do you think this "rift" b/w the Arians and the followers of the Nicene Creed affects Christianity today? I guess I want to hear your opinion, not what you've read/studied etc. Also, when you speak of early Christianity, are you speaking of the time Jesus was alive or thereabouts, or are you speaking of a later time? I'm trying to follow you, but am a little confused.

[DRSmith]

You know they didn't have punctuation in the Greek texts, and that's not what I said. :)

Jesus says "Truly I say unto you" more than 50 times in the New Testament. Every time, even in the New World Translation, the comma comes after you. Yet suddenly, in the NWT, the comma is placed differently this one time. Funny, huh?



You really should check something for yousrelf before quoting it as you lose creditability.

No comma here

“Truly I say to YOU that the tax collectors and the harlots are going ahead of YOU into the kingdom of God

notice the comma here

18 “Truly I say to YOU men, Whatever things YOU may bind on earth will be things bound in heaven, and whatever things YOU may loose on earth will be things loosed in heaven
11 Truly I say to YOU people, Among those born of women there has not been raised up a greater than John the Baptist; but a person that is a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is.


Would you like all 64 occurences posted?

[AsburySkinsFan]

JMS,

How do you think this "rift" b/w the Arians and the followers of the Nicene Creed affects Christianity today? I guess I want to hear your opinion, not what you've read/studied etc. Also, when you speak of early Christianity, are you speaking of the time Jesus was alive or thereabouts, or are you speaking of a later time? I'm trying to follow you, but am a little confused.

I believe he's talking about late 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries when there were a very few people who held to errant theology concerning Christ which was rejected by the church as such, some of that errant theology has maintained throughout the years, but is no more right today than it was then.

[DRSmith]

You know they didn't have punctuation in the Greek texts, and that's not what I said. :)

Jesus says "Truly I say unto you" more than 50 times in the New Testament. Every time, even in the New World Translation, the comma comes after you. Yet suddenly, in the NWT, the comma is placed differently this one time. Funny, huh?



John 20:26-29:



Verse 28.




So when Moses is said to be God to Pharoah that makes him the Almighty

Now again where does it say by name Jesus is Almighty or Most high

[DRSmith]

See also any translation of John 1:1 that hasn't been mangled out of theological motivation by the Watchtower, and any number of other places as well.



Did the oldest Greek manuscripts suffer from being mangled when they speak of the word being with the God but do not address him as the God?

Or are these?


1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

[DRSmith]

The truth is, the only reason you can get away with this kind of misreading at all is that you are a 21st century Westerner, not a 1st century Palestinian Jew. Jesus claimed to be God, and Jesus' contemporaries knew it.

Mark 2:5-8 (ESV):



This is just one of many prerogatives reserved to God alone that Jesus claimed.




Really let us look at Matthew's account of this.

Matthew 9:
3 And, look! certain of the scribes said to themselves: “This fellow is blaspheming.” 4 And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: “Why are YOU thinking wicked things in YOUR hearts? 5 For instance, which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and walk? 6 However, in order for YOU to know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins—” then he said to the paralytic: “Get up, pick up your bed, and go to your home.” 7 And he got up and went off to his home. 8 At the sight of this the crowds were struck with fear, and they glorified God, who gave such authority to men.

[techboy]

4th century. Not 3rd. We are talking about the 4th century 321-381 AD specifically, When Christianity and the world entered the middle ages.


You're right. I was sloppy.



I hate it when people come strong to the board, get spanked and then pretend like they never really cared about the discussion. That's weak and dishonest. Intellectually and spiritually so.

I never said I didn't care. In point of fact, I said I do care about good history and rejecting bad history. All I did was reject your attempt to play amateur psychologist in attacking my motivations. I don't care because of theology, I care because I love history.

It's pretty obvious I care because I spent almost an hour locating a book written by highly qualified, reputable scholars, and transcribing relevant portions it so that others might be able to read it too.

Having presented the information, though, what I do not care to do is continue this fruitless exchange, particularly when you continue to insult me, now calling me a liar and a fraud.

Have a nice afternoon. :)

[brandymac27]

I believe he's talking about late 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries when there were a very few people who held to errant theology concerning Christ which was rejected by the church as such, some of that errant theology has maintained throughout the years, but is no more right today than it was then.

Ok, I'll wait for him to chime in though to be fair. I guess IMO, early Christianity is the time when Jesus was on earth and within a few decades after. At least that's what I consider it to be. But I could very well be wrong as I am definitely no Biblical Scholar.

I guess I am just a little confused as to the point he (JMS) is trying to prove. If there were rifts, that to me doesn't necessarily change anything. IMO, If you believe, you believe, and there isn't a lot of evidence that proves that any of the information we have today is counter to what early Christians believed.

[JMS]

JMS,

How do you think this "rift" b/w the Arians and the followers of the Nicene Creed affects Christianity today? I guess I want to hear your opinion, not what you've read/studied etc. Also, when you speak of early Christianity, are you speaking of the time Jesus was alive or thereabouts, or are you speaking of a later time? I'm trying to follow you, but am a little confused.

We aren't talking about the time Jesus was alive. We are talking about roughly 300 years after he died.

One important way the Arian crisis effects modern chrisitanity is the first passage of the nicene creed was written to specifically cast Arianism Heresy... The Nicene creed how most christians define themselves, even if they don't agree on the meaning of the words.

Beginning of the Nicene creed deals with Jesus being eternal, He always existed. For most Christians the father did not preceed the son..

To understand the arugment one better understands ones own faith, don't you agree?



We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,


I also think it's important because Arians exist today in Christianity in the forms of the Coptic churches in Egypt and North Africa. Understanding our common history is important to understand both how the arguments were framed, worked out, and where the peices landed.

[JMS]

I believe he's talking about late 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries when there were a very few people who held to errant theology concerning Christ which was rejected by the church as such, some of that errant theology has maintained throughout the years, but is no more right today than it was then.

Actually I'm talking about the 4th centry 320 AD - 381 AD, when Christianity moved into the middle ages.

Again it's factually ( to my mind ) inaccurate to claim "few people heldl to errant theology concerning Christ" in this time period or before.

This time period was the first attempt to standardize the theology and the fact that the church flip floped on this important teaching ( at the time important )...

First Church Councel at Nicea branded Arian's heritics. 321 AD.
First Synod of Tyre in 335 AD recinded that and exonerated Arianism only 10 years later.

Likewise the fact the empire flip flopped back and forth between arian rulers and creed supporters five times in the next 50-60 years tells you there was no concensus either before Nicea, or after it.

The romans fought a couple of civil wars on this topic in the following 70 years and each ideology at times won and lost those wars. Clearly there was no consensus.

Anyway I documented it before Clearly the crisis of Aryanism and it was a Crisis didn't pass until 381 when the second church councel at Constantople was held to reassert the first church councils findings.

[techboy]

You really should check something for yousrelf before quoting it as you lose creditability.


Try again. The first passage you cited has no comma at all, as it doesn't need one so it doesn't relate to comma placement.

The others, such as "you men", are functionally equivalent to "you", in that if you dropped the "men" you'd have exactly the same meaning, and the comma immediately follows, as I said. It's like saying you or y'all. Same thing.

Try posting any other place, even in the New World Translation, where the comma is placed differently so as to change the meaning of the sentence.

Did the oldest Greek manuscripts suffer from being mangled when they speak of the word being with the God but do not address him as the God?

Care to back that up?



Or are these?

Yes. I notice you slipped the New World in there. Any translation not influenced by theological shenanigans translates John 1:1 correctly.

Why aren't there any modern, mainstream translations in there, such as the NRSV, which again, has already shown that they value accuracy over theology?


Really let us look at Matthew's account of this.


That's a nice way of dodging, but this passage is talking about the reaction of the crowds. The passage I quoted (which you never responded to, because there's only one explanation), is talking about the reaction of the scribes, who knew that in Judaism, forgiving sins was the prerogative of God alone.

Again, don't think like a 21st century Westerner, and you won't have this problem.


So when Moses is said to be God to Pharoah that makes him the Almighty

Seriously? Jesus proves he's alive, and Thomas cries out in affirmation "My Lord, My God", and you want to say that's the same context as this...

Exodus 7:1-6 (ESV)

1And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

2Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

3And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

4But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.

5And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.

6And Moses and Aaron did as the LORD commanded them, so did they.



... where God is telling Moses that he will seem like a god to a polytheistic ruler?

Come on...



Now again where does it say by name Jesus is Almighty or Most high

Cut and paste time (from here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03f.html)):



The Claims of Jesus
His claims to pre-existence


Jesus claimed the have been pre-existent before his birth--he was around before Abraham (Jn 8.58-59)
Jesus claimed to have been pre-existent in heaven with glory before His incarnation (Jn 3.13; Jn 6.33; Jn 6.38; Jn 6.62; Jn 8.23; Jn 8.42; Jn 10.30-39; Jn 16.28; Jn 17.5)



His claims relative to worship, glorification, exaltation, object of religious faith, title of "God".


Jesus promised to come in 'the glory of the Father' (Mark 8.38)
Jesus held himself out as a legitimate object for religious faith (Mark 9.42; Jn 3.15; Jn 9.35f) even to the same extent as the Father (Jn 14.1)
He NEVER corrects those who accuse him of making himself equal to God (Mr 2.5ff; Jn 5.17ff; Jn 8.58-59; Jn 10:30-39) nor those who called him "GOD" (Jn 20.28).
He claims loyalty greater than ALL human loyalties (Mt 10.37)
Jesus claims that he should be honored co-extensively with the Father! (Jn 5.17f)
He claims the Father is seeking Jesus' glory (Jn 8.50 with 8.54b; Jn 13.31) and that the two are linked (Jn 11.4)
He uses the divine epithet "I AM" (Jn 8.58-59, 24, 28)
He accepts worship without rebuke, and even with commendation (Jn 9.35-38)



His claims to authority


Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins (Mark 2.5ff; Lk 7.48f)
Jesus had authority over the Sabbath (Mark 2.28; Mt 12.8)
Jesus claims that the elect are his, and that the angels are his (Mr 13.26f)--either in possession or authority over
He implied that he had the ability/authority to abolish the law (Mt 5.21)
He implied by his "but I say to you..." passages a divine authority (Mt 5)
He had the authority to give authority over evil to others (Lk 10.19)
He claims to have universal authority (Jn 17.2)
He has authority to confer a kingdom--in the SAME MANNER that the Father does (Lk 22.29f)
He claims to have authority to send/give the Holy Spirit of God! (Lk 24.49; Jn 4.10 with 7.37-39; Jn 15.26; Jn 16.7)



His claims to IDENTITY/EQUALITY with the Father


Jesus claims that one's response to Jesus is equated to one's response to God (Jn 15.23).
Jesus claims that to see Him is to see the Father! (Jn 14.9)
He claims to be, and is repeatedly called, the potentially blasphemous title "Son of God" (Mr 14.62 et. al. )
He NEVER corrects those who accuse him of making himself equal to God (Mr 2.5ff; Jn 5.17ff; Jn 8.58-59; Jn 10:30-39) nor those who called him "GOD" (Jn 20.28).
He claims to be on a par with the Father and the Holy Spirit (Mt 28.19)
He claims that his coming was the same as God's coming (Lk 19.43ff)
He claims to operate co-extensively with the Spirit (Mk 21.14-15 with Mt 10 and Mr 13)
He claims to operate co-extensively with the Father (Jn 5.17ff; Jn 10.30-39; Jn 15.9)



His claims to a UNIQUE relationship to the Father


Jesus considered His Sonship-relation with the Father to be ABSOLUTELY unique (Mr 12.1-11; Jn 20.17)
He claims to be the unique Heir of God (Mr 12.1-11)
He claims to have EXCLUSIVE knowledge of the Father (Mt 11.27; Jn 7.28-29)
He claims to have been the only one to have seen the Father (Jn 6.46; Jn 8.38)
He claims to be absolutely perfect/sinless-he ALWAYS pleases the Father (Jn 8.29; Jn 8.46)



His exalted nature and powers


Jesus is often linked to the word 'Lord' (Mr 11.3; Mr 5:19-20)
Jesus claimed to be greater than King David (Mr 12.35-37), than the Temple (Mt 12.6), than the prophet Jonah (Mt 12.41), than King Solomon (Mt 12.42).
He claims that his rank in the universe is superior to the angels (Mr 13.32)
He implies that he is, or will be, omnipresent (Mt 18.20; Mt 28.19)
He claims to have access to knowledge of the future, and events occurring in heaven (Lk 22.31).
He claims to be able to give freedom (Jn 8.36)
He claims to be able to raise himself from the dead! (Jn 10.17ff)



Claims of Jesus which make NO SENSE if He were not God


Jesus claims that his words will outlast time itself! (Mr 13.31)
He claims that the eternal destiny of people depend on their response to HIM! (Mt 7.21ff; Mt 25.17ff)
He claims to have been the only one to have seen the Father (Jn 6.46; Jn 8.38 with Ex 33.20)
He claims to be absolutely perfect/sinless-he ALWAYS pleases the Father (Jn 8.29; Jn 8.46)
Jesus makes statements that are completely ludicrous, if he is not God. (Jn 14.28; Jn 15.5; Jn 17.10)









How those around Christ responded to Him
God calls him "Son" and declares that He is "pleased" with Jesus (Mt 3.16)
God tells some of the disciples to pay attention to Jesus (Mt 17.5)
Evil spirits knew he was the Son of God (Mt 8.28-29; Mr 3.11ff) and the Holy One of God (Mr 1.23f)
His enemies knew he was claiming to be God (Mt 9.3; Mt 26.63ff; Jn 5.18; Jn 10.33)--and accused him of blasphemy.
Some of the general populace called/considered him God (Lk 7.16; Lk 8.39-40)
John the Baptist recognized Jesus' RADICAL superiority to himself (Mt 3.13; Jn 1.26-30 w/.34)
The disciples and those whose lives He touched WORSHIPPED Him (Mt 14.33; Jn 9.35ff)
He was repeatedly called the Son of God (Mt 14.33; Mt 16.16; Jn 1.26-30 w/.34; Jn 1.49; Jn 11.27)
He was called "God" directly (Jn 20.27f)
Later Rabbinical writings 'remember' some of these exorbitant claims of Jesus.






How the Church understood the claims of Jesus and the events of His life/death/resurrection
His pre-existence and His role in creation.


He is described as pre-existent in glory with the father (Gal 4.4; I Cor 15.47; 2 Cor 8.9; Rom 8.3; I Tim 1.15; Eph 4.9; Col 1.15-17; 2 Tim 1.9; Heb 1.2; Jn 1.2-3; Jn 1.14; Jn 3.31-32; I Jn 1.2; I Jn 3.8; I Jn 4.2, 9;) and active at the time of Moses (Heb 11.26)
He created ALL things in the universe, including angels (Col 1.15-17; Heb 1.2; Jn 1.2-3; Jn 1.10)



The appropriateness of worshipping Him and of the title of "GOD" applied to Him


Citations from the OT in the NT show that Jesus was YHWH (Rom 10.9; Mt 11:10; I Cor 10.26; Rom 10.9-13; Eph 4.8; Heb 1.8ff; Heb 1.10ff)
The earliest materials (e.g. hymns, blessings, prayers, formulas, doxologies) indicate that the early church recognized Jesus as God, equal with the Father (Phil 2:6-11; Col 1.15-20; I Tim 3.16; Mt 28.19; I Thess 3.11; 2 Thess 2.16; I Cor 16.21)
Jesus is often singled out for glorification by the Church (Heb 13.20-21; 2 Peter 3.18; Rev 1.5-6)
Jesus is CONSISTENTLY called "Lord"--a VERY misleading title if He were not God (close to 200 times!)
The angels belong to Him (2 Thess 1.7) and are to worship Him (Heb 1.6)
He is described in words like 'glorious' and 'Lord of Glory' etc. (Js 2.1; I Cor 2.8)
Jesus is called Savior (Titus 1.4; 2.13; 3.6) AS IS the Father (I Tim 1.1; 2.3; 4.10).
He is to be co-extensive with the Father in being praised (Rom 1.25 with Rom 9.5; Phil 1.20; Rev 5.12ff ) and in worship and glory (2 Tim 4.18; 2 Pet 3.18; Heb 1.6; Rev 5.12ff ) and even in being offered a sacrifice! (Rev 14.4)
He explicitly is called "God" (I Tim 3.16--in the best texts--, Acts 20.28; Rom 9.5; Titus 2.13; Jn 20.28; 2 Pet 1.1; Heb 1.8ff; John 1.1; Jn 1.18; I John 5.20 w/1.2; Rev 1.1 with 22.6,16 ) or some derivative thereof (Col 2.9; Phil 2.6-11)
The churches' use of the substitute epithet "The Name" and the nomina sacra demonstrate a firm and early belief in the deity of Jesus.



His authority


The angels belong to Him (2 Thess 1.7) and are to worship Him (Heb 1.6)
His is Lord of ALL (Acts 10.36).
The Father put ALL things under His feet (I Cor 15.27)



His identify/equality with God the Father (and the Spirit)


Jesus is described at the co-source of grace and peace, with the Father, in the benedictions (2 Cor 13.14; Rom 1.7; 2 Cor 1.2; 1 Cor 1.3; Eph 1.2; Phil 1.2; Eph 6.23; Gal 1.3 ).
He is sometimes MENTIONED alone in such benedictions (Rom 16.20, I Cor 16.23; Rev 1.4) as is the Father sometimes (2 Cor 1.3-4)
Citations from the OT in the NT show that Jesus was YHWH (Rom 10.9; Mt 11:10; I Cor 10.26; Rom 10.9-13; Eph 4.8; Heb 1.8ff; Heb 1.10ff)
The "Spirit of Christ" is identified with the "Spirit of God" (Gal 4.6; Rom 8.9-11; Phil 1.19; I Pet 1.11) and the "mind of the Lord" with the "mind of Christ" (I Cor 2.16)
He is described co-ordinately with the Father in our obligations to him, and co-extensively with the Father in actions (I Cor 7.17)
Jesus is called Savior (Titus 1.4; 2.13; 3.6) AS IS the Father (I Tim 1.1; 2.3; 4.10).
He is to be co-extensive with the Father in being praised (Rom 1.25 with Rom 9.5; Phil 1.20; Rev 5.12ff ) and in worship and glory (2 Tim 4.18; 2 Pet 3.18; Heb 1.6; Rev 5.12ff ) and even in being offered a sacrifice! (Rev 14.4)
How one responds to Jesus equates to how one responds to the Father--the are identified that strongly (I Jn 2.22-23)
The wholesale identification of the titles, names, roles, actions, commitments of the OT YHWH and the NT Christ was made and lived by the early church.



His UNIQUE relationship with the Father


He is repeatedly called God's unique Son (Gal 1.15; Gal 3.20; I Thess 1.9--et. al.--over 40 times)
He is the reason the universe was created (Col 1.15-17)



His exalted nature and powers


He created ALL things in the universe, including angels (Col 1.15-17; Heb 1.2; Jn 1.2-3; Jn 1.10)
He sustains the universe (Col 1.15-17; Heb 1.3)
He has super-creaturely characteristics (Eph 3.16ff; Eph 1.10, 22; 4.10; 6.8; Col 2.2ff; Heb 1.10ff; Heb 10.12ff; Jn 3.34; I Jn 2.2)



His difference from 'mere humans'.


Jesus is contrasted with mere men (Gal 1.1)
He is described as being sinless (2 Cor 5.21; I Pet 2.22; I Pet 3.18)
There are a number of passages that talk about Christ's "human nature" or "physical body"--implying that there was something "more" about Him (Rom 1.3-4; Rom 8.3; Rom 9.5; I Tim 3.16; Col 1.22; Heb 2.14; Jn 1.14; I Jn 4.2; 2 Jn 7)


If all of that isn't enough, because you can't find one particular word you like, then I don't know what to tell you. :)

[DRSmith]

So you can not post any scripture that clearly state Jesus is God Almighty all that can be done is try to say the scriptures teach yet.

Yet the bible clearly calls him the begotten son which means fathered or sired.

Firstborn of all creation which makes him part of creation.

The beginning of creation by God.

[DRSmith]

Try again. The first passage you cited has no comma at all, as it doesn't need one so it doesn't relate to comma placement.

The others, such as "you men", are functionally equivalent to "you", in that if you dropped the "men" you'd have exactly the same meaning, and the comma immediately follows, as I said. It's like saying you or y'all. Same thing.

Try posting any other place, even in the New World Translation, where the comma is placed differently so as to change the meaning of the sentence.




You said this Jesus says "Truly I say unto you" more than 50 times in the New Testament. Every time, even in the New World Translation, the comma comes after you. Yet suddenly, in the NWT, the comma is placed differently this one time. Funny, huh

so the person whom you quoted was wrong since there are places where it is not used and there are times it is put in after the words you.

[brandymac27]

Actually I'm talking about the 4th centry 320 AD - 381 AD, when Christianity moved into the middle ages.

Again it's factually ( to my mind ) inaccurate to claim "few people heldl to errant theology concerning Christ" in this time period or before.

This time period was the first attempt to standardize the theology and the fact that the church flip floped on this important teaching ( at the time important )...

First Church Councel at Nicea branded Arian's heritics. 321 AD.
First Synod of Tyre in 335 AD recinded that and exonerated Arianism only 10 years later.

Likewise the fact the empire flip flopped back and forth between arian rulers and creed supporters five times in the next 50-60 years tells you there was no concensus either before Nicea, or after it.

The romans fought a couple of civil wars on this topic in the following 70 years and each ideology at times won and lost those wars. Clearly there was no consensus.

Anyway I documented it before Clearly the crisis of Aryanism and it was a Crisis didn't pass until 381 when the second church councel at Constantople was held to reassert the first church councils findings.


I will say this. If there wasn't any rift, there wouldn't have been a need for a council to begin with. Then there's this too:


In many ways, the conflict around Arian beliefs in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries helped firmly define the centrality of the Trinity in Nicene Christian theology. As the first major intra-Christian conflict after Christianity's legalization, the struggle between Nicenes and Arians left a deep impression on the institutional memory of Nicene churches.



Archbishop Dmitri of the Orthodox Church in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church_in_America) said Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) is the largest descendant of Arianism today. There is some superficial similarity in Islam's teaching that Jesus was a great prophet, but very distinct from God, although Islam sees Jesus as a human messenger of God without the divine properties that Arianism attributes to Christ. Islam sees itself as a continuation of the Jewish and Christian traditions and reveres many of the same prophets, though Islam denies the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and historical Arians claimed it.


Thus, over the past 1,500 years, some Christians have used the term Arian to refer to those groups that see themselves as worshiping Jesus Christ or respecting his teachings, but do not hold to the Nicene creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed). Despite the frequency with which this name is used as a polemical label, there has been no historically continuous survival of Arianism into the modern era.



There have been religious movements holding beliefs that either they, or their opponents, have considered Arian. To quote the Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on Arianism: "In modern times some Unitarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarians) are virtually Arians in that they are unwilling either to reduce Christ to a mere human being or to attribute to him a divine nature identical with that of the Father."[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#cite_note-12) However, their doctrines cannot be considered representative of traditional Arian doctrines or vice-versa. A well-known religious movement of whom it has been said they practice a form of Arianism are Jehovah's Witnesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses). They consider Jesus Christ to be divine but not equal to the one God. But although they are not Trinitarians they disagree with Arius’ views in many respects. Arius denied that the Son could really know the Father while Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Son ‘fully knows’ the Father and that the Son is “the one that has explained him.” (Mt 11:27; Joh 1:14, 18) They believe it is vital to come to know God. And although Arius did not accept Athanasius’ theory that the holy spirit was of the same substance as the Father, he did consider the spirit to be a person. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the holy spirit is God’s active force. [14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#cite_note-13)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)

[DRSmith]

Try again. The first passage you cited has no comma at all, as it doesn't need one so it doesn't relate to comma placement.

The others, such as "you men", are functionally equivalent to "you", in that if you dropped the "men" you'd have exactly the same meaning, and the comma immediately follows, as I said. It's like saying you or y'all. Same thing.

Try posting any other place, even in the New World Translation, where the comma is placed differently so as to change the meaning of the sentence.


Care to back that up?



Yes. I notice you slipped the New World in there. Any translation not influenced by theological shenanigans translates John 1:1 correctly.

Why aren't there any modern, mainstream translations in there, such as the NRSV, which again, has already shown that they value accuracy over theology?




You are syaing the only one who would translate it as such are influenced by the WT I have proven you wrong as there were translations much older that do not translate it to try and prove Jesus is God.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Again it's factually ( to my mind ) inaccurate to claim "few people heldl to errant theology concerning Christ" in this time period or before.
So it wouldn't have been errant theology to say in the late first century that Jesus was born of the flying spaghetti monster? Or that he wasn't Jewish and that the god of the Old Testament was not the God of the New Testament?

To the first question: wrong is wrong, errant theology is errant regardless of the time period.
To the second: Marcion tried this very thing prior to the time period that you reference and his theology was rejected by the church.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You are syaing the only one who would translate it as such are influenced by the WT I have proven you wrong as there were translations much older that do not translate it to try and prove Jesus is God.
Don't go by English translations to develop theology, that's a disaster waiting to happen, you must go to the Greek and Hebrew. If you want old you got it in those. To stake out theological claims based on an English translation is to go down a road that leads to disaster.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So you can not post any scripture that clearly state Jesus is God Almighty all that can be done is try to say the scriptures teach yet.

Yet the bible clearly calls him the begotten son which means fathered or sired.

Firstborn of all creation which makes him part of creation.

The beginning of creation by God.

Ummm, I think I quoted John 1 a bit ago. The Word was with God and the Word was God...or are we just skipping that because its inconvenient?

[DRSmith]

Don't go by English translations to develop theology, that's a disaster waiting to happen, you must go to the Greek and Hebrew. If you want old you got it in those. To stake out theological claims based on an English translation is to go down a road that leads to disaster.

One of the interesting things to do is to read the hebrew tranlsations that are quoted in the NT

It would put the name of God in the NT alot. For instance Psalm 110:1 verse one gets quoted a couple of times in the NT

Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:4

It does not use adoni to refer to God in those verses.

[Zguy28]

Ummm, I think I quoted John 1 a bit ago. The Word was with God and the Word was God...or are we just skipping that because its inconvenient?Not to mention "before Abraham was, I AM"

[DRSmith]

Ummm, I think I quoted John 1 a bit ago. The Word was with God and the Word was God...or are we just skipping that because its inconvenient?

You mean like in the greek where he was towards the God but he is not called the God?

[DRSmith]

Not to mention "before Abraham was, I AM"

Some translation have that as I have been or existed

Now the interesting thing is eyeh asher eyeh is more acurately translated as I will or I shall be like it is is in verse 12 of Exodus 3

[AsburySkinsFan]

One of the interesting things to do is to read the hebrew tranlsations that are quoted in the NT

It would put the name of God in the NT alot. For instance Psalm 110:1 verse one gets quoted a couple of times in the NT

Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:4

It does not use adoni to refer to God in those verses.
You're missing the point, or dodging it; you two keep battling over the WT or other translations as if a translation is the final say and not the Greek or the Hebrew.

I don't care what anyone says, even a simple reading of this forces one to at least say that the Gospel writer John believed Jesus to be God.
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g3/ocujer/wordlogos.jpg

[brandymac27]

You're missing the point, or dodging it; you two keep battling over the WT or other translations as if a translation is the final say and not the Greek or the Hebrew.

I don't care what anyone says, even a simple reading of this forces one to at least say that the Gospel writer John believed Jesus to be God.
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g3/ocujer/wordlogos.jpg

Why is the "the" in brackets a different spelling in Greek than the "the" before Word? And why does the spelling of God change after the bracketed "the" and after "and"?

Is there any significance to this?

[AsburySkinsFan]

You mean like in the greek where he was towards the God but he is not called the God?
I'm sorry but you are wrong. The word you are referring to is "pros" and in the accusative case it is translated "with", and guess what "pros" in John 1:1 is in the accusative.

Below is the actual screen capture from my Bibleworks 6 program, with the red writing and arrows added for clarity.
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g3/ocujer/prosaccusative.jpg

[brandymac27]

I would love to have a Greek or Hebrew Bible, but I don't know the languages lol. Guess they won't do me very much good.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Why is the "the" in brackets a different spelling in Greek than the "the" before Word? And why does the spelling of God change after the bracketed "the" and after "and"?

Is there any significance to this?
Its not a translated word, in Greek most nouns will carry a definite article, in English it is "the", most times in translation it is left out because it would be tedeous to read something like.

"Jim went to the store and bought the bread and the milk and the pop tarts and then Jim got in the car and drove on the road until he arrived at the house of his." If you wanted to translate and read them all then there would be nothing wrong with that, but your listeners would grow very weary.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I would love to have a Greek or Hebrew Bible, but I don't know the languages lol. Guess they won't do me very much good.

Remember way back when in the other thread when I spoke about reading the Bible in community? This is what I meant, and why it is so important.

[JMS]

So it wouldn't have been errant theology to say in the late first century that Jesus was born of the flying spaghetti monster? Or that he wasn't Jewish and that the god of the Old Testament was not the God of the New Testament?


Because all errant beliefs were not held in the 2nd 3rd and 4th centuries isn't proof that no errant beliefs were held.

Clearly we were discusssing Arianism and the seven other classical herecies which plagued the early Christian doctrine.



To the first question: wrong is wrong, errant theology is errant regardless of the time period.


Based on modern vantage everybody was wrong in the 4th century. So if that's the vanage you are using it's kind of a pointless conversation.

Based on 4th century vantage wrong wasn't wrong. Arianism was wrong based 2-300 bishops opinions at the first chuch council in 321 AD. Ariansim wasn't wrong based 310 bishops at the First Synod of Tyre in 335 AD.

That's the point.... there wasn't a concensus. What was "wrong" changed over a 70 year period, and beyond that period. Theology changes!! Doctrine changes. What's important changes.



To the second: Marcion tried this very thing prior to the time period that you reference and his theology was rejected by the church.

Again rejected is the wrong statement. Condemned is more accurate. The early christians in Mariuses time didn't agree amongst themselves, but they did largely agree that Marcion got it wrong. An important distinction.

[techboy]

So you can not post any scripture that clearly state Jesus is God Almighty all that can be done is try to say the scriptures teach yet.

What you mean to write is that I "can not post any scripture that clearly state Jesus is God Almighty", if we use bad translations of the Greek to ignore the many inconvenient passages.

You got me. :)


there are places where it is not used and there are times it is put in after the words you.

The concept is that when a comma is used, it is placed right after the "you" every time but that one very convenient time, changing the meaning entirely. The fact that sometimes there is no comma at all, or that "you" might be "you men" or the like, does not change that.

If I'm wrong, then post another verse from the NWT that puts the comma somewhere else, changing the meaning.

The NWT is a bad translation that intentionally changes the Greek when it needs to. You shouldn't use it. Try any of the modern, respected translations instead. I like the ESV, personally, but the NRSV is considered very accurate.

In the future, though, I will endeavor to be more precise and include a qualifier about "when a comma is used", if that makes you happy. :)


You are syaing the only one who would translate it as such are influenced by the WT I have proven you wrong as there were translations much older that do not translate it to try and prove Jesus is God.

A couple. Why aren't there any modern, mainstream translations that do that? Not even the ones that are willing to tick off the fundamentalists by translating based on what they feel is the best reading, rather than the theologically most convenient one?


You're missing the point, or dodging it; you two keep battling over the WT or other translations as if a translation is the final say and not the Greek or the Hebrew.

You're right, of course, but don't lump me in there, please. :)

My only point in comparing the NWT to modern, reliable, scholarly accepted translations is that it shows what the Greek really says, and how the NWT twists it.

I thought about just putting up the Greek directly, but then I'd have to provide a translation, and we're right back where we started. ;)

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but I tend to think that the fact that every qualified textual scholar I'm aware of, alive today, regardless of faith (or lack thereof), translates John 1:1 the same way, should tell us something.

[DRSmith]

Its not a translated word, in Greek most nouns will carry a definite article, in English it is "the", most times in translation it is left out because it would be tedeous to read something like.

"Jim went to the store and bought the bread and the milk and the pop tarts and then Jim got in the car and drove on the road until he arrived at the house of his." If you wanted to translate and read them all then there would be nothing wrong with that, but your listeners would grow very weary.

Or maybe it is left out there so as to not have people asking why the difference in the two instances of the word God

[AsburySkinsFan]

Because all errant beliefs were not held in the 2nd 3rd and 4th centuries isn't proof that no errant beliefs were held.
No one said they were, but you are the one saying that they can't be errant until after 3rd and 4th centuries, which is like saying that 4+4=54 isn't wrong until the teacher grades it, no its wrong even before the teacher grades it.


Clearly we were discusssing Arianism and the seven other classical herecies which plagued the early Christian doctrine.
Like Marcion and his heavily redacted version of the Gospels in which he removed all Jewish references because he said that the OT God wasn't the same as the NT God.


Based on modern vantage everybody was wrong in the 4th century. So if that's the vanage you are using it's kind of a pointless conversation.
If that's the vantage point you think I'm using then you need to re-read what I said.


Based on 4th century vantage wrong wasn't wrong. Arianism was wrong based 2-300 bishops opinions at the first chuch council in 321 AD. Ariansim wasn't wrong based 310 bishops at the First Synod of Tyre in 335 AD.
That's simply the same as the teacher grading the test, it wasn't like that stuff was right prior.


That's the point.... there wasn't a concensus. What was "wrong" changed over a 70 year period, and beyond that period. Theology changes!! Doctrine changes. What's important changes.
Truth does not, which is what we are talking about.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Or maybe it is left out there so as to not have people asking why the difference in the two instances of the word God
Now you're simply grasping at straws. I speak of clarity of speech you speak of conspiracy. :doh:

BTW, it is noted that you haven't provided any of the Greek or Hebrew for the position that you are staking out.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but I tend to think that the fact that every qualified textual scholar I'm aware of, alive today, regardless of faith (or lack thereof), translates John 1:1 the same way, should tell us something.
I agree, and its time we end their Trinitarian Conspiracy. :D

[DRSmith]

What you mean to write is that I "can not post any scripture that clearly state Jesus is God Almighty", if we use bad translations of the Greek to ignore the many inconvenient passages.

You got me. :)





Is there any that say I Jesus am God Almighty or I Jesus as the Most High?

[DRSmith]

Now you're simply grasping at straws. I speak of clarity of speech you speak of conspiracy. :doh:

BTW, it is noted that you haven't provided any of the Greek or Hebrew for the position that you are staking out.

Where it makes the distiction between ho theos whom the word was with or towards and theos as it describes the word?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Is there any that say I Jesus am God Almighty or I Jesus as the Most High?

No, is there any verse where Jesus says, "I am a Jew"? No but guess what, he was. What I find humorous is now that the discussion has turned to the original languages you want to move away from what the text actually teaches us and now use false logic to prove a point.

[DRSmith]

The concept is that when a comma is used, it is placed right after the "you" every time but that one very convenient time, changing the meaning entirely. The fact that sometimes there is no comma at all, or that "you" might be "you men" or the like, does not change that.

If I'm wrong, then post another verse from the NWT that puts the comma somewhere else, changing the meaning.

The NWT is a bad translation that intentionally changes the Greek when it needs to. You shouldn't use it. Try any of the modern, respected translations instead. I like the ESV, personally, but the NRSV is considered very accurate.

[/QUOTE]

Actualyl I have find Jason BeDuhn an interesting read when it comes to translational issues.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Where it makes the distinction between ho theos whom the word was with or towards and theos as it describes the word?

Not "or towards", it is "with" its in the accusative, stop trying to make it seem optional. You either play by the rules of the koine greek language or you forfeit.

[DRSmith]

No, is there any verse where Jesus says, "I am a Jew"? No but guess what, he was. What I find humorous is now that the discussion has turned to the original languages you want to move away from what the text actually teaches us and now use false logic to prove a point.

There is no verse that say that yet there are verse that talk about him being created and being part of creation.

[DRSmith]

Not "or towards", it is "with" its in the accusative, stop trying to make it seem optional. You either play by the rules of the koine greek language or you forfeit.

Translation John 1:1
Koine Greek Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.[2]
Greek transliteration en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
Sahidic Coptic Coming...
Sahidic Coptic transliteration Hn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe.[2]
Latin Vulgate In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum.
Literal English in beginning (or "original") was the word (or "saying"), and the word (or "saying") was with (lit. "towards" or "facing") the god, and god was the word (or "saying").[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

[techboy]

I would love to have a Greek or Hebrew Bible, but I don't know the languages lol. Guess they won't do me very much good.

If you actually want to learn the Greek, there's a downloadable introductory class taught by Dr. Bill Mounce, author of one of the best and most widely used Greek texts, here (http://www.biblicaltraining.org/class/nt201). You just need the book, which is around $30, so it's not too bad, especially for a text book.

I highly recommend Biblicaltraining.org (http://www.biblicaltraining.org/) in general, by the way. It has loads of classes taught by top notch scholars, at levels ranging from beginners to seminary, all free of charge (though they seek donations to continue their important work).

Keeping with the theme and discussions in this thread, I think some of the classes on this page (http://www.biblicaltraining.org/advanced) would be helpful, such as Systematic Theology and Church History. :)

[AsburySkinsFan]

There is no verse that say that yet there are verse that talk about him being created and being part of creation.

OMGness, man are you intentionally being dense?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Translation John 1:1
Koine Greek Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.[2]
Greek transliteration en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
Sahidic Coptic Coming...
Sahidic Coptic transliteration Hn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe.[2]
Latin Vulgate In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum.
Literal English in beginning (or "original") was the word (or "saying"), and the word (or "saying") was with (lit. "towards" or "facing") the god, and god was the word (or "saying").[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

Well good for you, you found the trusted theological source wikipedia, but here's the kicker, even it disagrees with you.

[AsburySkinsFan]

/me washes his hands.

[Zguy28]

I would love to have a Greek or Hebrew Bible, but I don't know the languages lol. Guess they won't do me very much good.A Little Greek (http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/)

It was recommended by a gent who I know is very fluent in Koine Greek. :)

Also http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=192408&direct=1 is good from what I've heard.

[DRSmith]

OMGness, man are you intentionally being dense?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Yet in Greek it say with The God but does not he is the God

I do not ignore things but put all things in context including the fact he is called the beginning of creation by God.

[brandymac27]

Translation John 1:1
Koine Greek Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.[2]
Greek transliteration en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
Sahidic Coptic Coming...
Sahidic Coptic transliteration Hn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe.[2]
Latin Vulgate In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum.
Literal English in beginning (or "original") was the word (or "saying"), and the word (or "saying") was with (lit. "towards" or "facing") the god, and god was the word (or "saying").[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

Even if the "Literal English" is correct above, the Word having been "facing" or "towards" God still implies that the Word was there...with God.

[jpillian]

BTW -- Thanks TB and Z for the links on Greek and other training resources. Definitely going on my Delicious bookmarks for future use. Good stuff. :cheers:

[Zguy28]

Yet in Greek it say with The God but does not he is the God

I do not ignore things but put all things in context including the fact he is called the beginning of creation by God.I can't claim this as my own:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=103033

Text (John 1:1-2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+1%3A1-2)):
Εν αρχη ην ο λογος,
και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον,
και θεος ην ο λογος.
ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον.Transliteration:
En archē ēn ho logos,
kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon,
kai theos ēn ho logos.
houtos ēn en archē pros ton theon.Translation (ESV):
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.Analysis (Zerwick):
αρχη beginning ; εν αρχη = Gen 1:1 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Gen+1%3A1), a deliberate allusion, hence "when all things (the universe, v. 3) began".
ην imperfect of ειμι, imperfect of duration, was in existence ; the fourfold ην in contrast to εγενετο in v. 3
λογος word, here personal.
προς with accusative in Hellenistic Greek = παρα with dative beside, with a person but in John apparently connoting towards (a person).
θεος, "the Word was divine", predicate without article insisting on the nature of the Word [BG: "... in the nature of things, the predicate commonly refers not to an individual or individuals as such, but to the class to which the subject belongs, to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. John 1:1 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+1%3A1), και θεος ην ο λογος, which attributes to the Word the divine nature (ο θεος ην ο λογος, at least in NT usage, would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father, since the latter is ο θεος).

[brandymac27]

BTW -- Thanks TB and Z for the links on Greek and other training resources. Definitely going on my Delicious bookmarks for future use. Good stuff. :cheers:

Yes, thank you! It's gonna take me 3 years to read all this stuff!

[brandymac27]

double post

[techboy]

Yes, thank you! It's gonna take me 3 years to read all this stuff!

Biblical Training is mostly audio files. :D

[techboy]

/me washes his hands.

Don't forget to use soap and hot water, and sing your ABC's twice before rinsing. :)

[jpillian]

Don't forget to use soap and hot water, and sing your ABC's twice before rinsing. :)

Eh, I use latex gloves on ES. Double it up when I venture into the Stadium. You don't know where some posters have been.

[JMS]

No one said they were, but you are the one saying that they can't be errant until after 3rd and 4th centuries, which is like saying that 4+4=54 isn't wrong until the teacher grades it, no its wrong even before the teacher grades it.


I am saying it wasn't a few people with errant beliefs. But there was a wide desparety between the beliefs of early Christions on issues which we and likely they believed to be trivial in the 1st and 2nd centuries but quickly became very important when they tried to craft a common creed in the 4th century.

I am saying this is understandable because nobody until Constantine thought it important enough to have a common creed or understanding of what being a Christian meant before the 4th century and the word taught by christ passed down in parrellel silos certainly gave rise to differences of opinions on many issues.

I am saying once that creed was drafted and ratified by only 10-15% of Bishops in the 4th century it proved to be very controversial. It was the cause for pursecution, civil wars, the leadership of the empire changing, and the church itself flip flopping on doctrine a handful of times as varias proponents of the various positions came to power over the next 70 years.

( Arianism was settled over the 60-70 years after Nicia in the East; it remained an important issue in the west for centuries as the powerful Germanic Tribes were converted to Arianism in the time of the pro Arian Emporers and they caused problems for the followers of the Creed in the following centuries, and visa versa. ).



Truth does not (change), which is what we are talking about.

We aren't talking about truth. Who knows what is true? We are talking about how we came to believe what is accepted as true today. The twists, the reversals, the controversy, the persecution, the wars and the early players. How the "truth" on these issues was crafted from the vantage point of the people at the time changed. And how that changing "truth" was passed down to us.

How modern Christians came to believe the father did not preceed the son.

How modern Christians came to believe in a monothesistic religion with three distinct and individual god heads.

How modern Christians came to resolve that Jesus was begoton not made from the father, but always existed as the father always existed.

These things are very confusing, and seemingly trivial and unimportant perhaps to some modern Christians; but they were everything to the early Christians. We are just discussing how the "TRUTH" passed down to us was crafted. And Crafted it was.

How holes in Jesus's teachings were filled by those that came after him. Not by God or divine edict, but by fallable men, some with divergent self interests, some pias, some secular even pagan, some with honest disagreements, but all who believed they knew the truth.

There is a reason why the Nicean Creed was never put into the Bible.... cause it's not the work of god, it's the work of men. Sheeesh...

[Zguy28]

I am saying it wasn't a few people with errant beliefs. But there was a wide desparety between the beliefs of early Christions on issues which we and likely they believed to be trivial in the 1st and 2nd centuries but quickly became very important.

I am saying this is understandable because nobody until Constantine thought it important enough to have a common creed or understanding of what being a Christian meant.

I am saying once that creed was drafted and ratified by only 10-15% of Bishops in the 4th century it proved to be very controversial. It was the cause for pursecution, the leadership of the empire changing, and the church itself flip flopping on doctrine a handful of times over the next 70 years.



We aren't talking about truth. Who knows what is true? We are talking about how we came to believe what is true today. The twists, the reversals, the controversy, the persecution. How the "trueth" on these issues from the vantage point of the people at the time changed. And how that changing "trueth" was passed down to us.

How modern christians came to believe the father did not preceed the son.

How modern Christians came to believe in a monothesistic religion with three distinct and individual god heads.

How modern Christians came to believe

How we resolve that Jesus was begoton not made from the father, but always existed.

These things are very confusing, and seemingly trivial and unimportant perhaps to modern Christians; but they were everything to the early christians. We are just discussing how the "TRUTH" passed down to us was crafted. And Crafted it was.Your posts would make me laugh if I didn't think you actually believed what you wrote my friend. Unfortunately I know you do believe what you write, and I'm not sure if you actually read what other people post.

10-15% of Bishops? There were 2 dissenters I believe among the bishops in attendance at Nicea.

[JMS]

10-15% of Bishops? There were 2 dissenters I believe among the bishops in attendance at Nicea.

Constantine invited more than 1800 Bishops to Nicea in 321 AD. We have four accounts of people documented to have been there recording 200-310 bishops attended. Or 11%-16% of those who were invited or existed at the time. I posted there names earlier and their figures.

The Nicean church council actually met for months, so their disparity is understandable. Still those bishops only represented a very small eastern dominated group of Biships and 10-15% roughly of all Bishops in the Roman Empire invited to the church council.



Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops (http://www.extremeskins.com/wiki/Bishop) of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but only 250 to 320 bishops actually participated.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea




Bishop Alexander had excommunicated Arius over their theological dispute, but many bishops continued to support him. In order to heal the schism, Constantine summoned all the bishops of the church to a council at Nicaea in 325. Of the 1800 bishops in the Roman Empire, about 300 showed up. (The number is traditionally given as 319, but there is some doubt as to the authenticity of that count.)
http://www.essortment.com/all/firstcouncilof_rgbz.htm



Again none of this is controversial.....

Fact is the Bishops who attended Constantines second go at Arianism exonerated Arius a decade after Nicea at the first synod. This was about the same number of Bishops 310, and made up from roughly the same group. Bishops overwhelmingly representativing the eastern Empire..

[Fred Jones]

I have but one question today. Why did the Catholic Church forbid their clergy to marry?

My answer is because when that person dies, the church gets all their property. What a great way to build the church.

[JMS]

I have but one question today. Why did the Catholic Church forbid their clergy to marry?


It happenned at the Cluniac Reform period 965-972 Under Pope John XIII. Offices of the church in those days were sold. The church was basically a franchising scheme where Pope's would sell cardinal hats, cardinals would sell bishops hats, and everbybody would sell priests positions.

Some of the ways priests would turn a profit after having paid their "franchiseing fee", would be to run businesses out of the abbies and churches. These included brothels and other illicit business ventures.

Corruption was rampant. Priests were illiterate. Everybody was illiterate The people were basically tied to their Parishes through serfdom and feudalism and had no voice.

The powerful monistary in Cluniac France created a reform movement. Their change was imposed by the laity upon the church elders. These reforms included the vow of chastity for priests. The idea is they wanted to get the bad eliment out of the organization..

Arguable they went overboard in the opposite direction. What are you going to do, it was the dark ages mentality.



My answer is because when that person dies, the church gets all their property. What a great way to build the church.

Facts is the early Catholic church wasn't funded by milking the fortunes of dead priests. It was always funded by milking the people. Much more profitable. It's true the offices of the dead priests would be resold. Again I don't think this enriched the church itself but rather the church officer directly above the office vacated.

[brandymac27]

JMS,

I just want to understand. I have read what you and others have posted on the subject. What I'm asking you now is what exactly do you want us to get out of all that you are posting? Do you want us to not believe in the trinity? Because even if there were dissenters, it still (IMO), doesn't change anything. Even if there were other "sects" of Christianity, it still doesn't change anything. Heck, there are different "sects" of Christianity today, and that still doesn't change anything historically!

Dissenters, different sects of Christianity, the Council, etc....none of that proves or disproves the trinity or leads to a pro Arianism type of thinking or proves that Arianism was the main "type" of Christianity. So, I don't understand what it is exactly that you want us to "get" out of your posts.

[PeterMP]

I have but one question today. Why did the Catholic Church forbid their clergy to marry?

My answer is because when that person dies, the church gets all their property. What a great way to build the church.
I'm sorry, but Catholic Priest leave their estates to whomever they chose. One example of the family getting money:
http://wowktv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=56779&catid=83

[brandymac27]

:doh:

Now this I can agree with!

[Fred Jones]

It happenned at the Cluniac Reforms. Offices of the church in those days were sold. The church was basically a franchising scheme where Pope's would sell cardinal hats, cardinals would sell bishops hats, and everbybody would sell priests positions.

Some of the ways priests would turn a profit at their churches included running brothels and other illicit business ventures.

Corruption was rampant. Priests were illiterate. The people were basically tied to their Parishes through serfdom and feudalism.

A church council was held at the powerful monistary of Cluniac and change was imposed by the laity upon the church elders. These reforms included the vow of chastity for priests. The idea is they wanted to get the bad eliment out of the organization..

Arguable they went overboard in the opposite direction.


:doh: I think there is enought bad stuff in the history of the Catholic church without making stuff up. Facts is the early Catholic church wasn't funded by milking the fortunes of dead priests. It was always funded by milking the people. Much more profitable.

That was just my opinion. But since you were kind enough to list some of the many wrongs of the Church, why is my comment off base? I did not mean to imply that is what they do in modern times. I was just commenting on why the church decided not to allow marriage. And, why couldn't I be right? The church basically did what it wanted. I bet they obtained a lot of land that way. By your comment, this, obviously, was not their main revenue stream.

But, they distorted so many other things I don't understand why this can't be. I used to think like many in this thread. But I have discovered simpler ways.

[Fred Jones]

And, when Yeshua talked about Father he was referring to Mother/Father GOD or the longer version, Mother/Father/Creator GOD.

[JMS]

JMS,

I just want to understand. I have read what you and others have posted on the subject. What I'm asking you now is what exactly do you want us to get out of all that you are posting? Do you want us to not believe in the trinity? Because even if there were dissenters, it still (IMO), doesn't change anything. Even if there were other "sects" of Christianity, it still doesn't change anything. Heck, there are different "sects" of Christianity today, and that still doesn't change anything historically!


I guess to my mind understanding the history of the decisions doesn't weaken the decisions, it strengthens them. It also helps you to better understand your own faith. Understanding what went into all the neuances.



Dissenters, different sects of Christianity, the Council, etc....none of that proves or disproves the trinity or leads to a pro Arianism type of thinking or proves that Arianism was the main "type" of Christianity. So, I don't understand what it is exactly that you want us to "get" out of your posts.

The entire Nicean Creed is writen as a check list to deny various beliefs and reaffirm a common belief. I just think it interesting to know what those various belief systems were and how important the subtle phrases were in the creed to the early christians who carefully crafted them.

Studying the history helps you better understand the pressent....

this discussion started out by talking about predestination and the Calvinists. It's interesting Predestination in a different form was one of the first Heracies dealt with at Nicea....

Anyway I just find this stuff facinating.

[brandymac27]

And, when Yeshua talked about Father he was referring to Mother/Father GOD or the longer version, Mother/Father/Creator GOD.

:wtf:

Please, indulge me....

This is like the epitome of what the gnostics thought, at least what I have read in the Nag Hammadi Scriptures.

[brandymac27]

I guess to my mind understanding the history of the decisions doesn't weaken the decisions, it strengthens them. It also helps you to better understand your own faith. Understanding what went into all the neuances.

The entire Nicean Creed is writen as a check list to deny various beliefs and reaffirm a common belief. I just think it interesting to know what those various belief systems were and how important the subtle phrases were in the creed to the early christians who carefully crafted them.

Studying the history helps you better understand the pressent....

this discussion started out by talking about predestination and the Calvinists. It's interesting Predestination in a different form was one of the first Heracies dealt with at Nicea....

Anyway I just find this stuff facinating.

I think it's fascinating as well. I love religious topics b/c I learn so much from them! I love hearing all the different theories that people have, and I love all the rebuttals.

[JMS]

That was just my opinion. But since you were kind enough to list some of the many wrongs of the Church, why is my comment off base?


I think it was off base because it put forward that the church basically funded itself. Preyed upon itself in ancient times. The church was always fed by the people. That would be my objection to what you wrote.



I did not mean to imply that is what they do in modern times. I was just commenting on why the church decided not to allow marriage. And, why couldn't I be right? The church basically did what it wanted. I bet they obtained a lot of land that way. By your comment, this, obviously, was not their main revenue stream.


Yes that's my objection, it being a significant revenue stream. I would also object to your claim the church always did what it wanted. The importantce of the Cluniac Reforms was they were imposed upon the church by the people.

Which is the fundimental important Catholic issue. Significant Change in the Catholic church historically comes from the people, not from the church itself. It is imposed upon the church like the Cluniac reforms were imposed upon the church....

I would agree with you the church mostly did what it wanted. But there are important distinctions where that is not the case. Those distictions again continue to define the church today.



But, they distorted so many other things I don't understand why this can't be. I used to think like many in this thread. But I have discovered simpler ways.

I think if you want to look for bad things the Catholic Church has done, you don't need to look very long. I think their have been very bad guys in the church historically, even as their has been good guys. The church is a construction of men, like all such things it represents a compromise. I think that's a mature belief. When Protestant churches are around for 2000 years, I think they'll have their own skelletons in the closet.

What I find interesting is noting the periods which influence such wrong turns. People pointed to Constantines involvement at Nicea. I would disagree with that. Constantine sought unity. Unity is a good thing. I think Constantines involvement created a lot of soul searching and quite a bit of thought resulting in a unifying expression. Very good thing, that is used extensively by the majority of christians today......

I would think a bad turn would be the Deed of Pepin. in 756 AD when Charlamagne was hoodwinked into making the Church a temporal power.... I think that was the beginning of a lot of bad things.

[Mickalino]

I would like to hear one's definition of Free Masonry, especially the term 33rd Generation Free Masonry, and does someone have to do to get that label. And please provide a Bible passage to reference it.

[Fred Jones]

Thanks for your comments JMS. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to respond. It was not my intention to batter the church, just ask a question and present a different view.

Reading you post I still stand by my comment. I have read it in two different books, but not claiming it to be absolutely correct. But, from the comments from people about all the problems of the church I just don't see why some Pope didn't decide to make this true. Now, down the line it turned into something else and to what it is today, but originally, I don't see how it is not a possibility. Just because it was not recorded somewhere you have access to research it.

A quote from another book I read I posted in the other thread about Jesus and prosperity. It belongs in this thread more reference what Yeshua taught. The church built massive structures to keep people in. They forgot about nature and they forgot about a lot of things.

"So simple his teachings were: unite with the Spirit, be open to the Kingdom of Heaven that is the world of Spirit, and let the energy of the Spirit flow down into us and wash away all heaviness, all fear, all doubt, and all the littleness within us that is uncomfortable with the Light. And when we are full of the Spirit, how easy it is to step into the Light which is our Source and the very nature of our being. How easy to lay aside the body that has served us well, and in the formless world become one with the Light. And he taught us that the nature of the Spirit is Truth and Love and Freedom, and when these three are present in our hearts then indeed we may feel the Kingdom of Heaven close to us."

[brandymac27]

I would like to hear one's definition of Free Masonry, especially the term 33rd Generation Free Masonry, and does someone have to do to get that label. And please provide a Bible passage to reference it.

Do you mean 33rd degree free mason? If so, in order to become a 33d degree free mason, you must move through the "ranks". The one of the few real references in the Bible that a lot of free masons use is Solomon's Temple. I will provide a link, as it's easier to read that, than me explain it.

I purchased a $200 set of Masonic Encyclopedias that are dated 1906 written by Albert Mackey, and I can tell you, there isn't a lot of Christianity involved w/ free masonry, despite what they claim. For example, God is (to the free masons) called the GAOTU: Grand Architect of the Universe. There are a lot of other details that are important to them as well like acacia, and the resurrection (but not in the same sense that Christians believe).

I don't believe any of the masonic dogma, but it is pretty interesting to say the least.

Also, Hiram Abiff is another person of interest to them, and again, I'll provide a link.

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/king_solomon_temple.html
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/hiramabiff.html
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/pagen_alter_four.htm
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11937/11937-8.txt (very long but a lot of info)


I have plenty more if you're interested.

There's also abovetopsecret.com. It's a BIG TIME conspiracy theory website. I'm sure Ken would love it, but there is a plethora of info there on Free Masonry, the Illuminati, Christianity, religion, etc.

And for the record, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just love to read about that stuff.

[brandymac27]

And, when Yeshua talked about Father he was referring to Mother/Father GOD or the longer version, Mother/Father/Creator GOD.

I'm actually very interested to hear about this, despite my smart ass comment earlier, which I apologize for.

[Mickalino]

Do you mean 33rd degree free mason? If so, in order to become a 33d degree free mason, you must move through the "ranks". The one of the few real references in the Bible that a lot of free masons use is Solomon's Temple. I will provide a link, as it's easier to read that, than me explain it.

I purchased a $200 set of Masonic Encyclopedias that are dated 1906 written by Albert Mackey, and I can tell you, there isn't a lot of Christianity involved w/ free masonry, despite what they claim. For example, God is (to the free masons) called the GAOTU: Grand Architect of the Universe. There are a lot of other details that are important to them as well like acacia, and the resurrection (but not in the same sense that Christians believe).

I don't believe any of the masonic dogma, but it is pretty interesting to say the least.

Also, Hiram Abiff is another person of interest to them, and again, I'll provide a link.

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/king_solomon_temple.html
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/hiramabiff.html
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/pagen_alter_four.htm
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11937/11937-8.txt (very long but a lot of info)


I have plenty more if you're interested.

Yea, I guess it is 33rd degree.
Someone in the other thread mentioned that Oral Roberts was a 33rd degree Free Mason, which I found very hard to believe. I googled it, and it brought up a bunch of names of others that I respected, like Kenneth Copeland. And it seems like their logic for labeling them Free Mason, was simply because those ministers were teaching about prosperity. To call someone a part of a cult, because they teach prosperity, is really stretching it. Do you have references for those ?

[alexey]

The entire Nicean Creed is writen as a check list to deny various beliefs and reaffirm a common belief.
As demonstrated in this thread, this can also be viewed as figuring things out, affirming correct beliefs, rejecting incorrect beliefs. As a matter of fact, every aspect of church history can be viewed that way... You can have faith that there is only one true faith, and view the history in relation to that. All you have to do is have faith. Of course, things look quite differently if you look at this stuff form the outside.

(now, techboy might stop by and say that his faith is actually grounded in solid historical evidence of miracles, etc... we had some discussions about that... Obviously I find those arguments unconvincing.)

[Zguy28]

And, when Yeshua talked about Father he was referring to Mother/Father GOD or the longer version, Mother/Father/Creator GOD.


I'm actually very interested to hear about this, despite my smart ass comment earlier, which I apologize for.
Yes, enlighten us with your secret gnosis. :yawnee:

[Zguy28]

Yea, I guess it is 33rd degree.
Someone in the other thread mentioned that Oral Roberts was a 33rd degree Free Mason, which I found very hard to believe. I googled it, and it brought up a bunch of names of others that I respected, like Kenneth Copeland. And it seems like their logic for labeling them Free Mason, was simply because those ministers were teaching about prosperity. To call someone a part of a cult, because they teach prosperity, is really stretching it. Do you have references for those ?More info on Kenneth Copeland?

http://www.equip.org/articles/what-s-wrong-with-the-word-faith-movement-part-one-

http://www.equip.org/articles/what-s-wrong-with-the-word-faith-movement-part-two-

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes, enlighten us with your secret gnosis. :yawnee:

Apparently it has something to do with the Holy Grail and the Da Vinci Code, I mean why not right? The Gnostic non-gospels are old and the people who wrote them wanted to believe that they were professing authentic Christian faith so why shouldn't we take their word as truth even though those closest to Jesus and his disciples rejected their teachings as heresy...what did they know anyways?:doh:

[brandymac27]

Yea, I guess it is 33rd degree.
Someone in the other thread mentioned that Oral Roberts was a 33rd degree Free Mason, which I found very hard to believe. I googled it, and it brought up a bunch of names of others that I respected, like Kenneth Copeland. And it seems like their logic for labeling them Free Mason, was simply because those ministers were teaching about prosperity. To call someone a part of a cult, because they teach prosperity, is really stretching it. Do you have references for those ?

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/kennethcopeland33rddegreefreemason.htm

http://how2becomeachristianinfoblog.com/2008/12/27/kenneth-copeland-33rd-degree-freemason-and-other-word-of-faith-masonic-ministers-exposed/
http://www.masonicinfo.com/famous.htm
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1355.cfm
http://www.whale.to/b/33.html

[brandymac27]

Apparently it has something to do with the Holy Grail and the Da Vinci Code, I mean why not right? The Gnostic non-gospels are old and the people who wrote them wanted to believe that they were professing authentic Christian faith so why shouldn't we take their word as truth even though those closest to Jesus and his disciples rejected their teachings as heresy...what did they know anyways?:doh:

I think the problem w/ the Gnostic Gospels is that you have books like The Gospel of Thomas, Mary, etc and some uninformed people can look at or read these books like they are some sort of "secret" info that was kept hidden from the public. I know I fell into this trap before I read The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith and other books dealing with the authenticity of the Canon/Bible.

ETA: Both of the books: The Case For Christ and The Case For Faith were excellent reads too, btw. I highly recommend them to anyone who has any doubts about biblical authenticity or the divinity of Christ. The proof is definitely "in the pudding" when it comes to these 2 books.

[Zguy28]

I think the problem w/ the Gnostic Gospels is that you have books like The Gospel of Thomas, Mary, etc and some uninformed people can look at or read these books like they are some sort of "secret" info that was kept hidden from the public. I know I fell into this trap before I read The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith and other books dealing with the authenticity of the Canon/Bible.Absolutely.

I love the "secret gospel" which talks about the talking lion who wanted to be baptized. ;)

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. 10For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.


~ The Apostle Paul (Galatians 1) emphasis mine

[Fred Jones]

I'm actually very interested to hear about this, despite my smart ass comment earlier, which I apologize for.

Your asking a big question with a long explanation. Here are some more quotes from various books.

The first one is an opinion by one person.

"Jesus tells people that he is the Son of Man. He is, as we all are, sons of man and God. He is God’s son as I am God’s son, but his destiny is to bring light in a greater way than we could. He is closer to his final destiny. Jesus is almost to the point where we all strive. He is the next closest thing to perfection. Unlike us, Jesus has learned his lessons and he has followed his path to its completion. He shall be perfect. It was his choice to come once again in order to give this light to people. He did not have to come back. It has been said that he will return, but for what purpose who knows."

From a different source and different book from another point of view.

" God is not greater than us. GOD is us, each one of us. GOD is the thread that connects our Hearts. GOD is the spark of our imagination. GOD is the grief, the Love, the pain, the Joy of our simple and complex existence. God is the Great Consciousness, the Great Compassion, the Loving Presence that encompasses all. God is everything. GOD is the great Love. The Source of all Love and Light.

I AM THAT I AM. I am everything. I am nothing. I am GOD."

From the same source, and one of the many ways of looking that everyone has a soul. When you read this, it is an interpretation, a view point. Just like the churches of the world present their viewpoint at their specific location. :

"As souls, we are striving towards our mastery, which means clearing all that gets in the way of being Pure Light, or GOD.
When we are born into human bodies, we slowly forget our soul missions. We interpret our mother’s abandonment (if even to go get food or use the restroom) as an abandonment of the Light which we were. We interpret her absence and name it without words, as the absence of Love, which we have forgotten is everywhere available to us.
We feel the emptiness and we begin to want to fill it with at first food and another’s human Love, and then things and pride and monetary success and more.
The greater the emptiness perceived, the more we attempt to fill it, ironically, with that which will never fill it, no matter how hard we try.
And so it goes on. We begin to vie for power, for recognition. We judge others for not having or being what we have or have become.
We forget that we are and have always been of Grace, of GOD’s Light. We forget that simply by being, we are that I AM THAT I AM.

We blame the darkness. We say there is evil. There is no darkness or evil. There is only the absence, the amnesia, of Light, of Grace, or our Hearts being fully in Love.

Why can’t we recognize we are Light? Why do we have to go through all of this to come to the same place where we began?

Because we are human. There is a richness to our learning. Without the despair, loneliness, anger, fear, guilt, pride – without all of it – we are only Light and always Light. We have not thus enriched the Light.
The complexity, the richness of the human psyche, craves these hard lessons, craves to know all experience, as does Source. Along with these hard lessons though, we also have the eyes to see, ears to hear, voices to speak and sing the praises of the beauty in detail of this miraculous planet.
And even in our guilt, anguish, shame, fears, especially our fears – in all manners of our being, no matter where we are, no matter how “high” or how “low” we judge ourselves – we are held in GOD’s love.
There is not one moment when any one of us is not held in GOD’s Love, when we are not an integral part of that Love.
We are here to Love but also to play out our mistakes, our karma, our questions, our personalities. We are here to learn. Humans love to learn. Light Beings love to learn, also, but there is so much less to experience in a place where all is Light, except vicariously through Human and other species – other planetary beings – from the larger view.
As souls evolve, there is a processing and cleansing which creates a rising of consciousness that ripples throughout humanity, raising the vibrations of the planet and all universes.
When we as humans come to a certain point, we then want to teach and help and give of ourselves. This is part of that higher vibration."

One of the things Yeshua taught was that everyone can evolve into what he became. And yes, Magdalen was his great love, but that is another story.

I have to head out. If you read and call bull, no problem. Like I said, I am not trying to change anything. Just present what I believe to be accurate. Even the writings above are presented from the viewpoint of man and must be interpreted.

[techboy]

Note to all: I have several copies of The Case for Christ, the book mentioned above, and will happily send one to anyone that asks, totally free of charge.

I've done so for several people on the site over the years, and would be happy to do so again. :)


Your asking a big question with a long explanation. Here are some more quotes from various books.

You need to lay your cards on the table. You've been quoting a lot of stuff. What books are you getting this from? What are your sources?

[Mickalino]

More info on Kenneth Copeland?

http://www.equip.org/articles/what-s-wrong-with-the-word-faith-movement-part-one-

http://www.equip.org/articles/what-s-wrong-with-the-word-faith-movement-part-two-

There is nothing convincing in those writings to prove that Copeland is a false teacher. Just a lot of out-of-context scriptures, loosely and vaguely used to accuse and distort Copeland.
A true believer simply cannot sit down and watch Copeland and NOT accept what he says as truth, because everything he says is based on the Word. In fact, that is the centralization of his teaching - taking God at his Word, and not being influenced by any other thinking. The Bible says even our own natural way of thinking is corrupt and we need to renew our mind.

Personal attacks such as this website just simply further confirm that Copeland is doing God's work, because anyone who is truly doing God's work is going to draw attacks from the enemy (Satan and his demons, whose sole purpose is to attempt to thwart the Kingdom of God, manifesting themselves through men's thinking and causing them to verbally attack ministers of the Gospel). The greater work a man is doing for God, the greater the attack from the enemy. If a Christian or any Minister of God is not facing serious personal attacks on him, then he is not doing a great work, because he poses no serious threat to the devil, to cause the devil to coil back and thwart the ministry.