A few questions for Christians and others interested in commenting

[Muffled]

Too simplistic..
Would you say that G-d was not in control of Noah's flood?
Do you not think that G-d can "send us astray", as well as guide us?

NB. I don't mean in a 'wave a magic wand' sort of way, but psychologically, as G-d is of infinite concept

I believe sometimes it is hard to detect whether God is guiding us or some other spirit may be but most people seem to follow their lusts rather than their spirit guides.

 

[Muffled]

There's no evidence to support any of that. Yes, those who study it seriously tend to think the story refers to a localized flood, but that's not what the Bible says. And if it wiped out an ethnicity or few amd others came in this would be very visible and obvious to researchers but there's no evidence to support such a hypothesis.

Does it make more sense to intepret the Bible as saying there was a worldwide flood when scientific evidence is contrary or to interpret the Bible as talking about a local flood in agreement with science?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Does it make more sense to intepret the Bible as saying there was a worldwide flood when scientific evidence is contrary or to interpret the Bible as talking about a local flood in agreement with science?

It makes way more sense from nearly every angle to assume it refers to a localized flood. Flood stories are common around the world and we know flooding can be catastrophic but theres no geological or anthropological evidence for a global flood.
And that's before we get to the logistics and physics and biology of the story. That boat isn't sea worthy.

 

[JACC2312]

Thanks to @Rival for commenting on this matter some weeks ago. It gave me food for thought and led to my motivation for this thread.

1. Do you feel sufficiently aware of the role of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325?

The Council of Nicea was to address an important issue happening in the Eastern Church, Arrianism, a Doctrine that denied the Divinity of Jesus and stated by Arrius a cleric of the Church of Alexandria, he basically stated that Jesus was not of the same substance of God the Father but of a simmiral nature making him a little bit Not as God as God. The Bishop of Alexandría Saint Athanasius, demanded Arrius to regret and repent but Arrius doubled in his heresies, saint Athanasius had to removed him from his orders and evicted him from the church to not be allowed to celebrate the Eucharist and not to preach from the Churches pulpits, but Arrius found allies in some other heretic bishops as Eusebius of Nicomedia, and they got influence on the Emperor himself creating a bipartition in the Church between the Arrians and the Orthodox Catholics, the Issue passed from being a Local issue to a Regional Issue of the Church of the East due to the influence of the Emperor, But Saint Athanasius of Alexandria claimed help from Pope Julius I in Rome and the Pope ordered Arrius and Eusebius to get present in Rome to defend themselves on the Accusartions of Heresy, but obviously they denied and seek for protection from the Emperor. The Pope basically Requested Constantine to settle the issue in a Council, At the begining this council was to be held only for the East since there was where the heresy was spreading, Constantine called for the Council and the Pope sent a Legate, The bishop Ocio of Cordova from Spain to represent The Pope in that Council. The apostolic Faith was restablished and the Heretics were requested to repent and return to the Orthodox Faith or to be evicted from the empire. Some heretics repented others lied about rejecting arrianism but at the end of the Council the Creed foundations were stablished.

2. Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

Well there we have Jehowa's Withnesses or "Russellites" who despite having the bible and read it they simply rejec the truths stablished ther and deny the divinity of Jesus, so the difficulty of People to believe that the Almighty could Incarnate, Could become man, is always a pill hard to swallow for the ones that don't find reasons to believe. So yes, the very authorities of the Jewish people in the times of Jesus basically killed Jesus for naming himself Son of God. and thus did Arrius and Charles T Russell in USA, nothing new under the sky, right?

3. Do you view the Council as helpful for Christianity as a movement?

Yes, The faith of Peter that Jesus is the Son of God with all the implications related to that affirmation were strongly confirmed and declared as fundational for Christianity,

4. Do you view the Council as helpful for individual Christians as people in their own religious paths?

Yes, you cannot declare yourself a Christian if you do not believe the Lord to be actually God. God himself was the only one who could released us from the Law of Moses, God Himself had to stablish the New Covenant as promissed by the prophets. God himself suffers in his own flesh the consequences of our sins in order to save us, He shows us his Love and his commitment to us, that way we fall in debt with Him, but far from only being subjected by the force of his Almightiness we Fall in Love we surrended Ourselves to Him who loved us First. We then See God as he really is, he is not only the Ultimate unavoidable Fair Judge of our lives, But He is the Merciful Father awaiting our repantance and conversion. The Lord, God himself is the Face of the Mercy of the Father. That is the Relevance of the Confirmation of the revelation of the Divinity of Jesus.

5. Do you see any counterarguments, drawbacks, prices (unavoidable or otherwise) or silver linings that might somehow temperate the general positive or negative perceptions expressed in the previous two answers?

The only drawback is that materialistic people will always deny divinity or spirituality and to try to convince them otherwise is an impossible task and though they can believe in a Nice Jewish Preacher of 2000 years ago called Jesus who changed some Cultural religious traditions they would blantly reject any Divinization of that nice preacher. The easy way Islam spreads has a lot to do with that, they basically deny Jesus divinity and thus they simply regard him as a prophet, and add mohamed as a newer prophet with new doctrins. once you deny the divinity of Jesus then the Deffinitive character of his message is relativized to the dimension of a good fellow man, in stead to be regardad as God's word.

6. Do you believe or suspect that things might have turned out significantly differently in the Council or in a hypothetical comparable event with similar goals? How impactful in the long run do you believe that might turn out to be?

There was another Council, after Nicea, when the Arrians took over again on the emperor's heir and changed the Word "Same Substance" to replace it with "Similar Substance" again the Entire Church was put at challenge now the bishops of the West had to enter the Debate like Saint Hillarius of Poitiers France and many Hispanich Bishop entered to counter attack the heresies of that Fake Council of Constantinople, the dispute was settled with a Battle between the Sons of Constantine where the defendant of the catholic faith won and Restablished the order in the Church of the East. That Fake Council had to be Abolished and a new Council was called to confirm the Faith of the Council of Nicea, this second council is known as the First council of Constantinple,

7. How do you feel about the idea of heresy? How important do you feel the First Council of Nicaea was in shaping the concept and its significance? Do you wish, fear or wonder how different that might have turned out?

The councils do not have the function of "Introducing Novelty", the councils are to confirm the Catholic Faith and to expell heresies developing among the Christians, that is why Trento's Council didn't stablish anything new but rejected Protestant Heresies and confirmed the sacraments and the use of Images. Religion is always prone to Innovation, there you can see how many new movements of Spirituallity are born everyday, the councils then help the Christians to confirm their faith and reject spiritual dangerous doctrines.

I have my own views on the matter and commented on them often enough. I will reiterate them at some point in this thread as well, but not immediately.

Thanks in advance for anyone willing to answer.

I'll read further your statements.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

A few questions for Christians and others interested in commenting

(Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah never claimed to be G-d in first person, it is the Pauline anonymous narratives that have been doctored to be understood as such.
Bible , I understand, is a doctored Pauline anonymous document not worthy of making anybody a god or son of god:
Even as per the doctored and Pauline-fluid NT Bible hinted/cleared it in John 10:33-35.

So Bible coined a term to call those people ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came, i.e., all the righteous persons are sons of god, Jesus was no different as Jesus said that scripture cannot be set aside meaning it should be understood within these meanings.
So, it should be clearly understood that Trinity has no basis in (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah.

Regards

How many times are you going to keep asking the same question? They have answered you innumerable times. At this point, you should already have their answers memorized. That you don't is cause for concern.

 

[JACC2312]

A few questions for Christians and others interested in commenting

(Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah never claimed to be G-d in first person, it is the Pauline anonymous narratives that have been doctored to be understood as such.
Bible , I understand, is a doctored Pauline anonymous document not worthy of making anybody a god or son of god:
Even as per the doctored and Pauline-fluid NT Bible hinted/cleared it in John 10:33-35.

So Bible coined a term to call those people ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came, i.e., all the righteous persons are sons of god, Jesus was no different as Jesus said that scripture cannot be set aside meaning it should be understood within these meanings.
So, it should be clearly understood that Trinity has no basis in (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah.

Regards

Jesus saying about himself the title of God:

John 8:28 & 58

About the Unity between the Lord Jesus and The Father,

John 14:8-10

About the Revelation of The Lord Jesus on the Relation of The father, The Son and the Holy Spirit:

John 14:14-21

 

[metis]

I believe I was born into the family of God's choice which is predestination. What God does not change is my will within the situation He created for me.

Why would God predestine depravity and/or failure?

 

[I Am Hugh]

Thanks to @Rival for commenting on this matter some weeks ago. It gave me food for thought and led to my motivation for this thread.

1. Do you feel sufficiently aware of the role of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325?

Yes. I know that it was a politically motivated apostacy perpetuated by a pagan non-Christian.

2. Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

Of course. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

3. Do you view the Council as helpful for Christianity as a movement?

For the teachings of Christ it is opposed, preferring the pagan mythologies of the past and sociopolitical control. In other words, yes, the council is helpful for the modern-day apostate sociopolitical juggernaut it helped create.

4. Do you view the Council as helpful for individual Christians as people in their own religious paths?

If their path is truth and the teachings of Christ, no. If they wish to support a quasi-Christian utopia in the world they're not supposed to be a part of, which is to going to be destroyed by Jehovah God himself, yes.

5. Do you see any counterarguments, drawbacks, prices (unavoidable or otherwise) or silver linings that might somehow temperate the general positive or negative perceptions expressed in the previous two answers?

I don't know what you mean by that. There are always those things.

6. Do you believe or suspect that things might have turned out significantly differently in the Council or in a hypothetical comparable event with similar goals? How impactful in the long run do you believe that might turn out to be?

Other than the sociopolitical control it fostered I don't see the point in any such effort.

7. How do you feel about the idea of heresy? How important do you feel the First Council of Nicaea was in shaping the concept and its significance? Do you wish, fear or wonder how different that might have turned out?

Not really. Other than obfuscating the true teaching, it was incentivized by political, financial, social control. It wants power and money - control. That's what the modern-day church and its fake adherents, either in ignorance or tradition, want.

 

[Jimmy]

The council was great as it established Jesus as God in the flesh as Jesus clearly meant in his testimony.