Contemplative Cat
energy formation
So you must believe in only the Christianity approved by Romans. As if they had authority to interpret Christs words. Apostle John is turning in his grave.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
can you proove there isn't a deity?
- Thread starter kloth
- Start date
So you must believe in only the Christianity approved by Romans. As if they had authority to interpret Christs words. Apostle John is turning in his grave.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
So far as I can determine I only got 22.3% of the memo -- the rest being pawed apart and nibbled into nothing by my neighbor's calico cat who mistook it for a slice of American cheese. But, happily, my salvaged scrap was the creamiest portion and so I actually received a full 55% of the memo's essential meaning.
On top of all that, my calculator fell into the brocolli soup which my neighbor brought as compensation for the calico thing and now all my numbers are off. Can you just give me the headlines? How much variance in the Bible's essential doctrine -- rounded to two decimal places or so?
Contemplative Cat
energy formation
The council of nicea in Rome decided what
Christians could beleive, its motivations are well known.
"How can we twist Christs words to benefit the Roman state, the rejection of esoteric forms of Christianity is an attempt to control the common man with his faith, like Romans often did with many previous religions.
Christians could beleive, its motivations are well known.
"How can we twist Christs words to benefit the Roman state, the rejection of esoteric forms of Christianity is an attempt to control the common man with his faith, like Romans often did with many previous religions.
Actually it was mainly about Arianism. More importantly, it decided a tiny handful of issues, not "what Christians could believe". It didn't determine the canon (the "official" list of books included in the bible) or even settle the issue of Arianism.
The "words of Christ" were the problem and the were not twisted for any Roman benefit. The central issue began as early as John (perhaps earlier) and continued long after Nicaea. It concerned Jesus' nature. Arius asserted that God the father existed before Jesus and that Jesus' was of a lesser, different "substance" than God the father. However, in John we find "I and the father are one". But elsewhere we find statements which indicate that Jesus is not co-equal with the father. Nicaea didn't even resolve this Christological issue, let alone have any impact on the words in Christian texts (or which texts would be included in the bible and which wouldn't).
...were never part of Nicaea or really a concern of any councils. Rather, those like Marcion, Valentinus, the Sethians, etc., were countered through publications such as Irenaeus' Adversus haereses.
The term "gnostic" is largely a modern one and mostly a mistake. First, gnostikos ("gnostic"), although it existed in antiquity and was used to describe some people, beliefs, and/or groups now usually called "gnostics", the people who applied the term were heresiologists like Irenaeus, not the people now usually called "gnostics". In other words, to the extent "gnostics" (gnostikoi) existed as a category in early Christianity, we have no evidence that they used this label to describe themselves. Second, the label is used inconsistently even by heresiologists. Third, most groups, persons, beliefs, etc., categorized today as "gnostic" were never called "gnostics" by anyone. Fourth, there is disagreement over which groups/persons/beliefs were gnostic and which weren't (including some who argue the term is anachronistic and not only inaccurate but very misleading).
Most heresies in the first centuries of Christianity were dealt with by biships and other Church leaders, through texts arguing against specific "heresies", and through deliberate schisms "esoteric" Christians imposed themselves. The councils, from Nicaea all the way to Trent and beyond, never dealt with "esoteric Christianities" as
1) Many "gnostics" weren't Christian
2) Those that were frequently separated themselves from more mainstream Christianity and Ecclesiastical structures
3) Those that were addressed by the Church through "official" channels didn't concern Rome
4) The Emperors couldn't care less about pockets of groups like the Sethians, Carpocratians, Valentinians, etc., because they posed no threat to the empire. One of the side-effects of claiming secret, special knowledge or promoting radical lifestyles is that you will tend either not to attract many followers, deliberately limit followers, or both. Arius wasn't proposing esoteric notions, but threatening Christianity as monotheism while promoting ideas about the nature of both God and Jesus that were too close to mainstream conceptions for comfort. The first councils concerned the nature of Jesus in relation to god the father and then in relation to the holy spirit.
They really didn't. In fact, there is probably no time in or place in history in which a greater number of diverse religious practices existed in one "place" (i.e., the Roman empire).
Contemplative Cat
energy formation
Its because they didn't care what God the Romans prayed to as long as they were loyal to Rome.
the counsel of Nicaea listed over a hundred herasies that Christians simply were no longer aloud to believe. Such as reincarnation, the immanence doctrine,, the archons which made up Christian theology,which was replaced with Hebrew theology.
The ideas of pleroma, Sophia, gnosis are all almost unheard of by people who have ears to hear.
Christs message is clearly not on track with the Torah and shouldn't be interpreted in a Hebrew Torah.
Christ preached the one True God(the cause of the apparent universe, the highest possible princible), not some tribal deity from the middle east.
That is what gentiles do.
The very idea of a deity being the one trueGod is silly because if he was God then he would be the only one.
The god in the old testament, and the Koran, is an imposter, an angel(a very powerful but ultimately finite creation) that dares come down to fool men into thinking he is God, this creature-creation is Satan.
The angel who arrogantly claims he is God.
Jesus says you can tell a false prophet by their fruits:
These false prphets calling themselves church authority has instigated countless wars, witch burning, persecution and many various forms of unrightiousness.
But Gnostic kept to themselves and did not commit these acts, just like the many people who have a beleif in an all pervading divinity, see the spirit in all, many become vegitarians, love animals, smile, and are in general kinder than most. Evn to the point of becomeing soft and cushy. A general love for all beings.
Jesus tells us how to judge religion in Mathew
The false religions spread hateful messages, but a true religions all about Love.
the counsel of Nicaea listed over a hundred herasies that Christians simply were no longer aloud to believe. Such as reincarnation, the immanence doctrine,, the archons which made up Christian theology,which was replaced with Hebrew theology.
The ideas of pleroma, Sophia, gnosis are all almost unheard of by people who have ears to hear.
Christs message is clearly not on track with the Torah and shouldn't be interpreted in a Hebrew Torah.
Christ preached the one True God(the cause of the apparent universe, the highest possible princible), not some tribal deity from the middle east.
That is what gentiles do.
The very idea of a deity being the one trueGod is silly because if he was God then he would be the only one.
The god in the old testament, and the Koran, is an imposter, an angel(a very powerful but ultimately finite creation) that dares come down to fool men into thinking he is God, this creature-creation is Satan.
The angel who arrogantly claims he is God.
Jesus says you can tell a false prophet by their fruits:
These false prphets calling themselves church authority has instigated countless wars, witch burning, persecution and many various forms of unrightiousness.
But Gnostic kept to themselves and did not commit these acts, just like the many people who have a beleif in an all pervading divinity, see the spirit in all, many become vegitarians, love animals, smile, and are in general kinder than most. Evn to the point of becomeing soft and cushy. A general love for all beings.
Jesus tells us how to judge religion in Mathew
The false religions spread hateful messages, but a true religions all about Love.
roger1440
I do stuff
Where can I get this list? Do you have a link? I never heard of this list.
Contemplative Cat
energy formation
Just Google it, you wont miss it
roger1440
I do stuff
I missed it. Please send a link
That's very true (except for the "god" part, as to worship only one god was to be an atheist).
Do you know what are sources for this council are?
The single most important result of Nicaea was the verdict homoousios or "same substance" (that Jesus and god the father were of the same substance, contra Arianism). The first place we find this term used is by Valentinian gnostics.
As there were no gnostics until the term was anachronistically applied to diverse (even contradicting) religious movements/groups, it would be hard for "them" to do anything. However, while some gnostic groups drew on neoplatonism, others drew on Judiasm. Some rejected the idea of a single, true god, while others attest to a radical cosmology in which the one true god is not the creator of this world (and borrowed the Platonic demiurge reinterpreted in the light of anti-Jewish sentiments).
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matt. 5:17
Which religions?
Contemplative Cat
energy formation
Try Wikipedia I'm on a smart phone.
But I forgot to add the counsel of constantinople also made a few haresies.
When it was all said and done there ended up being 230 something herasies.
these Herasies are ideas Romans said Christians
could no longer believe.
But I forgot to add the counsel of constantinople also made a few haresies.
When it was all said and done there ended up being 230 something herasies.
these Herasies are ideas Romans said Christians
could no longer believe.
I don't need Wikipedia.
Grant, R. M. (1975). Religion and politics at the council at Nicaea. The Journal of Religion, 55(1), 1-12.
Ulrich, J. (1997). Nicaea and the West. Vigiliae christianae, 10-24
Mullen, R. L. (2004). The Expansion of Christianity: A Gazetteer of Its First Three Centuries (Vol. 69 of Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae). Brill Academic Publishers.
Lieu, S. N., & Montserrat, D. (Eds.). (2002). Constantine: history, historiography and legend. Routledge.
Ayres, L. (2004). Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford University Press.
Behr, J. (2007). Response to Ayres: The Legacies of Nicaea, East and West. Harvard Theological Review, 100(2), 145.
Kelhoffer, J. A. (2011). The Search for Confessors at the Council of Nicaea. Journal of Early Christian Studies, 19(4), 589-599.
and so on.
I have plenty of information (including the original Greek texts of Theodoret, Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, Cyril, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.).
And I have plenty on Gnosticism:
Scholem, G. G. (1960). Jewish gnosticism, Merkabah mysticism, and Talmudic tradition. Jewish theological seminary of America.
Williams, M. A. (1996). Rethinking" Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Turner, J. D., & Majercik, R. D. (Eds.). (2000). Gnosticism and Later Platonism: Themes, Figures, and Texts (no. 12 of SBL Symposium Series). Society of Biblical Literature.
Rasimus, T. (2009). Paradise reconsidered in Gnostic mythmaking: rethinking Sethianism in light of the Ophite evidence (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies). Brill.
Brakke, D. (2010). The Gnostics: myth, ritual, and diversity in early Christianity. Harvard University Press.
What I don't have is any indication of where you are coming from (at least from a historical perspective).
Contemplative Cat
energy formation
Cool, but then you don't need Wikipedia.
Wikiedia serves as an introduction to topics and ideas.
If someone asks for some sort of literature online, try Wikipedia, and go from there.
Wikiedia serves as an introduction to topics and ideas.
If someone asks for some sort of literature online, try Wikipedia, and go from there.
Contemplative Cat
energy formation
The hidden Gospel of john,
the Gospel of Thomas.
the Gospel of Mathew
And Gnosis if meditation(nondual experience)
Gnostics explain through theology, that the creature in the sky is not God but an imposter who subjegates humankind.
The one true God, (the Christ) is found within. And experienced personally by faithful, the holy spirit.
the Gospel of Thomas.
the Gospel of Mathew
And Gnosis if meditation(nondual experience)
Gnostics explain through theology, that the creature in the sky is not God but an imposter who subjegates humankind.
The one true God, (the Christ) is found within. And experienced personally by faithful, the holy spirit.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I believe in the Christianity found in the bible. It has nothing to do with Rome and was completely in contradiction to Gnosticism. The worst you could say is it was written with a Hellenistic style. I deny Rome had any mandate or ability to interpret anything as a group. I think Roman Catholicism had more negative impact on Christianity than any other force.
However none of this is the issue. If the Bible says anything, it makes it very clear humans are extremely fallible and that out of our hearts and minds constant evil comes. We are to rely completely on God's word not our own. Gnosticisms very core tenant is a reliance on the knowledge of men. It is the same as all false religions. It is man's attempts to reach God through special (but man produced) knowledge, reflection on ones self (this is in effect to reflect on the problem instead of the solution), secret traditions, works, or effort. They are all man's attempt to reach God who is an infinite distance away and men have no way to cross the divide. Christianity is God's attempt to reach man, only he can cross an infinite divide because only he is infinite.
If I was to make a theological message that was the opposite in its core claims to the Gospels but still wanted to include Christ to achieve credibility by association, I would have created something very close to the GOT. Gnostics many times claimed to be associated with all manner of accepted religions yet coughed up messages completely contradictory to them.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Yeah all those hospitals, all those public school systems, famine relief, medicine, the most generous demographic in history, the most powerful prosperous and benevolent nations in history, and many of the greatest scientific thinkers in history are really detriments when compared to the atheistic utopias like the USSR and North Korea.
God help us when we no longer can recognize good as good and evil as evil.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
At least 90% of my claims ARE from actual biblical scholars with PhD's and are published as much as anyone. I guess you never heard of DRs NT Wright, White, William Albright, Ehrman, Bruce Metzger, or Strauss. Your bombastic and arrogant claims are ruining your credibility with me. Too much more childish face palm garbage and displays of ignorance concerning scholarship clothed in superiority and no justification will exist to discuss anything with you.Your whole post is nonsense and has nothing ta all to do with REAL biblical scholarships
You have in no way refuted what I posted. You have shown apologetic bias though.
It is not a fact Jesus rose on the thrid day. That has no historicity.
Only Acts claims Paul met Jesus, Paul himslef makes no such claim :slap:
Learn real history, that is what scholarships address. Not apologetics like you.
I did not say what you (as usual) prescribed to me.
I said most NT scholars regardless what side of faith they are on agree with four principle historical event (among many more).
1. Jesus appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority. (Keep in mind that in this context it makes no difference if he actually had that authority).
2. He was killed on a cross by the Romans at Hebrew instigation.
3. His tomb was found empty.
4. Even his enemies admitted seeing him after death.
That is what I said is agreed to as historically certain. Not the resurrection. Those four things only.
I said the resurrection as the Gospels claim is the best explanation (by far) of these four facts.
Distorting and making up stuff attributed to a person who never said it is the hallmark of a failed argument.
One more sophomoric "slap" "face palm" or an emoticon used instead of an argument and I am done with you. I don't have time for that level of immaturity.
Now then.
Luke wrote acts. Luke was a physician that traveled extensively with Paul all the way until Paul disappears from history (probably killed in Rome). His narrative has been called by those who know a perfect history. Now what on God's green earth makes you think that in all that time Paul and Luke did not cover what occurred to Paul on his trip. It would have been among the most important and recounted tales of Paul's life. I did not say Paul wrote the account, nor does it matter. Paul's apostleship, his genuine relationship with Christ established on the road to Damascus, and his receiving revelation through the Holy Spirit were accepted by every apostles of Paul's day. IN fact Paul prevailed in every disagreement with the other apostles and wrote more of the NT than all of them combined. This just seems to be more of the same denial of the inconvenient by any means I see so often. For some reason the more rebellious against God a person is the more hostile towards Paul they become. That of it's self is evidence that Paul accurately represented God's message.
I have went back and looked at these recent posts. Both I and you claim to be competent in biblical scholarship, though you made a bigger deal out of it by throwing around names of respected schools. Why then do my posts contain almost all the scholars names used, quotes by some of the greatest scholars, the methodology used in textual criticism, the evidence involved in my claims, and the conclusions of NT scholars on the whole. Your posts have been nothing beyond unjustified assertions (most of which are known to be wrong, or both irrelevant and wrong). Not what I would have expected from anyone with even a familiarity with biblical textual criticism.
outhouse
Atheistically
Nonsense
You posted a few apologetic scholars that are not credible, and you post a few laywers that have been dead for what, 150 years?
Published means nothing in the real world of history, Earl Doherty has his books published and he claims Jesus was mythical.
Nonsense.
Jesus existed in Nazareth and made at least one trip to Jerusalem where he was placed on a cross by Romans.
The rest is all wish and want, and has no historicity.
No divine aspect of any kind has historicity.
If you quit embarrassing yourself,I would quit using these faces.
Possibly.
But that is not who wrote the books attributed to luke.
The author is unknown.
Nonsesne
Then quit posting nonsense
START posting sources instead! like this.
Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to the majority view, the evidence against Luke's being the author is strong enough that the author is unknown.
what part of MAJORITY VIEW dont you understand?
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
The greatest atrocities or evils of man are those that have been done in the name of religion. A few good deeds does not make up for a thousand years of evil in the name of religion
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I get the distinct impression you lack sincerity and any knowledge base for your claims. Combined with juvenile taunts and not even the attempt at justifying your hyperbolic assertions and I can no longer justify this discussion at this time. Have a good one.
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
I am proudly non-religious. Hypothetically speaking, if everything went according to your God's original plan, we would all still be living happily in the Garden of Eden. What religion would we have then? No religion. That's the way God would have wanted us to live, so that's how I choose to live...non-religiously.