Paul's definition of atonement?

[sojourner]

exactly, the creed states one thing (christ a begotten son) but then the complete opposite in the same sentence...


Anyone with an inquiring mind can see the tall tale being spun in this...not to mention the mental gymnastics required to make any sense of it

Anyone with a penchant for conspiracy theories might see a "tall tale."

Would you have God so comprehendible and understandable as to reduce God's substance of Being to "Jesus loves me?" It's a beautiful aphorism, but there's more to God than nursery rhyme.

 

[Tichan]

[FONT=&quot]
I know you have the Ebionites, but what makes you think that all of the Jewish Christians denied the Divinity of Christ?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
And what does this prove? What about the rest of the Church? What about the Christians at Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Philippi, Thessalonika, Corinth, Smyrnaea, Philadelphia, Persia, Caesarea and elsewhere?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

The apostolic Church was founded 40 days after the death of Jesus.


For the first three decades this Jewish Jesus sect known as the Nazarenes were almost all Orthodox Jews. They were the first Jewish Jesus Sect. Their differences back then differed less radically from the Pharisees than Catholics versus Protestantism today.


The first fifteen Bishops were all circumcised and the congregation that they presided united the Laws of Moses with the doctrines of Jesus.
They Apostolic Church did not possess the Epistles of Paul or the four Gospels as they had not been written yet.
The Apostolic Church had no concept of a resurrected Christ. He was viewed not as a divine being but as the anointed one the rightful King of Israel who would one day help liberate the land from the giant oppressor of the world which was the Roman Empire.
The Nazarenes remained devoted to the Jewish Law as Jesus has been.

The only difference between the Nazarenes and the Pharisees was that the Nazarenes had believed that the Messiah had arrived while the Pharisees were still waiting for one.
Peter was the head of the Apostolic Church for the first two decades (30-50) Ad.
James the brother of Jesus then became the head of the Apostolic church .

The Epistles of James written in 45 AD reflect Apostolic thinking and not a Pauline one that preached salvation through the cross.
The Nazarenes held readings from the old Testament prayed the same prayers as the Jews and observed the same festivals.

These are the dates when the epistles where written

First Thessalonians 52 AD Second Thessalonians 52 AD First Corinthians 57 AD Second Corinthians 57 AD Galatians 55-57 AD Romans 57-58 AD Ephesians 62 AD Philippians 62 AD Colossians 62 AD Philemon 63 AD Hebrews 64-65 AD Titus 64-65 AD First Timothy 64-65 AD Second Timothy 66-67 AD
The Epistles of Paul were written more than 20 years after the foundation of the Apostolic Church and the Nazarenes.

The Gospels were written way over 30 years after the original Church was founded

Mark's Gospel was written in the late 60s or very early in the 70s CE.

Matthew's Gospel is generally considered to have been written in the 80s CE.

Luke's Gospel was written in the 90s CE

John's Gospel is considered to have been written in the late 90s CE

 

[Shiranui117]

But it says he is the son of God. By definition, a son is different from the father correct? So it says that he is different from God, and the same as God at the same time right?

The Son is not the Father, true. This is the Sabellian heresy. The Son and the Father are distinct Persons, but their being consubstantial--the Trinity is three distinct hypostases in one ousia--makes them one God. The Son=/=the Father=/=the Holy Spirit. But the Father=God, the Son=God, and the Holy Spirit=God.

The Son is not different from God; He is God. The Father is also God. The Son is different from the Father, not different from God.

 

[sojourner]

The apostolic Church was founded 40 days after the death of Jesus.

Uh...
It's 50 days. Hint: That's why it's called Pentecost.

For the first three decades this Jewish Jesus sect known as the Nazarenes were almost all Orthodox Jews. They were the first Jewish Jesus Sect. Their differences back then differed less radically from the Pharisees than Catholics versus Protestantism today.


The first fifteen Bishops were all circumcised and the congregation that they presided united the Laws of Moses with the doctrines of Jesus.
They Apostolic Church did not possess the Epistles of Paul or the four Gospels as they had not been written yet.
The Apostolic Church had no concept of a resurrected Christ. He was viewed not as a divine being but as the anointed one the rightful King of Israel who would one day help liberate the land from the giant oppressor of the world which was the Roman Empire.
The Nazarenes remained devoted to the Jewish Law as Jesus has been.

The only difference between the Nazarenes and the Pharisees was that the Nazarenes had believed that the Messiah had arrived while the Pharisees were still waiting for one.
Peter was the head of the Apostolic Church for the first two decades (30-50) Ad.
James the brother of Jesus then became the head of the Apostolic church .

The Epistles of James written in 45 AD reflect Apostolic thinking and not a Pauline one that preached salvation through the cross.
The Nazarenes held readings from the old Testament prayed the same prayers as the Jews and observed the same festivals.

These are the dates when the epistles where written

First Thessalonians 52 AD Second Thessalonians 52 AD First Corinthians 57 AD Second Corinthians 57 AD Galatians 55-57 AD Romans 57-58 AD Ephesians 62 AD Philippians 62 AD Colossians 62 AD Philemon 63 AD Hebrews 64-65 AD Titus 64-65 AD First Timothy 64-65 AD Second Timothy 66-67 AD
The Epistles of Paul were written more than 20 years after the foundation of the Apostolic Church and the Nazarenes.

The Gospels were written way over 30 years after the original Church was founded

Mark's Gospel was written in the late 60s or very early in the 70s CE.

Matthew's Gospel is generally considered to have been written in the 80s CE.

Luke's Gospel was written in the 90s CE

John's Gospel is considered to have been written in the late 90s CE

What's your point? That Xy should be kept in stasis -- under glass? That it shouldn't change and evolve and adapt to its surroundings, like any other organism? If that were the case, it wouldn't be a living faith, now would it?

 

[Shiranui117]

The apostolic Church was founded 40 days after the death of Jesus.

Actually, it was founded 50 days after, 10 days after Jesus' Ascension, on Pentecost, at the descent of the Holy Spirit.

For the first three decades this Jewish Jesus sect known as the Nazarenes were almost all Orthodox Jews. They were the first Jewish Jesus Sect. Their differences back then differed less radically from the Pharisees than Catholics versus Protestantism today.

Three decades? It was one or two decades at best, before they started evangelizing to the Gentiles as well.

The first fifteen Bishops were all circumcised and the congregation that they presided united the Laws of Moses with the doctrines of Jesus.

And when the Gentiles started coming in, they decided to not make the Law of Moses binding on the Gentiles.

They Apostolic Church did not possess the Epistles of Paul or the four Gospels as they had not been written yet.

This is true.

The Apostolic Church had no concept of a resurrected Christ.

I hate to burst your bubble, but if Christ was not resurrected, then the Apostles wouldn't have been preaching. Even while Christ was in the tomb, they were all packing up and getting ready to go home. Jesus had been crucified, humiliated before all of Judaea, and everyone was mocking him as a false Christ and had wanted Him dead. The Apostles had absolutely nothing to preach if Christ had not risen from the dead; they would have just been disciples of a dead, disgraced teacher, trying pathetically to carry on whatever of His teachings that people would listen to.

He was viewed not as a divine being but as the anointed one the rightful King of Israel who would one day help liberate the land from the giant oppressor of the world which was the Roman Empire.

How could He do that if He was dead?

The Nazarenes remained devoted to the Jewish Law as Jesus has been.

The Jewish Christians may have been, but they did not make this binding on the incoming Gentiles.

The only difference between the Nazarenes and the Pharisees was that the Nazarenes had believed that the Messiah had arrived while the Pharisees were still waiting for one.

That's a pretty big difference. One big enough for Christian blood to be shed over.

Peter was the head of the Apostolic Church for the first two decades (30-50) Ad.
James the brother of Jesus then became the head of the Apostolic church .

Over the Church at Jerusalem, yes. The Church also had its own centers at Caesarea and Antioch and elsewhere with their own heads.

The Epistles of James written in 45 AD reflect Apostolic thinking and not a Pauline one that preached salvation through the cross.

And what do you make of the Epistles of St. Peter, which do preach salvation through the death and Resurrection of Christ?

These are the dates when the epistles where written

Alright, and the Torah was first written down waaaayyyyy after Moses' time. Your point?

The Gospels were written way over 30 years after the original Church was founded

So what, are you going to throw out the Gospels, too?

 

[Tichan]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]What grounds do you have for this? Constantine didn't care what decision the Church made, nor (as you yourself said) was he educated enough. Why would 318 bishops who were educated and informed by the Apostolic Tradition hand over the decision to someone who didn't even know what he was talking about? Your story makes no sense.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
So you're implying that the Fathers accepted the Creed just so they could stay in town and go to a stupid party? WOW.

[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

When Constantine became the Emperor of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, his vast territory was populated by a disorderly mass of beliefs and religions. By the third century we have something called Christianity with its own sacred books, its own rituals, its own ideas.
The Roman Empire now wakes up and realizes that there is something new and are threatening the social order and ultimately the political order of the Empire.

The Romans tried to beat down Christianity but failed. By the fourth century Christianity becomes the state religion and by the end of the fourth century it is illegal to do any form of public worship other than Christianity in the entire Roman Empire.
Within this young religion, there was also dissent, with one major question threatening to cleave the popular cult — as it was at the time — into warring factions: Was Jesus divine, and how?


In 325 ad Constantine was forced to take action to quell the controversy.
That summer, 318 bishops from across the empire were invited to the Turkish town of Nicea, in an attempt to find common ground on what historians now refer to as the Arian Controversy. It was the first ever worldwide gathering of the Church.



It was decided then the Christianity as we know it today resulting and agreeing and including the timing of the religion's most important holiday, Easter.

Christianity was young and still working out the quarks when Constantine took power over the Roman Empire in A.D. 306. Christian doctrine at the time was muddled and inconsistent, especially when it came to the central question of Jesus' relationship to God
Jesus was as eternally divine as the Father, said one camp led by the Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria. Another group, named the Arians after their leader Arius the preacher, saw Jesus as a remarkable leader, but inferior to the Father and lacking in absolute divinity.

The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly

The Council declared that the son was true God, co-eternal with the Father and begotten from His same substance and down from the Apostles.

This was far from the truth and from the early Apostolic Church.

 

[Shiranui117]

When Constantine became the Emperor of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, his vast territory was populated by a disorderly mass of beliefs and religions. By the third century we have something called Christianity with its own sacred books, its own rituals, its own ideas.
The Roman Empire now wakes up and realizes that there is something new and are threatening the social order and ultimately the political order of the Empire.

The Romans tried to beat down Christianity but failed. By the fourth century Christianity becomes the state religion and by the end of the fourth century it is illegal to do any form of public worship other than Christianity in the entire Roman Empire.
Within this young religion, there was also dissent, with one major question threatening to cleave the popular cult — as it was at the time — into warring factions: Was Jesus divine, and how?

In 325 ad Constantine was forced to take action to quell the controversy.
That summer, 318 bishops from across the empire were invited to the Turkish town of Nicea, in an attempt to find common ground on what historians now refer to as the Arian Controversy.

Believe me, I'm quite well-acquainted with Church history...

It was the first ever worldwide gathering of the Church.

Aside from the Council of Jerusalem.

Jesus was as eternally divine as the Father, said one camp led by the Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria.

It's ATHANASIUS of Alexandria, not "Alexander"...

Another group, named the Arians after their leader Arius the preacher, saw Jesus as a remarkable leader, but inferior to the Father and lacking in absolute divinity.

The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly

The Council declared that the son was true God, co-eternal with the Father and begotten from His same substance and down from the Apostles.

This was far from the truth and from the early Apostolic Church.

Then tell me, why, if the Arian position was the true one, how and why was it so roundly condemned and anathemized by everyone? Arius actually had supporters among 22 bishops, but only because they didn't know what he was preaching. When they heard his teachings on Christ, they turned their backs on Arius immediately.

It is inconceivable that the Truth would ever be totally subverted.

Arius's teacher was Lucian of Antioch, whose teacher was Paul of Samosata, who was a Sabellian (the heresy that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are merely "masks" of God between which He switches). Either Lucian reacted against the teachings of his mentor and went to the other extreme of teaching Arius to deny that the Son is truly God, or Arius reacted against the teachings of his grandmaster and made the denial. So it isn't like Arius had an unbroken line of teachers going back to the Apostles that taught Arianism. It started either with him or with Lucian.

 

[Tichan]

Uh...
It's 50 days. Hint: That's why it's called Pentecost.

What's your point? That Xy should be kept in stasis -- under glass? That it shouldn't change and evolve and adapt to its surroundings, like any other organism? If that were the case, it wouldn't be a living faith, now would it?

My point is that the true teachings of Jesus had nothing do with with Paul Mystical Christ religion that Paul invented.

Paul commit the murder of Stephen the Martyr, a man who had been appointed by James, the brother of Jesus to coordinate food relief to starving people at the beginning of the great famine.

Render the Gnostic teachings of Jesus and the Nazarenes ineffective by producing a counter religion claiming to be the only true faith that focuses on simplistic symbolism, conformity and a hatred of knowledge.

 

[sojourner]

My point is that the true teachings of Jesus had nothing do with with Paul Mystical Christ religion that Paul invented.

Paul commit the murder of Stephen the Martyr, a man who had been appointed by James, the brother of Jesus to coordinate food relief to starving people at the beginning of the great famine.

Render the Gnostic teachings of Jesus and the Nazarenes ineffective by producing a counter religion claiming to be the only true faith that focuses on simplistic symbolism, conformity and a hatred of knowledge.

Great. Another conspiracy theorist.

Why, if Paul was soooo eeeeviiiill, was he accepted by the Jerusalem Church, and why were the Judaic xtians so willing to have Gentiles among them,not following the Law? Seems that the first apostles were far more accepting of Paul than you are. Why is that?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Great. Another conspiracy theorist.

Why, if Paul was soooo eeeeviiiill, was he accepted by the Jerusalem Church, and why were the Judaic xtians so willing to have Gentiles among them,not following the Law? Seems that the first apostles were far more accepting of Paul than you are. Why is that?

Compared to the others didnt Paul have more pull in terms of being a Roman citizen

And very well educated?

 

[sojourner]

Compared to the others didnt Paul have more pull in terms of being a Roman citizen

And very well educated?

I don't know what, specifically, you mean by "pull." With whom? For what purpose?

Paul would have been well-educated, as he could read and write.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I don't know what, specifically, you mean by "pull." With whom? For what purpose?

Paul would have been well-educated, as he could read and write.

Meaning he was a more effective communicator. And people would listen to him over others. You see that today with politicians.

 

[sojourner]

Meaning he was a more effective communicator. And people would listen to him over others. You see that today with politicians.

I think Paul was an excellent communicator; we see that by his letters. Whether or not people would listen to him because of his Roman citizenship? Not sure -- but not convinced by any stretch, either.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think Paul was an excellent communicator; we see that by his letters. Whether or not people would listen to him because of his Roman citizenship? Not sure -- but not convinced by any stretch, either.

Well his Roman citizenship would allow him.to travel compared to those who were not

 

[Shiranui117]

Well his Roman citizenship would allow him.to travel compared to those who were not

St. Thomas went to Persia and India, St. Peter went to Antioch and Rome, for two very easy and well-known examples. The rest of the Apostles did much the same. St. Paul wasn't the only one traveling around.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

St. Thomas went to Persia and India, St. Peter went to Antioch and Rome, for two very easy and well-known examples. The rest of the Apostles did much the same. St. Paul wasn't the only one traveling around.

Yes but Paul would have had a lot easier time traveling, it would also be harder to arrest him without giving him trial.

He may not be the only one who traveled but his ability to travel due to being s Roman citizen would have stretched out further than the others

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes but Paul would have had a lot easier time traveling, it would also be harder to arrest him without giving him trial.

He may not be the only one who traveled but his ability to travel due to being s Roman citizen would have stretched out further than the others

How would it have "stretched out further", exactly? The other Apostles were just as well travelled as St. Paul.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

How would it have "stretched out further", exactly? The other Apostles were just as well travelled as St. Paul.

Really I was taught growing up that Paul traveled the most out of the apostles

 

[sojourner]

Travel was not particularly restricted at that time.

 

[nash8]

How far along was did Paul come after Jesus' death?

What if Jesus didn't really die, and his ressurection was purely physical. And he lived out his days moving secretly about, and spreading his beliefs through his apostles. I would wager to say it wouldn't be that hard to go unnoticed during that time period.

What if Paul met the "ressurected" Jesus and thus his change in philosophy towards Christians?

No actual evidence for this claim. But when I think of of stories about what really happen with Jesus, I alway come to the question of what you do when you don't want to get caught doing something bad, you get rid of the evidence right?

So what would you do if you formed a false religion around a real person in order to unite religious beliefs under your control. Then I think how much could you cover up with more than 1000 years of almost absolute power. Where you had the power to kill people who spoke, or had records of the truth about this persons true life. Then I think about how most people couldn't write, so oral records of the truth would be the most common. Then I think about how much things change through a 10 person telephone game. How much could they change over a 2000 year telphone game, where you ran the risk of dying if you tried to speak or distribute the truth (a very dangerous telephone game lol).