the right religion

[Heathen Hammer]

Promotes it, obviously not. It'd go against the authorized Christian theology. Just pointing out the passages from winch the claim is derived. Any other support is non-biblical so didn't see much point in bringing it up.

Ah, ok,... I was a bit confused for a bit as to what your take on it actually was...

This is what I suspect most people feel until they do. People do, but your attachment support my view anyway.

But I will not, there will be no 'until I do' after part. At that point I assume I'll be dead. And then anything is possible. But as long as I am capable of pondering it my personal identity is worth more than anything else, ever. There is no prize real nor conceived for which I would ever sacrifice it. The presumption that I would ever, under any circumstance, accept a tao-like philosophy that my self is unimportant, will, I guarantee you, never happen. Essentially such an idea is anathema to me.

Actually John the Baptist was thought to be the reincarnation of Elijah. The concept is within the passages mentioned. The understanding of John's disciples. Jesus gave no correction for this view. It's not promoted nor confirmed by Jesus in the Bible. Neither is it denied. I'm just pointing to the source of the argument not asking you to accept it's conclusion.

Hm, well, it's interesting.

 

[Nakosis]

Ah, ok,... I was a bit confused for a bit as to what your take on it actually was...
But I will not, there will be no 'until I do' after part. At that point I assume I'll be dead. And then anything is possible. But as long as I am capable of pondering it my personal identity is worth more than anything else, ever. There is no prize real nor conceived for which I would ever sacrifice it. The presumption that I would ever, under any circumstance, accept a tao-like philosophy that my self is unimportant, will, I guarantee you, never happen. Essentially such an idea is anathema to me.

I'm happy to accept the truth of that. My comments reflect my experiences with "stuff". I don't expect them to be universal.

In the theme of this thread, My opinion, the right religion is the one that is right for you. Some things I like in the Bible but I don't have a real vested interest in divine inerrancy. Still I like to argue some Christian concepts just to understand them better.

 

[1robin]

Of course it is an allegorical story. This does not rule out my points but supports them. If the story of Noah is allegorical it is not Literal .. it did not happen in reality.

I find it hard to believe that much unnecessary detail would be given in an allagory. However I will leave this one alone. If it is an allegory then your position is the same as the bible.

Jesus and James contradict Paul I have stated the verses to you previously and you have given no retort .. and there are numerous bona fide scholars that claim the same.

What? I gave you a harmony from Mathew Henry plus some others. I would say without looking that more commentaries will support harmony than contradiction. Sometimes issue seem to wind up in a war of the scholars and it's useless. Even if somehow it can be shown that they do not harmonize, I would feel more comfortable ignoreing James rather than Paul. His position is much more consistent with the biblical narrative, he wrote infinately more than James, was excepted by the apostles, we know much more about him, and a faith based salvation is the only workable option. If you try to sit down and invent or contemplate a system of justification based on works, the very first thing you must include is that Jesus's sacrifice is not suffecient. Secondly no matter how hard you try the faith based system has so many insurmountable issues it just can't work. How much work is enough? What about a person in a coma? What about the theif on the cross?, What about a death bed conversion? How is it possible to have an assurance of salvation?. How could I not boast in heaven? Etc.......

It took two seconds of searching on the internet get this info. Why have no not done this ? This was the first link on the list and I scanned it briefly. http://www.paulonhomosexuality.com/Enigma%20of%20Paul.pdf

I was interested in the ones you use. I know very well that some scholar or scholars somewhere can be found to support any side of any position. However all the scholars you can produce are less reliable than the apostles. The apostles are more qualified to judge Paul than any other human who ever lived (except Christ) they affirmed his apostleship and he contributed more than all the others put together, I believe. Christ who showed up and gave him his commission knew what he was doing. I trust them plus the hundreds of church leaders and theologians that have spent hundreds of years considering Paul and accept his apostleship. No liberal scholar you produce outweighs that. By the way my salvation experience and Christian walk has justified Paul.

This guy claims that few scholars take Paul seriously and many do not and he has loads of references.

He's wrong

As far as Constantine is concerned .. when he wants to put "homoosios" into the trinity doctrine Eusebius objects and so he exiles him.

When and at what council did constantine insist on the inclusion of trinity?

Eusebius evenually relents but it was forced .. Arius was killed and this sent a pretty clear message (and by the Emperor's own words .. mess with me and your in big trouble basically)

I remeber the story and believe there are actual documents from the council of Nicea in existance. Constantine was there but did not vote on anything. Were you suggesting Constantine arm twisted 1800 powerful bishops.

The role of Constantine
Main article: Constantine I and Christianity
While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible at the council that omitted books he did not approve of, although he did later commission Bibles. In fact, Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church.[62] This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons; under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others.[62
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The other council that dealt with the nature of Christ (I believe the council of constantanople. Declared Jesus Devinity with only two descensions.

Constantines only desire was unity, he was never a commited Christian. He was concerned with it's ability to provide unity primarily. His main desire was the establishment of a unified position he cared less which one it was.

The early Church fathers did not believe in the Trinity ..it was considered heresy in fact when Tertullian first introduced it round 200 AD.

The actual earliest church father Peter, John, etc... Did believe in Christs divinity. I disagree but will wait for your answer first before I address this. Well why then did the vast majority vote for it in 325, as well as the apostles affirming it in the prence of Christ himself? Your assertion that Constantine strong armed all the powerful Even if Constantine did introduce the trinity (I am sure not saying that he did) I realy don't care. When I was born again I was not considering the Trinity one way or the other. The core issue is if Jesus is necessary and the only way to heaven through faith which results in salvation. I don't care about trinities and quadrangles or quintuplets. I spiritually met Christ because of faith in his death and ressurection, not because of whether he is all God, half God, all man, etc......I happen to believe in the Trinity but it is a secondary issue with me.

 

[Oryonder]

When and at what council did constantine insist on the inclusion of trinity?

Nicene .. You should do some research on it. This means something other than reading wiki.

I remeber the story and believe there are actual documents from the council of Nicea in existance. Constantine was there but did not vote on anything. Were you suggesting Constantine arm twisted 1800 powerful bishops.

The role of Constantine
Main article: Constantine I and Christianity
While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible at the council that omitted books he did not approve of, although he did later commission Bibles. In fact, Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church.[62] This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons; under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others.[62
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is wrong .. Constantine did "force" homoousios. Anyone can add stuff to Wiki .. Christian apoligists are famous for wanting to pretend that the Trinity was not invented by Constantine.

Constantines only desire was unity, he was never a commited Christian. He was concerned with it's ability to provide unity primarily. His main desire was the establishment of a unified position he cared less which one it was.

Absolutely Constantine wanted Unity .. he wanted monotheism and he wanted to end the squabbling. The 1800 Bishops you refer to had Zero power.... what are you thinking ?

The actual earliest church father Peter, John, etc... Did believe in Christs divinity. I disagree but will wait for your answer first before I address this.

They did believe that Christ was divine .. and he may well have been.. but they did not believe that Jesus was God aka "the Father". Certainly not Peter and John is not really relevent.

That none of the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity and it is not a big secret .. they believed Jesus was subordinate to the Father. Subordinationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[1robin]

Nicene .. You should do some research on it. This means something other than reading wiki.

I have but usually people agree that wiki is reliable. Everything I have read about both councils concerning the deity of Christ suggest that Constatine did not force any decision. Your position sounds more in common with "The davinci code" than reality.

I remeber the story and believe there are actual documents from the council of Nicea in existance. Constantine was there but did not vote on anything. Were you suggesting Constantine arm twisted 1800 powerful bishops.

This is wrong .. Constantine did "force" homoousios. Anyone can add stuff to Wiki .. Christian apoligists are famous for wanting to pretend that the Trinity was not invented by Constantine.

I notice you did not provide the evidence you are requireing from me. Constantine from all the sources I have read was a nominal Christian at best and was not interested enough to bother forcing any stance above another. He just wanted agreement.

Absolutely Constantine wanted Unity .. he wanted monotheism and he wanted to end the squabbling. The 1800 Bishops you refer to had Zero power.... what are you thinking ?

One of the chief faults and well know facts about Catholicism is the absolute power grabbed by religous officials. They had more power than kings at times. I don't know what level of power they had in 325 but they were not puppets of any secular leaders across the board. If constantine was interested in monotheism in particular he would have pushed for a non deified status for Christ. The trinity concept is less strictly monotheistic. In reality he didn't care that much and was just interested in unity.

They did believe that Christ was divine .. and he may well have been.. but they did not believe that Jesus was God aka "the Father". Certainly not Peter and John is not really relevent.

How in the world can John not be considered relevant. He said quite a bit on the subject. Jesus is not the father in the trinity concept.

That none of the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity and it is not a big secret .. they believed Jesus was subordinate to the Father. Subordinationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That sounds like an equivocation in role not position. The writings of the early church fathers contain 95% of the new testament and as such relect the trinitarian view of the apostles. I am sure perfect unity did not exist in the early days but there is no way that most of the early church fathers denied the trinity.

 

[Oryonder]

I have but usually people agree that wiki is reliable. Everything I have read about both councils concerning the deity of Christ suggest that Constatine did not force any decision. Your position sounds more in common with "The davinci code" than reality.

I remeber the story and believe there are actual documents from the council of Nicea in existance. Constantine was there but did not vote on anything. Were you suggesting Constantine arm twisted 1800 powerful bishops.

The davinci code is mostly nonsense. Wiki does have alot of well referenced material .. and then there is much opinion. The ability to distinguish the difference is required.

The idea that any Christian Bishops had power relative to Constantine is laughable. Not sure where you are getting the 1800 number from because the number I have is around 220. The Council of Nicea 325 AD | Emperor Constantine calls 220 Bishops for the Christian Nicean Council - Early Church History 101 - Nicean Creed, Canons of Council of Nicea, Eusebius of Caesaria church history, Lactantius, Nicean Council 325, RA Baker,

The council was acually supposed to be somewhere else but Constantine moved it.

Constantine insisted that the term homoousias be used in a creedal formula from the council that would definitively state the universal position of the Church

There are actual documents from the Council. I have read them some of them and they give a decidedly different picture than the apologetic description given in the link I gave you.

Even in this decidedly apologetic link you can still read about Constantines involvement.

Everything you have claimed so far is way way off base.

That sounds like an equivocation in role not position. The writings of the early church fathers contain 95% of the new testament and as such relect the trinitarian view of the apostles. I am sure perfect unity did not exist in the early days but there is no way that most of the early church fathers denied the trinity

I gave you a list of all the early Church fathers who were subordinists .. did you even bother to look up the meaning of the term ? Subordinationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origin - who created the library that Eusebius used to choose the books that form the NT - and Eusebius himself did not believe in the Trinity.

Your claim about the early church fathers is patently false. Name one that had any singificant influence that was a Trinitarian ?

 

[Muffled]

Interesting. Considering that God is not around to point out those who are wicked, can we assume that those who share your beliefs are the ones that will decide who deserves to die?

This is not a fact it is a fantasy.

He doesn't spend time pointing fingers at people. They just end up dead. My experience is that God will say much about those things which should not be done when there is a chance the person will change his ways.

This is an unreasonable assumption. I can't categoricaly say that it doesn't happen but it never has in my case. However God told me not to pray for Saddam Hussein because he was under judgement.

 

[1robin]

The davinci code is mostly nonsense. Wiki does have alot of well referenced material .. and then there is much opinion. The ability to distinguish the difference is required.

The idea that any Christian Bishops had power relative to Constantine is laughable. Not sure where you are getting the 1800 number from because the number I have is around 220. The Council of Nicea 325 AD | Emperor Constantine calls 220 Bishops for the Christian Nicean Council - Early Church History 101 - Nicean Creed, Canons of Council of Nicea, Eusebius of Caesaria church history, Lactantius, Nicean Council 325, RA Baker,

The council was acually supposed to be somewhere else but Constantine moved it.

Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 220,[18] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[19] and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270[20] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[21] and Evagrius,[22] Hilary of Poitiers,[23] Jerome[24] and Rufinus recorded 318. Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire except Britain.
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In other words Constantine allowed 1800 bishops to determine this only 300 plus decided to do so in the end. You would atleast need to show he persuaded the 300 to vote a certain way.

There are actual documents from the Council. I have read them some of them and they give a decidedly different picture than the apologetic description given in the link I gave you.

Even in this decidedly apologetic link you can still read about Constantines involvement.

Everything you have claimed so far is way way off base.

If Constantine was so powerful and the Bishops so weak why didn't Constantine just dictate his alleged position as fact and move on. You have not given a motive for Constantines trinitarian obsession. He wanted unity primarily, why would he bother armtwisting to get a trinitarian view accepted. From what I gather it wouldn't have required any persuasion. Most of the bishops favoured it anyway.

I gave you a list of all the early Church fathers who were subordinists .. did you even bother to look up the meaning of the term ? Subordinationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes it is not a refutation of the trinity it is just a slightly different verion of it. Christ can be subordinate and devine at the same time. If your point is just a trinitarial issue. I actually don't find that all that critical one way or the other. The more critical issue is (IS FAITH IN CHRIST AS SAVIOR VALID AND NECESSARY FOR SALVATION ALONE)

Origin - who created the library that Eusebius used to choose the books that form the NT - and Eusebius himself did not believe in the Trinity.

Your claim about the early church fathers is patently false. Name one that had any singificant influence that was a Trinitarian ?

The creation of the New Testament did not occur until the late 4th century.
Around 100 there were different parts being passed around but no clear definition existed. By 200 the Muratorian Canon was used by the church at Rome. By 250 the canon used was put together by Origen. By 300 the canon used was put together by Eusebius. Finally by 400 the New Testament was fixed for the West by the Council of Carthage.
Is the New Testament reliable

My research shows that Eusebius was definately invlolved in the Canon but was no more so than many others. He merely selected a group of books from a slightly different group chosen by someone else. He was actually dead by the time when the canon was firmly fixed. He is considered a terribly unreliable scholar by many papers I read. I ever read some quotes by him that suggest he arbitrarily supressed information he didn't like.

The writeings of the early Church fathers contain 95% of the new testament. Meaning they contain John and Paul the most trinitatian authors.

 

[Oryonder]

If Constantine was so powerful and the Bishops so weak why didn't Constantine just dictate his alleged position as fact and move on. You have not given a motive for Constantines trinitarian obsession. He wanted unity primarily, why would he bother armtwisting to get a trinitarian view accepted. From what I gather it wouldn't have required any persuasion. Most of the bishops favoured it anyway.

1) Constantine ruled at a time of tremendous chaos
2) Constantine was a smart military strategist .. better to attract with honey .. but if that did not work .. The man killed his wife and his own son. Af few Bishops would have been a pain .. but he would have had no qualms.
3) As per the links I gave you .. Constantine did indeed force his will.
4) Most Bishops favored it ?? Where do you get this stuff from ? only 200 showed up out of 1800 .. Constantine moved the location for where the original meeting was planned . 200 is not a good showing. Eusebius was exiled for non acceptance of Constantines edict. Obviously there was a threat .. should compliance not be forthcomming and the 200 in attendance mostly complied ..

5) Motive - This has already been given you but I will repeat.

Constantine ruled in very chaotic times. Persia had been successfully united under monotheism (Zoroastrianism) some centuries earlier and this lesson was not lost on Constantine who was a student of History.

He wanted to use monotheism to unite his Empire .. he wanted one God .. not because he cared about that God but because he wanted absolute power.

He declared himself "pontifex maximus" bishop of biship's - Gods right hand man such that his word was the word of God and therefor unquestionable and unchallengable.

You can not speak for God if there are 100 Gods. The people would just say .. he speaks for his God but not for mine.

Yes it is not a refutation of the trinity it is just a slightly different verion of it. Christ can be subordinate and devine at the same time. If your point is just a trinitarial issue. I actually don't find that all that critical one way or the other. The more critical issue is (IS FAITH IN CHRIST AS SAVIOR VALID AND NECESSARY FOR SALVATION ALONE)

Of course it is a refutation of the Trinity .. Have you any idea how many were killed for having ideas that deviated ?

The question is not one of Christs divinity. The early Church fathers all believed that Jesus was divine. It was the nature of that divinity that was in question.

The question was not "Is Jesus a God", The question was "Is Jesus God" - aka God the Father and are they on in the same.

If Jesus is a God and God is a God then we have two Gods and this is not monotheism.

This was a huge deal. Early Church fathers did not believe that Jesus and Yahweh were the same entity .. one substance .. and so on.

My research shows that Eusebius was definately invlolved in the Canon but was no more so than many others. He merely selected a group of books from a slightly different group chosen by someone else. He was actually dead by the time when the canon was firmly fixed. He is considered a terribly unreliable scholar by many papers I read. I ever read some quotes by him that suggest he arbitrarily supressed information he didn't like.

Your research is not bad except that he was not a terribly unreliable scholar (at least not by the standards of the day).

Your comment about Eusebius "suppressing info" has some support, but this is true of the mentality of all the folks at the time. Jerome was certainly no better.

Forgery was rampant in the early church .. almost the rule rather than the exception. There are numerous interpolations, additions, changes, and things that can be seen to have been left out or removed when studying the original Bible manuscripts. The source material was likely even worse.


There were numerous competing agenda's both from a religious and political perspective. Notice that none of the source material was retained (the sources that were used to form the first NT Bible).

The modus operandi of the Church after Constantine, for centuries, was to destroy any and all evidence/knowledge that conflicted with doctrine.

The Church retained power for over 1000 years so there is no reason why we should not still have most of the source documents. The Church has almost nothing.

What happened to the library that Origen collected ? Why on earth would the Church destroy all this history ?

The writeings of the early Church fathers contain 95% of the new testament. Meaning they contain John and Paul the most trinitatian authors

1) The writings of the early Church fathers contain almost nothing from the NT .. what on earth are you talking about ? Where is your source/link for this.

2) Paul says nothing about any Trinity. Johannine stuff is the most often used material in support of the Trinity. Johannine scripture has almost nothing in common with anything else in the NT, was written by someone who was not Jewish, and does not directly support the trinity in any case.

You make these wild outlandish comments sometimes. It is clear that you have never read any of the early Church fathers otherwise you would not make these outlandish claims.

Please do so: seek and you will find. Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
Go read some Clement (the first Pope in 99AD) or some Origin.

We actually have very little from the early Church Fathers which is a tragedy IMO.

The Church must have turned most of these writings to the fire as well.

 

[A Troubled Man]

This is not a fact it is a fantasy.

He doesn't spend time pointing fingers at people. They just end up dead.

What a horrible god.

God told me not to pray for Saddam Hussein because he was under judgement.

Did he really? LOL!

 

[Oryonder]

. However God told me not to pray for Saddam Hussein because he was under judgement.

How do you know it was God speaking to you and not some evil spirit ?

Christians are supposed to pray for their enemies are they not ?

 

[bigbadgirl]

1) Constantine ruled at a time of tremendous chaos
2) Constantine was a smart military strategist .. better to attract with honey .. but if that did not work .. The man killed his wife and his own son. Af few Bishops would have been a pain .. but he would have had no qualms.
3) As per the links I gave you .. Constantine did indeed force his will.
4) Most Bishops favored it ?? Where do you get this stuff from ? only 200 showed up out of 1800 .. Constantine moved the location for where the original meeting was planned . 200 is not a good showing. Eusebius was exiled for non acceptance of Constantines edict. Obviously there was a threat .. should compliance not be forthcomming and the 200 in attendance mostly complied ..

5) Motive - This has already been given you but I will repeat.

Constantine ruled in very chaotic times. Persia had been successfully united under monotheism (Zoroastrianism) some centuries earlier and this lesson was not lost on Constantine who was a student of History.

He wanted to use monotheism to unite his Empire .. he wanted one God .. not because he cared about that God but because he wanted absolute power.

He declared himself "pontifex maximus" bishop of biship's - Gods right hand man such that his word was the word of God and therefor unquestionable and unchallengable.

You can not speak for God if there are 100 Gods. The people would just say .. he speaks for his God but not for mine.



Of course it is a refutation of the Trinity .. Have you any idea how many were killed for having ideas that deviated ?

The question is not one of Christs divinity. The early Church fathers all believed that Jesus was divine. It was the nature of that divinity that was in question.

The question was not "Is Jesus a God", The question was "Is Jesus God" - aka God the Father and are they on in the same.

If Jesus is a God and God is a God then we have two Gods and this is not monotheism.

This was a huge deal. Early Church fathers did not believe that Jesus and Yahweh were the same entity .. one substance .. and so on.



Your research is not bad except that he was not a terribly unreliable scholar (at least not by the standards of the day).

Your comment about Eusebius "suppressing info" has some support, but this is true of the mentality of all the folks at the time. Jerome was certainly no better.

Forgery was rampant in the early church .. almost the rule rather than the exception. There are numerous interpolations, additions, changes, and things that can be seen to have been left out or removed when studying the original Bible manuscripts. The source material was likely even worse.


There were numerous competing agenda's both from a religious and political perspective. Notice that none of the source material was retained (the sources that were used to form the first NT Bible).

The modus operandi of the Church after Constantine, for centuries, was to destroy any and all evidence/knowledge that conflicted with doctrine.

The Church retained power for over 1000 years so there is no reason why we should not still have most of the source documents. The Church has almost nothing.

What happened to the library that Origen collected ? Why on earth would the Church destroy all this history ?



1) The writings of the early Church fathers contain almost nothing from the NT .. what on earth are you talking about ? Where is your source/link for this.

2) Paul says nothing about any Trinity. Johannine stuff is the most often used material in support of the Trinity. Johannine scripture has almost nothing in common with anything else in the NT, was written by someone who was not Jewish, and does not directly support the trinity in any case.

You make these wild outlandish comments sometimes. It is clear that you have never read any of the early Church fathers otherwise you would not make these outlandish claims.

Please do so: seek and you will find. Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
Go read some Clement (the first Pope in 99AD) or some Origin.

We actually have very little from the early Church Fathers which is a tragedy IMO.

The Church must have turned most of these writings to the fire as well.

Now thats a post!

 

[Muffled]

How do you know it was God speaking to you and not some evil spirit ?

Christians are supposed to pray for their enemies are they not ?

I know God's voice and I know Satn's voice. The two are quite different.

Yes. However I believe God does not wish to have me pray against His will. That would make me a satan would it not?

 

[Bob Dixon]

I know God's voice and I know Satn's voice. The two are quite different.

Yes. However I believe God does not wish to have me pray against His will. That would make me a satan would it not?

So, God spoke to you?
Are you making a claim of prophecy here? This is a rather serious claim, you know.

 

[Oryonder]

I know God's voice and I know Satn's voice. The two are quite different.

Yes. However I believe God does not wish to have me pray against His will. That would make me a satan would it not?

So if I am understanding you correctly:

1) You can ask God questions/ Talk to God directly
2) God answers your questions
3) You have also talked to Satan (how else would you know the difference?)

 

[waitasec]

I know God's voice and I know Satn's voice. The two are quite different.

[/COLOR][/B]

you mean these guys?

:seesaw:



theres medication you can take for that you know

 

[1robin]

Nicene .. You should do some research on it. This means something other than reading wiki.

I remeber the story and believe there are actual documents from the council of Nicea in existance. Constantine was there but did not vote on anything. Were you suggesting Constantine arm twisted 1800 powerful bishops. If Constantine was so powerful and a true "Bishop of bishops" that the bishops were just automatons then why didn't he just declare the Trinity to be doctrine instead of all this effort you suggest.

This is wrong .. Constantine did "force" homoousios. Anyone can add stuff to Wiki .. Christian apoligists are famous for wanting to pretend that the Trinity was not invented by Constantine.

I don't find the Trinity all that important personally as I have said many times. The important issue is whether Christ is necessary and suffecient for salvation. I do not have a dog in the race. I wouldn't care if Constantine did create the trinity, but I have found vast amounts of evidence that he didn't. His primary goal was unity, not trinity. Arm twisting was a waste of time for his purposes. Being that in my research I found most of the Bishops were going to vote for it anyway there was no need. Even if I am wrong he would have gotten what he wanted if they all went the other way. IMO, he was indifferent to doctrine in his heart and only wanted the unity that the religion gave him. Constantine has been gone over a thousand years and yet this doctrine he has created all on his own is still around and has been defended successfully without him from all attacks. How?

Absolutely Constantine wanted Unity .. he wanted monotheism and he wanted to end the squabbling. The 1800 Bishops you refer to had Zero power.... what are you thinking ?

If his goal besides being unity was strict monotheism, then why do you say that he chose the less strict doctrine when it comes to monotheism. It is easier to claim monotheism with a subordinate Christ than a co-equal one. Your points are not consistent with the premises.

They did believe that Christ was divine .. and he may well have been.. but they did not believe that Jesus was God aka "the Father". Certainly not Peter and John is not really relevent.

How in the holy heck can you declare John irrelevant? I get so tired of people finding reasons to dismiss things they don't like or they find ruins their position. Muslims throw Paul out for the same arbitrary reasons except the parts they think agree with the quran. Thomas Jefferson simply cut out the parts he didn't like. That is some scholarship. I stick with what God gave even if I don't like it. Trinity doctrine doesn't even claim Jesus is the father so your statement is what is truly irrelevant. Keep in mind that I don't even care but at least make an argument without strawmen.

That none of the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity and it is not a big secret .. they believed Jesus was subordinate to the Father. Subordinationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have read the site at this link. First subordinatism is not incompatable with a generic trinity doctrine. Jesus could be equally devine in nature but have a subordinate role as well. Second you know as well as I do that Trinity defenders can find all sorts of verses and writings of early church fathers to defend the claim that is just as ironclad to them as yours is to you. And I happen to think theirs is better than the one presented by you so far. I have not really gotten into this to far yet because I have had a hard time seeing the ultimate relevance to all of this.

What is the ultimate point to all these posts? I began this discussion because I thought that Christ's identity and reality as necessary savior was being questioned.
If this is strictly an attack on the trinity doctrine alone, then I still dissagree strongly but don't really care. If this is an attack on the necessity and suffeciency of what Christ did on the cross all this Constantine stuff is related but not critical. Tell me which so I can decide if this discussion is worth the time. What ultimate difference does it make whether Christ is a subrodinate devine or semi devine savior or a completely coequal member of the God head, savior?

 

[1robin]

1) Constantine ruled at a time of tremendous chaos
2) Constantine was a smart military strategist .. better to attract with honey .. but if that did not work .. The man killed his wife and his own son. Af few Bishops would have been a pain .. but he would have had no qualms.
3) As per the links I gave you .. Constantine did indeed force his will.
4) Most Bishops favored it ?? Where do you get this stuff from ? only 200 showed up out of 1800 .. Constantine moved the location for where the original meeting was planned . 200 is not a good showing. Eusebius was exiled for non acceptance of Constantines edict. Obviously there was a threat .. should compliance not be forthcomming and the 200 in attendance mostly complied ..

5) Motive - This has already been given you but I will repeat.

Constantine ruled in very chaotic times. Persia had been successfully united under monotheism (Zoroastrianism) some centuries earlier and this lesson was not lost on Constantine who was a student of History.

He wanted to use monotheism to unite his Empire .. he wanted one God .. not because he cared about that God but because he wanted absolute power.

He declared himself "pontifex maximus" bishop of biship's - Gods right hand man such that his word was the word of God and therefor unquestionable and unchallengable.

You can not speak for God if there are 100 Gods. The people would just say .. he speaks for his God but not for mine.



Of course it is a refutation of the Trinity .. Have you any idea how many were killed for having ideas that deviated ?

The question is not one of Christs divinity. The early Church fathers all believed that Jesus was divine. It was the nature of that divinity that was in question.

The question was not "Is Jesus a God", The question was "Is Jesus God" - aka God the Father and are they on in the same.

If Jesus is a God and God is a God then we have two Gods and this is not monotheism.

This was a huge deal. Early Church fathers did not believe that Jesus and Yahweh were the same entity .. one substance .. and so on.



Your research is not bad except that he was not a terribly unreliable scholar (at least not by the standards of the day).

Your comment about Eusebius "suppressing info" has some support, but this is true of the mentality of all the folks at the time. Jerome was certainly no better.

Forgery was rampant in the early church .. almost the rule rather than the exception. There are numerous interpolations, additions, changes, and things that can be seen to have been left out or removed when studying the original Bible manuscripts. The source material was likely even worse.


There were numerous competing agenda's both from a religious and political perspective. Notice that none of the source material was retained (the sources that were used to form the first NT Bible).

The modus operandi of the Church after Constantine, for centuries, was to destroy any and all evidence/knowledge that conflicted with doctrine.

The Church retained power for over 1000 years so there is no reason why we should not still have most of the source documents. The Church has almost nothing.

What happened to the library that Origen collected ? Why on earth would the Church destroy all this history ?



1) The writings of the early Church fathers contain almost nothing from the NT .. what on earth are you talking about ? Where is your source/link for this.

2) Paul says nothing about any Trinity. Johannine stuff is the most often used material in support of the Trinity. Johannine scripture has almost nothing in common with anything else in the NT, was written by someone who was not Jewish, and does not directly support the trinity in any case.

You make these wild outlandish comments sometimes. It is clear that you have never read any of the early Church fathers otherwise you would not make these outlandish claims.

Please do so: seek and you will find. Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
Go read some Clement (the first Pope in 99AD) or some Origin.

We actually have very little from the early Church Fathers which is a tragedy IMO.

The Church must have turned most of these writings to the fire as well.

I can only address one point until you answer my questions below for now. How do you know they burned them, even if they did that isn't evidence of anything? Silence is no witness. You will find at least 95% of the New testament contained in the writings of the Church fathers. Thats at least 180,000 words. We have texts from 83 of them, some large some small. Hardly a dissapointing amount considering that was 1400 - 1800 years ago.

What is the ultimate point to all these posts? I began this discussion because I thought that Christ's identity and reality as necessary savior was being questioned.
If this is strictly an attack on the trinity doctrine alone, then I still dissagree strongly but don't really care. If this is an attack on the necessity and suffeciency of what Christ did on the cross all this Constantine stuff is related but not critical. Tell me which so I can decide if this discussion is worth the time. I find so many areas of dissagreement with your claims that it will require a significant amount of time to hash this out to a resilution. What ultimate difference does it make whether Christ is a subrodinate devine or semi devine savior or a completely coequal member of the God head, savior?

One last question, If Constantine worked so hard to force everyone to go along with a doctrine he liked (for some uknown reason) then why has he been gone for over a thousand years but the lie he made up still here. It has been attacked continuously since the Gospels were written and has been defended successfully by according to you people who didn't want it to start with. How? Why? Hitler pramoted things similar to what you say Constantine did. They started dying even before he did.

If you will explain the relevance of this then I will do the necessary research to discuss it fully.

 

[Oryonder]

I can only address one point until you answer my questions below for now. How do you know they burned them, even if they did that isn't evidence of anything? Silence is no witness. You will find at least 95% of the New testament contained in the writings of the Church fathers. Thats at least 180,000 words. We have texts from 83 of them, some large some small. Hardly a dissapointing amount considering that was 1400 - 1800 years ago.

What is the ultimate point to all these posts? I began this discussion because I thought that Christ's identity and reality as necessary savior was being questioned.
If this is strictly an attack on the trinity doctrine alone, then I still dissagree strongly but don't really care. If this is an attack on the necessity and suffeciency of what Christ did on the cross all this Constantine stuff is related but not critical. Tell me which so I can decide if this discussion is worth the time. I find so many areas of dissagreement with your claims that it will require a significant amount of time to hash this out to a resilution. What ultimate difference does it make whether Christ is a subrodinate devine or semi devine savior or a completely coequal member of the God head, savior?

One last question, If Constantine worked so hard to force everyone to go along with a doctrine he liked (for some uknown reason) then why has he been gone for over a thousand years but the lie he made up still here. It has been attacked continuously since the Gospels were written and has been defended successfully by according to you people who didn't want it to start with. How? Why? Hitler pramoted things similar to what you say Constantine did. They started dying even before he did.

If you will explain the relevance of this then I will do the necessary research to discuss it fully.

Dude .. go do some research and quit living in denial. Much of Eusebius is extant.

You can read the exchange between Constantine and Eusebius where Constantine urges him to accept the term homoousios and when he does not Constantine exiles him.

You talk about the "early church fathers" but do not seem to know anything about them.

I have given you numerous links .. read them. The early Church fathers did not believe that Jesus and the Father were the same. This is not something scholars debate.

The point of these posts is to show you that the core of Church doctrine today not what was believed prior to Constantine.

 

[1robin]

Dude .. go do some research and quit living in denial. Much of Eusebius is extant.

You can read the exchange between Constantine and Eusebius where Constantine urges him to accept the term homoousios and when he does not Constantine exiles him.

You talk about the "early church fathers" but do not seem to know anything about them.

I have given you numerous links .. read them. The early Church fathers did not believe that Jesus and the Father were the same. This is not something scholars debate.

The point of these posts is to show you that the core of Church doctrine today not what was believed prior to Constantine.

Living in denial. Did you even read my posts? I don't care enough about this issue to deny anything I find to be true. Before I waste anymore time on something that looks like just your pet issue can you respond to my questions.
I will ask this once again: What is the ultimate point to all these posts? I began this discussion because I thought that Christ's identity and reality as necessary savior was being questioned.
If this is strictly an attack on the trinity doctrine alone, then I still dissagree strongly but don't really care. If this is an attack on the necessity and suffeciency of what Christ did on the cross all this Constantine stuff is related but not critical. Tell me which so I can decide if this discussion is worth the time. I find so many areas of dissagreement with your claims that it will require a significant amount of time to hash this out to a resilution. What ultimate difference does it make whether Christ is a subrodinate devine or semi devine savior or a completely coequal member of the God head, savior?

One last question, If Constantine worked so hard to force everyone to go along with a doctrine he liked (for some uknown reason) then why has he been gone for over a thousand years but the lie he made up still here. It has been attacked continuously since the Gospels were written and has been defended successfully by according to you people who didn't want it to start with. How? Why? Hitler pramoted things similar to what you say Constantine did. They started dying even before he did.

If you will explain the relevance of this then I will do the necessary research to discuss it fully.