the right religion

[Nakosis]

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

I don't find them so different. In fact it is pretty easy to mistake one for the other.

 

[1robin]

I don't find them so different. In fact it is pretty easy to mistake one for the other.

Since Satan is NOT omnipresent why do you think he spends time speaking directly to you. Even as someone who believes in both God and Satan I find it hard to accept that you sit around haveing conversations with both. Great spiritual giants of the past have complained that God did not speak to them very often and found that frustrating. The more you explain your beliefs the more they sound like new age spiritual cults stuff, they pop up one day and disappear the next.

 

[Me Myself]

Since Satan is NOT omnipresent why do you think he spends time speaking directly to you. Even as someone who believes in both God and Satan I find it hard to accept that you sit around haveing conversations with both. Great spiritual giants of the past have complained that God did not speak to them very often and found that frustrating. The more you explain your beliefs the more they sound like new age spiritual cults stuff, they pop up one day and disappear the next.

He doesn't need to be omnipresent for him to be able to be present in all Earth and human minds at once. It is a big universe. If he is just on Earth, he is still veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery far from omnipresence, and no definite limits have been made.

 

[Nakosis]

Since Satan is NOT omnipresent why do you think he spends time speaking directly to you. Even as someone who believes in both God and Satan I find it hard to accept that you sit around haveing conversations with both. Great spiritual giants of the past have complained that God did not speak to them very often and found that frustrating. The more you explain your beliefs the more they sound like new age spiritual cults stuff, they pop up one day and disappear the next.

I'm just going by my experiences. Any similarities to any specific religious beliefs are purely coincidental.

I didn't say I sit around having conversations with God and the Devil. It doesn't work that way. However you should be willing to consider that Christians assume to be in direct communication with God and they are not. They can be fooled into thinking so though. As has been said, even the Devil can quote scripture.

I'm offering a warning that's all.

However you should also accept that God can and does communicate (at least through the Son) with individuals on occasion. Otherwise that'd kind of invalidate the Bible.

 

[Oryonder]

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.

It has been explained to you numerous times the various motives Constantine had for wanting to institue "One God/monotheism" and settle once and for all the religious debates around the nature of Christ.

Constantine did not have to "work hard". Have you no clue of the power of a Roman Emperor relative to the power of the Church at the time. ? I can not believe that you are that naive. Is it feigned ignorance or do I really need to explain this to you.

The power of the church was Zero compared to Constantine. Any power the Church came to have was because Constantine gave the Church that power. Find me one scholar that debates this and I will give you 100 that will call that one scholar a crackpot. This is like questioning whether or not the sky was blue in ancient times.

No one has claimed that Constantine made up a lie. What are you talking about ??
Dispense with this straw man fantasy por favor.

Constantine came up with a perfectly logical and efficent way to settle the dispute that was dividing the Church.

The disputes were over the nature of Jesus in relationship to God, "divine or not divine", "equal to the Father or Subordinate to the Father" and so on; whether or not Jesus was preexistent was another debate - there were many.

These squabbles also begged the question .. If Jesus is divine and God is divine how can Christianity be monotheistic ?

Constantine's solution settled all the above issues in one word - homoousios - and he made it clear that anyone who disagreed would face serious consequences.... up to and including Eusebius himself who was Constantines right hand man. Arius, one of the main dissenters, was killed.

Do you really think that it is advisable to gainsay an Emperor that has already killed his wife and son ?

Constantine unified the Church under monotheism and made himself head of the Church "Pontifex Maximus" Bishop of Bishops.

He then set about getting rid of other religions and any "heresy".

Constantine commissioned Eusebius in 331 to deliver 50 Bibles.

You seem to have some idea in your head that Religion and Politics were separate during the time of Constantine. This is just not how it was. They were inexorably interconnected.

Many that rose to leadership in the Church after constantine were Politicians who implemented policies to increase the power, and in particular the political power of the Church.

If you want to read about a group of people whose actions were about as non-Christian as one can get .. read about the history of the Papacy. It was all about politics and had little to do with promoting the message of Christ. In fact I would argue that the actions of the Papacy was (anti-Christ). Not referring to the Devil so much as that those actions were counter to the message of Christ and the spread of Christ's true message.

This brings us to your main question .. how is all this relevent to the message and teachings of Christ.

If you are Constantine who did all kinds of nasty things .. Paul's message is a welcome breath of fresh air is it not ? Just have faith and you are saved .. do not worry about all those nasty things you did .. all you need to do is be baptized and bingo ... instant forgiveness. Constantine of course waits until he is sick and dying and then gets baptized.

The reason I call myself a Christian .. other than this was how I was raised .. is because I truly believe that if folks were to follow what I understand as the message of Christ, the world would be a better place. It matters not to me whether or not this message was inspired or what Jesus divine status is. (this is complicated but I can trot out my logic for you at another time)

What I see in practice is Christianity (both historically and in modern times) ignoring the most profound teachings of Jesus to a large degree.

The reason for the supression of the message of Jesus is rooted in the doctrine and dogma developed during and after Constantine.

 

[Nakosis]

What I see in practice is Christianity (both historically and in modern times) ignoring the most profound teachings of Jesus to a large degree.

Me too.

The reason for the supression of the message of Jesus is rooted in the doctrine and dogma developed during and after Constantine.

I think the letters of Paul had a lot of influence. The doctrine/dogma I find are more supported by Paul.

Though I suspect Paul saw himself to be a leader of the church I don't think he really saw himself becoming the voice of God.

 

[1robin]

He doesn't need to be omnipresent for him to be able to be present in all Earth and human minds at once. It is a big universe. If he is just on Earth, he is still veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery far from omnipresence, and no definite limits have been made.

What are we doing just everyone invents his own religion these days. The bible says that Satan ran back and forth on the earth seeking whom he may devour. That means that he wasn't all over the earth at the same time. The bible also records satan showing up and leaving individual places. I have the most studied and trusted book in human history to support my claims what do you use? If I had to invent a religion in order to have one I wouldn't bother. I just don't get the value of a religion based on nothing.

 

[1robin]

It has been explained to you numerous times the various motives Constantine had for wanting to institue "One God/monotheism" and settle once and for all the religious debates around the nature of Christ.

Constantine did not have to "work hard". Have you no clue of the power of a Roman Emperor relative to the power of the Church at the time. ? I can not believe that you are that naive. Is it feigned ignorance or do I really need to explain this to you.

The power of the church was Zero compared to Constantine. Any power the Church came to have was because Constantine gave the Church that power. Find me one scholar that debates this and I will give you 100 that will call that one scholar a crackpot. This is like questioning whether or not the sky was blue in ancient times.

No one has claimed that Constantine made up a lie. What are you talking about ??
Dispense with this straw man fantasy por favor.

Constantine came up with a perfectly logical and efficent way to settle the dispute that was dividing the Church.

The disputes were over the nature of Jesus in relationship to God, "divine or not divine", "equal to the Father or Subordinate to the Father" and so on; whether or not Jesus was preexistent was another debate - there were many.

These squabbles also begged the question .. If Jesus is divine and God is divine how can Christianity be monotheistic ?

Constantine's solution settled all the above issues in one word - homoousios - and he made it clear that anyone who disagreed would face serious consequences.... up to and including Eusebius himself who was Constantines right hand man. Arius, one of the main dissenters, was killed.

Do you really think that it is advisable to gainsay an Emperor that has already killed his wife and son ?

Constantine unified the Church under monotheism and made himself head of the Church "Pontifex Maximus" Bishop of Bishops.

He then set about getting rid of other religions and any "heresy".

Constantine commissioned Eusebius in 331 to deliver 50 Bibles.

You seem to have some idea in your head that Religion and Politics were separate during the time of Constantine. This is just not how it was. They were inexorably interconnected.

Many that rose to leadership in the Church after constantine were Politicians who implemented policies to increase the power, and in particular the political power of the Church.

If you want to read about a group of people whose actions were about as non-Christian as one can get .. read about the history of the Papacy. It was all about politics and had little to do with promoting the message of Christ. In fact I would argue that the actions of the Papacy was (anti-Christ). Not referring to the Devil so much as that those actions were counter to the message of Christ and the spread of Christ's true message.

This brings us to your main question .. how is all this relevent to the message and teachings of Christ.

If you are Constantine who did all kinds of nasty things .. Paul's message is a welcome breath of fresh air is it not ? Just have faith and you are saved .. do not worry about all those nasty things you did .. all you need to do is be baptized and bingo ... instant forgiveness. Constantine of course waits until he is sick and dying and then gets baptized.

The reason I call myself a Christian .. other than this was how I was raised .. is because I truly believe that if folks were to follow what I understand as the message of Christ, the world would be a better place. It matters not to me whether or not this message was inspired or what Jesus divine status is. (this is complicated but I can trot out my logic for you at another time)

What I see in practice is Christianity (both historically and in modern times) ignoring the most profound teachings of Jesus to a large degree.

The reason for the supression of the message of Jesus is rooted in the doctrine and dogma developed during and after Constantine.

Ok, it seems we are getting somewhere finally. You seem to hate the idea of salvation by grace alone and so anyone who has anything to do with it is bad. I think a discussion about what salvation is would be far more relevant than what Constantine did. If this was the point you were driving at the whole time then we can switch to that. Discussing Trinity to me is two mules fighting over a turnup. No matter the outcome nothing is solved. So if we have arrived at the real issue do you want to discuss it?

 

[1robin]

I'm just going by my experiences. Any similarities to any specific religious beliefs are purely coincidental.

I didn't say I sit around having conversations with God and the Devil. It doesn't work that way. However you should be willing to consider that Christians assume to be in direct communication with God and they are not. They can be fooled into thinking so though. As has been said, even the Devil can quote scripture.

I'm offering a warning that's all.

However you should also accept that God can and does communicate (at least through the Son) with individuals on occasion. Otherwise that'd kind of invalidate the Bible.

Well I find them very hard to believe. They seemed to be based in a strange meta - theology you have constructed from parts of lesser theologies. I not suggesting that you are lying just mistaken.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

I disagree. I believe that all religions are the right one as all are inspired by the same truth and are merely inaccurate interpretations of said truth. All are right and wrong at the same time. They are right in that they are inspired by the same thing and wrong in that no one can comprehend the truth fully. What is truly important is that the religion a person chooses is the right one for them. The danger comes from forcing a religion onto a person for whom it doesn't fit. That is the real evil.

 

[Nakosis]

Well I find them very hard to believe. They seemed to be based in a strange meta - theology you have constructed from parts of lesser theologies. I not suggesting that you are lying just mistaken.

That's alright.

I feel the same way about Christianity.

 

[Oryonder]

Ok, it seems we are getting somewhere finally. You seem to hate the idea of salvation by grace alone and so anyone who has anything to do with it is bad. I think a discussion about what salvation is would be far more relevant than what Constantine did. If this was the point you were driving at the whole time then we can switch to that. Discussing Trinity to me is two mules fighting over a turnup. No matter the outcome nothing is solved. So if we have arrived at the real issue do you want to discuss it?

My feelings on the idea of salvation by grace have zero to do with the issue.

What is relevent is whether or not Jesus taught the idea of salvation by grace alone.

Would you like to discuss my personal opinion or what Jesus taught ?

 

[1robin]

My feelings on the idea of salvation by grace have zero to do with the issue.

What is relevent is whether or not Jesus taught the idea of salvation by grace alone.

Would you like to discuss my personal opinion or what Jesus taught ?

So I was right, this whole Constantine thing was a fringe issue for the core issue of works vs grace/faith. At least now there is a point to this. Sure I will discuss it. Why don't you start by stating exactly what it is that you believe. Feel free not to answer this but it would be very helpful in focusing the discussion. Have you had a born again experience similar to the one in John and are you a catholic?

In Chapter 3 of John's gospel we see this phrase used for the first time in connection with a famous night visit to Jesus.

Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him." Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew[born again] he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:1-3 RSV)
​

Your answer is very relevant and changes the context of our discussion. If you feel more comfortable you can send your answer to me in a private message. So now that we are actually down to the real issue fire away.

 

[Oryonder]

So I was right, this whole Constantine thing was a fringe issue for the core issue of works vs grace/faith. At least now there is a point to this. Sure I will discuss it. Why don't you start by stating exactly what it is that you believe. Feel free not to answer this but it would be very helpful in focusing the discussion. Have you had a born again experience similar to the one in John and are you a catholic?

In Chapter 3 of John's gospel we see this phrase used for the first time in connection with a famous night visit to Jesus.

Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him." Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew[born again] he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:1-3 RSV)
​

Your answer is very relevant and changes the context of our discussion. If you feel more comfortable you can send your answer to me in a private message. So now that we are actually down to the real issue fire away.

Constantine is not a "fringe" issue because he was the one that commissioned the first Bible.

What I believe the message of Jesus to be is that we should be good people. Learn to forgive others, mind your own business (worry about your own life rather than trying to impose your beliefs on others) .. dont kill, dont steal, dont mess with your neighbors wife.

Jesus taught severity of sin .. some are worse than others.
Jesus taught that we should be humble and not "speak for God" other than to relay his message to others.

What Jesus did not teach (IMO)is that you can get into heaven by simply believing in him.

 

[1robin]

Constantine is not a "fringe" issue because he was the one that commissioned the first Bible.

Once again I dissagree but this is a side issue that isn't necessary for a discussion of works vs grace.

What I believe the message of Jesus to be is that we should be good people. Learn to forgive others, mind your own business (worry about your own life rather than trying to impose your beliefs on others) .. dont kill, dont steal, dont mess with your neighbors wife.

If this is a description of the doctrine you believe in, it is very simplistic, shallow, and mundane. Is this what you are gambeling your soul on? Of course he said we should be good. Any reasonable man made philosophy says as much but what makes him different is the grace and forgiveness he provides.

Jesus taught severity of sin .. some are worse than others.
Jesus taught that we should be humble and not "speak for God" other than to relay his message to others.

I agree that we should do these things but I also know that it is impossible to do them perfectly.

What Jesus did not teach (IMO)is that you can get into heaven by simply believing in him.

So you must believe that Jesus was an idiot who chose apostles who would spred that grace alone message throught the world.
New Living Translation (©2007) Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with everyone in your household."
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
All eight commentaries I read on these verses never even mention works.
Plus a few hundred more. What work did Jesus require of Nicodemus or the thief on the cross.

You never answered whether you are born again or not or whether you are a Catholic. It is very important and would stream line the coversation quite a bit. Is what you said above the totality of what you believe?
.

 

[Oryonder]

Once again I dissagree but this is a side issue that isn't necessary for a discussion of works vs grace.

Understanding Constantine is critical to understanding the Bible. Without this understanding it is difficult to dicern which parts of the of the Bible are the ramblings of some man and which is more likely inspired "words spoken by Jesus"

If this is a description of the doctrine you believe in, it is very simplistic, shallow, and mundane. Is this what you are gambeling your soul on? Of course he said we should be good. Any reasonable man made philosophy says as much but what makes him different is the grace and forgiveness he provides.

So you must believe that Jesus was an idiot who chose apostles who would spred that grace alone message throught the world.

It is you that must believe that Jesus was an idiot because clearly in his sermon on the mount and in other places he is talking about works.

James 2 confirms what Jesus message was about. "Someone" during the time of James was preaching a doctrine of salvation by faith alone. James spends an entire chapter addressing this idea stating 3 times that "faith without works is Dead"

The Church of Jerusalem was not preaching "Salvation by faith alone" .. it was another group. It was Paul that was preaching this message .. not Jesus and James.

http://nlt.scripturetext.com/acts/16.htm

New Living Translation (©2007) Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with everyone in your household."
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
All eight commentaries I read on these verses never even mention works.
Plus a few hundred more. What work did Jesus require of Nicodemus or the thief on the cross.

http://nlt.scripturetext.com/acts/16.htm

Great .. so you give me 2 Pauline passages and a Spurious passage that was not in the original Mark .. added later by some Pauling editor.

It is you that must think Jesus is an idiot because you ignore his words and most of his teachings in the synoptics.
You never answered whether you are born again or not or whether you are a Catholic. It is very important and would stream line the coversation quite a bit. Is what you said above the totality of what you believe?

 

[FearGod]

Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him." Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born a new[born again] he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:1-3 RSV)

So Jesus is a teacher came from god,then how he is god as most christians believe.
Did Jesus say,i am god,or i am his son and god is my father.

That verse is so clear to show us the relation between god and jesus.

 

[Oryonder]

Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him." Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born a new[born again] he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:1-3 RSV)

So Jesus is a teacher came from god,then how he is god as most christians believe.
Did Jesus say,i am god,or i am his son and god is my father.

That verse is so clear to show us the relation between god and jesus.

First off it needs to be said that the Johannine gospel bears little resemblence to the others.

The second part is that all Jesus is saying here is that one needs first die and be resurrected to see God.

 

[gnostic]

To reach the summit of a mountain, there are many paths. Each path is different. Sometimes you need lots of safety gear to climb up a large cliff, sometimes you need a survival kit and/or a guide to get you through a certain part safely.

But, as different as each path is, and as different as each side of the mountain is, they all eventually reach the summit.

That's pretty much how I view religion.

Personally, I'd prefer to live in a place not so high up, like small hill (nothing too steep, mind you), valley or plain.

I don't particularly like climbing, so I definitely would like mountain climbing. And air is so thin that i can barely breath. And there is a fat chance of me falling, and making a small splatter at the bottom of a mountain. :thud:

 

[Muffled]

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

Technically in Christianity prophecy is a gift of the spirit. It would be a case of God bringing a message to other people. God mostly speaks to me as part of our personal relationship.

I am not sure of your reference so I don't know.