The Trinity

[Mark2020]

Ummm, what's so funny exactly? Why would Constantine even bother hearing accusations against this leader of his national church from this "heretical" sect? Why would he go against the entire grain of his entire empire?

What's funny is that you stop at nothing.
Twisting words, meanings, translation, calling translators and writers all liars. And now twisting history. Are you really that desperate my friend.
Seriously, can't you see any problem there?
You have to go that low to try and prove your view?
I feel sorry for you, and pray to God to open your eyes and heart.

 

[Shermana]

In the beggining was the Word. And the word was with God. And the Word was God.

You are welcome to believe that the "Word" he was talking about was the "Logos", but I'd say you're in an extreme minority position, and by extreme I mean you wouldn't be able to find ANYONE on the internet to back this view that James was referring to the Logos when he said "word". Can you find a single source that says that the "word" James was talking about was the "Logos"? I don't think you understand what "word" means in that context? And back to the subject, 1:1c should read "and a god was the word".

lol where does Paul teach that??

Maybe in the verse I quoted which you seem to have ignored and not wanted to exegete? Romans 2:13. 3:31 is good too.

We are told not to eat food with blood in it. And Women were spoken about in number of places. What your point?

You said there was no part of the Mosaic Law still binding. That would include blood sausage. And Paul says "As it says in the Law" regarding Women.

Check out the Didache. An old manuscript, which I think sums it all up very well.

I like the Didache a lot, except for the fact that its filled with some later interpolations. The Didache is said to be a very Jewish document.

 

[Shermana]

What's funny is that you stop at nothing.
Twisting words, meanings, translation, calling translators and writers all liars. And now twisting history. Are you really that desperate my friend.
Seriously, can't you see any problem there?
You have to go that low to try and prove your view?
I feel sorry for you, and pray to God to open your eyes and heart.

How about instead of making accusations you actually go into the specifics? Changing the subject doesn't help your case either.

 

[outhouse]

How about instead of making accusations you actually go into the specifics?

im waiting for that one.


said party avoids specifics

 

[Mark2020]

How about instead of making accusations you actually go into the specifics? Changing the subject doesn't help your case either.

You can read the wikipedia article, which is clear.
Any other implications are added by you.

Oh and I just noticed this:

"Changing the subject doesn't help your case either"
Thanks for the laughs

 

[outhouse]

Im looking foir a article on Constantine that is very accurate and gets into every known detail of the man.

it will stop all the bickering about deatails from unrelaiable sources

 

[Shermana]

You can read the wikipedia article, which is clear.
Any other implications are added by you.

Please demonstrate which Implication I made that isn't supported by Wikipedia or other sources on the Synod.

 

[Mark2020]

Please demonstrate which Implication I made that isn't supported by Wikipedia or other sources on the Synod.

No reference in the wiki article to theology.
I don't think it takes a university professor to understand this.

 

[Shermana]

More to the point, Constantine had decided that he wanted Athanasius to re-admit Arius to the church -- which he would not do

The Arianism of the Synod of Tyre was ultimately overturned by the Council of Constantinople

No reference at all? What does it mean by "Arianism of the Synod"? Obviously more than just "telling Athanasius to re-admit Arius".

 

[JacobEzra.]

You are welcome to believe that the "Word" he was talking about was the "Logos", but I'd say you're in an extreme minority position, and by extreme I mean you wouldn't be able to find ANYONE on the internet to back this view that James was referring to the Logos when he said "word". Can you find a single source that says that the "word" James was talking about was the "Logos"? I don't think you understand what "word" means in that context? And back to the subject, 1:1c should read "and a god was the word".

I see you missed my point. He was talking of the Son of God. He didn't leave without noting we have rules to follow.

Maybe in the verse I quoted which you seem to have ignored and not wanted to exegete? Romans 2:13. 3:31 is good too.

I didn't see any verse you quoted from Paul. Just James.

Romans 2

[12] For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. [13] For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

[16] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. [17] But if thou art called a Jew and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, [18] And knowest his will, and approvest the more profitable things, being instructed by the law, [19] Art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness, [20] An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, having the form of knowledge and of truth in the law.

Romans 3

[26] Through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time; that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. [27] Where is then thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. [28] For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law. [29] Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. [30] For it is one God, that justifieth circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.[31] Do we, then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid: but we establish the law.

That does not really back up your position, at all.

While your at it though, read ch 4

You said there was no part of the Mosaic Law still binding. That would include blood sausage. And Paul says "As it says in the Law" regarding Women.

Exactly, the mosaic law, the old covenant, in all of its practices are not binding to us.

Where does Paul say this? In what context? You do have a habit of taking things out of context

I like the Didache a lot, except for the fact that its filled with some later interpolations. The Didache is said to be a very Jewish document.

There is alot of Jewish elements in Christianity

 

[Mark2020]

No reference at all? What does it mean by "Arianism of the Synod"? Obviously more than just "telling Athanasius to re-admit Arius".

That's poor.
Condemning Athanasius wasn't based on theology.
Read well.

ps. Try to read how Arius died.

 

[Mark2020]

1:1c should read "and a god was the word".

Nope

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/121296-john-1-1-anarthrous-theos-big.html

 

[Shermana]

I see you missed my point. He was talking of the Son of God. He didn't leave without noting we have rules to follow.

I didn't miss your point at all. I asked you to find a single other source that says he was referring to the "Word" as in Jesus rather than "the word" which was the scripture. Apparently too much for you.

I didn't see any verse you quoted from Paul. Just James.

I typed it out it before I edited anything.

That does not really back up your position, at all.

The "Law of Faith" apparently has a lot of overlap with the Law of Moses.

While your at it though, read ch 4

Try reading it with the context of 2:13 and 3:31 in mind.

Exactly, the mosaic law, the old covenant, in all of its practices are not binding to us.

So that means you can now eat Blood Sausage? Where does it forbid you from marrying your sister? Nowhere.

Where does Paul say this? In what context? You do have a habit of taking things out of context

Telling me that I take verses out of context when you think James was referring to Jesus by "word"? Do what "it" says? Jesus is an "it"? Maybe you should write to these translators.

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.

Then there's the fact that the word "Word" as "logos" is used such as "NAS: to whom the word of God"" elsewhere.

Corinthians 14:34, I guess Paul was referring to the "Law of Faith" here?

women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

There is alot of Jewish elements in Christianity

In Messianic Judaism, yes, but most gentile Christianity tries to "dejudaize" itself.

 

[Shermana]

That's poor.
Condemning Athanasius wasn't based on theology.
Read well.

ps. Try to read how Arius died.

PS Try reading my post again and actually answer the questions. And perhaps you forgot that I mentioned that Constantine and the entire Royal family converted to Arianism against the grain of their own empire.

Arius was poisoned btw, but by who...?

 

[JacobEzra.]

Okay, Shermana. I am done arguing with you. Mainly because you give me such a headache.

Just tell me one thing. Since you believe we should follow the Old covenant, and the New, i guess. Then does this mean we have to observe passover, wear tefillim and tallit and keep kosher? What about sacrifices? Or are we not allowed to either, since the temple is gone? What role does Jesus play then? Besides circumscion, since I know you do not argue for it, do we have to observe 613 mitzvot to?

In Messianic Judaism, yes, but most gentile Christianity tries to "dejudaize" itself.

Thats not what I see. Since the new covenant is a continuation of the old, its still very Jewish. Maybe not as Jewish as if you take Judaism and just simply like the words Christ said. But as a continuation, yes.

 

[Shermana]

do we have to observe 613 mitzvot to?

As of right now, there is no Temple to make Sacrifices, that will change when Yashua returns. As it stands, Jesus is the Guilt Offering replacement. Isaiah 53:10 is pretty clear, but very few actually know what the messianic prophecies are in the first place.

Is there a particular commandment you feel is too much of a burden? Do you have an issue taking a day off for rest? Hate the idea of not defrauding? Hopefully none of the ones in Leviticus 18...

Not all of them are for men either, many are for women alone. Many are only to be done with a Temple standing.

Try a blow-dryer on your ear for your headache.

 

[Mark2020]

PS Try reading

Then you'll have to prove you're view. Not just base it on your conclusions.

Arius was poisoned btw, but by who...?

Was he?
Arius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates Scholasticus (a detractor of Arius) described Arius's death as follows:

It was then Saturday, and...going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian [Eusebius of Nicomedia is meant here] partisans like guards, he [Arius] paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine's Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine's Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.[28]
​

Many Nicene Christians asserted that Arius's death was miraculous—a consequence of his allegedly heretical views. Several recent writers, far removed from the event, have guessed that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents.[29]

 

[JacobEzra.]

As of right now, there is no Temple to make Sacrifices, that will change when Yashua returns.

Is there a particular commandment you feel is too much of a burden? Do you have an issue taking a day off for rest? Hate the idea of not defrauding? Hopefully none of the ones in Leviticus 18...

Not all of them are for men either, many are for women alone. Many are only to be done with a Temple standing.

Yes I know all of this. I am not foreign to Judaism.

When I read the Apostles it seems that the whole of the Old Covenant is not needed to be practiced as if its different from the New.. But I will research more.

 

[JacobEzra.]

As it stands, Jesus is the Guilt Offering replacement. Isaiah 53:10 is pretty clear, but very few actually know what the messianic prophecies are in the first place.

Can you explain this a bit more. I am very familiar with a good bit of messianic prophecies, as interpretate by both Jews and Christians.

Try a blow-dryer on your ear for your headache.

Are you trying to be just offensive? I thought I was reasonable in throwing in the towel and trying to hear more explanation from you.

 

[Shermana]

(a detractor of Arius)

I truly appreciate Socrates Scholasticus work, but I wonder if he he left out any details considering he lived 100 years after the fact. Why is that not "far removed"? Why is Socrates not "Far removed"?