So by "good enough" you meant "no"?Asking for orthodox before a sure notion of orthodoxy existed is not really a good question. These guys are quoted by Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans as authorities so I think that's good enough.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So by "good enough" you meant "no"?Asking for orthodox before a sure notion of orthodoxy existed is not really a good question. These guys are quoted by Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans as authorities so I think that's good enough.
No, I meant they are considered orthodox enough for the orthodox churches to quote them.So by "good enough" you meant "no"?
No, I meant they are considered orthodox enough for the orthodox churches to quote them.
These guys are Apostolic Fathers. I mean, I'm not sure what more anyone wants.
Unless someone (hmm?) wants them to agree with everything in the modern churches, which is impossible.
These guys contributed to the orthodoxy before there was one.
Not seeing the problem, man.
The Apostolic Fathers, those in the orthodox Christians who knew apostles should be more relevant, and they have called Jesus their God.
Could you offer the names of three?
Can you think of anything other than Church tradition that established which apostle or apostles each knew?
Could you offer the names of three?
So you don't believe in the Tradition.It was claimed ...
I asked ...
And you responded with three names. I then asked ...
And you danced, and that is "the problem, man."
Parenthetically, these Apostolic Fathers are the source of the claims pertaining to NT authorship. That, too, is "the problem, man."
Thanks. Do you have any evidence (other than tradition) that any of them knew any of the apostles?There aren't many.
Here is a list of those considered Apostolic Fathers.
True.So you don't believe in the Tradition.
That's your problem not mine.
I know Jesus was fully man. He was born for a reason in the likeness of Adam, a perfect man. For someone to have special gifts as Jesus did, there are surely those that would classify him in a 'god' status. It is also written that God said, "Let us make man in our IMAGE..." And they were to be given dominion over the animals. "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." (Genesis 1:26,27)There aren't many.
Here is a list of those considered Apostolic Fathers.
There are quite a few references to the deity of Jesus in their works.
eg:
The Apostolic Fathers and the Deity of Christ
The earliest Christian writers outside the New Testament, known as the Apostolic Fathers, clearly understood the scriptures to teach that Jesus is God.carm.org
You seem to be radically misinformed about Constantine. The man is known for only three things that had any impact on the Christian church.It's not crap, the church today is derived from Constantine's church, just like the books of the Bible were selected by men under Constantine's dominion.
True that I read he was baptized just before his death by an Arian and not a trinitarian believer. Then there's also the account of the flying cross that he supposedly maybe saw. Battle of the Milvian Bridge - WikipediaYou seem to be radically misinformed about Constantine. The man is known for only three things that had any impact on the Christian church.
1. He issued the edict of Milan that removed all the penalties for being a Christian, ending the persecution.
2. He established a seven day week, and made the first day a holiday, which made it easier for Christians, who were gathering on the first day to break bread.
3. He called the Council of Nicea so that the bishops would work out the issue that was dividing them, because he knew that a united church made it easier for him to govern his empire.
What he did NOT do:
A. He did NOT make Christianity the state religion. That was actually done by Theodosius, who came a couple of emperors down the road.
B. He did NOT influence the council of Nicea. Constantine's preference was actually for Arianism, and as we all know, it was the Trinitarians who won out at the Council. The only people who had a say in the Council were the bishops. He was the emperor, not a Christian bishop, and had no say in the decision.
C. He did NOT have anything to do with the formation of the Chrsitian canon of the New Testament, either directly, or indirectly by influencing those who did. The ecumenical councils that formed the canon happened decades after his death in 337 CE. The canon was first formed at the council of Rome in 382 at the Council of Rome. It was then reaffirmed by the councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage 397, and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442 and the council of Trent in the 16th century.
Constantine himself, although he was very soft on Christianity, did not actually become a Christian until near death. When he was finally baptized, it was by an Arian bishop, not Trinitarian.
Misinformation about Constantine is so common, that I think I'm going to copy this post into an opening post for a new thread.
As I pointed out back at #9 ,the Trinity has no basis in scripture, since the Jesus of Mark, the Jesus of Matthew, the Jesus of Luke, the Jesus of John and through Paul, the Jesus of Paul, each expressly deny that they're God and nowhere claim to be God. Here are a few of the quotes ─ I should mention them to @Rival too:
Paul
Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Mark 12
29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one;
30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ [...]
32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;
Matthew 20:
23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Matthew 24:
36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
Luke 18:
18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
John 8
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
John 17:
3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
John 20
17 Jesus said to her, “[...] go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
Well, since I *am* a Jew, let me share what I see through my "Jewish lens."You are incorrect. Jesus believed He was God in all four Gospels. You don't see it because you have to look through the bible through a Jewish lens and understand the time they were living.
What it does is contradict basic logic. Something cannot be X and not X at the same time. You can say God is one if you want. Or you can say God is three if you want. But you cannot rationally say that God is one and three at the same time.
Well, since I *am* a Jew, let me share what I see through my "Jewish lens."
The New Testament gives conflicting opinions as to who Jesus was, whether he was a god-man, or just a man. Thus, anyone reading the NT with an eye to determine the nature of Jesus, is forced to emphasize one set of verses, and conspicuously ignore the other set. This is why both Arian Christians and Trinitarian Christians BOTH base their theology on the New Testament, but reach radically different conclusions.
Continuing to use my "Jewish lens," any text that claims that a man is god is teaching idolatry. It doesn't matter if the man is Caesar, or Jesus, or David Koresh. The sacred text of Jews, what we call the Tanakh and Christians call the Old Testament, teaches on four separate occasions that God is not a man.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man...nor a son of man.
1 Samuel 15:29 for he is not a man
Hosea 11:9 I am God and not a man
Job 9:32 For he is not a man
This is one of many reasons why I don't accept the NT, just as I don't accept the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, etc.
The sacred text of Jews, what we call the Tanakh and Christians call the Old Testament, teaches on four separate occasions that God is not a man.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man...nor a son of man.
1 Samuel 15:29 for he is not a man
Hosea 11:9 I am God and not a man
Job 9:32 For he is not a man
This is one of many reasons why I don't accept the NT, just as I don't accept the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, etc.
Jesus never promised to return to earth, not once in the New Testament. Jesus said His work was finished here and He was no more in the world.Yes, it does. Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, a legend, or indeed the Son of God who promised to return.
Jesus never claimed to be God. It was Christians who claimed that Jesus was God.I believe Jesus claimed to be God in all four Gospels. I believe the four Gospels are first-century biographies of Jesus. If Jesus did exist, died on the cross, and was resurrected, there can be no other God but the God of the bible.
It doesn't matter what Peter &c said. All four gospel Jesuses state that they are not God, and Paul states the same on his Jesus' behalf.You are incorrect. Jesus believed He was God in all four Gospels. You don't see it because you have to look through the bible through a Jewish lens and understand the time they were living.
Paul called Jesus God and Savior
No, Jesus is saying only one entity is good, and it's not him, Jesus.At Luke 18:19 Jesus may be challenging the man to examine his understanding of calling him good because by calling Jesus good he would be recognizing that Jesus was God. There are other interpretations, but the point is that it definitively does not declare or deny His divinity.
- In Luke 18: 19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
What do you think he meant when he quoted from the scriptures about that?You are incorrect. Jesus believed He was God in all four Gospels. You don't see it because you have to look through the bible through a Jewish lens and understand the time they were living.
Paul called Jesus God and Savior
- Titus 2:13: “Waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ
Peter whom Mark followed called Jesus God and Savior
- 2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
At Luke 18:19 Jesus may be challenging the man to examine his understanding of calling him good because by calling Jesus good he would be recognizing that Jesus was God. There are other interpretations, but the point is that it definitively does not declare or deny His divinity.
- In Luke 18: 19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
As for the scriptures below, Jesus was born as a human. He was the Word, and the Word became flesh. As a human, he was limited as the Son. But when he died, he was lifted, and the father was able to give him the kingdom because they are two different persons. But still, one Being. Two persons but one essence. The Father has the role in heaven, and Jesus as the Son on earth. A Husband may be greater than his wife in the sense of being the head of the household, but this doesn't mean he is a greater person than his wife. They are both equal, having different roles. Similarly, a General may have a higher role than his lower-ranking soldier, but this doesn't mean the General is a higher person. They are both equal but have different roles. Jesus always respected his father's role, who sent him as the Father and Jesus as the Son, even to the point of not knowing when the last day would be as the Son and as a man.
- Matthew 20: 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
- Matthew 24: 36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
How the Jews looked at it way back then, the time it is supposed to depict, is not quite the way some look at it today*. Take, for instance, the exodus from Egypt, the Red Sea parting, and the giving of manna during that time in the wilderness. I think the Israelites are depicted to "look at it" differently as written than many Jews and others look at it today.Well, since I *am* a Jew, let me share what I see through my "Jewish lens."
The New Testament gives conflicting opinions as to who Jesus was, whether he was a god-man, or just a man. Thus, anyone reading the NT with an eye to determine the nature of Jesus, is forced to emphasize one set of verses, and conspicuously ignore the other set. This is why both Arian Christians and Trinitarian Christians BOTH base their theology on the New Testament, but reach radically different conclusions.
Continuing to use my "Jewish lens," any text that claims that a man is god is teaching idolatry. It doesn't matter if the man is Caesar, or Jesus, or David Koresh. The sacred text of Jews, what we call the Tanakh and Christians call the Old Testament, teaches on four separate occasions that God is not a man.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man...nor a son of man.
1 Samuel 15:29 for he is not a man
Hosea 11:9 I am God and not a man
Job 9:32 For he is not a man
This is one of many reasons why I don't accept the NT, just as I don't accept the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, etc.