The Greatest Threat to the Church Today...

Constantines ignorance of the Bible and theology has everything to do with what we are talking about. It shows he didn't know the difference between orthodoxy and arianism. It shows he had not theological dog in the fight. He wanted peace for peace sake and unifying sake.

Sorry, the Church decided on 'homoousion'. And Arian and his followers tried to change it at the end but were rejected. "The Council refused, and issued with the Emperor's approval the following creed..." (Durant, Ceaser and Christ, p.660)

Quantrill

 

a later addition by man in kjv which was published in 1611.
(~1600 years later)

no trinity mentioned.

true, follow jesus, because he brings the message from God.
no claim of deity.

this is the verse that mentions muhammed (saw).
your interpretation is that, and my interpretation is this.

thus still basing on interpretation.

no trinity mentioned.

no trinity mentioned.

no trinity mentioned.

i see no direct words of the deity of jesus (pbuh)
only phrases open to interpretations.

for instance; show me where jesus (pbuh) claims deity.

"i am God, worship me"

i'm sure when you claim deity and principles of faith,
you wouldn't imply them, you would say them out loud wide open,
so that there are no confusions.

and it is made clear: there is one God, worship him.
the 1+1+1=1 formula is mankind's addition.

God is beyond all matter.
he created the creation but he is not the creation.
nor does he need to become, in order to see or feel what we go through.
he does not need to make theatrical appearances to prove a point.

he is the highest, far away from these blasphemies.

people assign human attributes to him, because they can't
bear the notion of "no image". they cannot comprehend how
he can be beyond everything, and not begot or begotten.

thus a mighty prophet becomes a particle of God.

very direct psychology.

 

The thing that makes Jesus and God one is the concept of grace. In keeping with the old testament concept of sacrifice to cleanse sin ... what blood is strong enough to wash away ALL sin? Only the blood of God.

There is ONLY one way for that happen, and that is through the begotten Son of God. There is enough of a debate within the various Christian denomination about the distinctness or sameness of God and Jesus that essentially it is a matter of faith.

Forgiveness is indeed in the Koran, but one of teh differences between Islam and Christianity is what that sacrifice of Jesus means. The concept of grace, of being forgiven because someone else, namely Jesus, has taken on our burdens through his sacrifice, is a key aspect of our faith. Christians revere Jesus as the Son of God, and not merely a mighty prophet. He was sent for a specific purpose. Mohammed, in contrast, makes no claim to divinity, but occupies a central role in Islam as a Prophet - and, as we know, human Prophets are not perfect.

This leads to another difference in the faith. There are temporal concerns and spiritual concerns. Mohammed was both a political leader and a religious leader, Jesus was not. The politics that Mohammed, as a Prophet and certainly with wisdom and ability, had to interact with in the political relam which is invariably ... compromising. We get the same interaction in the OT, the same contextual problem sets and questionable sitiations, but not from our Central figure. Jesus simply states that we follow the lawful and honorable governments that we find ourselves citizens of.

We can see the offshoot of this difference in a debate that still swirls today with sharia. There is little doubt, as a historian, that sharia was a code that was well beyond most of its peers in its day (many people had no legal code at all and were ruled by fiat). Indeed, in places where law and order has broken down, where corruption and greed have wrecked injustice, sharia is STILL a marked improvement. However, 1400 years later is it still perfect in context? As new technologies arise, and the world becomes smaller, one is left wondering how teh Prophet would change with the times? How teh Prophet would react to technology that rapidly undermines the need for gender roles in familial settings and the tremendous boost in educational opportunities. This is something that Muslims struggle with, whether to create societies in the 'perfect' setting of sharia, or whether to allow jurisprudence to evolve into a functional status within its context.

Whether Jesus by a Prophet or the Son of God, both instances of a Prophet and a Son of God introduce solutions and problems sets that still have to be addressed. Islam and Christianity are brothers. So similar, so different, and both in many cases so obviously overlapping with different but honest solutions to the same problems - the same problems that any society faces.

 

Why did Christ go to the cross? Did he go because he just was sick of living? Did he go because he was just a moral man?

Why did all the men following Him die horrible deaths…crucifixions upside down, beheadings etc? Did they do this just for a friend? Or was there more?

Why have so many people given their lives spiritually and physically for Christ?

No Jesus was not just any ordinary man….and you will be judged on WHO YOU THINK CHRIST REALLY IS. I would encourage you to reread the Word….Did you know Jesus did not say one bad word against rape…did not mention the word abortion, did not mention pedophilia? Do you think Jesus would have condoned these acts? Because he does not say or do something…does not mean it is not so.

And Jesus said…...
"Men, you have been with me sometime now. Yet you are still unsure who I am, and what my work is. Who do men say that I am?" They quickly answered, "Some say you are John the Baptist, others say you are Elijah, and others say you are Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Jesus then looked at them intently and asked, "But who do you say that I am?" In typical aggressive style, Peter immediately replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30)

Self explanatory.

 

Quotation from the New Testament, please, concerning the Trinity. Everything depended on the approval of the Emperor, especially Theodosius, who chose the appropriate Fathers (it's a matter of history, not 'faith') to establish the theology that suited the government. Just denying it doesn't change the facts.

 

the diversity is a blessing.

qur'an / 49:13
O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female
and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another.
Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most
righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.​

i appreciate your views and i agree with most of them.
you know the parts where i don't agree.
for example: according to me, if you are forgiven (whatever
you do in this life), then the whole notion of being here is nullified.
it's a long discussion, if you want to get on with it let me know.

but nowadays, although we have the easiest access to knowledge,
the ignorance and fear has taken over. and that naturally leads to
anger and violence.

we have lost the basic notion of "removing our own cultural
reference point" while examining other cultures, traditions and
religions... maybe that is why bias reigns over 99%.

the west has a lot to learn from the east,
and the east has a lot to learn from the west.
but we are busy chasing each other's tail.

as a muslim we have to let people know.
not sell our religion, but transfer the basic information
at least once. the rest is up to people.

that's the reason of my presence here.

your belief is between you and Allah.
i have no saying in this.

all i'm saying is you shouldn't keep pushing the idea of trinity
being in the bible. because the actual words are not in there.

there is this message in the bible (which was altered)
but also a doctrine produced by man.

the doctrine and the source don't overlap.

we can go into an endless debate here, like it happened to me
many times, where i'll ask you again and again to show me one
direct claim of divinity in the scripture; and you will show
me some statements that can be pulled both ways. and at the
end we will say:

qur'an / 109:6
for you is your religion, and for me is my religion.​

be well.
may Allah guide you.

 

Trinity can be a difficult concept or a simple one.. Most Christians understand it as .. Father, Son and Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit..

Its still all the ONENESS of God the Creator.

I wouldn't get too exercised about it.

 

Jesus was GOD in the form of a man. Read the Bible, it clearly states this.

 

the point is not the concept.
for the concept is a shelter for shirk to a muslim.

the point is the incoherence of the doctrine (church/council)
and the source (the bible).


ps:
continuous bold is less legible;
typographically more monotone than font's regular flow.

 

Then don't take it literally.. Some Christians say that we are all the sons of God... the children of God ....and that they spirit of God can dwell in each of us.

It was manifest and realized and claimed by Jesus of Nazareth..

 

Matt. 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo the heavens weere opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

No, everything did not depend on the Emperor. The Church doesn't care what the Emperor says. Why do you think the Church was persecuted so much.

Actually, your the one just saying it. So, just saying it doesn't make it so. Just saying it doesn't change the facts.

Quantrill

 

The thing that makes Jesus and God one is the concept of grace. In keeping with the old testament concept of sacrifice to cleanse sin ... what blood is strong enough to wash away ALL sin? Only the blood of God.

There is ONLY one way for that happen, and that is through the begotten Son of God. There is enough of a debate within the various Christian denomination about the distinctness or sameness of God and Jesus that essentially it is a matter of faith.

Forgiveness is indeed in the Koran, but one of teh differences between Islam and Christianity is what that sacrifice of Jesus means. The concept of grace, of being forgiven because someone else, namely Jesus, has taken on our burdens through his sacrifice, is a key aspect of our faith. Christians revere Jesus as the Son of God, and not merely a mighty prophet. He was sent for a specific purpose. Mohammed, in contrast, makes no claim to divinity, but occupies a central role in Islam as a Prophet - and, as we know, human Prophets are not perfect.

This leads to another difference in the faith. There are temporal concerns and spiritual concerns. Mohammed was both a political leader and a religious leader, Jesus was not. The politics that Mohammed, as a Prophet and certainly with wisdom and ability, had to interact with in the political relam which is invariably ... compromising. We get the same interaction in the OT, the same contextual problem sets and questionable sitiations, but not from our Central figure. Jesus simply states that we follow the lawful and honorable governments that we find ourselves citizens of.

We can see the offshoot of this difference in a debate that still swirls today with sharia. There is little doubt, as a historian, that sharia was a code that was well beyond most of its peers in its day (many people had no legal code at all and were ruled by fiat). Indeed, in places where law and order has broken down, where corruption and greed have wrecked injustice, sharia is STILL a marked improvement. However, 1400 years later is it still perfect in context? As new technologies arise, and the world becomes smaller, one is left wondering how teh Prophet would change with the times? How teh Prophet would react to technology that rapidly undermines the need for gender roles in familial settings and the tremendous boost in educational opportunities. This is something that Muslims struggle with, whether to create societies in the 'perfect' setting of sharia, or whether to allow jurisprudence to evolve into a functional status within its context.

Whether Jesus by a Prophet or the Son of God, both instances of a Prophet and a Son of God introduce solutions and problems sets that still have to be addressed. Islam and Christianity are brothers. So similar, so different, and both in many cases so obviously overlapping with different but honest solutions to the same problems - the same problems that any society faces.

 

It would be nice if you would find a book that is online so one could actually check if what you say is true.

The passage you quote does obviously cedes that Constantine was involved.
After many debates it was clear where Constantine stood and so politically expedient for Church leaders to go along with the Emperor.

Given that the state was persecuting Christians only a few years prior. It is no suprise that most Christian leaders went along with the Emperor. It is not like Nicea is the first time this was discussed ??

The fact that Eusebius refused to sign the document and was exiled is proof that there was quite a disagreement.

This does not change the fact that the Church at large did not accept that Jesus and God were one substance.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=LGD...age&q=Eusebius Constantine homoousios&f=false

As you read on you will find that the early debate between Arius and other Church leaders was because Arius refused to assert publicly that the son was "coeternal" with the Father and he claimed to have support of almost Eastern Bishops in his letter to Eusebius.

The Church of Alexandria is in Egypt (the ones who disagreed with Arius) and all those in the East includes Constantinople.

None of the leaders at this time appear to believe that the Son "is" the Father. The disagreement is on whether or not the Father existed prior to Jesus.

"Constantine felt a moral duty to intervent in the dispute. He wrote a letter to Alexander and Arius urging them to settle their differences peaceably ...Constantine... set a lower value on theological definitions... than on making the Roman Empire Christian" P 212 Constantine " repeatedly rebukes Alexander and Arius for quarelling over questions which are of no importance"

There were plots afoot in the Empire ... Constantine even ended up killing his son and wife. Constatine wanted order and unity under one God .. and Christianity was part of his plan.

Constantine was very involved in the council of Nicaea. It was Constantine that had it moved from Ancyra. P 214

"Constantine settled differences and urged all to concord" P 216

When the Emperor "urges" you to concord .. and Emperor that has killed is own wife and son for going against him .. one is best advised to do so.

Eusebius spoke to defend his orthadoxy and "his enemies could find no obvious blunder in this creed" .. They do not find fault in the fact that Eusebius does not believe Jesus and Father are one, obviously because this is not what they believe either.

Then Constantine speaks: "he commended Eusebius's beliefs as orthadox and almost identical, in fact, with is own and surely acceptable to all - if Eusebius would only add that the Son was of one substance with the Father" P 216

Indeed it was Constantine that decreed that this was how things would go.

The orthadoxy of those sympathetic to Arius also appeared to have been discussed over the next days.

"At all events a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia was read in which he repudiated the term homoousios, a word now sanctioned by the Emperor"

The creed was written and "Constantine made it clear that he expected all to accept it" P216

Contrary to your assertion that Constantine was an impartial bystander, Constantine was very involved. Constantine presided over the council of Nicaea and dictated how the dispute would be resolved.

Anyone with any ideas contrary to Constantines creed was messing with the Emperor which was not a good idea.

 

So, indeed, just like several posters have told you, there were two sides to the debate ... and one side lost.

Just like ... loads of posters have pointed out ... The Trinity is indeed supported with Biblical context and citation. Yet somehow, the side that lost debate centuries ago ... is actually right ... now because Constantine dictated it so?

Did it occur to you that by the time Constantine accepted the Church, it was because the church was already established within the Roman population? Its not like Constantine went, "Oh, today I am Christian do everyone else in my empire should be ...," and they all just did it.

If you are going to dump political influence into situation, then you should probably realize that church officials at this point had a great deal of authority ... just as the clergy did under Roman Paganism.

BTW - perhaps you recognize Will Durant ...

"Secular scholar Will Durant, who left the Catholic Church and embraced humanism, also dismisses the idea in Caesar and Christ (the third volume of his Story of Civilisation), the

The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man."

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

 

The conversion is not about biblical support for the Trinity or the evidence for the existence of Jesus. What on earth are you talking about ?

If you do not like the material from the book I presented then find a book of your own or at least say something relevent to the topic.

You are full of opinions but low on evidence.

The idea that Jesus "is" God was not believed by the Church at large until Constantine's time.

 

if people don't take the doctrine literally,
and don't take the source literally.

what do they take literally?
what do they rely on?

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/228412-greatest-threat-church-today-44.html#post1060831135
(answered your post above, you must have missed it)

 

No one is saying there was no disagreement. And no one is saying Constantine wasn't involved. But, Constantine did not sway the Church. Constantine didn't know which way to sway himself as to correct doctrine.

You keep putting forth the claim that the majority of representatives there were Arian. That is a lie. If that had been the case, the Nicene Creed would have supported Arianism.

You cite Origen often. Where does he say that The Son was created or that that The Son didn't always exist with the Father. Where did 'he' say it. Not someone you quote as saying he said it. Though much of Origens theology is 'iffy', I do not find him an Arian.

So, what you had was a heresy arising from Arius. He gained some followers. They were a minority in the Church, but a vocal minority. Those who championed the Orthodox view and Biblical view of Christ won the day because of the force of their arguments and the soundness of them Scripturally. Constantine wished for an end to this so supported the vote against Arianism emphatically.

Quantrill

 

We don't know if they were a minority or not. We know they were powerless. But even if they were a minority, that perfectly describes what Christ said true believers would be. The argument of greater numbers is not a persuasive one as to what is truth, nor is the argument of fewer numbers being the keeper of truth. It is an irrelevancy.
Power is the functional trump card for theology, and what you are talking about is the rise of a controlling force within the faith community. That is history, and it has little to do with "Truth", per se.

 

An understanding of the purpose of PARABLE.. as a teaching story.

The Bible is made up of several kinds of writing.. I think there are 23 letters to the seven churches scattered around the Mediterranean as well as to the Romans and the Hebrews.

There are songs and poems..

There are wisdom teachings like Proverbs and the Beaititudes..

The Sermon on the Mount teaches non violent liberation theology .. or how to cope with the Roman occupation.

The life of the Christ..

And the teachings of Jesus in the form of stories... Parables

In the old testament.. its about Jewish history, their relationship and struggle with God.. and repeated stories of disobedience, falling away, mercy and redemption.

 

The message.

Again, the idea of a parable is not new.

You asked me about the point if we are forgiven? Well, once again that is the point of our faith. Why are we here? God created us correct? He loves us. That is not something we earn, espcially as the best of us are nevertheless still Sinners.

And the thing about grace and Christianity is that you cannot truely earn your way into God's grace. Only through forgiveness of you Sins can you be worthy. That means that a righteous and honorable man who tell a white lie and is forgiven is as worthy to God as a murderer who realizes that he has been wicked and beseeches God to forgive him (which doesn't mean a release from conseuqnces of our actions).

How do Muslims atone with God? How do Muslims seek the forgiveness that we all need to be worthy of standing before God? With no concept of grace, how does a person be forgiven?

What we do most certainly matters, but the point, in our faith, is that the closer you come to God, the more you will want to be like him. It isn't rules that bring us to God, its love. And, the KJV that you claim is written only a few hundred years ago? Well, it makes it clear that the highest form of Love is Charity.

How is that different from the Zakat? And is a man who gives to charity, meets his Zakat, but is miserly in other ways toward his fellow man really doing what God wishes?

Again, I realize that this is an oversimplification of the Islamic rules on the subject, but the concept of grace is one of critical importance to Christians - it is indeed one of teh greatest distinction between the OT and the NT.

It is a concept that I believe is in perfect alignment with a just and loving God who desires that we suceed in this life - because he is our Father and Creator.

 

Yes - and anyone who knows the stories of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son or the hiring of the labourers for the Vinyard sees at once how they reflect the same mind as reported events like the Woman taken in Adultery and cast huge doubt on the self-righteous haters and excluders and their alleged 'Christianity'.

 

The arguement is that there are two sides to a debate and one side won the debate and that is how policy is set.

The idea that only one side of the debate, a clerical debate, was the embodiment of Christ is silly.

SOmetimes you simply lose because yoru arguement is weaker - and the stronger arguement convices more people. Which is why no one argueing the side that lost tehn is able to make a convincing theological case that the Trinity is ... wrong.

Indeed, there are more of you ... has no bearing in actual scholarship.

 

Yes, because interjecting your personal and derisive opinions about the hatred of others, but never you mind you, is relevant to the debate.

Why would you think the parable of teh good Samartian would not be true? The prodigal son? Did people not hire laborers in the ancient world? (Ostensibly the ancient world built itself?)

And yet THAT forms the basis of your arguement that others are full of hate?

Why is it so many atheists struggle with actual debate? Are so quick to resort to emotion?

 

If you read my post carefully, or better yet read a few pages in the book "Constantine and Eusebius" that I linked to, you will see that Constantine did indeed sway the Church and insisted on the term homoousios.

Constantine wanted order and unity and when the Church could not decide he imposed it.

I have never once put forth this claim.

I never said Origen was an Arian. Obviously Arianism did not exist during Origins time because Arius was not yet born. Nor have I claimed that Origin held beliefs similar to Arius.

What I do claim is that Origin, and the Pope Dionysius (who was a student of Origin) did not believe that Jesus and God were one in the same.

Origin believed that Jesus was subordinate to God.

The issue/heresy of Arianism was whether God and Jesus were "coeternal".

It is not clear to me who was the minority or majority on this but it would be interesting to know.

The concept of "coeternal" is a much different idea than homoousois - that Jesus and God were of the same substance.

The early Church did not believe that Jesus was God and it appears that it was only during the time of, or perhaps a few years prior to, Constantine that this concept was taken seriously.

It was definately the concept that Constantine pushed through at Nicaea.

Homoousios solved two problems in one blow:

It solved the problem of pre-existence -"was God before Jesus?" -which was a raging debate...

and it solved the problem of Christianity having two divine beings (Jesus and God) which did not fit with monotheism.

This solution was first suggested around 200AD by Tertullian. At the time the Church at large did not take this suggestion seriously and it was branded heresy.

It certainly was not taken seriously by Origin and Dionysius 250 AD so for at least the first 200 years of Christianity almost no one thought that Jesus and God were the same substance.

I can find no evidence that homoousois was taken seriously prior to 300 AD but would certainly like to see some if you have it.

 

What does Eusebius or Constantine have to do with "The Greatest Threat to the Church Today..."? Neither of those persons are living today.