Gabbylittleangel
Member
stranger said:
You won't find the words 'brake fluid' in Scripture either. :smt102 You believe in brake fluid don't you?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
You won't find the words 'brake fluid' in Scripture either. :smt102 You believe in brake fluid don't you?
francisdesales said:
Thanks Francis
I don't have any problem with the doctrine of Christ as it is outlined in scripture. It is man's distortion of the same that I deny.
And the only means by which we can define which 'experience' is true is not by a doctrine, but through the Spirit of God which enables us to discern the truth. There are many who say they have the truth, but unless they are born of the Spirit, the truth is not in them, irrespective of the doctrine they cling to.
But I must add that I do not deny the salvation of many who hold to the trinity, just as no-one can deny the salvation of those who are born of the spirit but who are not trinitarians.
The Lord bless you
I
Imagican
Guest
stranger said:
As 'one' that YOU would consider a 'Protestant', I WILL bite.
Mythology, (your 'mystery'), does NOT truth make. There is CERTAINLY 'mystery' involved with God. But that He exists is NOT 'mystical' in ANY sense, for those that KNOW Him.
Paradox would be a 'tool' of Satan so far as I am concerned. God cannot contradict Himself NOR would He. He IS truth. There is NO deception or 'trickiness' in His LOVE.
And there is NO man that is capable of 'containing Him'. No man able to 'place Him in a 'box' of THEIR OWN 'design'. God transends the wisdom of man and places 'truth' in its stead.
Amazing how Catholics are granted 'free reign' so far as thier 'imput' on this forum is concerned, yet others are 'warned and threatened' for thiers. This 'church' that INSISTS that it IS the ONLY 'true church'. That insist that ALL others that are NOT affiliated with 'them' are LOST. And promotion of this type of 'mentality' is tolerated over those that wish for the 'union' of ALL who 'believe in Christ Jesus. Amazing.
MEC
francisdesales
Member
Imagican said:
While John was arguing against Docetists - that Jesus did NOT come in the flesh - these Gnostics realized that Jesus WAS God - or at least some higher level of being. You are arguing the opposite, it seems. You appear to be saying the Jesus was NOT God AND neither was the Holy Spirit.
Apparently, this was an important doctrine to John, as he wouldn't have called people the "antichrist" if he was defending against false doctrine that was considered minor. Apparently, the idea of Trinity, while not fully developed like a catechism in the Sacred Scriptures, is clearly seen in the writings of the Fathers - who call it a "rule of faith" - the predessor of what we now call "the Creed". It is part of Christian belief from the beginning.
The point is that you seem to be denying that WHAT came in the flesh was indeed God Himself. The Son and the Father share the same nature, thus, when the Son BECAME flesh, the Divine Nature took on the charecteristics of human flesh - except sin.
Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally Col 2:8-9
I think that says enough. Jesus was God. Period.
I doubt that I could add more to this conversation from Scriptural proof texts and so forth. I have confidence in my other Trinitarian brothers who have posted numerous posts to you on this point. My point of joining this conversation was not to add my two cents, but to nullify your false historical presumptions that the Church DID NOT teach Trinity UNTIL AFTER Constantine.
That is a lie, pure and simple, and I had to refute your opinion there.
The rest is subject to Scriptural interpretation - and I doubt that any proof text from Scriptures will convince you otherwise, even Col 2 above. (which is why I highly regard Divinely-guided authority - we would never know what God really teaches if we follow our own opinions)
Regards
francisdesales
Member
stranger said:
May I as a Catholic respond, stranger?
First, I absolutely agree with your points, but with the following caveats...
Please do not blame the Protestant Reformation for this "lack of mystery" or the desire to "rationalize" the unknown of God. The Scholastics began this movement BEFORE the Reformation, and some of the speculations put forth as "truth" (how many angels can fit on the head of a pin!) was part of what led Luther and others to cast aside any (throwing the baby out with the bathwater) such spiritual Scriptural interpretations that was part and parcel of the Church for 1500 years before Luther. Luther was merely caught up in the humanism and counter-reaction to scholasticism of his time. (sadly, he felt he had to leave Mother Church - but that is another story. He probably would have been considered a saint otherwise, as the Church is ALWAYS in need of "reformers" - and it is a difficult thing to challenge authority)
Also, we must keep in mind that the culture itself was changing - the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenmnent (ironically called!) came upon culture - and religion was also effected.
Thus, we shouldn't blame the Protestant Reformation completely for the lack of mystery in our respective communities. It stems more from the desire in the West to rationalize everything, holding the human mind on a pedestal. Jesus warned against this, such as in John 6:60-63:
{The Jews said}...This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.
Which means - don't bother trying to figure out spiritual things with your human and fleshy minds. The fleshy mind will not figure it out.
He said something similar to Nicodemus as well.
It is tempting to try to rationalize and logically deduce what we believe in today's society of science. But we must remember that God will not fit in the box we try to create for Him. He will always exceed our expectations.
Regards
francisdesales
Member
mutzrein said:
Yes. I believe we should always try to maintain a balance between "doctrine" and "experience of God". It is quite easy to fool ourselves and believe we have had an "experience" that moves us to believe something outside of the community of believers and call it "God". That is why we should look to the Apostolic teachings and compare them with what we experience. The Apostolic teachings are our objective truth to compare our subjective experiential truths to. Thus, Buddhists experiencing God would have to try to explain it by ONE objective truth - Jesus Christ. Anything that deviated from that would be an inaccurate description or teaching of their experience.
Thanks again and God bless you
I
Imagican
Guest
And here we 'go again'. You can ONLY speak from 'your churches perspective, fran. ADMIT IT. And from 'this perspective', YOUR church is the ONLY church that 'understands truth'. Your attempt at 'persuading' those that 'your church' considers 'lost' just goes to show HOW far you would 'stoop' in order to 'gain' their acceptance.
NO, the 'early' or 'original' Church did NOT teach 'trinity'. THAT is a lie. The early CATHOLIC CHURCH did and 'this' I will accept OPENLY. And this same 'first Catholic church' WAS responsible for the torchering and murdering of MANY of God's children. That you refuse to acknoledge this just goes to show how 'your' church has been able to 'blind' even their 'own followers' to The Truth.
NEVER did a SINGLE apostle teach that one MUST accept 'trinity' in order to receive what God has to offer us through His Son. Your attempts to 'mask' the truth with your 'belief' that you have 'been taught' by 'your' church does NOT change the Truth. It only goes to prove that you believe in a 'different' truth. And for these, God Himself WILL offer STRONG delusion so that they WILL BELIEVE this 'truth', (as they call it).
And OBVIOUSLY what YOU consider to be 'the early church' is NOT the same Church that I accept as the 'early Church'. For the 'early Church' was NOT a 'man-made' institution but rather The Body of Christ. Not subject to the 'rules' aplied by 'men' but the Truth as supplied by Christ and His apostles. Apostles, may I REMIND you, that were MURDERED by the Romans. Those SAME that the apostles risked their lives to offer the Gospel FREELY.
False apostles are NOT those that accept Christ in the Flesh. But those that create idols of 'man's design' to worship AS God. Coming in 'sheeps clothing' in order to wrestle away the Truth through their cunning deceptions. Claiming that THEY ONLY have the Word and then devising cunning ways in which to ALTER IT.
Fran, I have NOTHING personal 'against' you. And I say NOTHING that MOST others would 'disagree' with if not for thier 'attempts' at 'political correctness'. But what MOST are 'unaware of' is that 'to condone' such is to 'take PART' in such. We are to 'fight the GOOD fight' NO MATTER WHAT the consequences. To 'pick up' Christ's Cross is NOT to be 'weak' in The Truth, but DEFEND IT at all costs. Even if that means laying down our 'own lives'.
What this thread originally contained was an offering that THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. It started with FACTS concerning God and His essence in the hopes that there 'may be a 'few' that would 'understand. That you or 'your church' does not is NOT something that I am able to alter. Nor WOULD I if I could. For God chooses who and how He will judge those that 'alter' His Word and those that DO 'are there' for a 'reason'.
This 'three-headed god' of 'trinity' was created by a 'people' that ALREADY had 'three-headed gods' of sorts and ALL kinds of 'other' gods. Pagentry of ALL sorts in order to 'honor' these 'other gods'. And simply incorporated Christ 'into the crowd', (along with Mary and the Saints).
And j, you 'sleep in this same bed' if you choose. But don't say that you weren't warned when it comes time for answers pertaining to 'The Truth'.
God Bless,
MEC
NO, the 'early' or 'original' Church did NOT teach 'trinity'. THAT is a lie. The early CATHOLIC CHURCH did and 'this' I will accept OPENLY. And this same 'first Catholic church' WAS responsible for the torchering and murdering of MANY of God's children. That you refuse to acknoledge this just goes to show how 'your' church has been able to 'blind' even their 'own followers' to The Truth.
NEVER did a SINGLE apostle teach that one MUST accept 'trinity' in order to receive what God has to offer us through His Son. Your attempts to 'mask' the truth with your 'belief' that you have 'been taught' by 'your' church does NOT change the Truth. It only goes to prove that you believe in a 'different' truth. And for these, God Himself WILL offer STRONG delusion so that they WILL BELIEVE this 'truth', (as they call it).
And OBVIOUSLY what YOU consider to be 'the early church' is NOT the same Church that I accept as the 'early Church'. For the 'early Church' was NOT a 'man-made' institution but rather The Body of Christ. Not subject to the 'rules' aplied by 'men' but the Truth as supplied by Christ and His apostles. Apostles, may I REMIND you, that were MURDERED by the Romans. Those SAME that the apostles risked their lives to offer the Gospel FREELY.
False apostles are NOT those that accept Christ in the Flesh. But those that create idols of 'man's design' to worship AS God. Coming in 'sheeps clothing' in order to wrestle away the Truth through their cunning deceptions. Claiming that THEY ONLY have the Word and then devising cunning ways in which to ALTER IT.
Fran, I have NOTHING personal 'against' you. And I say NOTHING that MOST others would 'disagree' with if not for thier 'attempts' at 'political correctness'. But what MOST are 'unaware of' is that 'to condone' such is to 'take PART' in such. We are to 'fight the GOOD fight' NO MATTER WHAT the consequences. To 'pick up' Christ's Cross is NOT to be 'weak' in The Truth, but DEFEND IT at all costs. Even if that means laying down our 'own lives'.
What this thread originally contained was an offering that THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. It started with FACTS concerning God and His essence in the hopes that there 'may be a 'few' that would 'understand. That you or 'your church' does not is NOT something that I am able to alter. Nor WOULD I if I could. For God chooses who and how He will judge those that 'alter' His Word and those that DO 'are there' for a 'reason'.
This 'three-headed god' of 'trinity' was created by a 'people' that ALREADY had 'three-headed gods' of sorts and ALL kinds of 'other' gods. Pagentry of ALL sorts in order to 'honor' these 'other gods'. And simply incorporated Christ 'into the crowd', (along with Mary and the Saints).
And j, you 'sleep in this same bed' if you choose. But don't say that you weren't warned when it comes time for answers pertaining to 'The Truth'.
God Bless,
MEC
francisdesales
Member
Imagican said:
Brother, paradox is NOT contradiction. Paradox means we reserve our judgment on two ideas that are in tension but do not contradict. We cannot fully explain the relationship, but from different parts of Scriptures, we hold to BOTH teachings.
Let me give you an example, if I may...
Authority and Liberty. The Scriptures hold to BOTH separately. On the surface, they would seem to contradict. Christ came to reveal TRUTH that makes us FREE - and He does so by informing our intellects and enabling us to bring into capacity every understanding to His OBEDIENCE.
Thus, we see both aspects, held in tension - freedom and obedience.
Imagican said:
Yes, we Catholics are amazing! :P
: On one thread, we are all going to hell (despite our proclamation that Jesus is our Lord and Savior) and on another, we are given "free reign". Another of those paradoxes!
To correct your other misstatement, the Catholic Church does not "insist" that we are the "ONLY true Church", while condemning all other believers of Christ!!! Vatican 2 says we are the FULLNESS of the Church, it "SUBSISTS WITHIN" the Catholic Church - not that the CHURCH OF CHRIST IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. That is never said in Vatican 2.
There is an important distinction between 'subsists' and 'is'...
The fullness of truth is taught in the Catholic Church. It has ALL the tools that enable a man to come to Christ and to become sanctified - in the sense that God works through the Liturgy, the sacraments, and the Scriptures. Thus, the Church subsists in fullness at Rome.
HOWEVER this does NOT NOT NOT deny that other believers, other communities of faith are NOT part of this Church of Christ!!! The fruits of the Holy Spirit are CLEARLY found within other affiliations and communities not in union visibly with Rome. Perhaps you would be interested to know that Rome considers these other communities (Protestants) mystically UNITED to Rome in some way - because we DO share the SAME BAPTISM, and a lot of the same faith. (like Trinity) The Church is ONE. And thus, the more we share as one, the more united we are.
Catholics, for example, do not "rebaptize" Protestants whom convert. This says a lot about our view of our separated brothers. Since we teach that Baptism is entrance into the Church, AND we don't rebaptize, we consider Protestants PART OF THE CHURCH. Now, while the fullness is in the visible Catholic Church, valuable components exist elsewhere - as God desires ALL men to be saved, not just Roman Catholics. Our separated brothers possess the Word of God, the Scriptures. Many possess some sort of Liturgy. They possess at least ONE sacrament - Baptism. And when we see non-Catholic believers full of the Spirit, we rejoice with the angels that God is beyond our expectations and saves men and women outside of our visible community.
To all Catholics who are pumped with pride and are triumphant about being Catholic, please remember the following words of Christ...
John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him. But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me. For he that is not against you, is for you. For whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ: amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward. Mark 9:38-41
Yes, the fullness is in Rome, Imagican, but that does not deny that others who turn to God and believe and love in His name are not saved. Those who are not against us, Imagican, are with us in Christ. Thus, if you don't mind, I will continue to call them my brothers.
Regards
francisdesales
Member
Imagican said:
Imagican,
I didn't come here to trade rants and ravings with you. I have merely provided the written evidence that you were mistaken regarding the Trinity's supposed invention by Constantine after 313 AD. This is false. Are you so full of pride that you cannot admit this, or will you continue to spurt such vile sayings at me and the Church? Your discussions lately show the fruits of the spirit within you. I now give you the opportunity to withdraw, as you are only digging a deeper hole for yourself by these recent rants. You have not made any effort to refute the writings, only your continued onslaugt of self-righteousness and wild accusations of historical nonsense based on no proof or evidence.
Regards
I
Imagican
Guest
Of course it existed 'before' the council of Nicea. But NOT UNTIL this was it OFFICIALLY indoctrinated into Catholocism.
THE CHURCH did NOT believe in a 'trinity' at the time that these things were written. And ONLY ONE actually deals with a 'trinity' to START WITH.
And NOT A SINGLE one of these people were apostles WHO were COMMISSIONED to 'spread the Word'.
You offer examples of a 'couple' of PEOPLE, (this is EXACTLY what I have been alluding to, you know, MAN-MADE theology), and insist that The Church followed such rubbish. There WAS The Church LONG before the CC attempted to 'take' The Truth 'away' from 'the people' and institute 'their OWN religion'.
Constantine, a PAGAN emperor, was the 'deciding' factor of this 'trinity'. And even this 'man' couldn't make up HIS mind as to the validity of 'trinity'. He wavered 'back and forth' over this issue. Yet there are those that will insist that this 'man-made' doctrine IS revealed in scripture.
Fran,
Please NOTE that these ARE the statements that I made concerning the 'creation' and 'introduction of trinity' into Christianity. I did NOT state that the 'concept of trinity' did NOT exist BEFORE Constantine. I stated that HE WAS the deciding factor in it being OFFICIALLY endoctrinated INTO Cahtolocism. And EVEN then he couldn't 'make up his mind' with any surety. For this man WAS NOT EVEN A CHRISTIAN and wavered back and forth between 'trinity' and 'no trinity'.
And PLEASE note further, Fran, that 'your church' is NOT the ONLY church and CERTAINLY is NOT the First Church. You allusion to this as being FACT couldn't be FURTHER from the 'Truth'.
And I'm sorry that you consider the 'Truth' to be ''ranting or raving''. I DO emphasize certain words or phrases with capital letters, but if this constitutes 'ranting' then so be it. But please allow me to clarify. If you have mistaken my offerings as ranting, let me assure you, that is not what I intend to portray it as. I have tried to be as civil as possible while pointing out the 'things' that you have stated that I DO NOT agree with. And I have also offered that I DO NOT hold you 'personally responsible' for the 'beliefs' of the CC, nor have I made ANY indication that YOU are responsible for ANY of the negative behavior of the 'religion' that you follow. I do NOT agree with it however and feel as if I should be 'just as FREE' to voice my disagreements as ANYONE else. So long as 'truth' is used in accusation, there should NOT be a 'problem' with it.
So Fran, please DON'T put 'words in my mouth'. You continue to indicate that I have made statements that I HAVE NOT. You MUST be 'assuming' or 'reading into' what I actually 'state'. For I have NOT stated that Constantine 'created trinity', just that HE WAS the 'deciding factor' in it's OFFICIAL introduction into the CC.
MEC
THE CHURCH did NOT believe in a 'trinity' at the time that these things were written. And ONLY ONE actually deals with a 'trinity' to START WITH.
And NOT A SINGLE one of these people were apostles WHO were COMMISSIONED to 'spread the Word'.
You offer examples of a 'couple' of PEOPLE, (this is EXACTLY what I have been alluding to, you know, MAN-MADE theology), and insist that The Church followed such rubbish. There WAS The Church LONG before the CC attempted to 'take' The Truth 'away' from 'the people' and institute 'their OWN religion'.
Constantine, a PAGAN emperor, was the 'deciding' factor of this 'trinity'. And even this 'man' couldn't make up HIS mind as to the validity of 'trinity'. He wavered 'back and forth' over this issue. Yet there are those that will insist that this 'man-made' doctrine IS revealed in scripture.
Fran,
Please NOTE that these ARE the statements that I made concerning the 'creation' and 'introduction of trinity' into Christianity. I did NOT state that the 'concept of trinity' did NOT exist BEFORE Constantine. I stated that HE WAS the deciding factor in it being OFFICIALLY endoctrinated INTO Cahtolocism. And EVEN then he couldn't 'make up his mind' with any surety. For this man WAS NOT EVEN A CHRISTIAN and wavered back and forth between 'trinity' and 'no trinity'.
And PLEASE note further, Fran, that 'your church' is NOT the ONLY church and CERTAINLY is NOT the First Church. You allusion to this as being FACT couldn't be FURTHER from the 'Truth'.
And I'm sorry that you consider the 'Truth' to be ''ranting or raving''. I DO emphasize certain words or phrases with capital letters, but if this constitutes 'ranting' then so be it. But please allow me to clarify. If you have mistaken my offerings as ranting, let me assure you, that is not what I intend to portray it as. I have tried to be as civil as possible while pointing out the 'things' that you have stated that I DO NOT agree with. And I have also offered that I DO NOT hold you 'personally responsible' for the 'beliefs' of the CC, nor have I made ANY indication that YOU are responsible for ANY of the negative behavior of the 'religion' that you follow. I do NOT agree with it however and feel as if I should be 'just as FREE' to voice my disagreements as ANYONE else. So long as 'truth' is used in accusation, there should NOT be a 'problem' with it.
So Fran, please DON'T put 'words in my mouth'. You continue to indicate that I have made statements that I HAVE NOT. You MUST be 'assuming' or 'reading into' what I actually 'state'. For I have NOT stated that Constantine 'created trinity', just that HE WAS the 'deciding factor' in it's OFFICIAL introduction into the CC.
MEC
francisdesales
Member
Imagican,
I have said enough on the subject. I am sorry you feel the way you do, but this is really going nowhere, so I respectfully ask that you please give me proof of your theory or kindly move along to another subject.
If you have nothing worthy of examination, please refrain from addressing me on this issue.
Regards
I have said enough on the subject. I am sorry you feel the way you do, but this is really going nowhere, so I respectfully ask that you please give me proof of your theory or kindly move along to another subject.
If you have nothing worthy of examination, please refrain from addressing me on this issue.
Regards
Hi Imagician,
There was no intention of baiting with my post - my address was to protestants because many of them dismiss the notions of mystery and paradox without due consideration. That is putting it mildly.
My mystery is not mythology nor is it mine but God's mystery. I have the feeling that you are angry with the Catholic church and answering me at the same time. Only in love can we know the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven.
By paradox I mean holding two truths in tension. I do not say that truth contradicts itself - but the tension reflects an acceptance in faith that reason finds problematic. Failure in paradox rejects one truth or another or both.
One example of paradox is the wrath of God and the love of God. Heaven and hell is another example. When jesus said 'I and the Father are one' is another paradox that has caused problems for some. Not everyone can hold these paradoxical truths in tension without letting go of one or the other. While some protestants have no difficulty with this there are many who do.
The prophet Ezekiel is enigmatic. . . I would say he loved God and God loved him. . but what God does with Ezekiel transcends into the worse case scenario for paradox to be a living sign for Israel.
By the same standard is not 'paradox and mystery' the frankest admission that God cannot be put in a box and that He transcends our attempts to rationalize?
The devil has much here to counterfeit. . .
blessings: stranger
There was no intention of baiting with my post - my address was to protestants because many of them dismiss the notions of mystery and paradox without due consideration. That is putting it mildly.
My mystery is not mythology nor is it mine but God's mystery. I have the feeling that you are angry with the Catholic church and answering me at the same time. Only in love can we know the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven.
By paradox I mean holding two truths in tension. I do not say that truth contradicts itself - but the tension reflects an acceptance in faith that reason finds problematic. Failure in paradox rejects one truth or another or both.
One example of paradox is the wrath of God and the love of God. Heaven and hell is another example. When jesus said 'I and the Father are one' is another paradox that has caused problems for some. Not everyone can hold these paradoxical truths in tension without letting go of one or the other. While some protestants have no difficulty with this there are many who do.
The prophet Ezekiel is enigmatic. . . I would say he loved God and God loved him. . but what God does with Ezekiel transcends into the worse case scenario for paradox to be a living sign for Israel.
By the same standard is not 'paradox and mystery' the frankest admission that God cannot be put in a box and that He transcends our attempts to rationalize?
The devil has much here to counterfeit. . .
blessings: stranger
I
Imagican
Guest
Ok Fran,
I WILL do as you ask.
PROOF:
The FIRST Church was formed in ISRAEL. The APOSTLES of Christ were MEMBERS of this 'FIRST Church'. These and 'their' followers in Christ.
The Council of Nicea is the 'proof' of what I speak. It was durring this that the 'issue' was 'hashed out' and, since there were MORE members of the 'Eastern' sect that agreed with 'trinity' and Constantine himself was 'partial' to those that 'believed' in a 'trinity', HE, Constantine, WAS the deciding factor to 'ADD trinity' into the CC.
I NEED offer NO PROOF as to the torcher and murder aspect of the CC for EVERYONE KNOWS that this is IN FACT, TRUTH beyond debate.
MOST scholars accept that the Romans were rife with religions that they had 'picked up' through 'exposure to them through their conquests' and believe that MANY of these religions, 'brought BACK to Rome' consisted of 'triune' gods. Rome, Corinth, and MANY of the 'Roman States' had massive numbers of thier population that followed 'these religions'. One of these religions, (MOST prominent among the 'upper classes and LEADING warriors), WAS Mithraism, in which MOST scholars 'agree' there WAS a 'triune' god.
And I KNOW that you are probably 'use' to discussing such matters with those that have LITTLE, if ANY, understanding of these things. So I guess you 'usually' find it an EASY matter to sway those that you communicate with quite simply. But your accusations that what I offer are 'mere' opinions is not only insulting, it's falacy.
Your 'truth' comes from a 'church' that has 'created' much of it's history and distorted it in order to 'hide' much of it's 'negative' history. I choose, instead, to 'seek out' THE TRUTH through history that is NOT tainted with this 'made up' history and deals more with the FACTS of the past rather than the 'wishful thinking' of the past offered by the CC.
That you would determine that your 'limited understanding' is 'useless' in this conversation is 'acceptable'. If I had 'your road' to travel, I TOO would 'bow out' of such conversation. For ALL you will produce is MORE of the TRUTH coming to light through debate of such issues. And 'this' truth is ONLY detrimental to your claims of following the 'ONLY TRUE RELIGION'.
May God Bless you and yours Fran. And hopefully one day you WILL come to the truth through the ONLY means available to mankind. And this 'truth' can NOT be revealed through the meager means of man.
MEC
I WILL do as you ask.
PROOF:
The FIRST Church was formed in ISRAEL. The APOSTLES of Christ were MEMBERS of this 'FIRST Church'. These and 'their' followers in Christ.
The Council of Nicea is the 'proof' of what I speak. It was durring this that the 'issue' was 'hashed out' and, since there were MORE members of the 'Eastern' sect that agreed with 'trinity' and Constantine himself was 'partial' to those that 'believed' in a 'trinity', HE, Constantine, WAS the deciding factor to 'ADD trinity' into the CC.
I NEED offer NO PROOF as to the torcher and murder aspect of the CC for EVERYONE KNOWS that this is IN FACT, TRUTH beyond debate.
MOST scholars accept that the Romans were rife with religions that they had 'picked up' through 'exposure to them through their conquests' and believe that MANY of these religions, 'brought BACK to Rome' consisted of 'triune' gods. Rome, Corinth, and MANY of the 'Roman States' had massive numbers of thier population that followed 'these religions'. One of these religions, (MOST prominent among the 'upper classes and LEADING warriors), WAS Mithraism, in which MOST scholars 'agree' there WAS a 'triune' god.
And I KNOW that you are probably 'use' to discussing such matters with those that have LITTLE, if ANY, understanding of these things. So I guess you 'usually' find it an EASY matter to sway those that you communicate with quite simply. But your accusations that what I offer are 'mere' opinions is not only insulting, it's falacy.
Your 'truth' comes from a 'church' that has 'created' much of it's history and distorted it in order to 'hide' much of it's 'negative' history. I choose, instead, to 'seek out' THE TRUTH through history that is NOT tainted with this 'made up' history and deals more with the FACTS of the past rather than the 'wishful thinking' of the past offered by the CC.
That you would determine that your 'limited understanding' is 'useless' in this conversation is 'acceptable'. If I had 'your road' to travel, I TOO would 'bow out' of such conversation. For ALL you will produce is MORE of the TRUTH coming to light through debate of such issues. And 'this' truth is ONLY detrimental to your claims of following the 'ONLY TRUE RELIGION'.
May God Bless you and yours Fran. And hopefully one day you WILL come to the truth through the ONLY means available to mankind. And this 'truth' can NOT be revealed through the meager means of man.
MEC
Imagican said:
A brief summary. . .
That this first or early church was primarily Messianic or Jewish is indeed the first step in constructing church history - the first followers of our Lord were primarily Jews. The leaders of the church were, at this time, the Apostles (the original 11, plus Matthias).
AFTER this the church spread into the gentile world so we have the birth of the gentile church.
For this reason I have previously spoken about the primacy of the Messianic church and the primacy of Jerusalem (the city of God).
The early chapters of Acts, the NT epistles give insight into the life of this early church. Probably some time before Paul wrote the letter to the Romans the so called hardening had come upon Israel . . Rom 9-11 This nexus- the mystery of Israel - is the unleashing of the gospel into the gentile world.
There are gaps in this brief outline but basically the church was a local assembly of the saints at any particular location eg, at Corinth. They probably meet in homes or whereever was convenient. The purchase of their own buildings and property came, I believe, much later. Something of the authority structure of the church can be seen in passages such as Eph4:11-12.
Most importantly, there is an Apostolic authority in this early church and with that the guanrantee of an Apostolic faith.
One does not have to read the scriptures for very long before something like this emerges. . .
Now as far as I know - the persecution of believers arose initially from Jewish elelments and authorities of the Roman Empire - edicts were even issued at a national level . . . and these increased in severity (and sometimes eased up) for the next few centuries before Constantine. This is verifiable from historical documents.
blessings: stranger
francisdesales
Member
Imagican said:
I agree. Christianity was/is a fulfillment of Judaism.
Imagican said:
Why would Constantine CARE WHAT the first Christians believed?
By the way, HE WAS AN ARIAN!!! Do you realize what you are asking us to believe (without any proof - just your theories)?
Constantine was apparently promoting belief that Jesus was God AND was an Arian - who believed that Jesus was NOT God. Kindly make up your mind...
Imagican said:
Naturally. Because a Catholic kills someone, the entire Church is implicated and condemned. Now, apply that to Protestantism and see where that lands you... We are all in the same boat on this matter.
Imagican said:
Which scholars discuss a "trinity" from paganism?
Imagican said:
I think you misunderstand Mithraism - which FOLLOWED Christianity. Or did we also pick up Resurrection from them, as well? How far are you willing to go to destroy Christianity to prove yourself correct?
Imagican said:
Please, give me a break. You have done nothing but spout off theories without ANY proof whatsoever. I have given you WRITTEN FACTS, primary evidence that the Church ALREADY had believed in Trinity well before Constantine. Your smoke and mirrors have not convinced anyone. Even this post I am responding to has NO EVIDENCE to back up your theory. Give it a rest, already.
Regards
I
Imagican
Guest
Fran,
Once again IT IS YOU that are mistaken or unlearned about the history of NOT ONLY The Christian Church, but Mithiatic parallels and history as well. Mithraism FIRSTLY has existed for OVER FOUR THOUSAND YEARS. While it was NOT adopted or widespread in Roman culture until 100 BC that STILL predates Christianity or EVEN THE BIRTH OF CHRIST by 100 YEARS. I don't know what forms of history, (other than the CC's), you have used to explore the past, but I can ASSURE YOU that those that are NOT 'predisposed' to the CC doctrine and records, DO NOT AGREE with what YOU offer.
Below you will find NUMEROUS sites that offer a 'brief' history of Mithraism. I did NOT pick and choose and you will clearly see that even some of them offer speculation such as YOU have offered. But for ANYONE, (including yourself), that has the inkling to 'understand' the 'truth' behind 'trinity' or even the history of this 'doctrine', the websites below are a 'pretty good' START. By NO MEANS a 'complete' explanation or even 'completely accurate', but by reading these, one can CERTAINLY 'begin' to have a 'grasp' of the truth.
Fran,
You and I will NEVER agree completely about our 'religions'. That is WITHOUT doubt, (so long as you 'follow' the Catholic faith). Nothing against you 'personally', (I don't even know you). I 'accept' you as a 'brother' in this walk that we ALL take, but I am NOT to be 'confined' to YOUR faith anymore than you are to mine. My relationship to God through His Son is simply THAT; MINE. It is NOT a 'collective thing' that can be 'determined' by the teachings of mere men. That you have chosen to be 'led' that way is NOT 'my way'. And I know, I am some 'rebel' that chooses 'individual interpretation' over that offered by 'your church fathers'. So be it. But I simply choose to be led by a 'higher' source than that which you have chosen. And, as the CC has 'done' since it's inception, you ENVY that 'freedom' and would persecute me and others that choose a 'different' way than that which you have 'bought into'. Not ONLY you, but MOST of the Protestant denominations as well. This 'we are right' and 'you are wrong' is NOTHING but separation. 'Do it MY way and I will accept you', is JUST THAT. And I do not care if 'the world' accepts me or not. I have the love of God and His Son and THAT is enough.
With this said, here are some addresses that offer MUCH so far as the history of Mithraism is concerned. Each differs slightly but ALL offer MORE 'truth' than you've been willing to admit. So, for those that are interested, by all means, check em out. If not, that is the choice that we all make when it comes to 'understanding'.
Oh, and I am NOT commanded to 'simply accept' in order to be 'a part' of 'a group', I am commanded to be a PART of The Body. I am ALSO commanded to use discernment in my rejection or acceptance of ANY teaching of men. If they do NOT align with scripture then they ARE to be rejected REGARDLESS of the consequences brought about through 'this world'. And NOT ONLY scripture, but through The Holy Spirit as well. And that there are those that will insist that 'I' am unable to do this 'without' the guidance of the CC is ludicrous. My relationship is NOT dependant upon a church, but THE CHURCH. And this is NOT a 'fancy building' filled with idols and pagan pagentry.
MEC
http://www.crystalinks.com/mithraism.html
Wikipedia:
[edit] Relationship with Mithraism
There are many parallels between Mithraism and Christianity. These include the central figures of each religion having virgin births celebrated on the same date (December 25th), the stories of Christ and Mithra as children being visited by shepherds, the trinity, and the immortal soul. Mithraism was popular in the Roman administered regions before the advent of Christianity, and some have theorized that these themes were transferred to early Christianity by proponents of Mithraism.
However, writers of Christian apologetics have argued that because the Gospels were written before 100 and that since little is known of Roman Mithraism until after 100 that it is not possible to definitively state that Christianity borrowed any of its doctrines from Mithraism; some have even suggested it is more likely the flow was the other way. [5] Ronald H. Nash has stated "allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth -- at least during its early stages...During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook...Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians." [6] Bold and itallics added by ME
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/romanempire.html
http://members.aol.com/MercStG/ChriMithPage1.html
http://www.abcog.org/trinity.htm
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0690Mithras.php
Once again IT IS YOU that are mistaken or unlearned about the history of NOT ONLY The Christian Church, but Mithiatic parallels and history as well. Mithraism FIRSTLY has existed for OVER FOUR THOUSAND YEARS. While it was NOT adopted or widespread in Roman culture until 100 BC that STILL predates Christianity or EVEN THE BIRTH OF CHRIST by 100 YEARS. I don't know what forms of history, (other than the CC's), you have used to explore the past, but I can ASSURE YOU that those that are NOT 'predisposed' to the CC doctrine and records, DO NOT AGREE with what YOU offer.
Below you will find NUMEROUS sites that offer a 'brief' history of Mithraism. I did NOT pick and choose and you will clearly see that even some of them offer speculation such as YOU have offered. But for ANYONE, (including yourself), that has the inkling to 'understand' the 'truth' behind 'trinity' or even the history of this 'doctrine', the websites below are a 'pretty good' START. By NO MEANS a 'complete' explanation or even 'completely accurate', but by reading these, one can CERTAINLY 'begin' to have a 'grasp' of the truth.
Fran,
You and I will NEVER agree completely about our 'religions'. That is WITHOUT doubt, (so long as you 'follow' the Catholic faith). Nothing against you 'personally', (I don't even know you). I 'accept' you as a 'brother' in this walk that we ALL take, but I am NOT to be 'confined' to YOUR faith anymore than you are to mine. My relationship to God through His Son is simply THAT; MINE. It is NOT a 'collective thing' that can be 'determined' by the teachings of mere men. That you have chosen to be 'led' that way is NOT 'my way'. And I know, I am some 'rebel' that chooses 'individual interpretation' over that offered by 'your church fathers'. So be it. But I simply choose to be led by a 'higher' source than that which you have chosen. And, as the CC has 'done' since it's inception, you ENVY that 'freedom' and would persecute me and others that choose a 'different' way than that which you have 'bought into'. Not ONLY you, but MOST of the Protestant denominations as well. This 'we are right' and 'you are wrong' is NOTHING but separation. 'Do it MY way and I will accept you', is JUST THAT. And I do not care if 'the world' accepts me or not. I have the love of God and His Son and THAT is enough.
With this said, here are some addresses that offer MUCH so far as the history of Mithraism is concerned. Each differs slightly but ALL offer MORE 'truth' than you've been willing to admit. So, for those that are interested, by all means, check em out. If not, that is the choice that we all make when it comes to 'understanding'.
Oh, and I am NOT commanded to 'simply accept' in order to be 'a part' of 'a group', I am commanded to be a PART of The Body. I am ALSO commanded to use discernment in my rejection or acceptance of ANY teaching of men. If they do NOT align with scripture then they ARE to be rejected REGARDLESS of the consequences brought about through 'this world'. And NOT ONLY scripture, but through The Holy Spirit as well. And that there are those that will insist that 'I' am unable to do this 'without' the guidance of the CC is ludicrous. My relationship is NOT dependant upon a church, but THE CHURCH. And this is NOT a 'fancy building' filled with idols and pagan pagentry.
MEC
http://www.crystalinks.com/mithraism.html
Wikipedia:
[edit] Relationship with Mithraism
There are many parallels between Mithraism and Christianity. These include the central figures of each religion having virgin births celebrated on the same date (December 25th), the stories of Christ and Mithra as children being visited by shepherds, the trinity, and the immortal soul. Mithraism was popular in the Roman administered regions before the advent of Christianity, and some have theorized that these themes were transferred to early Christianity by proponents of Mithraism.
However, writers of Christian apologetics have argued that because the Gospels were written before 100 and that since little is known of Roman Mithraism until after 100 that it is not possible to definitively state that Christianity borrowed any of its doctrines from Mithraism; some have even suggested it is more likely the flow was the other way. [5] Ronald H. Nash has stated "allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth -- at least during its early stages...During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook...Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians." [6] Bold and itallics added by ME
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/romanempire.html
http://members.aol.com/MercStG/ChriMithPage1.html
http://www.abcog.org/trinity.htm
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0690Mithras.php
francisdesales
Member
Imagican said:
Because some Persian religion had similarities to what would become Mithraism does not make it the same religion. Your sources mention that themselves. The professor even uses the word "if" - to state that his is only a theory that Roman Mithraism developed and completely followed Persian Mithraism.
And of course, the question remains - did Christians ALSO "take" Resurrection from Mithraism as well? Be careful what you tear down, Imagian, you might be tearing down the very ground you stand on.
By the way, your "sites" are not exactly legitimate scholarly sites. Wikipedia? Come on.
Imagican said:
I cut your rant short, I hope you don't mind. I really don't see what this has to do with my discrediting your theory that the Trinity and the theology preceded Constantine. Get over and it and stop with the smoke and mirrors.
By the way, being a Catholic doesn't mean I am commanded to be part of the Body of Christ. I don't know where you get your misinformation from, but you should have some serious discussions with that person, because he is making you look foolish the more you try to condemn Catholicism based on your straw-man arguments. It follows that to be part of a group, you believe what the group believes. If you don't, you leave. What is so sinister about that?
Regards
Vic C.
Member
francisdesales said:
Thanks Francis. I was just about to say that is a lie, or at the very least, pure spectulation, but you said it all in a much nicer way. 8-) There is no concrete proof that it is a offshoot of Zorastrianism or any other ancient pagan cult religion. This was a very private and secret society, so it is hiard to dig up all the facts about it anyway.