What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Only ONE TRUE GOD.

Nothing 'sinister' at all. It's when a group attempts to FORCE their 'beliefs' that it 'becomes sinister'.

As I stated; 'these websites are by NO MEANS an end to the understanding of Mitraism, ONLY the 'beginning'. And I offered NUMEROUS sites, Wikipedia being the one that CLOSEST resembles 'your point of view', not mine. For my studies of what I offer go WAY beyond these simple websites. I have studies this issue for YEARS and MOST of my research was conducted in libraries PREVIOUS to the introduction of the internet.

I do NOT agree with MUCH of what is offered concerning Christianity STEMING from Mithraism for I KNOW that Christianity, (in it's 'truest' form), exsited BEFORE it's 'introduction' to Mithraism or 'other' religions of the Romans. For FEW Romans and Jews intermingled in the 'homeland' of Christ. They had been commanded from the beginning NOT to intermingle with Gentiles and there's NO reason to believe that there was MUCH fondness for these invaders to the extent that the Jews were able to 'pick up' on the religions that the Roman's followed.

But, once Christianity reached Rome, I believe that there WAS much intermingling of these two religions. Not JUST these two, but Christianity was exposed to MANY of the Roman religions. The letter of Paul to Corinth suggests that these folks had a religion containing 'tongues' PREVIOUS to their introduction to Christianity. Otherwise there would NOT have been so much 'confusion' concerning the 'tongues' offered through the Holy Spirit. This is but ONE example of the likelyhood of Christianity being 'combined' with 'other' religions. I believe 'trinity' is but another.

So, Fran, PLEASE, once again. don't take 'offense' to my offerings simply because they don't 'agree with yours. I have done NOTHING but attempt to offer the Truth as 'I' believe it to be. I have YET to make attempts at belittling you or yours. I certainly have accused you of NOT having a 'complete' understanding of the history of 'trinity' or the "Roman'' religions of the time. And the comments about torture and murder, "I" belive are TOTALLY relevant to conversations concerning doctrine created by those that would perpetuate such behavior. Their behavior CERTAINLY speaks VOLUMES as to their 'intentions', so far as I am concerned. Didn't do it to 'hurt' your feelings and if I did, allow me to apologize. But the 'truth' is the 'truth' and no amount of 'sugar coating' can change it.

MEC
 
Vic C. 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.
Click to expand...


Well, Imagican has raised my curiousity a bit, so I have done more reading on it. Not that it has ANY relationship to the question at hand - that the Trinity stems from Mithraism - which is utterly ridiculous. I have seen no evidence that there is any sort of relationship between Mithraism and the Trinity, which apparently is the heart of his argument...

But on to what SCHOLARLY sources say on Mithraism...

Neither in Hinduism nor in Zoroastrianism did Mitra/Mithra have his own cult. Mitra is mentioned in the Hindu Vedas, while Mithra is is the subject of Yashts (hymns) in the Zoroastrian Avesta, a text compiled during the Sassanian period (224-640 CE) to preserve a much older oral tradition. Cumont himself recognized possible flaws in his theory. The most obvious is that there is little evidence for a Zoroastrian cult of Mithra (Cumont 1956), and certainly none that suggests that Zoroastrian worship of Mithra used the liturgy or the well-devoloped iconography found in the Roman cult of Mithras. Moreover, few monuments from the Roman cult have been recovered from the very provinces which are thought to have inspired worship of Mithras (namely the provinces of Asia Minor). Finally, Cumont was aware that the earliest datable evidence for the cult of Mithras came from the military garrison at Carnuntum in the province of Upper Pannonia on the Danube River (modern Hungary). Indeed, the largest quantity of evidence for mithraic worship comes from the western half of the empire, particularly from the provinces of the Danube River frontier and from Rome and her port city, Ostia, in Italy. To explain this phenomenon, Cumont proposed that soldiers stationed in western provinces and transferred to eastern provinces for short periods of time learned of the deity Mithra and began to worship and dedicate monuments to a god they called Mithras when they returned to their customary garrison. It is true that soldiers from the Roman legion XV Apollinaris stationed at Carnuntum in the first century CE were called to the East in 63 CE to help fight in a campaign against the Parthians and further to help quell the Jewish revolt in Jerusalem from 66-70 CE. Members of the legion made mithraic dedications back in Carnuntum after their return from these campaigns, possibly as early as 71 or 72 CE. Once these Roman soldiers and the camp-followers of the legions, who included merchants, slaves, and freedmen, started to worship Mithras, argued Cumont, their further movements around the empire served to spread the cult to other areas.

Imagican uses Cumont's theory as fact. What is more, recent scholarship has found his idea as skeptical at best...

Cumont's large scholarly corpus and his opinions dominated mithraic studies for decades. A series of conferences on Mithraism beginning in 1970 and an enormous quantity of scholarship by numerous individuals in the last quarter century has demonstrated that many of Cumont's theories were incorrect (see especially Hinnells 1975 and Beck 1984).

Beck, R. "Mithraism since Franz Cumont," Aufstieg und Niedergang der r&oumlmischen Welt, II.17.4., 1984.

Beck, R. Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders of the Mysteries of Mithras (Etudes pr&eacuteliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'empire romain. Vol. 9). Leiden, 1988

Hinnells, J., ed. Mithraic Studies. 2 vols. Manchester, 1975.

http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/art ... raism.html

----
I also found this site of a person who is quite interested in historical Mithraism. He provides a lot of information on the comparison between Mithraism and Christianity. He goes on to list all the comparisons, and in many cases, he says they are incorrect, listing why. In the end, he summarizes:

Roman god Mithras has an ancestor in the Persian god Mithra. The worship of this Persian deity can be traced to at least 2000 BCE, and continues today. Mithra is a god of justice, truth, and light, and a helper in the battle against evil.

Mithra and Mithras are not, however, the same deity, except in name. The exact nature of the connection between the two is still debated, but Clauss states the general attitude of Mithraic scholars quite succinctly: "We cannot account for Roman Mithras in terms borrowed from Persian Mitra" (p. 7). This is a position based on the fact that the defining characteristics of Roman Mithraism - small groups, initiations, masculine exclusivity, underground worship, the god killing a bull, astrological symbolism - aren't found in the Persian worship of Mithra. Roman Mithraism can therefore not be said to date back to 2000 BCE; it was a new religion that appears rather suddenly in the Roman empire.

When did it appear? Here is a hard truth: the earliest Mithraic artifact is dated to about 90 CE (Clauss, p. 21). Let me repeat that date: 90 CE.

This date doesn't require much comment. It shows something that may seem radical: any influence between Mithraism and Christianity would have had to have flowed from Christianity to Mithraism, rather than the other way round. Mithraism is not, in fact, a pre-Christian religion.

In summary, the argument that Mithraism was a source for Christian beliefs or practices falls on three ground. First, there would have been no reason for Christianity to have taken anything from Mithraism. Second, the elements of Mithraism generally put forward as similar to Christianity are either untrue or in-significant. Third, and most deadly, Mithraism actually appears after Christianity.

Did Christianity steal from Mithraism? Most definitely not.

http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/mith/whatmithisnt.htm

I would bookmark this site, as it explains a lot of the similarities and denies the others that some CLAIM exist but do NOT.

Well, Vic, my reading merely solidified what I knew before. And while this interesting wild goose chase led by Imagican brought about some interesting reading, it is merely part of his smoke and mirrors he uses to try to tell us that the Trinity was invented as a result of Mithraism.

Regards
 
Imagican said:
Nothing 'sinister' at all. It's when a group attempts to FORCE their 'beliefs' that it 'becomes sinister'.

As I stated; 'these websites are by NO MEANS an end to the understanding of Mitraism, ONLY the 'beginning'. And I offered NUMEROUS sites, Wikipedia being the one that CLOSEST resembles 'your point of view', not mine. For my studies of what I offer go WAY beyond these simple websites. I have studies this issue for YEARS and MOST of my research was conducted in libraries PREVIOUS to the introduction of the internet.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Imagican.

I do not see ANY way you can relate Mithraism to the idea of a Trinity. It just is not there. Mithraism had no such idea of three "God figures" or any sort of such thing where the "Roman Christians" would invent such a thing. It just is a non-existent connection.

Secondly, my reading doesn't tell me that Christians borrowed from Mithraism, but the other way around. Apparently, Mithraism was open ONLY TO MEN - and only SOME men. Thus, this closed cult was not something that Christianity would borrow anything from, but the other way around.

Until you can point out to me a Mithraic belief that has ANY similarity to the Trinity, I do not see why you are leading me on this wild goose chase, except for your hatred for the Catholic Church (which you blame everything bad that Christians have done or believed over 2000 years).

Regards
 
Fran,

I have NEVER stated that Mithraism existed in Rome 'hundreds' of years BEFORE Christianity found its way there. What I have stated is that Mithraism DID exist there WHEN Christianity was INTRODUCED into Roman culture. And, that there is MUCH indication that Mithra WAS, indeed, a 'triune god'.

Now, you indicate that I have offered that Christianity STOLE it's ideas and concepts from Mithraism. NO, I have NOT stated that and in FACT have offered that I DO NOT believe much of what has been offered as information indicating such.

Now, I ask you: WHEN was Christianity introduced into Roman culture? WHEN did Paul take the Gospel to ROME or Corinth, etc.? You have already admitted that there is evidence that Mithra was 'written about' BEFORE 100 AD. Now, for it to be written about it HAD to be in existence BEFORE it was 'written about'. For we CANNOT write about things BEFORE then exist.

Constantine WAS a worshiper of Mithraism, (an initiate of). This was THREE hundred years AFTER the death of Christ. And 'trinity' was NOT CC doctrine PREVIOUS to the council of Nicea. And Constantine was neither Arian, as you so accuse, nor was he totally PRO-'trinitarian', for he was NOT EVEN a CHRISTIAN at the time of the Council. There is NO indication that he EVER accepted Christ as his personal Savior UNTIL ON HIS DEATH BED.

This is a man who sat in the emperors presence as a child and watched Christians fed to lions and hacked to death by the Gladiators. A child that was 'groomed' towards being Emperor from an early age. The ONLY affinity that we KNOW of that he had towards Christianity was the report of his 'dream' of Christ and attributing this to his victory at the Milvian Bridge. That and the fact that his mother was a Christian. Other than these two examples, EVERYTHING else concerning this man indicates that he continued to worship Roman gods and ONLY accepted Christianity into the Roman Empire for TWO reasons;

1. To protect his mother and possibly other people that he had relationships with.

2. An understanding that this religion was 'UNSTOPABLE' and gaining popularity to the point that to resist it would bring NOTHING but strife to the Empire.

Yes, he was 'fond' of Arius and wavered back and forth between the acceptance of 'trinity' and 'no trinity'. This was an issue that would be argued NOT ONLY durring his life time but for CENTURIES to come. And, as you can PLAINLY SEE, still has not been plainly established as FACT by ANY but those that 'accept it'. And even these are FORCED to state that 'even they' don't fully understand it, (a man-made doctrine). And the MAIN reason that it cannot be 'understood' is that it CONTRDICTS scripture and was NOT offered by Christ or His apostles, who, by the way, just happened to BE the ONLY ones that could offer the 'truth' concerning 'true' Christianity. Doctrines created hundreds of years AFTER the death of Christ and His apostles is OBVIOUSLY 'man-made'.

So, after ALL you have attempted to do to discredit my offerings, all you have really done is establish the FACT that Mithraism DID indeed exist in the Roman EMPIRE hundreds of years before the Council of Nicea in which 'trinity' was FIRST officially accepted into Roman culture. Your attempt to offer the opnion of ONE MAN 'trying' to indicate that HE didn't believe that Mithra even existed in Rome just goes to show to what levels you will go in order to 'hide from the truth'. For, as I stated from the beginning and made it clear in my POST; MOST scholars. NO, I didn't say ALL. But MOST scholars have a 'similar' understanding and acceptance of the 'role' of Mithraism in the Roman Empire. You act like there MUST be concrete WRITTEN evidence before one is able to discern TRUTH. Foolishness. For YOU know as well as I that there is MUCH history that has been discovered in MANY ways other than man's written words. YOU don't even have written records of the claims of the CC in that Peter, (the apostle) WAS the 'first pope'. Just words written AFTER the fact that CANNOT be proven correct.

So, I stand by what I offered from the beginning. I have yet to 'make up' ANYTHING. I have simply tried to offer 'understanding' to those that are 'unlearned' about the situation surrounding the 'creation of trinity' in the Roman Empire. That you do NOT accept it is of NO surprise. Just like your attempts at defending the 'behavior' of the CC throughout history, you accept and believe what you are TOLD to and simply ignore that evidence to the contrary. And to deny this would be to DENY the religion that you place so much 'faith' in.

MEC
 
Imagican said:
Fran,

I have NEVER stated that Mithraism existed in Rome 'hundreds' of years BEFORE Christianity found its way there. What I have stated is that Mithraism DID exist there WHEN Christianity was INTRODUCED into Roman culture. And, that there is MUCH indication that Mithra WAS, indeed, a 'triune god'.
Click to expand...


You have shown nothing of the sort. I have not read anything that even remotely resembles "Trinity" in Mithraism! Point to me ONE credible source that makes such an archeological or literature find to such an effect. Your entire thesis is worthless because you can provide NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Mithraism considered three different beings as divine or anything close to what we call "Trinity" today. Your connection to Mithraism is another example of your smoke and mirror theology. Quite frankly, I am beginning to worry about you, because anyone who CONTINUES to INSIST upon the connection without ANY credible evidence is cause for concern.

In addition, I seen NO evidence that Mithraism predated Christianity in Rome. I don't know if you are making this up as you go or not. However, I am leary about your ability to jump on the bandwagon without reading what is written. I have already pointed out to you multiple sources that disagree with your scholar's "theory", even within YOUR OWN SOURCES!

Imagican said:
Now, you indicate that I have offered that Christianity STOLE it's ideas and concepts from Mithraism. NO, I have NOT stated that and in FACT have offered that I DO NOT believe much of what has been offered as information indicating such.
Click to expand...

YOUR ENTIRE PREMISE IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT MITHRAISM PROVIDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WITH THE IDEA OF TRINITY!!! Am I speaking with Imagican, or is this another person???

Imagican said:
Now, I ask you: WHEN was Christianity introduced into Roman culture? WHEN did Paul take the Gospel to ROME or Corinth, etc.? You have already admitted that there is evidence that Mithra was 'written about' BEFORE 100 AD. Now, for it to be written about it HAD to be in existence BEFORE it was 'written about'. For we CANNOT write about things BEFORE then exist.
Click to expand...

The HECK I did!!! I even used "large" font size to say the opposite...

Yesterday, about 3:30 pm, I wrote:

When did it appear? Here is a hard truth: the earliest Mithraic artifact is dated to about 90 CE (Clauss, p. 21). Let me repeat that date: 90 CE.

Your inability to read even "large" font and figure out what I said leads me to believe that you have no desire to come to the truth of the matter.

Really, you are wasting my precious time. Don't bother me with this subject anymore. It is a totally worthless theory that has no evidence but "Imagican says so". Your opinion on the subject is worthless because it is based on nothing but your conspiracy theories that the Catholic Church is behind everything evil. I gave you your chance. Now I ask you to kindly drop it.

Adios
 
Ok fran,

You have offered ONE reference as if THAT makes ALL the difference in the world. YOU'RE WRONG to even 'try' such nonsense. You offer Claus as the definitive authority on the subject. If I so desired I could show you half a dozen references that PROVE you and your Claus WRONG. I have stated over and OVER again, MOST SCHOLARS. NO, NOT just ONE.

And what I stated was that the WORD 'trinity' did NOT come FROM CHRISTIANITY. God, NOR Christ, nor the apostles, Hebrews or Jews EVER even MENTIONED a 'trinty' pertaining to the relationship of God and Christ. It was a word ADDED to Christianity by a group of PAGANS that already HAD a religion containing a 'trinity'. The religion that you follow is RIFE with pagan ritual and observances that have NOTHING to do with Christianity. That is a 'given' to ALL who have even a remote understanding of what you follow.

Now, I have offered the PROOF of what I state over and over again and you continue to 'say' that I haven't. Now, would you like me to SHOW you at least FOUR references to evidence of Mithraism PREVIOUS to your date of 90 CE. And if I do so, I would expect you to at least be 'man enough to admit that you ARE WRONG.

And, to further illustrate MY POINT; I did NOT say that the concept of 'trinity' DID NOT EXIST prior to Constantine. Let me say it clearly this time; "TRINITY WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL PART OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE UNTIL CONSTANTINE MADE IT SO. And if you deny this you are NOT TRUTHFUL and therefore of NO regard in discussions of such matters. Anyone can 'SAY' anything. But you continue to 'ignore' the truth and instead choose to 'create your own'.

Now, would you truly choose for me to expose your ignorance 'one more time'? If I were you I would simply 'accept' that I had 'been PROVEN wrong' and move on to something that I knew something about. But if you insist, PLEASE, by all means, just say the word and I will do EXACTLY what I have offered to. I will give you at least FOUR references that contradict the date that you offered as 'your proof'.

MEC
 
Imagian,

Do you believe that Jesus was literally born of a virgin and that he died and rose again?
 
fran, Vic, Free,

Do you HONESTLY believe that I am here, stating what I do to SIMPLY 'cause dissention'? Is it NOT apparent, whether you 'agree with me' or 'NOT', that this is 'something' that I HAVE spent MUCH time and effort to 'understand'?

If what YOU folks offer AS 'truth' concerning 'trinity' IS INDEED 'truth', can you imagine how difficult that would be to accept? That God, MY God, the one that I pray to and accept AS THE CREATOR, has FAILED? Failed to reveal this, (truth as you would have it), and instead has chosen to lead me to ignorance rather than understanding. I have 'trusted' in Him and believe with ALL MY HEART that He is INCAPABLE of leading to such ignorance. And the answer can ONLY be these TWO choices. Either what I understand MUST be 'truth' or 'trinity' is 'truth'. NO other way. And what I follow is NOT some 'man-made' tradition and I KNOW that 'trinity' IS. And even those that accept it MUST admit that neither the word 'trinity' nor the concept EVEN EXISTED until a 'different group' of people 'created it'. Different from the Jews, the apostles and Christ Himself.

Now, fault me if you will. Accuse me of 'ranting' and being a 'one man show' if that makes it 'easier' to dismiss what I offer, but I have YET to abandon scripture in favor of MY OWN understanding. I have simply accepted what has been offered and understanding it as I have been led to. If 'that' makes me a 'bad guy', then I propose that it is NOT ME that is 'wrong' here. It is 'something else' that 'makes me the bad guy'. Now, I leave it to YOU folks to figure this one out. What would make me 'your enemy' for doing NOTHING other than 'spreading The Word' as it has been revealed to ME?

Look guys, I'm quite sure that ANY one of you would QUICKLY step up and warn others of the dangers of following the likes of Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc........ You would recognize the obviousness of following such 'false prophets'. And what 'made' them 'false prophets'. Teaching 'their OWN' understanding rather than that offered by God, Christ OR His apostles, right?

Now, I understand that you folks have 'bought into' this 'trinity' thing. I get it, I REALLY do. But WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG. What IF those that 'created' this doctrine 'MISSED' the 'truth' and went for what was familiar to them from their PREVIOUS religion/s? Can you NOT see how potentially dangerous this could be to those that 'don't know any better'?

I have NOT come here to 'step on toes' or 'hurt feelings' or 'to cause dissention. I HAVE come here FOR ONE PURPOSE; to offer the 'good' NEWS that through Christ we ARE forgiven. That through God's OWN SON we have a Savior. That Christ DiD INDEED 'die for our sins'. And that Christ LIVES, right NOW, IN FACT sits AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, waiting for the time of His RETURN to this planet to 'guide us' AS our KING. And, God LOVES US. LOVES us EXACTLY as He loved His OWN SON if we will but LISTEN to and accept that which He has offered.

But that IS conditional. Conditional in that we 'worship NO OTHER GODS before the ONE TRUE God. So long as we ACCEPT that His Son was sent to us to DIE FOR US. And, so long as we REPENT of that within us that IS unseemly. IF we allow these 'changes' TO take place in our hearts, then we GROW. Otherwise we remain in 'the flesh' and WILL eventually DIE.

So, fault me as you will. But remember; EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE PROPHETS were treated EXACTLY as most here have chosen to 'treat me'. Scorned, belittled, denied, persecuted, ridiculed, but MOSTLY, simply ignored. That in itself ought to raise 'some kind of red flag' to those that 'truly seek' the wisdom of God.

MEC
 
God never fails, but those who refuse to listen to him always do. It reminds me of this story.
  • One day a police officer drove up to the man who owned a two-story home at the edge of town, and requested that he evacuate because of flood waters about to approach.

    The man told the police officer to go assist others while there was still time, that he would be okay because God would take care of him.

    The police officer returned in a little while after the rain started to pour in quite rapidly, and with more of an intense tone he ordered the man at the two-story house to get in the police car so that he could be taken to safety away from the flood to come.

    The man told the police officer to go assist others while there was still time, that he would be okay because God would take care of him.

    After a little while the water began to rise, and a rescue team came up to the man in the two-story house to take him to safety.

    The man told the rescue team to go assist others while there was still time, that he would be okay because God would take care of him.

    The water began to rise higher and higher, and the man in the two-story house was forced to get on his roof to keep from drowning. A police helicopter flew over the man on the roof of the two-story house with a safety harness attached to a line into the helicopter to bring the man to safety from the flood waters.

    The man told the police helicopter to go assist others while there was still time, that he would be okay because God would take care of him.

    Eventually the water was so high that it swept the man from the roof of his two-story house in a raging rush, and the man died. When before God, the man asked Him, "God, why did you not save me from the raging flood waters?"

    God shook His head and said, "I sent a police car two times, a rescue team in a boat, and a helicopter, but would you listen? Nooooooooooooooooo!"
 
Solo,

That was pretty good. Didn't know you had a 'sense of humor', (he he he).

But you DO realize that I could offer the 'same' scenario concerning what I offer. That YOU have been 'sent' the messengers of which I am 'but another'.

Regards,

MEC
 
Imagican said:
YES!!

MEC
Click to expand...
So then it appears you pick and choose from the pagan religions just as you do Christianity.

If you want to argue using ancient pagan religions, go the whole way and argue against the virigin birth and death and resurrection of Christ. Be consistent in your use of the mystery religions or don't use them at all.
 
So, fault me as you will. But remember; EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE PROPHETS were treated EXACTLY as most here have chosen to 'treat me'. Scorned, belittled, denied, persecuted, ridiculed, but MOSTLY, simply ignored. That in itself ought to raise 'some kind of red flag' to those that 'truly seek' the wisdom of God.
Click to expand...
Jesus was very shrewd when chosing His words; He obscured them behind the words of Parables and was very careful not to openly declare He was God. The couple of time He came close they wanted to stone Him. But read objectively and you will notice He speaks of the Godhead in it's simplest of names; God. When He spoke of them in individual terms, He referred to them by name; the first of the Trinity was Father; He himself was Son of Man and Son of God; the third was Comforter, Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit.

Personally, I growing weary of hearing "the word isn't even the Bible". :-?
 
Ok Vic, then 'you' tell me, WHERE did this 'word' COME from. That is the EXACT point that I have attempted to make thoughout these discussions concerning 'trinity'. Tell me 'WHERE' it 'came' from and I will cease and desist to 'point it out'.

But I doubt that anyone that accepts this 'doctrine' will openly admit the answer to this question. Fran believes that it was 'from' the 'early church fathers'. Others have indicated that Christ Himself taught 'trinity'. Others state that it was 'from' the apostles.

Now ANYONE that has ever studied this 'trinity' KNOWS that these 'thoughts' are NOT the answer. Where did 'trinity' COME from?

MEC
 
Imagican said:
Fran believes that it was 'from' the 'early church fathers'. Others have indicated that Christ Himself taught 'trinity'.
Click to expand...

Imagican,

I didn't say that, now, did I???

No, my whole premise was to merely dismiss your careless idea that the Catholic Church invented Trinity with Constantine. When that didn't work, you decided to blame Mithraism. And that didn't work either. Now this.

It is clear that Jesus left the Apostles with a particular body of teachings that were not CLEARLY DEFINED by Christ Himself. Case in point is the teaching that He had fulfilled the Law and dietary restrictions were no longer necessary. If you consult Acts 15 and the events leading up to it, you will find that the early Church was NOT unanimous on "the teachings of Jesus" on this matter. And thus, the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, tried to interpret what Christ meant and said by His various actions and words. They concluded that then was the time to dismiss the old and bring in the new - dietary restrictions were no longer necessary.

In the same manner, the Church explored the various sayings of Christ and His actions in regards to His Father and the Spirit, and again, guided by the Spirit, the Church concluded that Christ taught the Trinity - and these Church Fathers that I quote are merely theologians expressing the belief of the Church on what Christ taught.

If you have a hard time with this idea, that the Church gradually comes into recognition of what Christ taught, then you must have a difficult time with what IS Scriptures, because these same men used the same idea to set the Canon of what was Scripture and what wasn't. Because Jesus didn't teach what books were Scripture and what weren't, either... He left that to the Church guided by His Spirit to conclude that.

Regards
 
fran,

I would offer this:

God uses WHO He will, AS He will. There has been MUCH that has come to BE through those that didn't even KNOW God. We have numerous examples of HOW God has used the enemies of His people and enemies of even Himself to 'bring about' that which IS His will.

Time and space belong to Him. How He chooses to 'use' it is beyond our understanding at the present time. So, it is NOT unconceivable that He could very well use a 'more technologically advanced' people to 'do His bidding' even though they may not EVEN KNOW Him. For what may be impossible for man, (or even beyond his ability to conceive), NOTHING is impossible for God.

And, fran, I don't doubt for one second that the CC has had viable members in it's body. My question concerning the valitdity of the 'religion itself' is more concerned with the 'clergy'. Those members that may have had NOTHING to do with the 'true' God and instead dealt with their OWN personal struggles with the 'flesh'. Those that veered from the 'truth' and inserted INSTEAD, their OWN understanding that may or may NOT have had ANY inspiration other than 'their OWN will'.

Not 'trying' to argue, just pointing out that even those with the 'best' intentions ARE able to be 'turned away' and this we KNOW from history of mankind in general and through scriptural revelation.

Temptation IS a very powerful tool and the 'flesh' IS weak. For those that are able to find complacency in their 'walk', they tempt not only fate, but their OWN Salvation as well. For without the WHOLE armor of God, there is NO defense from that which waits 'just outside the door'.

And there ARE a LOT of minutes in a 'day'. Add that one up and we quickly find that there is MUCH TIME that one IS capable of being vulnerable. And, once an 'organization' is corrupted by just ONE such individual of 'power', sometimes there's NO WAY to EVER 'get back' to where they STARTED FROM.

And like the 'human body', the Spiritual Body can JUST as easily fail due to the introduction of ONE SINGLE CANCEROUS CELL. Yes, there will ALWAYS be a remnant, but this is NOT to say there that remnant will even be a 'complete' Body. For we KNOW that the human body IS capable of survival without MANY of it's members. It is concievable that a 'body' can survive with little more than it's HEAD and torso. No arms, no legs, no ears, no lips, no eyes.......... Just the basics, head, heart, lungs, etc....... And SUCH a body becomes even MORE subseptable to 'failure' of overall health due to it's being 'missing' many of it's crucial parts.

MEC
 
Imagician wrote:

God uses WHO He will, AS He will. There has been MUCH that has come to BE through those that didn't even KNOW God. We have numerous examples of HOW God has used the enemies of His people and enemies of even Himself to 'bring about' that which IS His will.

Time and space belong to Him. How He chooses to 'use' it is beyond our understanding at the present time. So, it is NOT unconceivable that He could very well use a 'more technologically advanced' people to 'do His bidding' even though they may not EVEN KNOW Him. For what may be impossible for man, (or even beyond his ability to conceive), NOTHING is impossible for God.
Click to expand...

While God as Sovereign does uses pople outside the church for the benefit of the church and humnaity generally, we can't get away from the fact that He has primarily chosen to reveal Himself through one nation - Israel, God attests to it in His own revelation, the law, prophets, writings, Jesus and the apostles were Jews. In the so called 'church age' which I think is a bit of a misnomer (Israel has not been forgotten)- that which is entrusted with this revelation are the saints themselves.

Your point about 'corruption' is fair enough - no one would dispute that this is a problem for the organisational side of the church.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top