What is a liberal Christian theology?

[childeye]

Your argument to Judaism completely misses the point. An orthodox Jew will have "right belief" concerning Judaism, so of course he won't believe Jesus is the Christ. As much as you fight it, there most certainly is right belief concerning Christianity, just as there is wrong belief.

Sure, the wrong belief is that the Christ is not the Christ. I don't know what you think I am fighting. I think I'm fighting Satan.

Once again you have completely missed the point. Jesus even asked his disciples who the world thought he was, then asked who they thought he was.

Yes I know, and Peter answered you are the Messiah the son of God. Then Jesus said, you are rock and on this rock I will build my church. I've already said a bazillion times the same thing. He is the chief cornerstone to quote scripture, and also, for no man can lay another foundation than what is laid, and that is Jesus. That is what I am saying on this thread for the sake of unity in the Holy Spirit.

Is Jesus a mere man? Did he preexist as an angel? Was he a manifestation of God? Is he one person of a Trinity? Did he physically rise from the dead, spiritually rise, or not at all? Did he actually die? Etc., etc., etc.

Yes I get your point as I have all along in this thread. Do you get my point? No, I don't think you do or you wouldn't be saying these things.

Who Jesus is, is central to salvation. Do you or do you not agree that there are central tenets one must believe to be a Christian?

I believe there are subsequent implications that come as a result of believing that Jesus is the Christ. First and foremost is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit which guides in all Truth, including the revealing of knowledge as he sees fit when he see fit. His being conceived of the Holy Spirit is part of that knowledge. His atoning death and resurrection as the means to defeat Satan is part of that knowledge. His conviction of sin is part of that knowledge. Revelation upon revelation, precept upon precept. But it all begins with believing that Jesus is the Christ. When I first found God, I didn't even know what a Christ is. I didn't know that Jesus was God's son. I even said that to God. He even had to reveal that to me.

This makes little sense. What precisely does one believe on? What does the Bible say about how one becomes a child of God?

A person believes upon the Christ. Christ is an axiom, for even he says I am the Truth and the way. The bible says that as many as believed upon him, gave he them the power to become the children of God.

Of course, that is obvious. But without orthodox belief about who Christ is, there is no Christianity. One cannot simply make Jesus out to be whomever, or whatever, they want, and believe whatever they want about what Scripture says about his life and work, and believe that they are a Christian.

I agree with that. That is why I am against calling these people liberal Christians since they are not Christian at all. I don't even believe in calling people orthodox Christians. To me they are either Christian or not Christian.

If there is no orthodoxy, no right belief about about such things, there is no Christianity. This is precisely what the term "liberal" is referring to when used regarding Christianity, as shown in the OP.

There is one right belief that I know of. That Jesus is the Christ. All else comes because of that. The people this op is referring to don't believe in a Christ as I have said over and over and over. The term liberal in front of Christian in this op is just a means of concealing a lie. This teaching to me is antichrist.

So what is the truth about who Jesus is and what he accomplished?

There are many things Jesus accomplished, but as pertaining to what I was alluding to, I have copied this post and pasted it below.


I agree with what you are saying concerning putting all his enemies under his feet. I also agree that the means is the Gospel.

To elaborate further, I note that the Gospel makes the blind seeing and the seeing blind, along with, I will make the mountains valleys and the valleys mountains. This indicates that things that were high before will be brought low, and the low things will be made high. Or again, many of the first will be last and the last first, or, God exalts those who humble themselves and humbles those who exalt themselves. With this in mind, elsewhere we read where Jesus speaks about the eyes being the lamps of the soul, so that if the eyes are good, then you are filled with Light. Then Jesus says something very interesting, that if your light is darkness then how deep is that darkness. This presents an imagery of a person whose eyes are so bad that they think they see, but in reality they are blind. Or to put it another way, what they consider to be absolutely true and reason upon as such, is in reality a lie.

Having said all that, The Gospel puts Christ's enemies under his feet because there is a type of righteousness that comes through faith or belief in the Gospel. And this righteousness is received upon the revelation of the true Character of God as personified in the son, who displays a love or righteousness, that would die in place of the unrighteous, would return good for evil, and sacrifice one's own self for the sake of others. This True image of God is the Light that fills the soul upon the good eye seeing it. So, the revelation of the True Character of God is what actually puts his enemies under his feet .

There is therefore a darkness that is empowered through a false image of God. A corrupt image conceived by a corrupt mind that corrupts the soul. We see this imagery in Genesis when Satan says, that God does not want mankind to eat from the knowledge of good and evil because He knows you will become like Him. This image of god, is like a tyrant who wishes to keep all others beneath him, and would lie to do so. This imagery of god is like a corrupt power that wants to be the boss of everyone else so as to be served by everyone else and never lift a finger. This Satanic image of God produces a corrupt reasoning. So it is that we see Satan discontent in his station and desiring to be god according to this false imagery. But in Christ we see the opposite. Not a vile god that wishes to be served and be on top, but a perfectly loving God that would put Himself at the bottom where He serves and upholds everyone else. For the mind of Christ is to not count it sin to count one's self equal to God, but submits himself as a servant to all.

Hence the enemies of God who hold to a false image of God judge themselves and others accordingly and condemn themselves in doing so. And that is how his enemies are made his footstool. The Truth is greater than the lie.

 

[childeye]

so the trinity or gnostics are going to heaven?

We're not supposed to ask who goes to heaven or hell according to scripture.

no one will ever agree on the bible. no going to happen.

Not even in heaven?

you do realize that the nicean council was a response to denying the nature of Christ!

I assume you're talking about the Arius controversy. They did discuss that, but that was not by the Holy Spirit. It was a made up controversy that condemned an innocent man.

 

[jasonc]

We're not supposed to ask who goes to heaven or hell according to scripture.

Not even in heaven?

I assume you're talking about the Arius controversy. They did discuss that, but that was not by the Holy Spirit. It was a made up controversy that condemned an innocent man.

so if I confess that jesus was a spirit and didn't die on the cross. what does that make me?

oh wait john says an anti-Christ. made up? uhm no, the trinity was and is still a hot topic. I wasn't a Trinitarian. in fact, you appear to make it sound that if a jw, Mormon loves like the commands they know they are saved. they both do teach the exact same sins we hear. I didn't need to realearn the ten commandments. I knew them!

in heaven? where talking about now not the future. there wont be a bible needed in heaven. that is like saying jesus needs to read his word dialy. uhm isn't He that WORD? so when he changes us to his image fully what does that mean? we are what he made us and Is. but that is from Judaism in parts.

I haven't asked it often and in a long time but asking if one is heaven bound is a good way to see if one is a Christian. I did it and when led the by the holy ghost it does cause things he wanted.

so the nicean council that later with those men whom later coined the bible was a bad thing?

 

[childeye]

childeye


that my friend is the function of the torah, its supposed to do that. why? because without the revalation of our sins, how would we know we are death and full of sin?

That's a good answer. Now what about the Spirit giving life?

it has nothing to do with what you said. if we want to do that way. if I as a jew, muslim, atheist loves my fellow man that is all they needed. they don't need the church for nothing. they have love.

What are you talking about? I never said all you need is love. I said God is Love. I said they need to get rid of the false image of god that is Satanic, that perverts Love with a corrupt image of god.

 

[jasonc]

That's a good answer. Now what about the Spirit giving life?

What are you talking about? I never said all you need is love. I said God is Love. I said they need to get rid of the false image of god that is Satanic, that perverts Love with a corrupt image of god.

again where does the bible that god is just love? if god is love then is the reverse true? certainly not.

you oversimplify the bible. a problem at times when it comes to meatier things. yes the basics are clear. but not all of the doctrines are that simple. I would get into some diffusive positions that have no salvinical bearing if I posted things on the imagery seen and studied in revalation.

words do matter. the bible is meant to offend the wicked.why do you have a big problem with simply saying that in some cases a liberal Christian isn't one at all! he is a wolf, false prophet.

 

[childeye]

so if I confess that jesus was a spirit and didn't die on the cross. what does that make me?

Either a liar or delirious.

oh wait john says an anti-Christ. made up? uhm no, the trinity was and is still a hot topic. I wasn't a Trinitarian. in fact, you appear to make it sound that if a jw, Mormon loves like the commands they know they are saved. they both do teach the exact same sins we hear. I didn't need to realearn the ten commandments. I knew them!

You clearly have the wrong impression of what I am saying.

in heaven? where talking about now not the future. there wont be a bible needed in heaven. that is like saying jesus needs to read his word dialy.

Stop, you're making me laugh. I only asked a simple question, with the intent of implying that once all is revealed we will all see clearly and there won't be contention.

uhm isn't He that WORD?

The bible testifies to Him.

so when he changes us to his image fully what does that mean? we are what he made us and Is. but that is from Judaism in parts.

I can see that.

I haven't asked it often and in a long time but asking if one is heaven bound is a good way to see if one is a Christian

.
Say what? How is this a litmus test for Christians? Did you pick out your mansion too?

I did it and when led the by the holy ghost it does cause things he wanted.

Like what if I may ask?

so the nicean council that later with those men whom later coined the bible was a bad thing?

A rather loaded question. Who can say what would have been if the council never happened so as to compare the different outcomes? I'm just saying there were many bad things that happened such as the inquisition that were not Godly.

 

[jasonc]

childeye, if asked a Mormon if they were a Christian and I didn't know they were a Mormon they would say they are. if ask a jw about being heaven bound or hell bound he or she would say the latter doesn exist, the former is for the 144,000.

the nicean council while later on the church went south per human nature had to answer that. and take a stance. what do you think the Sanhedrin was originally? to form the torah and bible as inspired and it did that. the word septuagaint means 70 men. those were the Sanhedrin of their day. they decided to write the Hebrew into greek and did so with no talking to each other and each of them did it. I guess having any form a church with some types of doctrinal positions is evil in your eyes. NO man will ever see eye to eye on jesus.

do you suggest?

1) that no real Christian would, should disagree on end times
2) the same with origins
3) worship the same?
4) believe in the same views on other things when often the bible isn't so clear?

if you do, good luck with that. im a preterist that attends a premil, prewrath church. I cringe when I hear isreal and the word prophecy together.i guess I should force them to agree with me or vice versa. I can easily defend my positions. but if its just an argument. I get that enough here. don't need it in person.

 

[childeye]

again where does the bible that god is just love? if god is love then is the reverse true? certainly not.

Who said the bible says God is just Love? But what does Torah serve?

you oversimplify the bible. a problem at times when it comes to meatier things. yes the basics are clear. but not all of the doctrines are that simple. I would get into some diffusive positions that have no salvinical bearing if I posted things on the imagery seen and studied in revalation.

Okay I'll bite. To what meatier things are you referring?

words do matter.

Of course they do. That's why I am careful about what I both say and don't say.

the bible is meant to offend the wicked.

I'll add that it carries a different connotation for the wicked than for the pure of heart.

why do you have a big problem with simply saying that in some cases a liberal Christian isn't one at all! he is a wolf, false prophet.

Didn't I say exactly that on this thread? I also said it about some conservative Christians in that they burned people alive. I don't like either term in front of Christian. They signify divisiveness to me, and that is not of the Holy Spirit.

 

[jasonc]

1) liberal? the term liberal, means those that per the op that are false. sheesh. I posted the definition of that
2) the torah is visually seen in revalation
3) meatier in that we cant grasp it. in a vision of the Lord john sees Him whom sat on the throne, then sees the lamb having seven yes, seven heads, seven horns and being slain from the foundation of the word. the bible never said the man on the throne was the Father. context, says its the revalation of our Lord Jesus. so all visions of God are Jesus. yet the church mistakes that all the time
4) death, hades and sea all have souls in them. numerous things that are grey and meant to be there. shouldn't a Christian live the life and also read up an ponder those things.
5) connotations of words can have many meanings. for example. sheol=pit, death, and a place for the dead if I remember that correctly.Elohim=gods, God as in the triune nature, or for emphasis as in GOD. usage in the sentence tells you what it means. and all of the above are also often misread and argued about.

 

[childeye]

the nicean council while later on the church went south per human nature had to answer that. and take a stance.

It went south because it became corrupt as per false image of god.

what do you think the Sanhedrin was originally? to form the torah and bible as inspired and it did that. the word septuagaint means 70 men. those were the Sanhedrin of their day. they decided to write the Hebrew into greek and did so with no talking to each other and each of them did it

That is cool. I never knew that. But of course, just reading it one can tell it is inspired.

I guess having any form a church with some types of doctrinal positions is evil in your eyes.

That could be construed as a mean thing to both think and to say, but I will simply believe that it is said out of your most honest love.

NO man will ever see eye to eye on jesus.

You don't believe in One Holy Spirit that can rule in all men?

do you suggest?

1) that no real Christian would, should disagree on end times
2) the same with origins
3) worship the same?
4) believe in the same views on other things when often the bible isn't so clear?

I would suggest that where there is ignorance there is not agreement on what men are ignorant of. To me, worship is drawn out by the object of worship, so I wouldn't expect everyone to worship the same. Or as Jesus said, He who is forgiven much, loves much. He who is forgiven little, loves little.

im a preterist that attends a premil, prewrath church. I cringe when I hear isreal and the word prophecy together.i guess I should force them to agree with me or vice versa. I can easily defend my positions. but if its just an argument. I get that enough here. don't need it in person.

Why a preterist? What compels you in that direction?

 

[childeye]

1) liberal? the term liberal, means those that per the op that are false. sheesh. I posted the definition of that

You did no such thing. The word false is not a definition of liberal in any dictionary. You pointed out this: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms. Moreover this term is relative in degrees. We all have liberal and conservative tendencies. Don't you care about looking like a hypocrite to God?

2) the torah is visually seen in revalation

Agreed, for it is the Holy Spirit which testifies to God and His son.

3) meatier in that we cant grasp it. in a vision of the Lord john sees Him whom sat on the throne, then sees the lamb having seven yes, seven heads, seven horns and being slain from the foundation of the word. the bible never said the man on the throne was the Father. context, says its the revalation of our Lord Jesus. so all visions of God are Jesus. yet the church mistakes that all the time
4) death, hades and sea all have souls in them. numerous things that are grey and meant to be there. shouldn't a Christian live the life and also read up an ponder those things.
5) connotations of words can have many meanings. for example. sheol=pit, death, and a place for the dead if I remember that correctly.Elohim=gods, God as in the triune nature, or for emphasis as in GOD. usage in the sentence tells you what it means. and all of the above are also often misread and argued about.

Okay I see what you mean when you say meatier. Yes I ponder all of these scriptures and I believe I grasp them in some degree. So why a preterist?

 

[Free]

Sure, the wrong belief is that the Christ is not the Christ.

Your argument to Judaism is still wrong.

Yes I know, and Peter answered you are the Messiah the son of God. Then Jesus said, you are rock and on this rock I will build my church. I've already said a bazillion times the same thing. He is the chief cornerstone to quote scripture, and also, for no man can lay another foundation than what is laid, and that is Jesus. That is what I am saying on this thread for the sake of unity in the Holy Spirit.

I don't see how that addresses what I said.

Yes I get your point as I have all along in this thread. Do you get my point? No, I don't think you do or you wouldn't be saying these things.

You sure don't seem to because you continually avoid direct answers to my questions.

Who Jesus is, is central to salvation. Do you or do you not agree that there are central tenets one must believe to be a Christian?

I believe there are subsequent implications that come as a result of believing that Jesus is the Christ. First and foremost is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit which guides in all Truth, including the revealing of knowledge as he sees fit when he see fit. His being conceived of the Holy Spirit is part of that knowledge. His atoning death and resurrection as the means to defeat Satan is part of that knowledge. His conviction of sin is part of that knowledge. Revelation upon revelation, precept upon precept. But it all begins with believing that Jesus is the Christ. When I first found God, I didn't even know what a Christ is. I didn't know that Jesus was God's son. I even said that to God. He even had to reveal that to me.

That doesn't answer my question and rather comes across as Gnostic.

How did you "find God" without knowing "what a Christ is"? Why did God have to reveal to you that Jesus was the Son of God? Jesus himself says so several times in Scripture. It is quite plain, not requiring any special revelation.

A person believes upon the Christ. Christ is an axiom, for even he says I am the Truth and the way. The bible says that as many as believed upon him, gave he them the power to become the children of God.

Again, you are not understanding. What does it mean to "believe upon the Christ"?

I agree with that. That is why I am against calling these people liberal Christians since they are not Christian at all. I don't even believe in calling people orthodox Christians. To me they are either Christian or not Christian.

We know that Mormons aren't Christian; we know that JWs aren't Christian; we know that Gnostics aren't Christian. So what do we call those who hold the set of beliefs as laid out in the OP, especially since they call themselves "liberal Christians"? There is nothing wrong with using "liberal."

There is one right belief that I know of. That Jesus is the Christ. All else comes because of that. The people this op is referring to don't believe in a Christ as I have said over and over and over. The term liberal in front of Christian in this op is just a means of concealing a lie. This teaching to me is antichrist.

You still don't understand what I have been saying.

 

[childeye]

Your argument to Judaism is still wrong.

My point with Judaism is that an orthodox Jew does not believe in Jesus as the Christ. That is to say since orthodox means an accepted right belief, it doesn't make that belief right. Sure to the one who has accepted it, it is orthodoxy to them, but not to a Christian. Orthodoxy therefore does not mean Truth. You will now say but we are talking about Christian orthodoxy not Judaism. Fine, the same can be said of Roman Catholics whose orthodoxy is that only an ordained priest can change the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ, so as to recognize the Pope as the only person able to give communion in the Church. That is authoritarianism which is also what orthodoxy implies.

I don't see how that addresses what I said.

As I recall you asked who is the Christ then you asked this:
Is Jesus a mere man? Did he preexist as an angel? Was he a manifestation of God? Is he one person of a Trinity? Did he physically rise from the dead, spiritually rise, or not at all? Did he actually die? Etc., etc., etc.
Now how do I answer a question that ends with with etc. etc.. etc..? Jesus was the Word, the power of creation, made flesh. Did he pre-exist as an angel? I don't see how since he was the Word of God that created angels. Was he a manifestation of God? Yes, for the Word was God since God spoke the Word. Is he one person of the trinity? Yes. Did he physically rise from the dead? Yes. Did he spiritually rise from the dead? No, his Spirit never died. His flesh died and was dead for three days and three nights.

You sure don't seem to because you continually avoid direct answers to my questions.

I try my best. Here is what I think you are trying to say:

"Liberal Christianity ends up as false Christianity because they eschew orthodoxy."

Since I have shown that orthodoxy doesn't stop anyone from heading into false Christianity, as per burning people alive, then your statement is moot.

That doesn't answer my question and rather comes across as Gnostic.

I feel I answered your question in depth. You asked, "are there central tenets one must believe to be a Christian?" That is a rather loaded question. Why? Because I believe a Christian is one who believes in Christ. As far as I know, as soon as a person believes upon the Christ from the heart, they are a Christian. However, and as Jesus said, why call me Lord and not do what I say?.... I believe that if someone truly calls him Lord, then they do what he says. So there are tenets that will be established along the way but they are not what makes one a Christian. Walking in the Spirit that is Light makes one a Christian.

As for Gnosticism, I don't know much about it. I've read some gnostic writings but I don't find them inspirational. But God did speak to those who wrote the scriptures, did He not? And Christ talked to Saul. And the Holy Spirit talks to us.

How did you "find God" without knowing "what a Christ is"? Why did God have to reveal to you that Jesus was the Son of God? Jesus himself says so several times in Scripture. It is quite plain, not requiring any special revelation.

All valid questions. This would require me to say how I came to be a Christian. That is quite a testimony and would require some time to write. I'm too tired to write it all now. I need to go to bed. I will say, that I was just being honest with God when I told Him I didn't know whether Jesus was His son or not.

Again, you are not understanding. What does it mean to "believe upon the Christ"?

To me it means to trust in him as the true image of God.

We know that Mormons aren't Christian; we know that JWs aren't Christian; we know that Gnostics aren't Christian. So what do we call those who hold the set of beliefs as laid out in the OP, especially since they call themselves "liberal Christians"? There is nothing wrong with using "liberal."

I'm not familiar with Mormonism or jw's or gnostics. I can't say anything about them.

The one's who would believe that Christ never atoned for sin, do not believe in the Christ, for that is how he defeats Satan and changes heaven and earth. Here is where I draw the line or be a coward before my Lord. I will not blaspheme his Name. They can call themselves liberal Christians all they want, but they are not liberal Christians, since they don't even believe in Christ. It is wrong to repeat the lie as it is with any lie. How am I wrong about that?

You still don't understand what I have been saying.

I think you're saying there are things that are true, and to stray from them is destruction. You are absolutely right.

 

[OzSpen]

We're not supposed to ask who goes to heaven or hell according to scripture.

Not even in heaven?

I assume you're talking about the Arius controversy. They did discuss that, but that was not by the Holy Spirit. It was a made up controversy that condemned an innocent man.

Please tell me the teaching of Arius that is not according to Scripture. Why was some of his core theology condemned as unorthodox at the Council of Nicea?

 

[childeye]

Please tell me the teaching of Arius that is not according to Scripture. Why was some of his core theology condemned as unorthodox at the Council of Nicea?

I am not familiar with the teachings of Arius, so I couldn't say he had or didn't have teachings that were contrary to scripture. I only know that it was reported that the Arians claimed Jesus had become God's son, while the orthodox claimed he was always God's son. The issue is therefore the nature of Jesus, is he divine or a mere man? This question doesn't account for any consideration that as the Logos, Jesus could be both. It is therefore a false dichotomy that can only end in hypocritical reasoning.

Semantics are clearly the problem, and Satan uses the fealty of words to cause division. Hence the Nicene creed claims Jesus was "begotten not made". However scripture claims Jesus was the Logos "made" flesh. Consequently both are true in different connotations and inferences. Jesus was both the son of God as the logos begotten not made, and the son of man as the Christ which was the Logos made flesh.

 

[jasonc]

childeye, uhm whenever I quote from any jew, its from orthodox jews. there is a BIG difference tween them and other two jewish sects. consertives aren't as strict on the torah but follow it in princicple. the reformed are liberal in that the torah is whatever they want it to be.

until the 1900's there was only the orthodox jews.

 

[OzSpen]

I am not familiar with the teachings of Arius, so I couldn't say he had or didn't have teachings that were contrary to scripture. I only know that it was reported that the Arians claimed Jesus had become God's son, while the orthodox claimed he was always God's son. The issue is therefore the nature of Jesus, is he divine or a mere man? This question doesn't account for any consideration that as the Logos, Jesus could be both. It is therefore a false dichotomy that can only end in hypocritical reasoning.

Semantics are clearly the problem, and Satan uses the fealty of words to cause division. Hence the Nicene creed claims Jesus was "begotten not made". However scripture claims Jesus was the Logos "made" flesh. Consequently both are true in different connotations and inferences. Jesus was both the son of God as the logos begotten not made, and the son of man as the Christ which was the Logos made flesh.

However, at #142 it was you who stated, 'I assume you're talking about the Arius controversy. They did discuss that, but that was not by the Holy Spirit. It was a made up controversy that condemned an innocent man'.

So you claim that the Arian controversy was 'made up' and they 'condemned an innocent man'. You seem to want it both ways, 'Semantics are clearly the problem'. If you don't know the teachings of Arius that were condemned and that what happened was 'made up', how can semantics be the problem when you are 'not familiar with the teachings of Arius'?

I suggest that you become accurately conversant with the false teachings of Arius that were condemned at the Council of Nicea. Otherwise, you are speaking out of ignorance.

These are starters:

Arianism - what is it?
ARIUS (b. ca. 250 A.D. - d. 336 A.D.)
What is Arianism?

Oz

 

[childeye]

childeye, uhm whenever I quote from any jew, its from orthodox jews. there is a BIG difference tween them and other two jewish sects. consertives aren't as strict on the torah but follow it in princicple. the reformed are liberal in that the torah is whatever they want it to be.

until the 1900's there was only the orthodox jews.

There is a judgment and God will judge justly. We all have liberal and conservative tendencies. I am not a strict authoritarian until it is necessary. I am as liberal as I can be until it is necessary to be authoritarian. I seek to serve Love in both. I also recognize that Satan is ever causing division by playing both ends against the middle through deception. All lies are revealed in hypocrisy, hence I seek the middle that I know Satan is against. Therefore I agree with Jesus:
Matthew 22:37-42 New International Version (NIV)
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

 

[childeye]

However, at #142 it was you who stated, 'I assume you're talking about the Arius controversy. They did discuss that, but that was not by the Holy Spirit. It was a made up controversy that condemned an innocent man'.

So you claim that the Arian controversy was 'made up' and they 'condemned an innocent man'. You seem to want it both ways, 'Semantics are clearly the problem'. If you don't know the teachings of Arius that were condemned and that what happened was 'made up', how can semantics be the problem when you are 'not familiar with the teachings of Arius'?

I suggest that you become accurately conversant with the false teachings of Arius that were condemned at the Council of Nicea. Otherwise, you are speaking out of ignorance.

These are starters:

Arianism - what is it?
ARIUS (b. ca. 250 A.D. - d. 336 A.D.)
What is Arianism?

Oz

I didn't say I didn't know the teachings that were condemned. I even said what they were. I said I wasn't familiar with the teachings of Arius so as to be able to say either way whether he did have or didn't have any teachings that were contrary to scripture. Those are two different things. So yes the Arian controversy was "made up" as in, it was brought about because of misunderstanding or misinterpretation of scripture. And yes they condemned an innocent man as history shows.

 

[jasonc]

There is a judgment and God will judge justly. We all have liberal and conservative tendencies. I am not a strict authoritarian until it is necessary. I am as liberal as I can be until it is necessary to be authoritarian. I seek to serve Love in both. I also recognize that Satan is ever causing division by playing both ends against the middle through deception. All lies are revealed in hypocrisy, hence I seek the middle that I know Satan is against. Therefore I agree with Jesus:
Matthew 22:37-42 New International Version (NIV)
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

again, that is authoritarian! and I don't have liberal tendencies. the bible has grey areas. im honest to see those as they are. the jews in jesus day did the same. read up on shimei and hillel, and they both were Pharisees and what the Pharisees asked were to see which rabbi he sided with(hillel). sure they didn't want to serve god but the questions were to see ho jesus taught torah!