The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea

[NoName55]

​

For meanings of difficult words or terms click on any word where mouse pointer changes to a pointing hand

Different schools of thought were developed by the 4th century. In Antioch, literal interpretation of Scripture was emphasized, putting the writings in a historical context. Arius (a native of Libya) argued that the Father alone is true God, and Jesus was not God. Since Jesus was created by God, there would be a time when Jesus did not exist and Arius used Proverbs 8:22 and John 14:28 (the Father is greater than I) as his proof text.

In Alexandria, Egypt, allegorical (mystical) interpretation was taught and Alexandrians could then spiritualise the text so they could make excuses, reject reason and explain away any unwanted literal reference by claiming it was allegorical.
They relied on the Gnostic John 1:1 written by a Greek around 100 CE. Much of their philosophy was based mainly on Plato and Egyptian paganism.

Alexander of Alexandria issued a statement that Christ was homoousios (same substance) to describe the relationship between Son and Father and thus Jesus was also the Father or God come to earth as a man.
Arius thought that was dangerously close to heresy and plain stupid, so he said that the Father alone is true God more in line with reason and the content of the Bible. This controversy was tearing the church apart, so Constantine issued an invitation to settle this dispute at the Council of Nicaea. And the rest is history

Constantine called the Council of Nicaea to settle the dispute over Arianism. He was the Emperor of Rome (who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun, Contrary to popular myth, Constantine was a pagan till his very last breath and was baptized on his deathbed by Eusubius, Bishop of Nicomedia) presided over this council.

From Encyclopaedia Britannica

"In his theological interpretation of the idea of God, Arius was interested in maintaining a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defence of the oneness of God, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as stressed by the theologians of the Neoplatonic influenced Alexandrian school. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Napoleonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament--such as the question of the sameness of essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons."

It was 325 A.D. at Nicaea that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed through by Athanasius (using Mafia tactics) in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine was a Sun Worshiper and only made an official conversion to "Christianity" on his deathbed). Roman coins of the period still portrayed the image of the sun God despite the alleged sudden adoption/conversion of Christianity. Many of those present at the Council of Nicaea were opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, siding with Arius. Even after the Nicene Creed, the Trinity was still hotly debated for decades and centuries after.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He created?

You are correct as to the content of Arius' view and the views of others such as Alexander and Athanasius (though I consider the reference to mafia tactics to be untrue and an ad hominem argument). But as to which of them most align with the Bible, as to Christ's nature I provide the following passage which speaks for itself:

Philippians 2
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,

Also, John 1:1 and the rest of John were written before the turn of the first century by John the disciple. This is attested to by Polycarp who was himself a disciple of John. Further John was decidely anti-gnostic. There is certainly a Greek influence in the language, but the though process is still very Aramaic.

Arius was not the only bishop who thought as he did, I believe there were two others out of over 300 bishops.


You are perfectly welcome to say that we got it wrong, just don't tell me that this is something created at Nicea. The doctrine was never formally stated till then, true. But the thoughts and beliefs that it expressed have been part of Christian teaching since the day of Pentecost.

 

[Amadeus85]

We catholics believe that God works in this Church.Thats why we believe that Church exists for 2000 years and still remains the biggest christian denomination.We also believe that thanks to God's power Catholic Church is one and not divided. We also believe that thanks to God's power, catholics managed to reject false gnosticism and false beliefs like Arianism.

 

[NoName55]

edit :zip:

 

[Jayda]

​

For meanings of difficult words or terms click on any word where mouse pointer changes to a pointing hand

Different schools of thought were developed by the 4th century. In Antioch, literal interpretation of Scripture was emphasized, putting the writings in a historical context. Arius (a native of Libya) argued that the Father alone is true God, and Jesus was not God. Since Jesus was created by God, there would be a time when Jesus did not exist and Arius used Proverbs 8:22 and John 14:28 (the Father is greater than I) as his proof text.

In Alexandria, Egypt, allegorical (mystical) interpretation was taught and Alexandrians could then spiritualise the text so they could make excuses, reject reason and explain away any unwanted literal reference by claiming it was allegorical.
They relied on the Gnostic John 1:1 written by a Greek around 100 CE. Much of their philosophy was based mainly on Plato and Egyptian paganism.

Alexander of Alexandria issued a statement that Christ was homoousios (same substance) to describe the relationship between Son and Father and thus Jesus was also the Father or God come to earth as a man.
Arius thought that was dangerously close to heresy and plain stupid, so he said that the Father alone is true God more in line with reason and the content of the Bible. This controversy was tearing the church apart, so Constantine issued an invitation to settle this dispute at the Council of Nicaea. And the rest is history

Constantine called the Council of Nicaea to settle the dispute over Arianism. He was the Emperor of Rome (who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun, Contrary to popular myth, Constantine was a pagan till his very last breath and was baptized on his deathbed by Eusubius, Bishop of Nicomedia) presided over this council.

From Encyclopaedia Britannica
It was 325 A.D. at Nicaea that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed through by Athanasius (using Mafia tactics) in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine was a Sun Worshiper and only made an official conversion to "Christianity" on his deathbed). Roman coins of the period still portrayed the image of the sun God despite the alleged sudden adoption/conversion of Christianity. Many of those present at the Council of Nicaea were opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, siding with Arius. Even after the Nicene Creed, the Trinity was still hotly debated for decades and centuries after.

hola

you forgot to mention three really important facts: all of the fathers and arius believed God in trinity (that God is triune), they disagreed about the origins of the persons; second constantine was an arian; finally that the trinitarians were persecuted by the empire for the next 100 years, including athanasius who was jailed and tortured.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[NoName55]

hola

you forgot to mention three really important facts: all of the fathers and arius believed God in trinity (that God is triune), they disagreed about the origins of the persons; second constantine was an arian; finally that the trinitarians were persecuted by the empire for the next 100 years, including athanasius who was jailed and tortured.

que Dios te bendiga

I stopped replying to this thread for lack of realtime moderation (i.e not keeping it between one Christian and one Muslim) I admitted defeat saying: Lakum deenukum waliya deen... To you be your Way, and to me mine.

read all about The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He created @ http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/trinity.htm

The Update>> The Nicene Creed and the Trinity, another look

 

[barney]

I still dont understand how the living flesh of the creator of the universe only figured out he was supposed to start preaching when he was 27.

"Hey Jesus! Mate! long time no see, what ya up to these days?"

"Hi, Zeke, yeah long time...ahh not much, did a bit of carpentry helping my Dad out, but next year i'm taking a break and becoming the omnipresent,omnipotent creator of everything from the begining until infinity, and none shall enter paradise till they love me more than their family and all mankind"

" Hey , congrats! I've been mainly fishing since i left school, still , nice to see someone doing well for themselves"

 

[Whatsthepoint]

We also believe that thanks to God's power Catholic Church is one and not divided.

Lol.
If the catholic church remained undivided no other christian church/denomination would exist. Well, there are literrally thousands.
I guess you were trying to say that the Roman Catholic church of today is not divided...well, it is.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

I still dont understand how the living flesh of the creator of the universe only figured out he was supposed to start preaching when he was 27.

"Hey Jesus! Mate! long time no see, what ya up to these days?"

"Hi, Zeke, yeah long time...ahh not much, did a bit of carpentry helping my Dad out, but next year i'm taking a break and becoming the omnipresent,omnipotent creator of everything from the begining until infinity, and none shall enter paradise till they love me more than their family and all mankind"

" Hey , congrats! I've been mainly fishing since i left school, still , nice to see someone doing well for themselves"

My guess is that Jesus studied jewish striptures in order to "fulfill" the prophecies about the messiah.

Matthew 2,23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

I'm not a native English speaker but it sounds to me he moved there for the sake of the prophecy..

 

[barney]

Darned sight easier just to pop out of the ether fully grown and in multiple places to spread the message to all mankind with perfection, rather than spending half a lifetime building chairs and knocking out bookcases, to suddenly up sticks and stand around mumbeling a few contridicatary, ambiguous, parables, before getting the established Church so worked up that they have you topped.

 

[جوري]

what did he gain out of it? I am not christian but I am always interested into what you believe motive is behind such observations.. fact is you have to satify all facets to come up with worthy thesis and one if them is what would a poor man gain by fulfilling prophecies for a refractory bunch who were known to kill and or maim their messengers to the point where none were spared, not even Moses and so testifies the old testament...

 

[barney]

C'mon PA!
You are being followed about by a massive crowd of people, being presented with gifts, everyone wants to know you, worship you and be your freind. You become a Superstar Celebrity in a time where the only celebs were Celebs by birthright (Kings & Emperors). You go down in history as GOD!

Your a smart Banana, dont tell me you cant see that he stood to get something out of it!
Wealth, love, Fame, Free food, free lodging, free transport, bodygaurds, power......

Or you can deliver a few flatpack shelves to the locals and be a nobody.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

what did he gain out of it? I am not christian but I am always interested into what you believe motive is behind such observations.. fact is you have to satify all facets to come up with worthy thesis and one if them is what would a poor man gain by fulfilling prophecies for a refractory bunch who were known to kill and or maim their messengers to the point where none were spared, not even Moses and so testifies the old testament...

I don't know. People do all sorts of stuff. Perhaps he wanted fame, money, women. Perhaps he really believed he was the messia and felt he needed to fullfil the prophecies. He might have been doing it subconsciously.
And year 30 Judea was different form the old testament. There were many so called prophets, lots of freedom fighters...one of them was Jesus.

 

[barney]

I don't know. People do all sorts of stuff. Perhaps he wanted fame, money, women. Perhaps he really believed he was the messia and felt he needed to fullfil the prophecies. He might have been doing it subconsciously.
And year 30 Judea was different form the old testament. There were many so called prophets, lots of freedom fighters...one of them was Jesus.

It's a Lottery really, out of every prophet a percentage strike lucky and be beleived. It happens to this day, and we send em straight to the nearest Mental Health Institution under Section. Ron Hubbard is the best recent case, though Dave Koresh would have gone if he lived. In the old days , failed prophets got stoned before they managed to build a Critical mass of followers.

 

[جوري]

C'mon PA!
You are being followed about by a massive crowd of people, being presented with gifts, everyone wants to know you, worship you and be your freind. You become a Superstar Celebrity in a time where the only celebs were Celebs by birthright (Kings & Emperors). You go down in history as GOD!

Your a smart Banana, dont tell me you cant see that he stood to get something out of it!
Wealth, love, Fame, Free food, free lodging, free transport, bodygaurds, power......

I'd love to believe that if it were true... but it isn't.. in fact the exact opposite of that... people in general are comfortable in their old ways and don't like change... what did the Confuscists do to the Daoists once that school of thought emerged? yes eunuchated them!.. seems like a heavy price to pay to go down in history. .. getting back to Jesus.. this here what you just wrote doesn't reconcile with him...I am not going to look at it from the christian perspective but from the Islamic one. He was only sent to the lost sheep of Bani Israel so I am not sure what fame you are talking about.. church of nicea is a far cry from the Jesus we know islamically speaking, the jews to whom he was sent, were known as a refractory bunch, he didn't have gifts, in fact he is self-professed as having the earth for his bed and the sky for cover.. no one wanted to know him or be his friend save for the lepers.. seems like a sad existence for 32 or 33 short yrs on earth... in order for someone to enjoy such a wide popularity, he would have had to bring something extraordinary for his time.. 'miracle like' I can't speak for how what he stood for and what is has deranged over time.. But I am not seeing any of the things you've proposed at all in his character or actually in the character of any other messengers of Abrahamic lineage...

 

[barney]

He was cheered into jerusalam by crowds streching miles, lining his way with palm fronds. He had people washing his feet constantly, and when he washed other's feet, they told him he was wrong to do it.
He was clothed and fed and lodged and given transport and treated like a King. A king of the Jews.

I wont debate if he got a kick out of being God. it would be farcical to claim to know his motives, I'm just putting up the most obvious ones to me.

It's living life in the fast lane, and you need enough people to beleive so that any dissenters are quickly silenced or know to keep stum if they value their heads.
Fail at that, and you end up in the ground with the other failed prophets, Succeed and ultimate power over mankind on earth is yours. It's why so many tried, Jesus was a brilliant Orater and had the Cult of Personality.

 

[جوري]

what ever tickles your fancy barn.. I am not going to sit here and discuss chapter and verse and their purpose.. it is the same old talk.. trying to convince an atheist of the intricacies of life which they rebuff with a reference from dawkin or a mockery to Behe with no real substance... you have a head on your shoulder, I imagine you can reason your way through life..
as we say in arabic

3a'lak fi rasak t'eraf khlasak..


cheers

 

[barney]

Im not atheist! I never quote Dawkins as i think he's a bit of a fanatic.

Now i have to fret over what 3a'lak fi rasak t'eraf khlasak means all night.

but yeah, each to his/ her own. and as we say in Yorkshire, "tha's nowt s'queer uz folk"

 

[جوري]

Im not atheist! I never quote Dawkins as i think he's a bit of a fanatic.

Indeed I used it as a simile 'a resemblance between things of different kinds'

Now i have to fret over what 3a'lak fi rasak t'eraf khlasak means all night.

I already translated that.. 'If you have a sharp mind in your skull you'll reason your way out of a hole' -- eh roughly

but yeah, each to his/ her own. and as we say in Yorkshire, "tha's nowt s'queer uz folk

See, that is why I am an advocate of learning something new per day!
Though I can't say this was it for me ;D


cheers

 

[Grace Seeker]

Is there any thing the two of you don't fight over?


As to what Jesus had to gain....

If one accepts the Biblical record -- and even if you don't, that appears to be what everyone is working from at the moment, so I shall as well -- then Jesus was already offered money, power and fame at the very beginning by the devil and he turned it all down. His own preaching emphasized the fact that you cannot serve both God and money, and that if you were to be one of his followers you had no guarantees except that it would end in a cross. During his earthly ministry he was known as one who had no place to lay his head. It sounds like Jesus' earthly prospects would have been a lot brighter if he had taken pretty much any other route than the one he did, I'm willing to assume that he did for some unearthly (i.e. Godlly) reason.


As to why not start earlier? One might also ask, why not start later? The scriptures talk about it "being his time" or "in the fullness of time". Again, I'm going to assume that this timing was in the Father's hands.

I've already addressed the question as to why not come fully formed "popping in out of the ether" I think one of you said. If you're not willing to accept these answers it appears you're just asking questions to hear yourself talk, and I'm wasting my time in taking you seriously enough to answer them.