|
Post by snow on Sept 12, 2013 21:07:26 GMT -5
I thought I would post something I posted on the Shapeless Movement thread. Starting a new thread would be best I think. Here is what I posted.
I have just started reading a book called 'When Jesus became God' by Richard E. Rubenstein. It is a book about the epic fight over Christ's Divinity in the Last days of Rome. It is very interesting so far. I liked the Arian reason for why they believed Jesus was the son of God and not God. Seems Jesus as a role model would be seen as more attainable vs Jesus as a God. Maybe more would be motivated to be more like him if it was thought that status was attainable.
"How could one be a Christian and not believe that Christ was God incarnate? The Arians had an answer. To them, Jesus was a person of such sublime moral accomplishments that God adopted him as His Son, sacrificed him to redeem humanity from sin, raised him from the dead, and granted him divine status. Because of his excellence, he became a model of righteous behavior for us. And because his merit earned the prize of immortality, the same reward was made available to other human beings, provided that they model themselves after him. From the Arian perspective, it was essential that Jesus not be God, since God, being perfect by nature, in inimitable. By contrast, Christs's transcendent virtue, achieved by repeated acts of will, is available (at least potentially) to the rest of us. Even though we may fall short of his impeccable standards, his triumph over egoism shows us how we also may become the Sons and Daughters of God."
Athanasius on the other hand was fighting for the side that thought Jesus was God. Here is a paragraph on his thoughts:
"If the heretics won, said Athanasius, Christianity would be shipwrecked. This was no mere academic matter; millions of souls would be lost eternally and Christ himself dealt a terrible defeat. So persuasive were the Arian misleaders, and so evil the consequences of their error, that Athanasius was convinced he saw in their reasoning the malicious cleverness of the Antichrist. The struggle against Arianism was therefore a fight against the devil...and, God knows, one did not compromise with the devil.
However, Athanasius was in exile for quite sometime and the reason why his version of the controversy remains is because Bishop George of Cappadocia was murdered by a mob when the Emperor Constantius II who supported him died of a fever. Julian took over as Emperor and since he was pagan and not Christian, the two sides of the equation fought for supremacy. With Bishop George gone, Athanasius returned to the city of Alexandria and fought the Arians. Today we still see that there is a huge divide between the two Christian thoughts. This was in 361 AD so it is clear to me that the Trinity was not always the view and it was only because of a few quirks of 'fate' that it took hold and became the belief we see today. Early church fathers like Origin and Dionysius had taught that Jesus was inferior in some respects to God so the non believe in the Trinity was not an uncommon one in the first 3 centuries after the death of Jesus. And, it would seem from reading on this thread, it still is not decided.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 12, 2013 21:44:35 GMT -5
This was in 361 AD so it is clear to me that the Trinity was not always the view ... On what are you basing this statement? What do you mean by not always the view - it's true that it wasn't - not until the Apostles and the Father's revelation to Peter was the teaching completed. Before that, it was prophetical. But to what timeframe do you refer 'that it was not always the view'?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 12, 2013 22:20:10 GMT -5
I thought I would post something I posted on the Shapeless Movement thread. Starting a new thread would be best I think. Here is what I posted. I have just started reading a book called 'When Jesus became God' by Richard E. Rubenstein. It is a book about the epic fight over Christ's Divinity in the Last days of Rome. It is very interesting so far. I liked the Arian reason for why they believed Jesus was the son of God and not God. Seems Jesus as a role model would be seen as more attainable vs Jesus as a God. Maybe more would be motivated to be more like him if it was thought that status was attainable. "How could one be a Christian and not believe that Christ was God incarnate? The Arians had an answer. To them, Jesus was a person of such sublime moral accomplishments that God adopted him as His Son, sacrificed him to redeem humanity from sin, raised him from the dead, and granted him divine status. Because of his excellence, he became a model of righteous behavior for us. And because his merit earned the prize of immortality, the same reward was made available to other human beings, provided that they model themselves after him. From the Arian perspective, it was essential that Jesus not be God, since God, being perfect by nature, in inimitable. By contrast, Christs's transcendent virtue, achieved by repeated acts of will, is available (at least potentially) to the rest of us.Reeks of human sacrifice to me. Even though we may fall short of his impeccable standards, his triumph over egoism shows us how we also may become the Sons and Daughters of God." How does the Arian perspective of Jesus represent a triumph over egoism?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 13, 2013 11:01:34 GMT -5
This was in 361 AD so it is clear to me that the Trinity was not always the view ... On what are you basing this statement? What do you mean by not always the view - it's true that it wasn't - not until the Apostles and the Father's revelation to Peter was the teaching completed. Before that, it was prophetical. But to what timeframe do you refer 'that it was not always the view'? According to the book in 361 it was still a 50 50 split in believers. What I meant by that was it wasn't always the accepted view. That would likely be more accurate. Arius didn't believe it and he had a lot of followers and so did Athanasius. They used the same church when they were in their respective times of power so the people were left to two opposing views. Athanasius was driven out of Alexandria while George was in power and when George was lynched, Athanasius returned and continued his trinity belief. It seemed to volley back and forth depending on the ruler and his beliefs at the time and what bishop was allowed into town. Interesting book St. Anne.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 13, 2013 11:04:10 GMT -5
I thought I would post something I posted on the Shapeless Movement thread. Starting a new thread would be best I think. Here is what I posted. I have just started reading a book called 'When Jesus became God' by Richard E. Rubenstein. It is a book about the epic fight over Christ's Divinity in the Last days of Rome. It is very interesting so far. I liked the Arian reason for why they believed Jesus was the son of God and not God. Seems Jesus as a role model would be seen as more attainable vs Jesus as a God. Maybe more would be motivated to be more like him if it was thought that status was attainable. "How could one be a Christian and not believe that Christ was God incarnate? The Arians had an answer. To them, Jesus was a person of such sublime moral accomplishments that God adopted him as His Son, sacrificed him to redeem humanity from sin, raised him from the dead, and granted him divine status. Because of his excellence, he became a model of righteous behavior for us. And because his merit earned the prize of immortality, the same reward was made available to other human beings, provided that they model themselves after him. From the Arian perspective, it was essential that Jesus not be God, since God, being perfect by nature, in inimitable. By contrast, Christs's transcendent virtue, achieved by repeated acts of will, is available (at least potentially) to the rest of us.Reeks of human sacrifice to me. Even though we may fall short of his impeccable standards, his triumph over egoism shows us how we also may become the Sons and Daughters of God." How does the Arian perspective of Jesus represent a triumph over egoism? Well Lee, I few the crucifixion as exactly that, a human sacrifice. God sacrificed his son according to belief. Also, if Jesus was a man and overcame his ego to become perfect, that is a triumph over egoism is it not? A God doing the same thing loses some of its effectiveness because the God wouldn't have an ego to start with.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 13, 2013 12:52:20 GMT -5
On what are you basing this statement? What do you mean by not always the view - it's true that it wasn't - not until the Apostles and the Father's revelation to Peter was the teaching completed. Before that, it was prophetical. But to what timeframe do you refer 'that it was not always the view'? According to the book in 361 it was still a 50 50 split in believers. What I meant by that was it wasn't always the accepted view. That would likely be more accurate. Arius didn't believe it and he had a lot of followers and so did Athanasius. They used the same church when they were in their respective times of power so the people were left to two opposing views. Athanasius was driven out of Alexandria while George was in power and when George was lynched, Athanasius returned and continued his trinity belief. It seemed to volley back and forth depending on the ruler and his beliefs at the time and what bishop was allowed into town. Interesting book St. Anne. What I meant by that was it wasn't always the accepted view.The Trinity is what has always been believed and taught by the original NT Church - it was given clarity with the Father's revelation to Peter of who Christ really is. Heretics did arise with false doctrine - the Arians for sure - that is when we see the doctrine and dogma of the Trinity and the nature of Christ were defined. Perfect illustration of why the Nicene Creed was written in 325 - later the Anathasian Creed was written, 500 AD - in response to the heretics - as is true with nearly every, if not every, doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 13, 2013 15:31:22 GMT -5
According to the book in 361 it was still a 50 50 split in believers. What I meant by that was it wasn't always the accepted view. That would likely be more accurate. Arius didn't believe it and he had a lot of followers and so did Athanasius. They used the same church when they were in their respective times of power so the people were left to two opposing views. Athanasius was driven out of Alexandria while George was in power and when George was lynched, Athanasius returned and continued his trinity belief. It seemed to volley back and forth depending on the ruler and his beliefs at the time and what bishop was allowed into town. Interesting book St. Anne. What I meant by that was it wasn't always the accepted view.The Trinity is what has always been believed and taught by the original NT Church - it was given clarity with the Father's revelation to Peter of who Christ really is. Heretics did arise with false doctrine - the Arians for sure - that is when we see the doctrine and dogma of the Trinity and the nature of Christ were defined. Perfect illustration of why the Nicene Creed was written in 325 - later the Anathasian Creed was written, 500 AD - in response to the heretics - as is true with nearly every, if not every, doctrine. I'm not saying the church never won the trinity belief. I said that the church went through a period of time when there was an Arian bishop and then a trinity bishop and it swung back and forth for a period of time BEFORE the trinity ONLY was taught in the church. I'm not saying there weren't those who believed in the trinity from the beginning, but it was far from an established doctrine during those years in the church. At least that's what this book is saying. I am only discussing what I am reading. Have you read this book St. Anne. It is interesting so you might enjoy it. It certainly gives one a look into those times and how unsettled they were.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 13, 2013 16:14:21 GMT -5
What I meant by that was it wasn't always the accepted view.The Trinity is what has always been believed and taught by the original NT Church - it was given clarity with the Father's revelation to Peter of who Christ really is. Heretics did arise with false doctrine - the Arians for sure - that is when we see the doctrine and dogma of the Trinity and the nature of Christ were defined. Perfect illustration of why the Nicene Creed was written in 325 - later the Anathasian Creed was written, 500 AD - in response to the heretics - as is true with nearly every, if not every, doctrine. I'm not saying the church never won the trinity belief. I said that the church went through a period of time when there was an Arian bishop and then a trinity bishop and it swung back and forth for a period of time BEFORE the trinity ONLY was taught in the church. I'm not saying there weren't those who believed in the trinity from the beginning, but it was far from an established doctrine during those years in the church. At least that's what this book is saying. I am only discussing what I am reading. Have you read this book St. Anne. It is interesting so you might enjoy it. It certainly gives one a look into those times and how unsettled they were. I'm not saying there weren't those who believed in the trinity from the beginningI didn't think so - but just asking ... I said that the church went through a period of time when there was an Arian bishop More than one Arian bishop actually - but never the orthodox teaching of the Church. and then a trinity bishopThe large majority of the bishops were indeed Trinitarian. but it was far from an established doctrine during those years in the church.It was established in the Church, but not with the the individuals and those who introduced and embraced Arianism - that's why they were termed heretics. and how unsettled they wereNo, I haven't read the book - all I know is the overview of the times. Early Christianity was tumultuous. The councils were ... interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 16:26:25 GMT -5
The trinity was not the view of the characters or the writers of the bible. The idea was developed later as an extra-biblical theory.
If the Arian view was 50-50 after 300 AD that would be no surprise at all, since the Arian view is closer to what is predominantly indicated in the bible of the "Son of God". I had read another account that the Arian view was less than 50% at the time of Nicene although it was still a huge minority view.
There was a lot of confusion over theology during Arius' time and the church political leaders couldn't seem to make up their minds on the whole issue as indicated in this statement:
"(Arius) Deemed a heretic by the Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the regional First Synod of Tyre,[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians."
There is a great deal of suspicion that the Trinitarians killed Arius after his exoneration. And the killing (figuratively) continues to this day......
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 13, 2013 17:08:21 GMT -5
The trinity was not the view of the characters or the writers of the bible. The idea was developed later as an extra-biblical theory. If the Arian view was 50-50 after 300 AD that would be no surprise at all, since the Arian view is closer to what is predominantly indicated in the bible of the "Son of God". I had read another account that the Arian view was less than 50% at the time of Nicene although it was still a huge minority view. There was a lot of confusion over theology during Arius' time and the church political leaders couldn't seem to make up their minds on the whole issue as indicated in this statement: "(Arius) Deemed a heretic by the Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the regional First Synod of Tyre,[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians." There is a great deal of suspicion that the Trinitarians killed Arius after his exoneration. And the killing (figuratively) continues to this day...... Well this book clearly states that it was Trinitarians that killed Bishop George of Cappadocia. It talks of other assassinations too by the followers of Athanasius. Neither side were angels though. The blood shed was on both the Arians and the Trinitarians.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 13, 2013 18:40:59 GMT -5
The trinity was not the view of the characters or the writers of the bible. The idea was developed later as an extra-biblical theory. If the Arian view was 50-50 after 300 AD that would be no surprise at all, since the Arian view is closer to what is predominantly indicated in the bible of the "Son of God". I had read another account that the Arian view was less than 50% at the time of Nicene although it was still a huge minority view. There was a lot of confusion over theology during Arius' time and the church political leaders couldn't seem to make up their minds on the whole issue as indicated in this statement: "(Arius) Deemed a heretic by the Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the regional First Synod of Tyre,[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians." There is a great deal of suspicion that the Trinitarians killed Arius after his exoneration. And the killing (figuratively) continues to this day...... The trinity was not the view of the characters or the writers of the bible. The idea was developed later as an extra-biblical theory. If the Arian view was 50-50 after 300 AD that would be no surprise at all, since the Arian view is closer to what is predominantly indicated in the bible of the "Son of God". I had read another account that the Arian view was less than 50% at the time of Nicene although it was still a huge minority view. There was a lot of confusion over theology during Arius' time and the church political leaders couldn't seem to make up their minds on the whole issue as indicated in this statement:
"(Arius) Deemed a heretic by the Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the regional First Synod of Tyre,[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians." There is a great deal of suspicion that the Trinitarians killed Arius after his exoneration. And the killing (figuratively) continues to this day...... Well this book clearly states that it was Trinitarians that killed Bishop George of Cappadocia. It talks of other assassinations too by the followers of Athanasius. Neither side were angels though. The blood shed was on both the Arians and the Trinitarians. There has always been a lot of confusion over theology, still is & probably will always be; as long as humankind can't let go of their desire to continue their lives into some kind of prolonged blissful after-life!
Jesus, if he ever lived, there are those who believe he DID NOT exist; however, I tend to believe that he did exist, however, Jesus was turned into the Christ by Paul & those that followed.
Had there been no Paul, we would never have heard of Jesus. He would have been just one more would-be Messiah amongst many.
Religion has caused more pain & suffering on the face of this earth than it has ever caused joy!
It's one of the many reasons that I want nothing to do with any religion!
They all tend to go along with the beliefs of whoever is in power at the time and woe be to those that disagree.
Yes, it is true this life is short, not always a bed of roses, but the need our extend our lives into some kind heavenly realm of bliss is just wishful thinking in my opinion.
Live in the here & now, enjoy the moment, do what you can to be of assistance to others; because this life is all you will ever have.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 13, 2013 20:08:27 GMT -5
I'm just reading the history up to the council of Nicaea and something that stood out for me was this. There were many priests and clergy that gave into the edict to hand over sacred objects and books and worship the pagan gods. Pope Peter of Alexandria fled the area in fear for his life. When he returned there were a fair number of priests that said he shouldn't be allowed back into his former position because he had fled. This became quite a big issue between those who had not succumbed to Roman request and those who did. The Donatists were very much against the priests that they felt were corrupted because of their 'saving their skins'.
"These clashes between Christians were traumatic, raising questions that would haunt the Church for generations to come. Did Jesus' life provide a realistic model for human behavior,or was it an ideal reachable only by a handful of saints and martyrs? Could an organized, unified Church embody Christian principles, or were worldly organization and religious zeal incompatible? What standards of belief and behavior ought to be required of the leaders of the Christian community? And, at what point would the acts of traitorous or immoral clergymen cause them to lose their priestly authority? The Church as a whole would soon adopt Bishop Peter's tolerant and realistic position that clergymen need not be saints, and that the office of priest was authoritative regardless of the holder's character. Applying these principles in particular cases, however, would prove more difficult and divisive than anyone expected.
I found that interesting. It seems this means that a person can be corrupt but it doesn't take away his power if he is already a priest? That their holding the title of priest would make them authoritative no matter what there character? Isn't that a recipe for disaster if the character of someone in a position of power is not important?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 13, 2013 20:37:24 GMT -5
Live in the here & now, enjoy the moment, do what you can to be of assistance to others; because this life is all you will ever have. I think that's good advice no matter what you're beliefs. No one knows for sure what follows death so it makes sense to live every minute as though there isn't another minute coming. No regrets because you really really lived before you died. Also, being of assistance to others to make the world around you a better place makes things better for everyone and therefore your life is better too! I think that's one place religions go wrong when they want you to deny your life on earth and only focus on spirituality. Things of the world are not bad. If there is a Creator God, it's all made for you by him so why would it be something you are to ignore? This is an amazing universe we live in. I say, explore it, learn about it, live in it.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 14, 2013 2:32:52 GMT -5
Reeks of human sacrifice to me. How does the Arian perspective of Jesus represent a triumph over egoism? Well Lee, I few the crucifixion as exactly that, a human sacrifice. God sacrificed his son according to belief. Not so if Jesus is ontologically congruent to God. Also, if Jesus was a man and overcame his ego to become perfect, that is a triumph over egoism is it not? No. Ego isn't a bad thing of itself. A God doing the same thing loses some of its effectiveness because the God wouldn't have an ego to start with. That's blasphemy. God's personality is pithier than ours.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Sept 14, 2013 6:06:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Sept 14, 2013 6:40:58 GMT -5
Well Lee, I few the crucifixion as exactly that, a human sacrifice. God sacrificed his son according to belief. Not so if Jesus is ontologically congruent to God. Does that mean they're like two bugs with matching shape, size and angles?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 14, 2013 9:05:50 GMT -5
Not so if Jesus is ontologically congruent to God. Does that mean they're like two bugs with matching shape, size and angles? Gene ~ Here's an article that explains this concept in easy terms to understand the Trinity and why some hold to this belief. www.evidencetobelieve.net/triune_god_in_the_scriptures.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2013 9:07:35 GMT -5
Not so if Jesus is ontologically congruent to God. Does that mean they're like two bugs with matching shape, size and angles? or perhaps that any difference in their essence is divisible by a given modulus?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 14, 2013 10:43:21 GMT -5
Well Lee, I few the crucifixion as exactly that, a human sacrifice. God sacrificed his son according to belief. Not so if Jesus is ontologically congruent to God. Also, if Jesus was a man and overcame his ego to become perfect, that is a triumph over egoism is it not? No. Ego isn't a bad thing of itself. A God doing the same thing loses some of its effectiveness because the God wouldn't have an ego to start with. That's blasphemy. God's personality is pithier than ours. So God sacrificed part of himself. That's much better! You're right, Ego isn't a bad thing of itself. It's a requirement to survive in the physical world. So why do religions teach that Jesus was egoless? It wouldn't seem to be a good thing to achieve if survival is something we should be doing. Lol, after reading about God in the OT and parts of the NT I would agree that God is far worse a character than most of us mere humans are.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 14, 2013 10:46:49 GMT -5
That's how it's explained now. However, when the creation story was written the plural was referring to all the Gods the Hebrews worshiped. They were not always a monotheist group. They also believed there were other Gods and they would ask their war god Yahweh to defeat those other gods of their enemies. At that time in history there were OTHER gods. Now it's being translated into Jesus being the plural plus the Holy spirit. I would imagine that the Jews don't believe that's what their creation story means.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 14, 2013 10:48:10 GMT -5
Does that mean they're like two bugs with matching shape, size and angles? or perhaps that any difference in their essence is divisible by a given modulus? Okay, that's got to be the 'numbers' in ya! Jeez, and I thought the Trinity was hard to understand before!!!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Sept 14, 2013 12:28:36 GMT -5
Does that mean they're like two bugs with matching shape, size and angles? or perhaps that any difference in their essence is divisible by a given modulus? Well, I would say yes, but in reality, wouldn't that depend upon the existential ramification data for abelian extensions of the paranormal global field?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 14, 2013 14:25:00 GMT -5
or perhaps that any difference in their essence is divisible by a given modulus? Well, I would say yes, but in reality, wouldn't that depend upon the existential ramification data for abelian extensions of the paranormal global field? What about abelian extensions of arbitrary fields?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 14, 2013 14:50:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Sept 14, 2013 15:06:52 GMT -5
Well, I would say yes, but in reality, wouldn't that depend upon the existential ramification data for abelian extensions of the paranormal global field? What about abelian extensions of arbitrary fields? Yes, and that takes us right back to entomological congruent triangles! (aka the bug theory of the geometrical trinity. You know, what Lee said.)
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 14, 2013 15:21:49 GMT -5
That's how it's explained now. However, when the creation story was written the plural was referring to all the Gods the Hebrews worshiped. They were not always a monotheist group. They also believed there were other Gods and they would ask their war god Yahweh to defeat those other gods of their enemies. At that time in history there were OTHER gods. Now it's being translated into Jesus being the plural plus the Holy spirit. I would imagine that the Jews don't believe that's what their creation story means. Snow ~ That's not the way I read it in scripture and as shown within my referenced article below with the following excerpt. However, I don't deny that before Abraham came into the picture, it appears that the Jewish people did worship other gods earlier, since that was the main reason that Abraham was told to leave his native land of Ur. However, after this Abraham came into the picture, it appears that the Jewish race was monotheistic. Also, there is the story of Noah and his family who served God and also of Job,which happens to be one of the earlier books in the Bible. Job came on the scene early within the earlier time frame of the book of Genesis, around the time of Jacob and Esau, sons of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job www.evidencetobelieve.net/triune_god_in_the_scriptures.htm
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 14, 2013 15:38:22 GMT -5
or perhaps that any difference in their essence is divisible by a given modulus? Well, I would say yes, but in reality, wouldn't that depend upon the existential ramification data for abelian extensions of the paranormal global field? Wow ~ you guys have really lost me with your discussion of physics higher mathematics. However, I don't understand the correlation between such things and the Trinity, which I feel my article gives sufficient evidence to support such an idea?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 14, 2013 17:12:02 GMT -5
What about abelian extensions of arbitrary fields? Yes, and that takes us right back to entomological congruent triangles! (aka the bug theory of the geometrical trinity. You know, what Lee said.) Oh, please stop it you two!
I can't take it any more!
Are you trying to make me die from ?
|
|