It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That is not correct... Arius believed Jesus was God, just not the Father
He saw them as being the same thing.
Athanasius was on the side of those who believed that Christ was begotten, not created.
originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: borntowatch
Marcion was a gnostic who rejected the teaching, Jesus was God, God (Jehovah) was a different God to Jesus. He depicted the Old Testament God of as a tyrant, understandable if you consider a judge or a policeman doing his duty as a tyrant.
he was one of the main reasons for the Nicean council
Um… no.
Marcion wasn't a Gnostic, though he had many of the same beliefs that Gnostic Christians would later hold (Gnostic Christians post-dated Marcion by about 25 years.) And he had nothing to do with Nicaea, which was held about 200 years after Marcion came, and went, from the Christian scene. Marcion was, essentially, the first anti-Semitic Christian, who ignored the fact that Jesus was Jewish, and taught a Christianity that expunged its Jewish roots.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: DarknStormy
You are making it seem as though Constantine did something corrupt to the information at the council. What evidence is there of such a thing? Aside from maybe the DaVinci Code which is a fictional novel...
Marcions choice of texts was countered claimed at Nicea, seemingly to put an end to his authoritive understandings
No, all indication is that Arius rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity and did not believe that Jesus was God.
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son, who was begotten of him before all ages, God the Word through whom all things were made, both things in heaven and on earth; who descended, and became human, and suffered, and rose again, ascended into heaven, and will again come to judge the living and the dead. (3.) We believe also in the Holy Spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the coming age, and in the kingdom of the heavens, and in one catholic church of God, extending from one end of the earth to the other. (4.) This faith we have received from the holy gospels, in which the Lord says to his disciples: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” If we do not so believe and do not truly receive the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as the whole catholic church and the holy Scriptures teach (in which we believe in every respect), may God judge us both now, and in the coming judgment.
But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest. (Source)
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
You are making it seem as though Constantine did something corrupt to the information at the council. What evidence is there of such a thing? Aside from maybe the DaVinci Code which is a fictional novel...
The real secret of Constantine and the bishops of Rome is their cunning introduction of sun worship and paganism into Christianity. It was done so shrewdly that, incredibly, it has been veiled within the faith for centuries. Through Constantine, paganism and Christianity joined hands in the Roman Empire.
History readily records that Constantine was a sun-worshiper. In one decree he declared, "On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed" (March 7, 321). He made this decree in honor of the sun after his supposed conversion to Christianity! Constantine, even after his "conversion," remained a pagan.
www.marytruth.com...
As the one of the main founders of Catholicism, Roman emperor Constantine took much of the mythology of the so called "Cult of Mithras" and carried it into Christianity to give us the sort of pagan/Christian hybrid that we now called Catholicism. For instance in order to honor the birthday of his favorite pagan God "Sol Invictus Mithras", Constantine ordered the official Mithras birthday of December 25th to also be the new fake birth date of Jesus. All of the pagan beliefs and practices of the so called "Cult of Mithras" is the real backbone that Catholicism is based on to this very day.
Some interesting tid-bits about old Constantine the founder of Catholicism that you should never forget include, (and these happen AFTER he became a so called "Christian" by the way): He had his own first son executed, his eldest son Crispus (strangled). He had his own wife executed, his wife Fausta (boiled alive). Does that sound like something a real Christian would do?
thenewholybible.org...
As emperor, Constantine was in the unusual position of deciding church doctrine even though he was not really a Christian. (The following year is when he had both his wife and son murdered, as previously mentioned).
Historian Henry Chadwick attests, "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun" ( The Early Church, 1993, p. 122). As to the emperor's embrace of Christianity, Chadwick admits, "His conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear" (p. 125).
Norbert Brox, a professor of church history, confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian: "Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god . . . At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)"
www.ucg.org...
originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: borntowatch
Marcions choice of texts was countered claimed at Nicea, seemingly to put an end to his authoritive understandings
Again, no they weren't.
Marcion's canon was the first "Christian" canon and consisted of the letters of Paul and a version of Gospel of Luke that Marcion modified to take out references to Judaism. Marcion was "countered" by Tertullian in the Second Century, not the Fourth, in his work Against Marcion, and the first orthodox canon emerged about the same time, The Muratorian Fragment, which is pretty close to the canon that we have today.
The Bible was not the subject of Nicaea, no matter what the conspiracy theorists and writers of fiction would have you believe.
originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: borntowatch
Props to you and your ability to accept that your conception was wrong, a rare ability in this age!
originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: borntowatch
Props to you and your ability to accept that your conception was wrong, a rare ability in this age!
I just finished reading a book about the bibles influence on the West and thats where I got the idea about Nicea and canon