Sir Issac Newton Vs The Vatican

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: schuyler
Newton? You're kidding me. he is relatively recent. He died somewhere in the 1700s after all this was settled. I think you might mean Galileo.

Have you watched the movie tho?

I thought we settled this above. You said it was Newton. I said it was Galileo. You said I was right. No big deal. Easy mistake to make. Yes, I've seen the movie several times, in fact, which said the same thing: Galileo. But I never thought that part of the movie was central to its theme. Someone has said it contained historical inaccuracies, but no one has said what they are. I know some devout Christians were very upset that the movie (actually, the novel was first, huh?) made the claim that Jesus was married and had descendants.

I find that very likely myself and Mary Magdalene is a pretty good candidate. Of course, we'll never know for certain, and that attitude was expressed by Albert Schweitzer who, before he was fighting off army ants in deepest Africa, was a noted theologian who said not only do we NOT know, really, about the life of Jesus, we CANNOT know because the real truth is lost to history. His book, "The Quest of the Historical Jesus" (1906) is considered a classic in its field.

a reply to: schuyler
Here ya go. Though it seems to have a Christian slant. It does seem to provide some fact checking.
www.truthnet.org...

a reply to: Phage

Newton did, however disagree with some aspects of the religious teachings of the Church (of England, not the Vatican).

That is not correct. He was an Arianist. The belief that Jesus was not God incarnate but a lesser, created being is heresy in the Church of Rome just as it is in the Church of England, as well as in every other church that preaches the divinity of Christ.

Sir Isaac became an Arian around 1672.

He was, nonetheless, very much a member of the Church of England, though his background was Nonconformist rather than High Church.

a reply to: Astyanax

Well yeah. That's sort of obvious, because of the similarities between the Churches.
The points I was attempting to make were; a) his disagreement with Church doctrine had nothing to do with gravitation and b) he did not have any confrontation with the Vatican.

a reply to: schuyler

For inaccuracies,

For example, the Priory of Sion. While there exist a real organization, it doesn't protect the bloodline of Jesus.

Another example, the Opus Dei doesn't silence people like in the movie.

Now the only thing I find plausible with the movie was the idea that Jesus got married and have a family and the fact that the Vatican silenced anyone who threatens their legitimacy (for example the Cathars).

a reply to: Phage

That's sort of obvious, because of the similarities between the Churches.

Those similarities were not sufficient to prevent the deaths of hundreds of ‘martyrs’ in England from the reign of Henry VIII to that of Elizabeth I. There are, in fact, many doctrinal differences between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism — I could list them for you, if you wish. Yet Arianism is equally heretical to both Communions.

So if you claim that Newton had some differences with the Anglican Church but not with the Vatican (which is what you said earlier), you cannot possibly mean Arianism. What did you mean?

The points I was attempting to make were; a) his disagreement with Church doctrine had nothing to do with gravitation and b) he did not have any confrontation with the Vatican.

You mentioned specifically that he had no disagreements with the Vatican. If such is the case, how do you explain this?

a reply to: Astyanax

You mentioned specifically that he had no disagreements with the Vatican.

Yes I did, and as I said the theological aspect was not really the point I was trying to make. The point I was attempting to make is that he never had any direct confrontations with the Vatican (or the Church of England) over dogma, much less over gravitation.

how do you explain this?

I don't know. What's it say? Is it heretical? Was it published during his lifetime? Did it bring down the wrath of the Church (either one of them)?

a reply to: Phage

I don't know. What's it say?

It casts numerous moral aspersions on Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria who was responsible for the doctrine of Trinitarianism followed by all churches of the Christian communion, Catholic, Orthodox and Reformed.

a reply to: Astyanax
So, heretical, probably. I take it he never did go public with it?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nochzwei
If the movie actually did make that claim, it is wrong.
Unless, of course, you can provide some evidence other than a movie. What "wrath" did Newton endure?

you should watch that movie tho.

Why? Is it on NetFlix?

No. I watched the movie on tv a couple of days ago.

a reply to: Phage

No, he didn’t. But we weren’t talking about whether the Church had a problem with him, were we?

Basing an "understanding" on history through a work of fiction is always going to lead the OP down a path of silliness.

Firstly, I assume you refer to the Catholic Church. Well, Newton was English so pretty well insulated by them.

Secondly, Newton's work was not really religiously controversial and by his time science was really taking off.

How silly can you get. Work of fiction does not mean, it cannot contain radical truths
a reply to: paraphi

a reply to: Astyanax

But we weren’t talking about whether the Church had a problem with him, were we?

Well, yes. Actually. That is what the thread is about.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: schuyler

For example, the Priory of Sion. While there exist a real organization, it doesn't protect the bloodline of Jesus.

Another example, the Opus Dei doesn't silence people like in the movie.

Well, you say they don't, but they are fairly minor for the sake of the plot compared to THIS ----V

Now the only thing I find plausible with the movie was the idea that Jesus got married and have a family and the fact that the Vatican silenced anyone who threatens their legitimacy (for example the Cathars).

which is, I dare say, the whole point and why a few people go so ballistic over it. And it's the most likely to be true, though, as I've already said, we're not in a position to know and likely never will be.

And this stuff about Newton is irrelevant. OP meant Galileo, said he meant Galileo, and that ought to be the end of it. It was a simple, forgivable mistake. Why are y'all still running on about this?

a reply to: schuyler

And this stuff about Newton is irrelevant. OP meant Galileo, said he meant Galileo, and that ought to be the end of it. It was a simple, forgivable mistake. Why are y'all still running on about this?

Where did the OP say he meant Galileo?

In any case, if that is the case, I guess the OP also confused heliocentrism with gravitation.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler

And this stuff about Newton is irrelevant. OP meant Galileo, said he meant Galileo, and that ought to be the end of it. It was a simple, forgivable mistake. Why are y'all still running on about this?

Where did the OP say he meant Galileo?

In any case, if that is the case, I guess the OP also confused heliocentrism with gravitation.

Right here:

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: schuyler

Thank you I did mean Galileo , better to be thought an idiot than to open my mouth and remove all doubt lol

a reply to: schuyler

Thenail is not the OP.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: schuyler

For example, the Priory of Sion. While there exist a real organization, it doesn't protect the bloodline of Jesus.

Another example, the Opus Dei doesn't silence people like in the movie.

Well, you say they don't, but they are fairly minor for the sake of the plot compared to THIS ----V

Now the only thing I find plausible with the movie was the idea that Jesus got married and have a family and the fact that the Vatican silenced anyone who threatens their legitimacy (for example the Cathars).

which is, I dare say, the whole point and why a few people go so ballistic over it. And it's the most likely to be true, though, as I've already said, we're not in a position to know and likely never will be.

And this stuff about Newton is irrelevant. OP meant Galileo, said he meant Galileo, and that ought to be the end of it. It was a simple, forgivable mistake. Why are y'all still running on about this?

I did mean Newton and not Galileo. I wonder how you surmised as such.