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.

 

A contradiction in the bible

page: 28
17
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Is this Hebrew meaning of spirit just borrowed or misused?
It is using wind as a metaphor.
Is is something that is a cause and is known to exist because of the observable effects.


[edit on 1-6-2009 by jmdewey60]




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by spy66
 


Is this Hebrew meaning of spirit just borrowed or misused?
It is using wind as a metaphor.
Is is something that is a cause and is known to exist because of the observable effects.


[edit on 1-6-2009 by jmdewey60]


Ok. Ill ask you the same thing. If you say that God is not energy but a spirit. How do you know that a spirit is not energy. You must know since you can claim it.

What is a spirit ?

And why don't you know the connection between energy and spirit if you know the difference between them?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


What is a spirit ?
The Bible says He is the God of Spirits.
This is what I was saying earlier. He is at least one level higher than spirit.
The reason God had to have a Son was because that made it possible for God to interact on a spirit level.
So, defining spirit still does not define God. If God was definable, the Son would not have a purpose.
Though the Son is a spiritual representation of God, he is still god.
Once you have a certain aspect of God who can transfer his identity on a physical level, this is how they could say, "Let us make man in our image." because the representation on the spirit level of God is the only image of God and they are both the same thing. So, Let Us, is the fact that there's an indescribable God and a representation that is still God by the fact that it is the form of God.(and not, "In the form of") In Our image, means one image and not "images", as if there was more than one image.

Oops, I guess that does not answer the question. Spirit is the cause, and God is the mind and the Son is the guardian over the effect. (or something like that.) So spirit is like an energy but it is not subject to the restraints of ordinary physical laws and it has an amount of autonomy about it, as to be self conscious.


[edit on 1-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by spy66
 


What is a spirit ?
The Bible says He is the God of Spirits.
This is what I was saying earlier. He is at least one level higher than spirit.
The reason God had to have a Son was because that made it possible for God to interact on a spirit level.
So, defining spirit still does not define God. If God was definable, the Son would not have a purpose.
Though the Son is a spiritual representation of God, he is still god.
Once you have a certain aspect of God who can transfer his identity on a physical level, this is how they could say, "Let us make man in our image." because the representation on the spirit level of God is the only image of God and they are both the same thing. So, Let Us, is the fact that there's an indescribable God and a representation that is still God by the fact that it is the form of God.(and not, "In the form of") In Our image, means one image and not "images", as if there was more than one image.

Oops, I guess that does not answer the question. Spirit is the cause, and God is the mind and the Son is the guardian over the effect. (or something like that.) So spirit is like an energy but it is not subject to the restraints of ordinary physical laws and it has an amount of autonomy about it, as to be self conscious.


[edit on 1-6-2009 by jmdewey60]


Mmm i got something to chew on here that's for sure


But let me sum it up to see if i understand this right.

1. God is not a spirit but at least a step above!!! Okay.

2. God needed to create a spirit (Jesus) to be able to interact with his creation and to give his creation life or a meaning?

I have a problem with this one. Because God created the heavens and the earth first. Then God said let there be light. The light represents the spirit am i right?

How could God create the heavens and the earth if he is not energy or related to energy?

3. A spirit might be energy of some sort ill go for that. Then it becomes a source that can connect with energy. But how does the spirit connect with God?

I have to spend some time thinking about this. A lot of new things here


PS: sorry for being a pain in the but. But this will probably enlighten more then just me



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 

2. God needed to create a spirit (Jesus) to be able to interact with his creation and to give his creation life or a meaning?
More like an aspect of God that is descernable by spirit beings, such as angels. In the process, what this is has a consciousness of itself and can operate in the physical realm, as such.
The Son has more abilities than an ordinary angel. An angel will most likely appear to a human as some kind of energy vortex, but they can appear as another person when required. The Son had the ability to be more that just an appearance, but to take on actual physical attributes.
So, if you were Adam in the garden, and God was walking through it, then he actually was, and it was not a projection or something.
Even if technically this was the Son, because He was the form of God, He was the same thing as God.
The analogy I used once before was, if you look at the sun, you could be all technical and say you are only looking at the visual aspect of the sun. But to be real, you are looking at the sun. How is the "visual aspect" of the sun, not the sun? It is not everything that the sun is, but that is why I am calling it an "aspect".


The light represents the spirit am i right?

I would have to say no. It says the spirit was there before the light.



[edit on 1-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Two things: The bible was written by man, NOT GOD: number one, And MAN Is fallable and imperfect. The express reason to write that entire monologue at all was to omit the power and position WOMEN held in the pantheon. Just don't put your faith in a mythological story. Plain and simple people!



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 

It does sound like an exclusive all male club, with the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, who is called "He".
The smartest man on the subject of God, that I knew, was a rabbi and he made a point of never saying just "He". Even if he was reading the Torah, he would say something like, "He or She" when the word on the page said "he". I thought it was odd but I never questioned him about it. I guess I should have. He apparently knows something I do not.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
1. God is not a spirit but at least a step above!!! Okay.


no. no. no!

dont go by man's definition of god. let god define himself. go to the bible.

john 4:[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


2. God needed to create a spirit (Jesus) to be able to interact with his creation and to give his creation life or a meaning?


again no. no scripture to support that. in fact there is scripture to the opposite effect

jer 32:[27] Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?


Originally posted by spy66
Spirit: The word "Ruach" comes from the Hebrew meaning "spirit", "wind", "breath", or "air". The Greek equivalent is "pneuma" and the Latin is "spiritus".

Is this Hebrew meaning of spirit just borrowed or misused?

The Bible talks about Gods breath that gave things life. How does this fit in with a spirit?

Breath is pressure meaning physical energy or power. How can a spirit that is not of energy do such a thing?

If you say that a spirit is not of energy you must have a reason to claim that?


you got me thinking about this subject alittle and thought i would tell you what i know and then let you take it from there.

i thought a good place to start would be humans. the reason for this is that humans have a part of them that spiritual so it might give you a clue as to what a spirit is.

there are 3 basic components to a human

1. the body. (physical)

genesis 2:[7a] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,

proverbs 5:[11] And thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed, (talking about dying)

the body is obvious. its the nuts and bolts of us. a chemical factory interweaved with mechanical functions.

the body is also physical. it is bound by laws of nature and requires much by of energy and other components to survive.

2 the soul. (absract)

genesis 2:and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

the soul is the abstract concept of who we are. you ARE literally your soul. while the soul is technically something different than the body (your body continues to exist after you die), it cant survive without the body. (ezekial 18:20a)

to understand the abstract nature of the soul and how it interacts with the body, consider money. money is an abstract concept represented by something physical. the paper is the physical, but what it represents, what it is worth is the "money". you cannot claim you have money without some form of physical representation, paper money, change, credit card, bank statement.

the "operating system" of a computer is an abstract concept that is represted by a physical machine. all the nuts and bolts and electronics turn 1's and 0's into picture that you can interact with.

same it is with a soul. without a body, the soul is nothing, it doesnt exist. paul touches on this when speaking about the resurrection in 1 corinthians chapter 15 talking about different bodies.

3 the spirit (something real, not abstract but also not physical)

the church gets this one mixed up with soul alot. but its separate from the soul. it is a force, like electricity to computer.

genesis 2: [7b] .... and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

until this spirit was breathed into adam, he did not exist. only after this force entered the body did adam become a soul (alive, himself)

------------------------------------------
ecclesiastes tells us what happens to these components when we die.

eccl 12:[7] Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

so the body returns to dust, the spirit (or force) returns to god.

eccl 9:[5] For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

the soul simply ceases to exist.

-----------------------------------------

so why is this "spirit" likely not literal energy?

well think about it, you and me get our energy from food. so we take in energy and therefore we have energy. this allows our cells to constantly regenerate. but that raises a question. why does the regeneration stop? logically there is no reason we should "wind down" as we get older. scientist who have observed cell regeneration have commented on this and for the most part, they cant explain why there is a limit. the cell just stops.

its possible, the answer is the spirit.

gen 3:[19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

adam and eve sinned and what happened to them is exactly what god had told them. adam would die at 930 years old. did god kill him? likely not. god may have just cut off his spiritual source

when tested by satan, jesus made an interesting response

matt 4:[3] And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
[4] But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

most people take this scripture figuratively, saying it implies that truth is more important than actual food (something we need to survive). but jesus was saying this while very hungry and while that must have been very uncomfortable, jesus was not worried about survival. he understood that god would sustain him.

if man is sustained by something besides physical energy (food) then likely spirit (which isnt "food") is not energy

------------------------------------------

is the spirit realm part of our universe?

likely not. the book of revelation documents a vision given to john. while john did have the hope of a heavenly resurrection, at the time he was still human. from a human standpoint, heaven is very difficult to describe. as a result, we get descriptions of angels with animal heads and eye all over their 4 wings. this can be somewhat confusing from a human perspective.

when we cross reference scriptures in revelations with other parts of the bible, we realize that what is being described is not physical attributes of angels, but rather personalities and abilities. 4 wings becomes swiftness, eye imply being able to see everywhere at once. the different heads show the 4 basic attributes of god (love, power, wisdom, justice). satan (who's body is more than likely not different than faithful angels) is described as a dragon.

likely, the spiritual realm is not describable to a human. likely its something you have to experience in order to fully understand it.

------------------------------------------
that being said, energy is physical. ok, it cant be touched. but it exists in our universe. it is bound by our laws. it is predictable based on what we know.

spirit is not of our universe. its something else. will science ever find spirit? no idea. how does spirit interact with our realm? no idea.

but the real question is, is it vital to know? the answer actually is no. a person who is able to answer these question is not more likely to be saved than someone who doesnt otherwise god would have told us.

however i dont want to discourage you from asking questions. ive found this subject really interesting



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


That was a lot of information


I only have one comment so far.

You asked if this is important information to know about. Then you answer and say: No not really!!
who ever knows this stuff is not more likely to be saved then the others who don't know.

I agree to that a little bit, But not entirely though


I do think its very important to know who or what God is.
If you don't know who or what God is. That knowledge will challenge your believes compared to the other information or impressions others might have of God.
If you don't know who or what God is. You might also be teaching the word of God wrong to other people.
If you dont know who or what God is, You might not understand what you read in the Bible. And you might become a victim of other peoples knowledge.

A person can only save himself. And what ever a person teaches another better be right, if not you have doomed not only yourself but the person who takes your word as a fact or truth.

I think Jesus said: Not all who believe in God will be saved.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
I do think its very important to know who or what God is.
If you don't know who or what God is. That knowledge will challenge your believes compared to the other information or impressions others might have of God.
If you don't know who or what God is. You might also be teaching the word of God wrong to other people.
If you dont know who or what God is, You might not understand what you read in the Bible. And you might become a victim of other peoples knowledge.


yes, but there is a difference between relevant information and nonrelevent.

certain qualities of god are relevent.

-god is a spirit (not physical)
-god cannot lie (affects whether we can trust)
-god is a person (affects what type of relation we have with him)

just a few.

if we were to ask "does god have a favorite color?" it is really is irrelevant. it does not affect out relationship with him.

especially if the question falls into the ares of speculation. if the bible doesnt say what god's favorite color is, then any theories we have are likely speculation.

how does god interact with energy is a good question. i would love to know the answer. but the bible doesnt really say.

does that question affect my relationshp with god? ultimately no.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 



Your very right about this miriam. But we are not all on the same level of knowledge as you are concerning God or the Bible.

God is a very personal thing and we all have a different angle of understanding God. I think our background and experiance has a lot to do with how we see and understand them.

I for one is far behind compared to you. But still.... Its like i have the answer on my tongue!!
I can feel it that there is something about God that makes sense. But i don't know what it is yet. That's whats bothering me. Maybe i read to much science

Maybe i am taking the long road compared to you and the others. But i have to figure that out on my own by asking and learning of you and the others.
My faith is whats driving me on the road that i am on. It might be one hard hill to climb compared to your road. But i am going to climb it, because i have set my mind on it. Its faith if you know what i mean


Now back to the question is God energy or not


Jesus said:

To build a house you need a person to build it?

To have a creation you need a creator God?

To me this is how Jesus tells us that God is real?

Now when i think about what Jesus said:
To build a house you need someone to build it. It wont just appear on its own.

If i separate the builder from the house i get:

1. A person with the idea to build a house (creator)

2. Materials needed to build the house.

Then i see that there has to be a physical connection between the builder and the materials needed to build the house. If not the person cant build the house. The materials won't exist?

But i can see that the builder is not like any of the materials need to build the house. But he is still connected to the materials by the dimension space time?

And if you look at this from a microscope you will see that the person who is doing the building has a lot of the same energy and matter he is building the house with. But as you say there is a big difference between the person building compared to the materials he uses. But only in how the energy is put together to have a function. The energy we are combined of gives us our connection?

I see the human shell/body as a result of a equation where energy is combined to create it. The materials needed to build the house is made up by a different equation.... that's all. But it is still made up by energy just like we are. And from the same source ...Earth.

This is how i see our connection to Jesus/God.

We are nothing but different gasses(energies) combined.... which again creates the different cells we are made up by. The way that the different cells are made gives them a specific function to create the energy needed to give us the function we need to work. Its like a generator to produce a new type of energy from what the cells where made up by in the beginning(different gasses).

As you see our body is what creates the energy we need to have a functional soul/mind?

Our soul has to be energy of some kind if it is made by energy??

Its like our soul is a bunch of 1's and 0's which gives us a image of God. Or you can call it knowledge


Why do we die??

In my whew that is all about pressure and pressure differential.

Our body consists of matter that differs in pressure compared to the atmosphere we live in and by.
Its the atmosphere we live in that sucks the life out of us.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
The whole bible is a contridiction against this universe.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
19and have cast their gods into the fire, for they were not gods but the work of men's hands, wood and stone So they have destroyed them. Isaiah 37:19

Kind of like the work of men’s hands, pen and paper.


What we have discussed so far to me is a clear contradiction between Christianity from around 400 AD to the present. To argue that Christ, Gods son is also the God of creation is false. I have used scripture to show my point, and others have also used scripture to show there points. Didn’t some one say something about contradiction’s.

2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Are Catholics worshipping idols Yes they do. This is a Direct violation of the second commandment. They also show that Christ is dead, crucifix, and not the risen Son of God.

Christendom is considered the largest religion on Earth, yet all the different sects can't even agree on almost any set standard of doctrine. This is a contradiction within the one book they all believe in. You would think that God is perfect and all that, He would have made his book more understandable, and well Perfect, of witch it is far from.

[edit on 30-9-2007 by LDragonFire]

Hi LD/

There are only contradictions to those that do not understand How to read the Bible.
One cannot simply interpret the Book Of God without faith,prayer and humility and above all Fear in God.
The whole Bible is read with all of the above...and to some of us that don't have the vast knowledge(including myself)to properly understand it, we look toward the early fathers of the church.
Who began Christianity?
It was founded by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Who are these early fathers?
Jesus Christ appointed the twelve Apostles...who then they appointed others to carry on their mission.(as it was in the Old Testament.

Idol worship?
A crucifix is not an idol.
It is not Death, but a new beginning.
''O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?''
Death which happened after fall of man has now gained Victory through the Cross of Christ.
"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept..." (I Corinthians 15: 20)...After teh fall of Adam in the garden of eden..Jesus Christ becomes the Second Adam....And the Word(LOGOS) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory.
In order to save man, God became the Son of MAN...He lowered Himself and became a man to destroy DEATH which entered into mankind after the fall....Why?
In order for man to become more like Him...He showed man that we can be like Him.

Daniel 9:13-14 There before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven... He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

"Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
When St. Moses asked God what His name was, God answered,
"tell them I AM sends you."
He is saying that He is "I AM" (God)and this was Understood by the Jews of that time.
Why would the Jews call Him a Blasphemer if it's not the case?

The Bible is perfectly sound without contradiction.
It is not Gods doing if the Bible is altered in any way to fit in with society.

I agree with you about the different ideas and doctrines, but again, this is not the fault of God or the Written Word of God.

Man has Crucified Christ once, I bet if He comes again, again this will happen.

God is perfect, but man is not.

helen



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by helen670
 

Who are these early fathers?
Jesus Christ appointed the twelve Apostles...who then they appointed others to carry on their mission.
Who are these people, exactly?
Do you have their names and can we read their writings?
Or are you just saying there is this principle that existed, and that we just have to believe that it went on as planned and when we find a Catholic Church, claiming to have the Fathers as their foundation, we just take their word for it and accept everything they say as having to be true?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by helen670
 

Who are these early fathers?
Jesus Christ appointed the twelve Apostles...who then they appointed others to carry on their mission.
Who are these people, exactly?
Do you have their names and can we read their writings?
Or are you just saying there is this principle that existed, and that we just have to believe that it went on as planned and when we find a Catholic Church, claiming to have the Fathers as their foundation, we just take their word for it and accept everything they say as having to be true?


Hi jm/

Many of these are read in liturgy in church, and yes, you can read them and find them...Im sure they are translated into English.
St John Chrisostomos(Golden mouthed)as he was known.
Here's just one that I googled.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

another link

We don't have to accept everything that we are told now, but should we not look at finding the answers as to where it began?

helen



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by helen670
 

What I am getting at is this teaching about the "Fathers" of the church.
You gave the name of a very good example since he is one of the Three Holy Hierarchs, John Chrysostom.
Using Wikipedia, we look at who his mentor was. Diodore of Tarsus taught him theology, after John had already been trained in paganism.
In turn, Diodore was mentored by Meletius of Antioch.
Meletius came from Armenia and was a personal friend of the man who appointed him, among a rapid succession of appointees, Bishop of Antioch. He was considered a compromise between factious parties in the post-Nicene debates.
So, you end up with a group of people who's careers were all helped or launched by their orthodoxy, defined by following the Nicene Creed.
There is no direct link between them and the Apostles, as if there was this legacy of special knowledge handed down, from one generation to another. Being inducted into the realm of Church Father seems to be based more on their solid backing of the church system, once it became a political power.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by helen670
 

What I am getting at is this teaching about the "Fathers" of the church.
You gave the name of a very good example since he is one of the Three Holy Hierarchs, John Chrysostom.
Using Wikipedia, we look at who his mentor was. Diodore of Tarsus taught him theology, after John had already been trained in paganism.
In turn, Diodore was mentored by Meletius of Antioch.
Meletius came from Armenia and was a personal friend of the man who appointed him, among a rapid succession of appointees, Bishop of Antioch. He was considered a compromise between factious parties in the post-Nicene debates.
So, you end up with a group of people who's careers were all helped or launched by their orthodoxy, defined by following the Nicene Creed.
There is no direct link between them and the Apostles, as if there was this legacy of special knowledge handed down, from one generation to another. Being inducted into the realm of Church Father seems to be based more on their solid backing of the church system, once it became a political power.
[edit on 3-6-2009 by jmdewey60]


Hi again,
All had to be in accordance with one another....Acts of the Apostles were "of one heart and of one soul" (Acts 4:32)...this still remains to be true(unfortunately, not all believe this and do it their own way)
The followers of Christ were mainly sinners and saw in Christ what His own people did not.
Of -course there is a direct link to the Apostles...The Church cannot exist if there are no people.
The Church simply means ''a gathering of people''..and since there were alot of people gathering, a normal house could not accomodate all of them..A building was built and we have Church.

Quote///Apostle Philip met one of Queen Candace's eunuchs on the road and saw the book of the Prophet Isaiah in his hands, he asked the eunuch, Understandest thou what thou readest? He replied, How can I except some man should guide me? (Acts 8:30-31)
This exact point above should apply to us....There is always a hierarchy present in all things.
Whether it be in a court..Judge
Whether it be at school...Teachers and the principle.
Law enforcement within our society....police officers and their higher up.

There is even Hierarchy in the animal Kingdom....
There is no special knowledge to them....it simply means that it was handed down as Christ so instructed them to do......many things that are done in Church today(Orthodox Greek/Russian)are the exact way it was done in the early church ...whether it be passed down by word of mouth or by Scripture.
This is not something out of the ordinary,where anyone can just make up anything and be done about it.



all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16)
Even those things that we have heard and have known and which our fathers have told us; they were not hid from their children, in another generation.
They declared the praises of the Lord and His mighty acts and His wonders... (Psalm. 44:1).
O God, with our ears have we heard, for our fathers have told us the work which Thou hadst wrought in their days, in the days of old... (Psalm. 78:2-3).
And in the books of Kings and Chronicles,
And the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, behold, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
And the rest of the words of Joatham, and all that he did, behold, are not these written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Samuel 1:18; 15:36; 2 Chron. 12:15; 13:22



some info
Also some interesting info...
TYhe Ancient Church
Political power only applies to the people that believe somehow that they will live forever and not die like the rest of us.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


The word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible.

Just because you love someone or trust someone, does not mean that you love god less.

Jesus himself say love god above all things.

Christianity is contradictary but that does not mean the bible is contradictory.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by helen670
 
I am not making this any kind of personal attack on you. I am not saying there is anything wrong with you. I am trying to point out a fallacy that is promoted by the powers that be in the church that claims to be the church.
As for the people in Acts, the accord, I would imagine, was in their belief in Jesus, as in, was he real and honest, and should we have faith in him? I doubt that they were discussing the fine points of the trinity.
The Council of Nicea is thought of as the "first ecumenical council", meaning it was a gathering of representatives of all the churches that were known to exist, and had a bishop. They all received invitations, or a summons, from the Emperor. That part is true. Among them were people who leaned toward the teaching of Arius, and people who leaned toward the teaching of Athanasius. The backers of Athanasius in the global arena, meaning the ones who wanted a central power in the church that could be an authority over the bishops, wanted a decision to be made that would establish him as being right, and thus stop the controversy.
To the powers, the real problem was not so much how the debate might end up, but that there was a debate at all. In order to have the system that they wanted, it would have to not be allowed to discussed in a public way, and definitely not on a street level, between ordinary believers. It would have to be something that was only allowed to be decided by high church officials. The man who supported this concept was Athanasius, so he was given a prominent platform to espouse his views, by the powers.
When the delegates of the council showed up at Nicea, they could see what the situation was and that no amount of good argument from their side was going to change what looked to be a predetermined outcome. About half of them, who did not want to support Athanasius, got up and left, before the actual official start of the council.
So this claim of an ecumenical council is a fiction. Even in seemingly secular recounts of the event, like History Channel, continue the lie by saying there was a consensus among the bishops in the council to support Athanasius. OK, out of the half that remained for the entire series of meetings, at least half of them were able to create some sort of compromised summary of conclusions.
Out of all this, they were able to make a claim that they were the catholic, meaning universal in that everyone in it agrees, church, and as such can claim preeminence, which weakened the roles of the Bishops of their independent churches and made a type of federal government in the church.
Is a universal church authority Biblical? No. Look at the book of Revelation. John in vision sees the glorified Jesus walking among the lamps that represent the churches. Paul writes letters to the individual churches and we find books of the Bible that are named after them. Paul talks about bishops, who headed the church of that particular city, but never hints that there should ever exist an organization above them.
My point is that we have the idea of what the trinity is and what God is, because of a political expedient. The goal was a federal type government that was a basis for a fascist dictatorship, borrowed from post-republic Rome. Those who supported it became saints, and those who did not, became ostracized, and their writings banned and burned.


[edit on 4-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by helen670
 
I am not making this any kind of personal attack on you.


Hi,
and I don't see this as a personal attack on me!




Is a universal church authority Biblical? No. Look at the book of Revelation. John in vision sees the glorified Jesus walking among the lamps that represent the churches. Paul writes letters to the individual churches and we find books of the Bible that are named after them. Paul talks about bishops, who headed the church of that particular city, but never hints that there should ever exist an organization above them.
My point is that we have the idea of what the trinity is and what God is, because of a political expedient. The goal was a federal type government that was a basis for a fascist dictatorship, borrowed from post-republic Rome. Those who supported it became saints, and those who did not, became ostracized, and their writings banned and burned.


[edit on 4-6-2009 by jmdewey60]


Becoming a Saint is not about supporting or in favour of.......again Sainthood comes from the Old Testament.In defense of Saints


Examples of what the trinity...In the Old Testament.



Genesis 1:1 and the following verses: the name of God ("Elohim") in the Hebrew text has the grammatical form of the plural number.

Genesis 1:26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." The plural number here indicates that God is not one Person.

Genesis 3:22: "And the Lord God said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil." (These are the words of God before the banishment of our ancestors from Paradise.)

Genesis 11:6-7: Prior to the confusion of tongues at the building of the tower of Babylon, the Lord said: "Let us go down, and there confound their language."

Genesis 18:1-3, concerning Abraham: "And the Lord appeared unto him at the oak of Mamre . . . And he (Abraham) lifted up his eyes and looked, and lo, three men stood by him... and he bowed himself toward the ground and said, My Lord, if now I have found favor in Thy sight, pass not away, I pray Thee, from Thy servant." Blessed Augustine says of this: "Do you see that Abraham meets Three but bows down to One . . . Having beheld Three, he understood the mystery of the Trinity, and having bowed down to One, he confessed One God in Three Persons."

In addition, the Fathers of the Church see an indirect reference to the Trinity in the following passages:

Numbers 6:24-26: The priestly blessing indicated by God through Moses is in a triple form: "The Lord bless thee... The Lord make His face shine on thee... The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee."

Isaiah 6:3: The doxology of the Seraphim who stand about the throne of God is in a triple form: "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts."

Psalm 32:6: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens established and all the might of them by the Spirit of His mouth."

Finally, one may indicate those passages in the Old Testament Revelation where the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are referred to separately. For example, concerning the Son:

Psalm 2:7: "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee."

Psalm 109:3: "From the womb before the morning star have I begotten Thee."
many more here



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join