reply to post by kallisti36
[color=DarkSlateGray]..There are a lot of problems with your post, as I see it. You say,
"secular Western Scholars" but I think that is an assumption. I read
works by people I consider scholars on biblical criticism and I don't
think they are what I would call secular unless you mean not in the
employ of an official religious institution, such as a monk, or priest,
or working for a church owned college.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..I feel that people who write things about religion and Christianity and
the Bible do so because they have a real personal interest in it because
they have actual religious beliefs. They may not necessarily label themselves
Christians but I would not label them atheists.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..Being removed from the events is not a disadvantage. I used to think that way,
like you said, and 26 years ago I started building my library of the Early
Church Fathers and all those really old books which I could find (this was
before the internet and unless you lived by a university and could use their
library, you had to buy your own copies). What I found was people who
themselves were somewhat isolated, living as hermits sometimes, and using
hearsay, and having almost no direct contact with any original documents
or with actual people. They just passed along what amounted to folklore.
Then they were prone to wild speculation and held, insane to our understanding,
ridiculous superstitious and mythological concepts of what the world was and
how it worked.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..I don't feel the field of Biblical Archaeology and Historical Criticism is garbage,
as you say. I think how a lot of people may interpret it is garbage and I steer clear
as best I can from people who don't use proper methods of coming to conclusions, or
just are heavily biased and distort data to conform to the pre-set ideas.
I think on certain issues, like what I quoted, there is a way to treat scholarship as having a
"as a whole" opinion on some basic things, like the unlikeness of 2 Peter having been in fact
written by Peter.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..Unlike yourself, I trust scripture, which term I would apply to what seems to me to
be legitimate enough books in the NT. I don't trust in "Church traditions" because
of what I stated earlier, which is I don't think there are any because of the break
in handing down those traditions, because of the internal warfare in Christianity over the
Arius / Athanasius issue over the nature of the trinity. A lot of people got killed
and a lot of people were removed from office over this and the old-timers were
eliminated to where their successors had to be recruited from the ranks of the pagans.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..Arius was the foremost defender of the Trinity and understood it quite well and was the hero of the church for his
promotion of it. Athanasius was I think Jealous of Arius and had
personal beliefs that contradicted Arius, and once he was able to worm his way into
the position of Bishop, used all the power of that office and worked tirelessly to accumulate
even more power, to fight against someone he could not get to acquiesce to his superiority.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..As for Nicaea, I think it could be another lie. There is no official record of the
controversy ever being discussed at the Council. It is said, later, by people working
to squash Arius, that there was some sort of determination made against him but not
one word of such a thing made it into the canon of the Council.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..I don't know where you are getting your information on this subject but it does not
fit with the facts as I understand them from what I consider a pretty thorough study
on the subject. Arius never said Jesus was created or ever did not exist at any time,
or was not god. I think you are reading some strange source for your information about Arius.
What you are saying makes no sense at all, where you say it is ridiculous for me to say
Athanasius was a megalomaniac and then you quote him saying he is against the world.
What do you call that? what you present as an argument seems absolute absurdity to me.
I really don't know what you are even saying. You are taking the absolutely wrong position
that Arius did not believe in the Trinity.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..All you are doing is promoting the concept of Might makes Right, that eventually after hundreds of years of warfare,
the Athanasius side won, by murdering more saints than the
Arius side. Why do you think I go by scripture and not the Church? It is because they
have the blood of the saints on their hands and are the same sort of people who
edit on 10-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)