Jesus is NEVER coming back in the flesh

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by kallisti36
 

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.
Maybe very early writer like Clement, but St. Justin Martyr definitely had texts on hand. Though I'll agree with the folklore bit, St. Justin was hardly a historian, but he accurately shows the belief at the time, as well as a developing understanding of the Trinity "there are atleast two". And yet there is so little writing of Christianity, outside of Christianity that you kind of have to take the ECF at their word. Anyways, most of the historians from that time were biased and weren't subject to the standards recently developed. Roman historians are chock full of propaganda.

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 was a bit harsh in saying this. I don't think it's garbage, just very imprecise with enough speculation to make your head spin.

Unlike yourself, I trust scripture, which term I would apply to what seems to me to
be legitimate enough books in the NT.
Who said I don't trust scripture? I said I don't believe it's totally infallible, that position isn't defendable. There *are* inconsistencies, but inconsequential ones. You'll go insane from all the mental gymnastics apologists do to reconcile inconsistencies like when the crucifixion happened.


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.
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
crucified Jesus.
edit on 10-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
To be continued..




posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 
I'm not trying to go to war against you.
There are some people I am but you are not one of them.
I think I am just taking the sane approach to "scripture" which is to not base
a whole theology on half a verse, which a lot of people do, and they do it by
ignoring a whole bunch of other verses which go against their one little
misinterpretation. I am just now beginning to apply that same philosophy
just on a bigger scale.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Ok, yes there were violence between Arians and Trinitarians, but it was never condoned, it was mob wars essentially. Low rank clergy and laymen were involved in the murder of Hypatia (if she existed), but you can hardly claim that the Church as a whole condoned it, in fact it is outright condemned. The Arian bishops, like Eusebius of Nicomedia were exiled, not killed, so the Church wasn't organizing persecutions. Now, when Constantius became emperor, now there's a different story. Under Constantius, the Arians lead organized persecutions against the Orthodox and tried to impose a semi-arianism on the Church. I've read numerous stories of violence on both sides. In fact I heard a story in Church last week of a certain Bishop (his name escapes me)who was strangled by Arians with his omophorion. This is irreconcilable behavior with Christianity and there are certainly plenty of people who are Orthodox, but not Christians.

I have no idea where you got the idea that Arius was a defender of the trinity. He certainly believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but they are not of the same essence according to his theology. Here is an excerpt Thalia as recorded by Athanasius, so I suppose you could claim he altered it, but why would he do that when he's refuting it?


"And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all. He alone has no equal, no one similar ('homoios'), and no one of the same glory. We call Him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten. We praise Him as without beginning, in contrast to him who has a beginning. We worship Him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist. He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things. He produced him as a son for Himself, by begetting him. He [the Son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God's own being ('kat' hypostasis') For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being ('homoousios') as Him.".. "At God’s will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has.
His existence from when and from whom and from then—are all from God.He, though strong God, praises in part ('ek merous') his superior".. "In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son.
For He is in himself what He is, that is, indescribable,
So that the Son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them.
For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by Himself.
For the Son himself does not even know his own essence ('ousia').
For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father.
What reasoning allows, that he who is from the Father should comprehend and know his own parent? For clearly that which has a beginning is not able to conceive of or grasp the existence of that which has no beginning".. "Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence.
It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God.
Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father’s will,
He [the Son] is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others."

He did not defend Trinitarian theology in the slightest. If you believe that he taught something else, then you have no evidence, because no extant copy of the Thalia outside of St. Athanasius' refutation of it.

I remain firm in my assertion that St. Athanasius did not display megalomania. He was certainly confident of the trinitarian doctrine, but didn't claim it as his own, but rather the truth of scripture and apostolic tradition. He also totally disregarded the approval of others, which is evidence against a charge of narcisism.

Also, my argument that the enduring tradition is true is not "might makes right". If might makes right, then the Latins are right. No, I'm saying that the Church Christ established has to have endured throughout the centuries continuously. He said, "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it", so it can't be Arianism, because while it has had resurgences, it has never remained, nor has it covered the earth as was prophecied. Orthodoxy has survived Diocletian, Arian persecution, Iconoclast persecution, Islamic conquest, Latin conquest, communism, and secularism and continues on to cover the world.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I do appreciate your value of skopos, but Christianity isn't a philosophy, it is a Church. You cannot be a Christian alone, my friend. You are taking your own opinions and making it up as you go along. I experienced the connection with God I had been searching for for years in the Orthodox Church, but there were so many things I just couldn't accept at the time. I had to open myself up to foreign ideas and wrestle with them and eventually I saw the other side. Call me a conformist, but it really wasn't all that bad. It helps that Orthodox dogma is always apophatic and leaves room for opinion. You won't hear me claim that Mary the Theotokos was sinless despite that being a popular piety. I even have some amazing saints backing me up, like St. John Maximovitch (great man and his incorrupt relics are only an hours drive away).

Addition: Out of curiosity, what are you going to war against. I don't want names, but what exactly are you standing against?
edit on 10-11-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-11-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-11-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 

He did not defend Trinitarian theology in the slightest.
Apparently you have an extremely narrow interpretation of what the word trinity means.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 

. . . but Christianity isn't a philosophy . . .
So?

Out of curiosity, what are you going to war against. I don't want names, but what exactly are you standing against?
People who call evil good, and call good evil, are who I am at "war" with.
People I may not be at war with necessarily, but have to give a hard time to, are those who I think should just convert to Judaism and stop with the nonsense of pretending to be Christians. Those fall into one or two or three categories: 1. Anyone who believes God is named YHWH. 2. Anyone who believes Jesus' "real" name is Yeshua (or some other Hebrew or Aramaic name not found in the NT) 3. Anyone who says mashiach (or whatever the Hebrew or Aramaic name for what Christians call, Christ)
Anyone saying all three of those things in the same sentence need to get up and go straight to their nearest synagogue and to sign up, and stop profaning God and Jesus and Christ.
edit on 10-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


The Trinity is a tri-unity. God is one, therefor there must be union between the three in one essence or else we have three gods.

You do remember speaking to me before, yes? Are you aware that I do all of those things you detest? God is YHWH, the tetragrammaton is in the Greek Septuagint unaltered from the original Phonoecian script. Christ's name was most certainly Yeshuah, Yahshuah, or some Hebrew/Aramaic variation. How can this be extrapolated from the Greek text? Iesous is the same Hellenized name used for Joshua (Yeshuah in the original Hebrew) and Yeshuah ben Sirach. Yahshuah means God (YAH) saves. Iesous doesn't mean anything. It had to be changed in the Greek because a name ending on an A in Greek is feminine. If the Gospels had been written in Spanish, you would have the same sort of change. However, you don't even need the Greek text for this, because we have the Aramaic P e s h itta (spaces so the stupid word won't get censored). If you disagree with this then you are just wrong. If you have a problem with people using a foreign language to sound cultured, then your argument has merit. I've been chided by several people for using it, because they say Christ spoke in the vernacular and I should use the variation given to me, that being: Jesus. Why do I do it? I considered Messianic Judaism for a long time and got into the habit of it. Around the time I began looking into Orthodoxy, I read a book called "Surprised By Christ" written by a Jew who converted to Christianity and helped found the first Messianic Jewish group: "Jews for Jesus". He is now an Orthodox Priest. Needless to say, Messianic Judaism is bunk and was contrived in the 70's, but still I retain the habit of using Hebrewisms. I also use Yahshuah, because it actually means something.

Sue me



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   

The Trinity is a tri-unity.
Not a word in the Bible. Neither is Triune.

God is one, therefor there must be union between the three in one essence or else we have three gods.
I think it is good to talk about these things and there hasn't been any decent discussion on this subject for a long time on this sub-forum.
I don't know where you come up with these laws that determine what God can and can not be.

You do remember speaking to me before, yes?
Yes I do, since you were the first person I did have a conversation with on this forum after being away for a long time doing my radio show on BlogTalk.

Are you aware that I do all of those things you detest?
Detest may be a little strong, though it may apply on an emotional level, to where I do get negative feelings, or unpleasant sensations when people say those things with a sort of air of superiority. My response is that knowing all those things may have made someone seem a bit knowledgeable and special thirty years ago, but now is what I would classify as Post-Trendy. A terminology I picked up when I owned a skateboard store years ago and how things became popular and then faded away from the interest of the real trendy people once it became standard main-stream culture. Like trying to be a character in a Stanley Kubrick movie.
I let you slide on this usage by you on account of preferential treatment towards you by myself on account of the amount of research you have done, making you deserving of a little bit of respect and not being treated meanly. Now there are other people who have done an equal amount of research but I perceive it as being motivated from a bad place so do get treated meanly by me.

God is YHWH, the tetragrammaton is in the Greek Septuagint unaltered from the original Phonoecian script.
I don't see where it is.

Christ's name was most certainly Yeshuah, Yahshuah, or some Hebrew/Aramaic variation. How can this be extrapolated from the Greek text? Iesous is the same Hellenized name used for Joshua (Yeshuah in the original Hebrew) and Yeshuah ben Sirach. Yahshuah means God (YAH) saves.
Right, and Jesus was one of those Hellenized people who would go by the name, Jesus.

Iesous doesn't mean anything.
So, when did it become a requirement that names have to mean something? That is just crazy (in my opinion). A name, according to my understanding, can be a word derived from another word, maybe in a different language, and modified to work in the language being used by the person saying that name and being called by that name. “Iesous” fits that description perfectly, where it is a name derived from a word used earlier in another language, in this case, Hebrew, to be used in another language being used by the people of the person having that name and by the people who would be using that name to address the person so named.

It had to be changed in the Greek because a name ending on an A in Greek is feminine.
Like what I just said, the word was adapted for another use, in another language, being Greek.

If the Gospels had been written in Spanish, you would have the same sort of change. However, you don't even need the Greek text for this, because we have the Aramaic P e s h itta (spaces so the stupid word won't get censored).
Which to me is just a translation from the Greek into the Aramaic and is not more “original” than the Greek despite some wishful thinking on some people's part.

If you disagree with this then you are just wrong.
Is this one of the side-benefits of belonging to a church, learning this mentality to where anyone who has an independent thought needs to be labeled a subversive or something? Go with the hive?

If you have a problem with people using a foreign language to sound cultured, then your argument has merit.
(see my comment, above) I think people should be able to recognize these terms when they hear them and learn to respond in a way that shows you do understand, to avoid the person using those words launching into an impromptu explanation you have to endure.

I've been chided by several people for using it, because they say Christ spoke in the vernacular and I should use the variation given to me, that being: Jesus. Why do I do it? I considered Messianic Judaism for a long time and got into the habit of it. Around the time I began looking into Orthodoxy, I read a book called "Surprised By Christ" written by a Jew who converted to Christianity and helped found the first Messianic Jewish group: "Jews for Jesus". He is now an Orthodox Priest. Needless to say, Messianic Judaism is bunk and was contrived in the 70's, but still I retain the habit of using Hebrewisms. I also use Yahshuah, because it actually means something.
I use the name, Jesus, because it is in the New Testament and what was what the Apostles called him, so, his name. I don't need to have some sort
edit on 11-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Oops, post was too long and the end got cut off.
to continue:
I don't need to have some sort of special understanding on a meaning of a word to feel good, when the meaning is in the person who the name only identifies. When you use another name, you are identifying someone you made up in your mind and so are committing idolatry.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
I have seen your work and read of your life and there is much instability in it (I don't mean to poison the well or put you down). We must all guard our hearts and minds from the evil one. Far holier men and women than us have written of demons disguised as angels presenting ideas that appeared beautiful on the outside, but reaked of death from within. Beneath your message of love is a false doctrine of death that will save no one. Again, I say, you have been mislead. We are not saved by love, we are saved by knowing God through his Word made flesh. Herein lies the beauty of the incarnation, that "God became man, so that man might become God" "through grace what He is by nature". God also became man that we may relate to Him. The creator took on the entire mantle of creation, all of it's pain and temptations so that He could reach us and fill the gap. You are not of the divine nature, but in knowing him you may partake of it.


I am sorry you are still in a world where evil dwells my friend. Evil is not part of my world.

You may see this as delusional, but I see greater delusion in not seeing the whole as one, good, in all it's glory.

Fear not for me my friend. No demons deceive me.

I know frome whence I came, and I know to where I go.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


You are a very lost sheep my friend. Your post disturbed me to my very core. Your twisting of Bible makes me want to vomit. You have been corrected over and over again and yet fail to see you are wrong. I feel for you.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dthwraith
You are a very lost sheep my friend. Your post disturbed me to my very core. Your twisting of Bible makes me want to vomit. You have been corrected over and over again and yet fail to see you are wrong. I feel for you.


Who's twisting of the Bible do you prefer my friend?

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 



I say better late that never - JW's have been saying for a long time now and people redicule,


I know you hate the Watchtower but just an FYI:


The Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, p. 229.

Neither Barbour nor Russell was the first to explain the Lord’s return as an invisible presence. Much earlier, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) had written that Christ would return and reign “invisible to mortals.” In 1856, Joseph Seiss, a Lutheran minister in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, had written about a two-stage second advent—an invisible pa·rou·si′a, or presence, followed by a visible manifestation. Then, in 1864, Benjamin Wilson had published his Emphatic Diaglott with the interlinear reading “presence,” not “coming,” for pa·rou·si′a, and B. W. Keith, an associate of Barbour, had drawn it to the attention of Barbour and his associates.
A clearer understanding of Bible chronology was published in later years. See Chapter 10, “Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth.”


here's another:


Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914)
Time Prophecies and the Presence of the Lord

One morning in January 1876, 23-year-old Russell received a copy of a religious periodical called Herald of the Morning. From the picture on the cover, he could see that it was identified with Adventism. The editor, Nelson H. Barbour, of Rochester, New York, believed that the object of Christ’s return was not to destroy the families of the earth but to bless them and that his coming would be not in the flesh but as a spirit. Why, this was in agreement with what Russell and his associates in Allegheny had believed for some time! Curiously, though, Barbour believed from Biblical time-prophecies that Christ was already present (invisibly) and that the harvest work of gathering “the wheat” (true Christians making up the Kingdom class) was already due.—Matt., chap. 13.

Russell had shied away from Biblical time prophecies. Now, however, he wondered: “Could it be that the time prophecies which I had so long despised, because of their misuse by Adventists, were really meant to indicate when the Lord would be invisibly present to set up his Kingdom?” With his insatiable thirst for Scriptural truth, Russell had to learn more. So he arranged to meet with Barbour in Philadelphia. This meeting confirmed their agreement on a number of Bible teachings and provided an opportunity for them to exchange views. “When we first met,” Russell later stated, “he had much to learn from me on the fulness of restitution based upon the sufficiency of the ransom given for all, as I had much to learn from him concerning time.” Barbour succeeded in convincing Russell that Christ’s invisible presence had begun in 1874.


Interesting thing is - this was taught by other churhes but then abandoned it in place of a fleshly return.


Watchtower 2005 1/15 pp. 14-15 pars. 20-21 Christ—The Focus of Prophecy

Even before 1914, a small band of anointed Christians began to grasp important truths about the Lord’s return. For instance, they discerned that it would be invisible, as implied by the two angels who appeared in 33 C.E. to the disciples while Jesus was ascending to heaven. After a cloud caught Jesus up from the disciples’ vision, the angels said: “This Jesus who was received up from you into the sky will come thus in the same manner as you have beheld him going into the sky.”—Acts 1:9-11.

21 Jesus’ departure was observed only by his loyal followers. As with the transfiguration, there was no public display; the world in general was not even aware of what had occurred. The same would be true when Christ returned in Kingdom power. (John 14:19) Only his faithful anointed disciples would discern his royal presence. In the next article, we will see how that insight would have a profound effect on them, culminating in the gathering of millions who would become Jesus’ earthly subjects.—Revelation 7:9, 14.


tc
edit on 11-11-2011 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


People ridicule JWs because they used psudeo-scholars to twist the Greek text, predicted the end of the world several times (still here), pretty much deny half of their history, are completely and utterly divorced from any understanding of Christian history, and have a paranoid obsession with making sure their followers don't read anything against JW doctrine.

I wish people would just leave the fine tuned semantic exegesis to the people who read the Bible in their own language: Greeks and Hebrews (to some extent, the MT has been deliberately altered).



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


You know, I have read so many of your posts over the last few months.

I was just about to take you seriously, then I looked at your avatar and came to a realisation.

You were never paying attention to anyone on the board, or me, or anyone else but yourself.

I say this as you are clearly looking at your own left ear constantly as your avatar shows anyone that bothers to pay attention.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Fair enough, it's a preference, I'm no "sacred name-r".

As for the tetragrammaton in the Septuagint: www.eliyah.com...

Of course the word 'Trinity' isn't in the Bible, neither is the 'incarnation'. Doesn't mean you can't lift that from the text. As for the law of God having to be One: "Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one" Mark 12:29 and yet there are also clearly three. The number three appears so often that it becomes apparent that it has a symbolic meaning, much like 10 (law), 7 (perfection), 6 (man, or imperfection), 12 (fullness), and 8 (resurrection). When the Word is declared to be God and one in God, that requires an inquiry into how that can be, and the Trinity is what the Church came to under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 

. . . I'm no "sacred name-r" . . .
I didn't think so, and part of the reason for me not giving you too hard of a time and letting it slide as long as you don't make an issue of it.
As for the tetragrammaton or whatever, people did lots of things with various translations and who knows?
I'm starting to think that almost all of the NT is polemical writings (see my thread on the Fourth Gospel) just disguised to look like more normal writings but there are all kinds of digs being made at what someone else is saying so they make these books that seem to be older and then can be used as an authority to refute the other person they are in disagreement with. Something we could hardly do today because science would totally bust it if we produced a document and claimed it was a previously unknown book by an Apostle, but back in the day, they could, and they did.
How this fits into the topic of trinity is that I would stick with the only reliable documents we have which are the four of the original Pauline canon: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. In there, Paul says that we have one God and one Lord, and he makes them two distinct entities, one of which is Jesus. How you get a trinity from that is beyond me.
edit on 11-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
The "Trinity", our English Theological term we use to describe God's revealed nature in the scripture. And it begins at Genesis. It's always the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Call it the Godhead if you don't like the word Trinity.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 
"Godhead" is not in there either.
It is a made up name not in the Greek of the NT.
There is no such word and translators centuries ago created it when they made a Latin Bible.
There is just not a trinity in the Bible and is something that came up after people decided to deify Jesus, to fit him in somehow where it was not rejected out of hand by everyone in the world.
If it was somehow important, it would have been in the Bible but it is not.
So why make a big deal out of it now?
There is no reason I can see, what's the point?
Is it something we need to believe in to be saved? I don't think so.

edit on 11-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

The council did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ (as is sometimes claimed) but it did settle to some degree the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from the one God ("The Father") had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[9] The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.

One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to God the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other "Sons of God" in the Bible. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, is said to have taken the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius.



Wikipedia




edit on 11-11-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join