It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unlike yourself, I trust scripture, which term I would apply to what seems to me to
be legitimate enough books in the NT.
To be continued..
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
edit on 10-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
"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."
. . . but Christianity isn't a philosophy . . .
People who call evil good, and call good evil, are who I am at "war" with.
Out of curiosity, what are you going to war against. I don't want names, but what exactly are you standing against?
Not a word in the Bible. Neither is Triune.
The Trinity is a tri-unity.
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.
God is one, therefor there must be union between the three in one essence or else we have three gods.
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.
You do remember speaking to me before, yes?
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.
Are you aware that I do all of those things you detest?
I don't see where it is.
God is YHWH, the tetragrammaton is in the Greek Septuagint unaltered from the original Phonoecian script.
Right, and Jesus was one of those Hellenized people who would go by the name, Jesus.
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.
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.
Iesous doesn't mean anything.
Like what I just said, the word was adapted for another use, in another language, being Greek.
It had to be changed in the Greek because a name ending on an A in Greek is feminine.
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 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).
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 disagree with this then you are just wrong.
(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.
If you have a problem with people using a foreign language to sound cultured, then your argument has merit.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
. . . I'm no "sacred name-r" . . .
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. 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.