Thread: REL:More Evidence Jesus was Worshipped as Divine by Early Chruch. DEBATE

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    So to stay with in context of the point of the OP, you uphold the premise that Christ was not thought divine by believers until the 4ths century? Since that was the only point the article attempted to make and you stated that you were rebutting the article, I must assume you don't agree with it. I don't understand the reason you responded with all the other information on Christ's actual divinity since it was not the point of the story. Why the strong defense of your atheism when it was not under attract? Just one argument that some atheists use was being discredited and that is the argument that the divinity of Christ was something conjured up by 4th century theologians and not one of the original tenets of belief.
    Their point apparently is that The Emperor Constantine during the council of Nicaea forced the world to accept Christianity by edict ! Atheists are always on the defensive and will constantly try to discredit any of GODS works as either nonexistent or acts of nature .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    NeunElfer SuperMod hampshirebrit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    TehYuk
    Posts
    3,727
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    So to stay with in context of the point of the OP, you uphold the premise that Christ was not thought divine by believers until the 4ths century? Since that was the only point the article attempted to make and you stated that you were rebutting the article, I must assume you don't agree with it. I don't understand the reason you responded with all the other information on Christ's actual divinity since it was not the point of the story. Why the strong defense of your atheism when it was not under attract? Just one argument that some atheists use was being discredited and that is the argument that the divinity of Christ was something conjured up by 4th century theologians and not one of the original tenets of belief.
    It wasn't really a strong defense. I don't really think my corner needs defending, any more than yours does against mine.

    For what it's worth, I think you defend your corner well, with dignity and respect for the other side, and I thank you for that.

    I don't think your god exists and I really wish you didn't believe in him

    You think that he does and you wish that I did believe.

    We will, neither of us, ever win this argument, will we?

    I reckon we both think we have each other's interests at heart, and that alone is good enough for me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,172
    Quote Originally Posted by hampshirebrit View Post
    It wasn't really a strong defense. I don't really think my corner needs defending, any more than yours does against mine.

    For what it's worth, I think you defend your corner well, with dignity and respect for the other side, and I thank you for that.

    I don't think your god exists and I really wish you didn't believe in him

    You think that he does and you wish that I did believe.

    We will, neither of us, ever win this argument, will we?

    I reckon we both think we have each other's interests at heart, and that alone is good enough for me.
    Let's just say that if my beliefs are factual then we'll both have our answers. If your beliefs are correct then it won't matter because we'll be dead, Pascal's Wager...

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    Their point apparently is that The Emperor Constantine during the council of Nicaea forced the world to accept Christianity by edict ! Atheists are always on the defensive and will constantly try to discredit any of GODS works as either nonexistent or acts of nature .
    Orthodox Christianity was defined there, yes.

    People tend to think of Christianity as fairly homogeneous during ancient times.. and that the original belief system was "corrupted" more and more as time goes on. Truth is, it was disparate and diverse as it is today... there was no orthodoxy until the council of nicea. There was no coherent set of universal Christian doctrine till the fourth century, and questions about Jesus' divinity were actually up for debate. I can only assume if atheists make the argument about the divinity were making arguments along those lines... that the divinity wasn't 'official' until then (as decided by committee).. but many Christians definitely believed it before then. But its funny to think, gnosticism really could have just as easily come out on top, instead of what we now refer to as orthodoxy.

    Even among the gnostic sects there was a very wide range of beliefs... and yes they did believe Jesus was divine. They were a dualistic version of Christianity, believing the God of the old testament was an evil devious God (not an unreasonable belief if you actually read the OT).... the old testament was his false gospel. Jesus was the "good" God incarnate, who's purpose was to save mankind from the evil deity.
    Last edited by wilbur; 10-12-2008 at 10:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Orthodox Christianity was defined there, yes.

    People tend to think of Christianity as fairly homogeneous during ancient times.. and that the original belief system was "corrupted" more and more as time goes on. Truth is, it was disparate and diverse as it is today... there was no orthodoxy until the council of nicea. There was no coherent set of universal Christian doctrine till the fourth century, and questions about Jesus' divinity were actually up for debate. I can only assume if atheists make the argument about the divinity were making arguments along those lines... that the divinity wasn't 'official' until then (as decided by committee).. but many Christians definitely believed it before then. But its funny to think, gnosticism really could have just as easily come out on top, instead of what we now refer to as orthodoxy.

    Even among the gnostic sects there was a very wide range of beliefs... and yes they did believe Jesus was divine. They were a dualistic version of Christianity, believing the God of the old testament was an evil devious God (not an unreasonable belief if you actually read the OT).... the old testament was his false gospel. Jesus was the "good" God incarnate, who's purpose was to save mankind from the evil deity
    .
    You sound to me to be very confused about Jewish and Christian religious history willie.There will always be disputes in anything more than one human is involved in because it's in the nature of mankind to question things.

    "Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers."Not the old testament. Again Mixing the pagan with the Christian .willie what's the mater with you, does Lucifer have you by the ears?

    Willie try to follow this reasoning ?In the Christian church in 325 AD there were many new poorly educated presbiters and new priests associated with many different bishops of many seas (Effectively a bishops area of responsibility's).As new priests were influenced by various prevalent pagan religions and beliefs some tried to merge the pagan with the Christian to gain more converts,big mistake.


    "There was no coherent set of universal Christian doctrine till the fourth century, and questions about Jesus' divinity were actually up for debate. I can only assume if atheists make the argument about the divinity were making arguments along those lines... that the divinity wasn't 'official' until then (as decided by committee).. but many Christians definitely believed it before then. "

    The whole reason for the council in the first place was to define "universal Christian doctrine" and Christian dogma andApproximately 250 to 318 of the most learned and faithful bishops and prelates did just that .The Creed is a testament of belief and if you read it you will find the testament of the bishops who underwrote it .OK so Far?

    The Credo (Latin for "I Believe)
    We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.
    .................................................. ..
    Anathema (Greek)-- literally, placed on high, suspended, set aside).
    ...............................................
    The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria.

    Willie pay attention to this part .
    One Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father.
    That means Willie that Jesus Christ Is one with the father of all .Cosubstantial,(Of One Substance ) !

    (One substance,part of,indivisable from the same spirit as GOD the father )

    "(as decided by committee)" yes by a committee of Approximately 250 to 318 bishops .

    The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria.

    "They were a dualistic version of Christianity, believing the God of the old testament was an evil devious God (not an unreasonable belief if you actually read the OT)...."

    Again from the Gnostics ."Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers."Again mixing pagan and Christian !Not the old testiment.

    Again You should try with an unjaundiced eye to understand what you read.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    .
    You sound to me to be very confused about Jewish and Christian religious history willie.There will always be disputes in anything more than one human is involved in because it's in the nature of mankind to question things.

    "Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers."Not the old testament. Again Mixing the pagan with the Christian .willie what's the mater with you, does Lucifer have you by the ears?


    Sorry Megs, you appear to be the confused one here. Their views on matter stem from their dualistic view... that the evil deity trapped humanity, along with their eternal divine nature, into the materialistic realm. Jesus was a divine being, the supreme deity, who came to give man special knowledge (gnosis) on how to attain salvation from the material realm. The good/evil status of matter has nothing to do with whether they believed Jesus to be divine or not. Some thought that he wasn't "typical" matter, and other did... their views varied, but the common thread seems to be that he was divine (God).

    Willie try to follow this reasoning ?In the Christian church in 325 AD there were many new poorly educated presbiters and new priests associated with many different bishops of many seas (Effectively a bishops area of responsibility's).As new priests were influenced by various prevalent pagan religions and beliefs some tried to merge the pagan with the Christian to gain more converts,big mistake.
    Orthodox Christianity is no different. Hopelessly intertwined with with all kinds of greek/roman philosophy and pagan traditions.

    The whole reason for the council in the first place was to define "universal Christian doctrine" and Christian dogma andApproximately 250 to 318 of the most learned and faithful bishops and prelates did just that .The Creed is a testament of belief and if you read it you will find the testament of the bishops who underwrote it .OK so Far?
    I'm not really disagreeing with this, other than to say there was no real homogeny in pre-nicea Christianity. That was the whole point of the council. I am not really disagreeing with the OP, other than to point out, even without the finding of this mosaic, that it was already well known that many people believed in the divinity of Jesus well before the 4th century. That and I've never really heard any atheists suggesting otherwise... cept maybe those who take the da vinci code too seriously.

    Again You should try with an unjaundiced eye to understand what you read.
    Practice what you preach!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •