[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by InOne

Who is that? God

Jesus is God

many people forget that

[InOne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Jesus is God

many people forget that

Almost every Christian has a different answer to if Jesus is god or not.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by InOne

Almost every Christian has a different answer to if Jesus is god or not.

That is just not true. Jesus is God and it says so many times in the Bible. Christians take the Bible to be the Truth.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

That is just not true. Jesus is God and it says so many times in the Bible. Christians take the Bible to be the Truth.

Then why on the cross did he ask God (himself) why he has forsaken him?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by InOne

Then why on the cross did he ask God (himself) why he has forsaken him?

Psalm 22

[InOne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Psalm 22

?????????????? The Bible is pretty useless when is comes to actually trying to prove anything.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by InOne

?????????????? The Bible is pretty useless when is comes to actually trying to prove anything.

He was quoting from the OT

why is that hard?

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by InOne

Almost every Christian has a different answer to if Jesus is god or not.

That is not true.
For nearly 2000 years there is tremendous unity on the nature of Christ and of Him being God incarnate.
Even as far back to the earliest councils recorded we see the earliest Christians having very little disagreement and even that being on 'how' He was God incarnate.
For centuries Christians around the world and crossing denominations recited the Nicene, Apostles creeds every Sunday,
and,
to this day, even with as many 'exceptions proving the rule' we see a massive global church of so many denominations which acknowledge this. Even those disagreeing intensely on many 'in house' issues will be in total agreement on the nature of Christ.

So why you said something like this really amazes me. Its as if you just thought it 'sounded good' and fit your worldview of what you would like Christianity to 'come across' like... and so you wrote it.
Hoping it would just fly.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

That is not true.
For nearly 2000 years there is tremendous unity on the nature of Christ and of Him being God incarnate.
Even as far back to the earliest councils recorded we see the earliest Christians having very little disagreement and even that being on 'how' He was God incarnate.
For centuries Christians around the world and crossing denominations recited the Nicene, Apostles creeds every Sunday,
and,
to this day, even with as many 'exceptions proving the rule' we see a massive global church of so many denominations which acknowledge this. Even those disagreeing intensely on many 'in house' issues will be in total agreement on the nature of Christ.

So why you said something like this really amazes me. Its as if you just thought it 'sounded good' and fit your worldview of what you would like Christianity to 'come across' like... and so you wrote it.
Hoping it would just fly.

well said my wrestling friend

[InOne]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

That is not true.
For nearly 2000 years there is tremendous unity on the nature of Christ and of Him being God incarnate.
Even as far back to the earliest councils recorded we see the earliest Christians having very little disagreement and even that being on 'how' He was God incarnate.
For centuries Christians around the world and crossing denominations recited the Nicene, Apostles creeds every Sunday,
and,
to this day, even with as many 'exceptions proving the rule' we see a massive global church of so many denominations which acknowledge this. Even those disagreeing intensely on many 'in house' issues will be in total agreement on the nature of Christ.

So why you said something like this really amazes me. Its as if you just thought it 'sounded good' and fit your worldview of what you would like Christianity to 'come across' like... and so you wrote it.
Hoping it would just fly.

Catholics and everyone else disagree about it. Which is why the Catholic Church also uses different texts. Would you care to explain the trinity to me then 1+1+1=1???????????

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by InOne

Catholics and everyone else disagree about it. Which is why the Catholic Church also uses different texts. Would you care to explain the trinity to me then 1+1+1=1???????????

Read the Bible if you seek answers

or go to church


http://www.carm.org/trinity

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

That is not true.
For nearly 2000 years there is tremendous unity on the nature of Christ and of Him being God incarnate.
Even as far back to the earliest councils recorded we see the earliest Christians having very little disagreement and even that being on 'how' He was God incarnate.For centuries Christians around the world and crossing denominations recited the Nicene, Apostles creeds every Sunday,
and,
to this day, even with as many 'exceptions proving the rule' we see a massive global church of so many denominations which acknowledge this. Even those disagreeing intensely on many 'in house' issues will be in total agreement on the nature of Christ.

So why you said something like this really amazes me. Its as if you just thought it 'sounded good' and fit your worldview of what you would like Christianity to 'come across' like... and so you wrote it.
Hoping it would just fly.

The nature of Jesus' divinity was asserted by Saul of Tarsus later St Paul. Jesus never said he was God incarnate. Other religious including early christian sects at the time that knew of Jesus and his ministry were later declared heretic, outlaw and suppressed. Take for example Gnostics, Essenes, Donatists.. to name a few.

Incidentally the Nicene Creed came about in 325AD/CE after the first ecumenical council.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

The nature of Jesus' divinity was asserted by Saul of Tarsus later St Paul. Jesus never said he was God incarnate. Other religious including early christian sects at the time that knew of Jesus and his ministry were later declared heretic, outlaw and suppressed. Take for example Gnostics, Essenes, Donatists.. to name a few.

Incidentally the Nicene Creed came about in 325AD/CE after the first ecumenical council.

throughout his earthly ministry Jesus claimed to be God in word and deed..

mark 14:61-62
John 5:18. 20; 8:58; 10:30-33

and vindicated his claims to deity by living a sinless life

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

throughout his earthly ministry Jesus claimed to be God in word and deed..

mark 14:61-62
John 5:18. 20; 8:58; 10:30-33

and vindicated his claims to deity by living a sinless life

I really could have some fun ripping this apart, its a translation fron Ancient Greek consequently the answer "I am" can also be read as The I am is here.

I suppose you are using one of the newer dumbed down version of the Bible, I use the older and more reliable Catholic Bible, upbringing sorry to say

and sitting at gods right hand should be read as sitting at the right hand of the power,

they are both quotes from scriptures namely Exod 3:14 and Ps 110:1 see also Dan 7:13.

It wasnt an affirmation of being the Christ, it was an answer to question the high priests right to question him. throughout his ministry he challenged the Pharisees and priests, this was a direct challenge against the authority of the Sanhedrin.


As in the case of the John references as well:

Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”

Bear i mind though John was again wrote in Anciet Greek so the translation we have do not draw on the full context of the original Aramaic words the man himself used .

While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

Given that neither book were actually wrote as they are alleged to have occurred, but consdierably later after his death, dont you find it amazing that the writer in the case of Mark's godspel can quote what was said word for word, given that they werent actually there because it was wrote about 2 centuries after the actual event?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

I really could have some fun ripping this apart,
snip

You really could have some fun ripping apart basic Christian doctrine that has survived and flourished for 2000 odd years?

That is probably the most arrogant and self-righteous statement that Tibb will get in 2010.

Others far, far greater than you have tried and failed.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

snip

Given that neither book were actually wrote as they are alleged to have occurred, but consdierably later after his death, dont you find it amazing that the writer in the case of Mark's godspel can quote what was said word for word, given that they werent actually there because it was wrote about 2 centuries after the actual event?

this whole paragraph is nonsensical and just plain incorrect,

Mark was written mid to late 50s AD to mid to late 60s AD

John was written 70-100 AD

Mark was eyewitness dictation from Peter

John was an apostle, one of the 12 disciples ("the disciple whom Jesus loved"), John the son of Zebedee.


This is not my own personal opinion it is historical accepted fact which can be fully checked online or in any modern study Bible.

and the Bible translation I use is the ESV if you can prove to me that the Catholic Bible (which uses the vulgate) uses better sources and more up to date manuscript and sources than the ESV that would be just grand.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

The nature of Jesus' divinity was asserted by Saul of Tarsus later St Paul. Jesus never said he was God incarnate. Other religious including early christian sects at the time that knew of Jesus and his ministry were later declared heretic, outlaw and suppressed. Take for example Gnostics, Essenes, Donatists.. to name a few.

Incidentally the Nicene Creed came about in 325AD/CE after the first ecumenical council.

Yes but all you are doing is proving out what I told you.
First off - part of the reason YOU EVEN KNOW about early Christian sects (and gnostics definitely make up a lot of them) is because this is not only referred to in the New Testament itself,
but,
also because early church leaders (before Nicea) wrote about them, wrote about where they went wrong and wrote about how they were NOT squaring with the church at large or the leadership,
and
if you ever want confirmation on that then you get Nicea where it starts with almost every representative from every region ALREADY understanding.. as a 'given'... that Jesus is God incarnate.
In fact the 'big debate' is over Arius and a couple of his friends who DONT actually deny anything,
but,
have some nearly 'definition games' over just what exactly 'essence' might mean.

And a reminder that listing exceptions to the rule - proves the rule.
You can list me Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and keep going with handfuls of little cults
(if you list names it makes it sound more over-whelming),
but,
65 wacky fringe denominations don't change the fact that some 1 billion people from Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Presbys, Lutherans, Methodists... really any and all massive main denominations all agree on the Divinity of Christ.
It might even be a rare thing we all DO entirely agree on.

To say "every christian has a different idea of this" is about as wrong as wrong can get.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

also because early church leaders (before Nicea) wrote about them, wrote about where they went wrong and wrote about how they were NOT squaring with the church at large or the leadership,
and
if you ever want confirmation on that then you get Nicea where it starts with almost every representative from every region ALREADY understanding.. as a 'given'... that Jesus is God incarnate.
In fact the 'big debate' is over Arius and a couple of his friends who DONT actually deny anything,
but,
have some nearly 'definition games' over just what exactly 'essence' might mean.

To say "every christian has a different idea of this" is about as wrong as wrong can get.

Get your facts right, the winners decide history in wars and religion, thats why so called heretical gospels were suppressed and the followers were in some cases annihilated.

"Before 325 AD, the "heretical" nature of some beliefs was a matter of much debate within the churches. After 325 AD, some opinion was formulated as dogma through the canons promulgated by the councils. Each phrase in the Nicene Creed, which was hammered out at the Council of Nicaea, addresses some aspect that had been under passionate discussion and closes the books on the argument, with the weight of the agreement of the over 300 bishops in attendance. [Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west). The number of participating bishops cannot be accurately stated; Socrates Scholasticus and Epiphanius of Salamis counted 318; Eusebius of Caesarea, only 250.]"


So out of 1800 bishops, you have 318 or thereabouts who actually attended Nicaea. Hardly every belief represented. And if you didnt follow the Church of Rome's line, you were a heretic.

The following were supressed christian sects which didnt all believe that Jesus was the Son of God, in some cases they believed that God had sent him, spoke through him or simply he was a very good man whose example should be followed Other heresies believed in the non humanity of Jesus. Others had still differing views about the created of the holy trinity etc.

Gnosticism, Neo-Gnosticism, Agnosticism Marcionites, Tritheism, Modalism, Basidilians, Tertullianists, Origenists, Manicheans, Millenarians, Novatians, Montanism,

Cerintus, , Carpocratians They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ;

Nestorianism (named for Netstorius) Belief that God was not in Christ and that Mary gave birth only to the human Jesus. Nestorianism teaches that Jesus was filled with the logos, that only the human part of Jesus suffered and died, and that man simply needs an infilling of logos for salvation.

Ebionitism. Belief that Jesus was nothing more that a prophet: a man, but not divine. Named after the Ebionites, a first-century Jewish-Christian sect who emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul’s teachings

Dynamic Monarchianism claimed Jesus Christ was simply a man, whom God filled with an impersonal power, either at his conception, baptism, or resurrection. This denies Christ taking any personality from God,

Docetism is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die

The Nazareans, or "Jewish-Christians" as some of them were eventually called by the Romanized Christians, did not appreciate this distortion of their Teachers of Righteousness. These Nazareans did not accept the writings and doctrines of Paul, nor did they take much account of the Gospels which found their way into the New Testament bible. Instead, they used the Gospel of Hebrews which denied, among other things, the Roman version of the virgin birth.

Pelagianism - In their view every child was born absolutely innocent, free of what the traditional church called 'the original sin'. In effect this meant that to Pelagius Christ was not a saviour who took Adam's original sin upon himself, but merely a teacher who gave mankind an example of what man should be

All of them were christian all had one thing in common they were declared heretic, their teachings suppressed and they were given the chance to move back into what became the Roman Catholic Church, if not they were surpressed. A few hundred years ago denying the pope would have got you declared heretic and ex-communicated from the church at best.

Incidentally Arius was deemed heretic, welcomed back into the church and then after his death declared heretic again.

To take the line you finished on maybe its me but I understand it to mean if you took a hundred christians regardless of whether they came from the same church or not and questioned them in depth on god, jesus etc you would get 100 different sets of answers.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

snip
To take the line you finished on maybe its me but I understand it to mean if you took a hundred christians regardless of whether they came from the same church or not and questioned them in depth on god, jesus etc you would get 100 different sets of answers.

that is why we have The Bible and we judge Christianity on Jesus and his earthly ministry and not on man.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Get your facts right, the winners decide history in wars and religion, thats why so called heretical gospels were suppressed and the followers were in some cases annihilated.

But you just made that up.
Based on nothing.
You actually just wrote some baseless fantasy and said it like it was 'fact'.

There is every reason to believe gnosticism was a big problem in the early church and so too was 'legalism' (or we say 'Galatianism' too),
but,
No.
No, there is no story of gnostics getting defeated in some war with the orthodox christians,
and,
further more there is no reason to believe the 'winners' then erased the history of the other.

Here let me remind you again - THE REASON YOU EVEN KNOW ABOUT SOME GNOSTICS AND OPPOSING GROUPS IS BECAUSE THE CHRISTIANS RECORDED THIS FOR US.
So in your fake story you made-up it asks us to believe they first suppressed their history but then all the early church fathers RECORDED AND PRESERVED THEIR ACCOUNTS, CRITICISMS AND DOCTRINES.
Stupid.

I mean if you are going to make up fake stories out of thin air then at least try and make them non-stupid like that one.

"Before 325 AD, the "heretical" nature of some beliefs was a matter of much debate within the churches. After 325 AD, some opinion was formulated as dogma through the canons promulgated by the councils.

But that is NOT what happens at Nicea.
In fact - the most 'telling' thing about Nicea is that Bishops begin the discussion like everyone ALREADY well understood all the basics and even most everything else.
The whole thing starts out in SO MUCH AGREEMENT that there is VERY LITTLE discussion about ANY of the Christian doctrines.

This is THE 'smoking gun' evidence that Christianity and its doctrines are ALREADY well established.
That they did not even feel the need to bring them up and carried on discussions as if already understood.

Each phrase in the Nicene Creed, which was hammered out at the Council of Nicaea, addresses some aspect that had been under passionate discussion and closes the books on the argument,

No, that is not true at all.
There was no passionate discussions about 'each line' and what is the most telling is that there WAS NOT any passionate debates about these things.

The only 'passionate debate' was over a couple of dudes who were NOT debating whether or not Christ was Divine but over just what exactly 'essence of God' should mean.

So out of 1800 bishops, you have 318 or thereabouts who actually attended Nicaea. Hardly every belief represented. And if you didnt follow the Church of Rome's line, you were a heretic.

Uhh... well they were not representatives of 'different beliefs' but were bishops and leaders of Christian churches,
and,
again.. what is MOST TELLING is that the ones who made it came from often far-flung and entirely separate regions where many may well have never even know of the others.
IF there were 'many different beliefs' then you sure bet we would have seen it exposed when they all got to meet and compare,
but,
No... instead it is very obvious they all understood Christian doctrines and in near perfect agreement (certainly on all the basics which were a 'given' in this meet-up).

The following were supressed christian sects which didnt all believe that Jesus was the Son of God,............
Gnosticism, Neo-Gnosticism, Agnosticism Marcionites, Tritheism, Modalism, Basidilians, Tertullianists, Origenists, Manicheans, Millenarians, Novatians, Montanism,

Even after 'pre-mocking' this you still went for that weak 'overwhelming list',
but,
What you do is (as I said already) give me a list of exceptions PROVING THE RULE.
and,
Here again you screw your own made-up story about 'suppression' because YOU KNOW ABOUT MOST OF THESE FROM THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS WHO ARE YOUR TEACHERS AND PRESERVED THIS KNOWLEDGE YOU JUST RECEIVED.

Orthodox Christians recorded and preserved knowledge of the critics. In fact early Church fathers did a superb job documenting these groups.
Woops!

Incidentally Arius was deemed heretic, welcomed back into the church and then after his death declared heretic again.

Yes, I am already aware you have been on Wiki for over an hour and finding ways to 'retell' this but in a way that makes it sound like its arguing against Christianity and for your fake story and 'as if' you were educating.
Good job!

To take the line you finished on maybe its me but I understand it to mean if you took a hundred christians regardless of whether they came from the same church or not and questioned them in depth on god, jesus etc you would get 100 different sets of answers.

What I would tell you is that a billion Christians crossing the planet and crossing just about every mainline denomination (certainly all the largest ones) go to their church that accepts Jesus as God incarnate as Nicene described it and as is the 'orthodox' view.

Again, you can go ahead and list the 200+ 'Christian' orgs with some other views but that is just making my point for me.

What about this is confusing to you anyways?
You thought Roman Catholics, Presbys, Lutherans, Anglicans all had 'different interpretations' and all had different opinions about whether Jesus was God or not?
Well wrong.
Get real.