Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So we have a distinction between the Father and the Son; we have had the Son walking upon earth - and now those two are one? Hello?Originally posted by Job_38
Jesus often spoke of God as His Father, and the apostles frequently spoke of "God the Father." But the New Testament also insists that Jesus is God. For example, Thomas acknowledged Jesus as, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), and both Peter and Paul spoke of Jesus as "our God and Savior" (2 Pet. 1:1; [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]. 2:13). Yet the New Testament also makes the distinction between the Father and the Son as two very different persons. In fact they tell us that they love one another, speak to each other, and seek to glorify each other (e.g., John 17: 1-26).
In short, the doctrine of the Trinity is completely and totally biblical, and it is essential that all Christians give assent to this doctrine
Oh? You complain about people perverting, not I. I simply stated that no pervertion would be possible if the Bible would be clear cut.Originally posted by OldShepherd
This post is nonsense. Why do all Russellites claim that Trinitarians have perverted the Bible? So, "If the Bible is the word of God, how could anyone want to pervert it?"
Originally posted by OldShepherd
Ever hear it said Christians are not perfect, just forgiven? Ever read what Paul said, "I am chief among sinners"?
Originally posted by OldShepherd
Let's take a look at your so-called proof. Just for starters where can we find this alleged letter?
Originally posted by OldShepherd
One pagan idea that Constantine retained was his opinion of theology, particularly that which dealt with the origin of Christ. (See any proof of this?) In a letter to Arius and Alexander, Constantine asked them to forget their theological differences. In Barnes' words, Constantine "urged Arius and Alexander to act like philosophers."59 According to Barnes (I don't want to know what Barnes said or thought), Constantine also believed that Christians can legitimately agree on certain points while accepting each other in the faith.60 What Constantine did see as important in ensuring the support of God, however, was the actual method of worship.61 This emphasis on ritual rather than theology in religion was an important characteristic of Roman paganism.(But there has not one shred of proof been presented to verify this allegation.)
Other pagan ideas in which Constantine seems to have believed (Do you call this proof?) are the use of divination and magic, which Christians of the day were strongly against. In 321, Constantine outlawed the private use of haruspices (diviners) and magic, although he allowed for the use of haruspices in public ceremonies and spells that were used to heal the sick.62
Still nonsense! Latter Daze Ain'ts have their own translation. JWs have their own translation. INC has a version. All different. The INC denies the Trinity as do you but just like your church they claim their's is the only "true" church and anyone who doesn't belong to their cult is going to hell. Does that sound familiar? You both can't be right. So which one is perverting the scriptures and Trinity is not even the issue.Originally posted by Hank
Oh? You complain about people perverting, not I. I simply stated that no pervertion would be possible if the Bible would be clear cut.
No, you were bad mouthing Constantine because of his supposed wrong doing. I said Christians were not perfect, just forgiven. Thus it will take more than a few invented "sins" to prove anything about Constantine's salvation.Originally posted by Hank
We are not talking Christians, we are talking about the origin of trinity. But I give you that people per se are forgiven as per Christian doctrines, yet the Lord alone is the judge. Neither you nor I can say with certainty that all are forgiven.
You know this is all well and good but I said I am not interested in the opinions of a bunch of anti-Christian "scholars." Below, 63-71, are all the footnotes for the above link. Do you see any historical information there at all? How do Barnes, Stevenson, and Alfodi and whoever know anything about Constantine without citing historical information, written at or near the time of the events? There were at least two historians in attendance at the Nicaean council, Eusebius and Lactantius. Why don't you quote them, instead of questionable 19th and 20th century writers?The link I gave also gives the references. You may want to read Constantine and the Conversion of Europe
The above is an excerpt of Constantine. The continuation reads as follows
http://www.janus.umd.edu/Feb2001/Murphy/17.html
However, while this argument may explain the lack of persecution of pagans, it does not fit well with these examples, for they are active rewards given by Constantine. In order to understand these examples, one can simply accept the fact that in some respects Constantine did not see Christianity as an exclusive religion.
64 Such passive acts on the part of Constantine seem to demonstrate that he saw himself as simply a philosophical monotheist, not as a full Christian.
In other words Constantine appeased the one¡¦s with power and influence. Also as for the proof you are asking: I am not giving absolute proof. It is difficult to proof something with contemporary evidence the Roman Catholic Church has control of. My aim is to simply raise reasonable doubts and not to discredit an entire faith.
Gladly and a link to a previous post where I discussed it in detail. Read the llink before trying to give me the old nonsense about this verse being a later interpolation.Now back to trinity
JW quote
IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God's revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is.
Would you be so kind as to list applicable Biblical verses identifying trinity?
Originally posted by OldShepherd
No, you were bad mouthing Constantine because of his supposed wrong doing. I said Christians were not perfect, just forgiven. Thus it will take more than a few invented "sins" to prove anything about Constantine's salvation.
Scholars are scholars. There is no profit in being anti anything. Even I don't accept bias opinions. What makes you think they are anti Christian? Eusebius and Lactantius are just as questionable witnesses as modern Scholar's interpretations. Yet if anything which does not concur with your thinking is anti-you; who may ask who is bias?Originally posted by OldShepherd
You know this is all well and good but I said I am not interested in the opinions of a bunch of anti-Christian "scholars." Below, 63-71, are all the footnotes for the above link. Do you see any historical information there at all? How do Barnes, Stevenson, and Alfodi and whoever know anything about Constantine without citing historical information, written at or near the time of the events? There were at least two historians in attendance at the Nicaean council, Eusebius and Lactantius. Why don't you quote them, instead of questionable 19th and 20th century writers?
Originally posted by OldShepherd
I think you already gave me your answer, anything that does not agree with your presuppositions and assumptions, is "contemporary evidence the Roman Catholic Church has control of. How bloody convenient.
Originally posted by OldShepherd
Gladly and a link to a previous post where I discussed it in detail. Read the llink before trying to give me the old nonsense about this verse being a later interpolation.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/21028-15.html
Originally posted by OldShepherd
Still nonsense! Latter Daze Ain'ts have their own translation. JWs have their own translation. INC has a version. All different. The INC denies the Trinity as do you but just like your church they claim their's is the only "true" church and anyone who doesn't belong to their cult is going to hell. Does that sound familiar? You both can't be right. So which one is perverting the scriptures and Trinity is not even the issue.
Originally posted by Hank
So on one hand the government persecutes Christians Bishops and then turns those into the leaders of the new State Religion. They must have built 320 parishes very quickly. (I know a miracle.) As I said JW are not perfect, care to refute their clear cut logic or are you just lingering on their dirty laundry. - Well dirty laundry works both ways btw.
Some stuff on Constantine.
http://www.janus.umd.edu/Feb2001/Murphy/16.html
not quite the true blue Christians. One might even say a Caesar still...
OldShepherd respondedHank responded
We are not talking Christians, we are talking about the origin of trinity. But I give you that people per se are forgiven as per Christian doctrines, yet the Lord alone is the judge. Neither you nor I can say with certainty that all are forgiven.
Wrote or quote, it doesnt matter you posted it, you did not disclaim it, so it must be your view.Hank responded
I was? I wrote peep about Constantine, all my posts are quotes from third parties.
Not anti-everything. I asked you who the scholars were. I dont believe something just because it is in a book. What makes me think they are anti-Christian? If it walks like a duck, etc. Re: Eusebius and Lactantius. Could be, but they were there. Where do these other guys get their information? They got a souped up Delorean maybe? I have more than once revised my thinking based on credible evidence, which contradicted what I believed or understood. My criteria is not just what agrees with me but evidence, documentation from credible sources. I havent seen any from you.Posted by Hank
Scholars are scholars. There is no profit in being anti anything. Even I don't accept bias opinions. What makes you think they are anti Christian? Eusebius and Lactantius are just as questionable witnesses as modern Scholar's interpretations. Yet if anything which does not concur with your thinking is anti-you; who may ask who is bias?
Are you telling me that a Trinitarian publishing company is inerrant? Evidently you did not bother to read my link. Funny how Cyprian quoted 1 John 5:7 in 250 AD when according to your source it didnt get into the Bible until the 16th century.Posted by Hank
A link then from GospelCom then
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin...amp;showxref=on
See footnote one. Are you actually telling me Zondervan is in error in quoting that footnote?
It may be old nonsense to you, but I find it intriguing.
Originally posted by OldShepherd
OldShepherd responded
Ever hear it said Christians are not perfect, just forgiven? Ever read what Paul said, "I am chief among sinners"?
OldShepherd responded
No, you were bad mouthing Constantine because of his supposed wrong doing. I said Christians were not perfect, just forgiven. Thus it will take more than a few invented "sins" to prove anything about Constantine's salvation.
Wrote or quote, it doesnt matter you posted it, you did not disclaim it, so it must be your view.
Originally posted by OldShepherd
Not anti-everything. I asked you who the scholars were. I dont believe something just because it is in a book. What makes me think they are anti-Christian? If it walks like a duck, etc.
Originally posted by OldShepherd
Are you telling me that a Trinitarian publishing company is inerrant? Evidently you did not bother to read my link. Funny how Cyprian quoted 1 John 5:7 in 250 AD when according to your source it didnt get into the Bible until the 16th century.
Originally posted by OldShepherd
While you were looking for that Zondervan quote did you happen review any of the many, many sources online which argue for the validity of this verse? Yet if anything which does not concur with your thinking is anti-you; who may I ask is biased?
[/B]
Not necessary to read the whole thing. Click the link scroll down to the second post on that page. Just for grins here are a few more pro 1 John 5:7 links.Posted by Hank
I'm not telling any such thing. - Not sure which link you mean, one link you gave lead to a thread with over a hundred post, if that is the one, just say yes and I will go through the hole thing over the weekend, last night I could not find the links you spoke of, and tonight I have to work. - Except through the priest, Brother John, in my neighborhood, I have to actually find positive affirmation of this passage.
Now were getting somewhere. From the second link. Note the several references to ancient source documents, rather than Brown said this and Jones said that, etc.The person who wrote that is Stephen Murphy
http://www.janus.umd.edu/Feb2001/Murphy/01.html
The site is hosted by the University of Maryland.
Some of their resources are linked here
http://www.janus.umd.edu/completed2...stresources.htm
This paper relies in part on several of Constantine's letters and edicts that were reproduced by Eusebius and Lactantius. True, these historians are not free from biases, but if one wants to understand Constantine and his policies, these sources must be used to some extent.6 In addition, the authenticity of the documents that were reproduced by Eusebius and Lactantius has been attested by several scholars.7 In the end, however, a compromise between dismissal and acceptance must be achieved. Michael Grant uses the letters and edicts attributed to Constantine, but he remains wary of such evidence for several reasons,8 and it is his example that is followed here. The letters and edicts that are attributed to Constantine is used, but used with caution, in this paper.
http://www.janus.umd.edu/Feb2001/Murphy/05.html
So on one hand the government persecutes Christians Bishops and then turns those into the leaders of the new State Religion. They must have built 320 parishes very quickly. (I know a miracle.)
Originally posted by OldShepherd
But this source does not support your earlier false statement. Perhaps you can give some further source mateial to back this up? [/B]
Originally posted by OldShepherd
Not necessary to read the whole thing. Click the link scroll down to the second post on that page. Just for grins here are a few more pro 1 John 5:7 links.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/authenticityof.htm
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/defending1.htm
http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/1jn57.htm
http://www.revneal.org/latmandebate.html
http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm
http://www.1john57.com/jcindex.htm
http://www.lifefebc.com/febc/BurnBush/V3N1A5.htm
http://tllom.invitation.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=31
[/B]
False! Several errors in this statement. Constantine did not hold the council. He convened it, presided over the opening ceremony, and was represented by a legate in the remaining sessions. Read the real history.Originally posted by Hank
When Constantine held council about trinity, the Bishops where already established.
Stopper? Touche? You are full of yourself. One so-called contradiction out of eight links, many with cross links and you think that one contradiction, on one link, which you haven't even identified somehow proves all the other links wrong? And that after the false statements and unproven assumptions in your own post, above.Posted by Hank
The stopper is
http://www.1john57.com/1john57.htm links also to here
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Fathers.html#Prisc which gives one contradiction ???
but it gives many sources for the possibility of this scripture being there as is from the beginning.
Touché
And your point is? It has been said "All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Should I remain silent when I see people like, Hank, and Pobre posting false information about the Christian church over and over again? On other threads, I see Pobre and one or two others. With Pobre posting the same thing, over and over and over again. Did you post a complaint about them?Originally posted by Rising_Suns
phew....is this ever going to end? All I see is: OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank, OldShepherd, Hank......
I should apologize. I missed the smiley the first go round. Didn't realize it was a humorous comment.Originally posted by Rising_Suns
hey brother..just trying to lighten things up. Sorry if I intruded. continue on then.....
Originally posted by OldShepherd
And your point is? It has been said "All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Should I remain silent when I see people like, Hank, and Pobre posting false information about the Christian church over and over again? On other threads, I see Pobre and one or two others. With Pobre posting the same thing, over and over and over again. Did you post a complaint about them?
Originally posted by OldShepherd
False! Several errors in this statement. Constantine did not hold the council. He convened it, presided over the opening ceremony, and was represented by a legate in the remaining sessions. Read the real history.
Another error. The Nicaean council was not about the Trinity. It was to counter the teaching of Arius who taught, against the rest of the church, that Christ was not Deity, but was a created being. The Holy Spirit and/or the Trinity was not discussed at this council.
Arius claimed Christ to have been created, what does that teaching go against? Would it not be trinity?
You just wrote Constantine convened the Nicaean Council (in 325 AD). His predecessor persecuted Christians. Thus I am saying from one emperor to the next Christians experienced an 180deg turn around from the empire.Originally posted by OldShepherd
"Somewhere someone complained, probably on another thread, that Christians where persecuted. False! A statement of documented, historical fact, is not complaining. Care to read about the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Justin, and others in the early church fathers.
I am wrote what I wrote, how can one write something and not read it? - There see, Christians where not persecuted under Constantine. Now can you tell me how Constantine got converted into Christianity right after Christains where persecuted? That is my point here, not the hairs you are trying to split.Originally posted by OldShepherd "There is no way the Roman Empire persecuted Christians when Constantine called for a vote.False! You are contradicting yourself, what were "Diocletian's actions", you spoke of, a tea party maybe? Constantine ended the persecution after becoming a Christian, himself. Your own source, Murphy above verifies that. Do you even read the stuff you are posting?
From the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htmOriginally posted by OldShepherd
"Constantine also could not have made Christianity a State Religion when no Christian structure had existed." False assumption! Christianity was not a state religion under Constantine! Read your own post by Murphy! Here you are contradicting yourself again. Before you claimed that the bishoprics were created after the Nicaean council. So which is it?
Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State.
Murphy does not describe Diocletian and GaleriusOriginally posted by OldShepherd
"His predecessors also tried to make Christianity into a unifying State Religion but it resulted in defiance of the Christian leaders; and when you disobey Caesar you got killed." False! No Caesar or emperor prior to and/or including Constantine tried to make Christianity a state relgion. Read you own source, Murphy. The early Christians were persecuted because they would not denounce Christ and worship Caesar. Read the real history.
Read here
I quote from this link: http://www.roman-emperors.org/dioclet.htm
Diocletian attempted to use the state religion as a unifying element. Encouraged by the Caesar Galerius, Diocletian in 303 issued a series of four increasingly harsh decrees designed to compel Christians to take part in the imperial cult, the traditional means by which allegiance was pledged to the empire. This began the so-called "Great Persecution."
I am saying the Christians where not persecuted under Constantine! They were briefly persecuted by Diocletian but Galerius did most of it. Again I quote the Catholic EncyclopediaOriginally posted by OldShepherd
"Here again I am treating on another touchy subject, because it raises the question why exactly the surviving Bishops (after Diocletian actions) became part of the State Religion formed by Constantine just a view years later." False! Constantine did not form any religion state or otherwise. Therefore, the bishops who participated in the Nicaean council were not part of a state religion, the bishops were not part of anything but the universal church. Read you own source Murphy!
Maybe you can help us out here Hank. Were Christians persecuted or not? You have said both. Did the bishops at the Nicaean council have positions/parishes before the council or were the parishes created after the council? You have said both.
Diocletian's name is associated with the last and most terrible of all the ten persecutions of the early Church. Nevertheless it is a fact that the Christians enjoyed peace and prosperity during the greater portion of his reign.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?