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.
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......
[What was that God did? [/B]
Christianity already existed, the bishops were already in office. The statement is false. You did not correct it. That is NOT splitting hairs.Posted by Hank
Now my clarification of my quote:
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.)
Eusebius: The Conversion of Constantine
CHAPTER XXVII.
Being convinced, however, that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical enchantments which were so diligently practiced by the tyrant, he sought Divine assistance, deeming the possession of arms and a numerous soldiery of secondary importance, but believing the co-operating power of Deity invincible and not to be shaken.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/conv-const.html
Chapter II. Demolition of Churches, and Butchery of the Bishops.
For in that city some of the churches, for the second time since the commencement of the persecutions, were leveled with the ground, and others were closed by the governors of the several districts, in order to prevent any who frequented them from assembling together, or rendering due worship to God. For he by whose orders these outrages were committed was too conscious of his own crimes to expect that these services were performed with any view to his benefit, and was convinced that all we did, and all our endeavors to obtain the favor of God, were on Constantine's behalf.
These servile governors1 then, feeling assured that such a course would be pleasing to the impious tyrant, subjected the most distinguished prelates of the churches to capital punishment. Accordingly, men who had been guilty of no crime were led away, without cause2 punished like murderers: and some suffered a new kind of death, having their bodies cut piecemeal; and, after this cruel punishment, more horrible than any named in tragedy, being cast, as a food to fishes, into the depths of the sea. The result of these horrors was again, as before, the flight of pious men, and once more the fields and deserts received the worshipers of God. The tyrant, having thus far succeeded in his object, he farther determined to raise a general persecution of the Christians:3 and he would have accomplished his purpose, nor could anything have hindered him from carrying his resolution into effect, had not he who defends his own anticipated the coming evil, and by his special guidance conducted his servant Constantine to this part of the empire, causing him to shine forth as a brilliant light in the midst of the darkness and gloomy night.
Chapter III. How Constantine Was Stirred in Behalf of the Christians Thus in Danger of Persecution.
He, perceiving the evils of which he had heard to be no longer tolerable, took wise counsel, and tempering the natural clemency of his character with a certain measure of severity, hastened to succor those who were thus grievously oppressed. For he judged that it would rightly be deemed a pious and holy task to secure, by the removal of an individual, the safety of the greater part of the human race. He judged too, that if he listened to the dictates of clemency only, and bestowed his pity on one utterly unworthy of it, this would, on the one hand, confer no real benefit on a man whom nothing would induce to abandon his evil practices, and whose fury against his subjects would only be likely to increase; 4 while, on the other hand, those who suffered from his oppression would thus be forever deprived of all hope of deliverance.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-28.htm#P7237_3037396
I don't need to defend with my words the truth of Jesus. Jesus stated who He was and those that hear His voice know exactly who He is for the Comforter as come and testifies to the born again believer who Jesus is with certainity.
Old Sheperd,Adam - Man(kind)
Seth - Appointed
Enosh - Mortal
Kenan - Sorrow (Lamentation)
Mahalaleel - The Blessed El/Praise of El
Jared - Shall Come Down
Enoch - Teaching
Methuselah - His death Shall Bring (send forth)
Lamech - to the Suffering wounded/stricken)
Noah - Comfort/Rest
Now put them all together.
Man(kind) (is) appointed mortal sorrow. (But) the Blessed God shall come down, teaching (that) His death shall bring to the suffering, comfort/rest.
Do you suppose that is merely coincidence?
Originally posted by OldShepherd
Christianity already existed, the bishops were already in office. The statement is false. You did not correct it. That is NOT splitting hairs.
Posted previously "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.
In reponse to my post you posted
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."
According to this quote and link, you posted, the state religion under Diocletain was emperor worship NOT Christianity. The previous statement was false. You did not correct it. That is NOT splitting hairs.
Originally 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."
Why? The bishops were Christian, they did not become part of some new thing under Constantine. Constantine became a Christian and made the Christian faith the official religion, although he allowed some pagan practices to continue. Constantine did NOT form a new religion. This is NOT splitting hairs, it is the difference between truth and a lie.
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 Christians where persecuted? That is my point here, not the hairs you are trying to split.
I dont know how you can post something and not read it but your posts contradict each other. Why are you posting things that contradict earlier posts, if you are reading them? Here is a link and quote to how Constantine was saved. Below that a quote and link to a first hand historical account of Christians being persecuted while Constantine was emperor and how he intervened. As I said Christians were being persecuted until Constantine ended the persecution.
Therefore it is ridiculous to assume or state that bishops who had been persecuted, tortured, their families killed, for not denouncing their Christian faith and worshipping Caesar, would willingly permit any type of pagan practice to be incorporated into their faith.
Originally posted by gunnysgt
God(The Word-Jesus) became flesh. Man of the O.T. were given the Holy Spirit. Was Jesus more than a mere man given special powers by God?
Yes, Sir. The Word(Jesus) became flesh. Jesus sinned not. All other men-flesh only sinned in the O.T. & N.T.
Angels created in heaven sinned-not of flesh.
Jesus, man? Yes. Jesus, God? Yes.
No one else but the Word (Jesus) that became flesh could have bore sin's penalty for the world except God(Jesus) as a man, as Adam was a man, that failed.
I will not attempt to twist and turn scripture into prove something that is a fact.
I don't need to defend with my words the truth of Jesus. Jesus stated who He was and those that hear His voice know exactly who He is for the Comforter as come and testifies to the born again believer who Jesus is with certainity.
God is not a God of confusion and He need not for man to play riddle games with His Holy Word to discredit who the Spotless Lamb of God, The I Am, is to those that reject Jesus was God in the flesh.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply. But where is Jesus ever identified as the praise of God?Originally posted by drmmjr Old Sheperd,
Look again at what you have for Mahalaleel.
Praise of God, not God. Who is the praise of God but Jesus?#04111 lallhm Mahalal'el mah-hal-al-ale' from 04110 and 0410, Greek 3121 Malelehl;; n pr m AV - Mahalaleel 7; 7 Mahalaleel = "praise of God" 1) son of Cainan and the 4th in descent from Adam in the line of Seth
Man(kind) (is) appointed mortal sorrow. (But) the praise of God (Jesus) shall come down, teaching (that) His (Jesus') death shall bring to the suffering, comfort/rest.
Ill answer the last part first. I do not consider you posting false information and refusing to correct it as splitting hairs. When you can post a truthful post, citing authoritative sources then perhaps we can move on. Where does anything you posted say Diocletian wanted Christianity to be part of a unified state religion? It does not say that anywhere. What you posted said, Diocletian attempted to use the state religion as a unifying element, by forcing Christians to take part in the imperial cult. Not by making Christianity part of the Roman emperor cult.,Originally posted by Hank
In the autumn of 302 AD Diocletian visited Antioch in Syria for an official engagement. Prior to this of course, there had to take place the customary Pagan sacrifice. But you see this time there was a problem. As the bloodletting ritual began, there came the vocal denouncements of the on looking Christians. Many made cross signs to ward off the evil influence of the sacrifice. Prominent amongst these brave dissenters was a Christian named Romanus. Diocletian fumed. " . . . In the first, while Diocletian was sacrificing in public, the chief interpreter of the victims' organs reported that he could not read the future in them because of the hostile influence of Christians standing around. Diocletian burst into a rage, insisting that all in his court should offer sacrifice, and sent out orders to his army to follow suit." (Ramsey MacMullen, Constantine, p.24).
This how this persecution started. Diocletian expected as much respect for his religion as he gave to Christian's beliefs. Thus what was asked from the Christians is to give sacrifices to his gods. No, he obviously did not wanted Christianity to become the State Religion he wanted Christianity to be part of a unified state religion. As I said you are splitting hairs.
Constantine, however, had several problems with his new faith. The first was that there was no established doctrine. In fact, there were as many forms of Christianity as there were communities of Christians. The second was more pressing, for foundational Christianity was manifestly anti-political. Its founder, Jesus of Nazareth, consistently condemned worldly authority and insisted that the Christian life is a non-worldly, individualistic, non-political life. As a result, the foundational Christian texts are not only anti-Roman (for Judaea was part of the Roman Empire during the life of Jesus of Nazareth), but consistently dismissive of human, worldly authority. If Christianity were going to work as a religion in a state ruled by a monarch that demanded worship and absolute authority, it would have to be changed. To this end, Constantine convened a group of Christian bishops at Nicea in 325; there, the basic orthodoxy of Christianity was instantiated in what came to be called the Nicene creed, the basic statement of belief for orthodox Christianity. Constantine accomplished more, however, for the Nicene council also ratified his own power and Christianity would begin the long struggle, lasting to this day, between the anti-political ideas of Jesus of Nazareth and the Christianity that is compromised to allow for human authority and power. (A more thorough discussion of the Nicene Council and the history of Christianity in the late Empire can be found in the module, "Early Christianity")
You're right the church does NOT write history unchallenged. Because faithful believers have stood in the gap since the time of the apostles, defending the faith. Do you remember reading where Jesus said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it?" Where is the history of that church? You imply that the history of the church that Jesus built was falsified.Originally posted by Hank
False in your opinion. I let you in in a little secret, the Church no longer writes it's history unchallenged. - My latest reference to Constantine came from Richard Hooker at http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHRIST/CHRIST.HTM
Thus if I have to bend to your truth we will never move on.
Post any statement, comment, or question you want and I'll respond. But as long as you are posting false unproven information I will say so. I believe I did answer one question, where is the Trinity in the Bible, 1 John 5:7, and I haven't seen any credible evidence to rebut what I posted.We have yet to enter in this discussion of trinity LOL but I bow for your mighty knowledge of historical truth. Care to answer the biblical question or is gunnysgts it?
I am questioning the Great Persecution and the motives from Constantine. Both have little to do with trinity.Originally posted by OldShepherd
You're right the church does NOT write history unchallenged. Because faithful believers have stood in the gap since the time of the apostles, defending the faith. Do you remember reading where Jesus said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it?" Where is the history of that church? You imply that the history of the church that Jesus built was falsified.
You imply that Christians stood by for 2000 years and let something you call "The Church" rewrite history unchallenged. That claim calls Jesus a liar!
What in the way of documented, historical evidence have you presented for this claim? Who is Hooker and why should I believe anything he writes? Does anything you quoted from him have any factual, historical documentation? That is what I have been asking for from the first and you have yet to produce the first piece of credible evidence.
See the follow up question I addressed to gunnysgt, post number 69.Originally posted by OldShepherd
Post any statement, comment, or question you want and I'll respond. But as long as you are posting false unproven information I will say so. I believe I did answer one question, where is the Trinity in the Bible, 1 John 5:7, and I haven't seen any credible evidence to rebut what I posted.
Your version of history seems to be anything some JW writer puts down whether he can back it up with historical evidence or not, as long as it supports what you have already made up your mind to believe.
I realize that this is an open forum, anyone who desires may post. But if what you say is true, I must ask why you jumped into a discussion I was having with Pobre, re: his false statements about Constantine and the Trinity? If you dont like the subject, nobody forced you to post.Originally posted by Hank
I am questioning the Great Persecution and the motives from Constantine. Both have little to do with trinity.
Are you deliberately being obtuse or do you not understand my posts? When Jesus made the statement in Matthew 16:18 upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He was on earth, talking to his disciples, and He said this rock not that rock, so the only conclusion which can be drawn from that passage is a church on this earth. When Jesus means heaven, He says heaven. Again I ask my question, unless Jesus was lying, there must be a history of his church. Where is the history of that church?Are you asking me where the history is for Christs Church in Heaven? Or which earthly church could possibly have overcome Hell?
Are the terms Kingdom and "church" synonymous? I saw no question in all that. What does Revelation 19 have to do with Constantine? If Hooker is writing about ancient history, as he was, then anything he writes which is not supported by valid, historical, documentation is invalid. Without historical documentation I might as well read, "Ali Baba and The Forty Thieves", it has just as much validity. Hooker was not doing an exposition of Revelation. The events in Revelation are end times events. They have not occurred yet.Hooker asked questions and concluded. Let me ask you the some questions in respect to the Hooker statement.
Jesus said to Pilate:
John 18:35-37 (NIV) "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
Jesus prophesied:
Revelation 19:17-21 (NIV) And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great." Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.
Jesus Christ will rage war against the rulers of earth. Can you see the predicament Constantine must have been in? After you answered that question, can you still say Mr Hooker is invalid?
Let me ask a question. Is this supposed to be a serious inquiry? To me it is asinine. May I suggest you do some reading and learn what the Trinity is and who Jesus is to Trinitarians. And I will preface my answer with this bit of advice. There are 31,172 verses in the KJV Bible. Anybody can prove almost anything by selectively quoting a few verses, or in your case asking asinine questions about one out-of-context verses. If you first understand what the Trinity is and who Jesus is, then you state how you believe this or any other verse proves your belief and/or disproves the Trinitarian view.See the follow up question I addressed to gunnysgt, post number 69.
gunnysgt, first thanks for your answer. May I ask you a follow up question?
God send down His Son. After His death on the cross who was raised from the dead?
As 1 John 5:5 read: Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?]
Is the Son of God still the Son of God or God?
You havent seen me upset. No, from where I sit it appears you just surfed the net until you found something that agreed with what you have already made up your mind to believe.My version of history is from the sources I gave you, I did not just sit here and look for fun stuff to get you upset.
Do you read, write, and speak Greek? I do! I learned to speak Greek, in Germany, the year Elvis and I were stationed there. I studied both Biblical languages at the post grad level in 80-83. In 1 John 5:7 there is no predicate following the word one. If there were a predicate one would refer to it. Without a predicate, whatever, i.e. everything, the Father is, the Word and the Holy Spirit are one, i.e. a unity, with the Father. These three are one, look up the word Trinity.The direct question to 1John 5:7 is "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. One what? One in thinking? One team? We have three witnesses to one statement. How did we get trinity out of this verse?
To find truth one asks questions. As much as one has the option to post and ask question the one being asked has the option not to answer.Originally posted by OldShepherd
I realize that this is an open forum, anyone who desires may post. But if what you say is true, I must ask why you jumped into a discussion I was having with Pobre, re: his false statements about Constantine and the Trinity? If you dont like the subject, nobody forced you to post.
Your first post on the topic, #35 posted 29th October 2002 at 10:42 AM
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/24765-4.html
Originally posted by OldShepherd
Are you deliberately being obtuse or do you not understand my posts? When Jesus made the statement in Matthew 16:18 upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He was on earth, talking to his disciples, and He said this rock not that rock, so the only conclusion which can be drawn from that passage is a church on this earth. When Jesus means heaven, He says heaven. Again I ask my question, unless Jesus was lying, there must be a history of his church. Where is the history of that church?
Read Hooker again. Here we have a powerful ruler becoming a Christian. I quoted two distinct problematic scriptures for Constantine. Even without Hooker; we both have to accept the simple fact Constantine was an emperor. We also have the Bible. I honestly can not phantom why you need further valid, historical, documentation to understand the predicament Constantine was in.Originally posted by OldShepherd
Are the terms Kingdom and "church" synonymous? I saw no question in all that. What does Revelation 19 have to do with Constantine? If Hooker is writing about ancient history, as he was, then anything he writes which is not supported by valid, historical, documentation is invalid. Without historical documentation I might as well read, "Ali Baba and The Forty Thieves", it has just as much validity. Hooker was not doing an exposition of Revelation. The events in Revelation are end times events. They have not occurred yet.
Let me answer. Yes.Originally posted by OldShepherd
Let me ask a question. Is this supposed to be a serious inquiry? To me it is asinine. May I suggest you do some reading and learn what the Trinity is and who Jesus is to Trinitarians. And I will preface my answer with this bit of advice. There are 31,172 verses in the KJV Bible. Anybody can prove almost anything by selectively quoting a few verses, or in your case asking asinine questions about one out-of-context verses. If you first understand what the Trinity is and who Jesus is, then you state how you believe this or any other verse proves your belief and/or disproves the Trinitarian view.
Originally posted by OldShepherd
In John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. And no, it was not exclamation. It was address. The Greek construction is wrong for exclamation. The form here is o kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou the Lord of me and the God of me
It is irrelevant but even if the exclamatory construction existed, Thomas, a devout Jew, would not use Gods name as an interjection or exclamation.[/b]
Now I said all that to say this, as with Thomas, Jesus is My Lord and My God, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Your next question?
Incorrect. My dad was Catholic and my mom protestant. My Grandmother was JW. When I came to Canada I was with the United Church of Canada until they accepted homosexuals. I bumped into Billy Zeoli and helped there for a while. Two years ago I started questioning my faith as Born again Christian. I read the Bible every day since I could read. My mind is open. A theist/agnostic is one who firmly accepts God but has no preconceived notion of God. Thus I argue with an open mind against trinity.Originally posted by OldShepherd
You havent seen me upset. No, from where I sit it appears you just surfed the net until you found something that agreed with what you have already made up your mind to believe.
Not yet. First lets see how far we can come with the Bible.Originally posted by OldShepherd
I will repeat myself for the umpteenth time. Not you. Not me. Not nobody can write anything relevant about historical events unless they quote, reference, cite, etc., historical records, documents, etc., which were written at or near the time of the events, by people in a position to have first hand information about the events. Have you presented any of that kind of evidence?[/b]
I know nothing about Greek. I do trust other God fearing scholars who translated the scriptures though.Originally posted by OldShepherd
Do you read, write, and speak Greek? I do! I learned to speak Greek, in Germany, the year Elvis and I were stationed there. I studied both Biblical languages at the post grad level in 80-83. In 1 John 5:7 there is no predicate following the word one. If there were a predicate one would refer to it. Without a predicate, whatever, i.e. everything, the Father is, the Word and the Holy Spirit are one, i.e. a unity, with the Father. These three are one, look up the word Trinity. [/B]
Originally posted by gunnysgt
I don't need to defend with my words the truth of Jesus. Jesus stated who He was and those that hear His voice know exactly who He is for the Comforter as come and testifies to the born again believer who Jesus is with certainity.
God is not a God of confusion and He need not for man to play riddle games with His Holy Word to discredit who the Spotless Lamb of God, The I Am, is to those that reject Jesus was God in the flesh.
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?