 |
| Author |
Message |
    
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 06:31 pm: | 
|
I leave as a suggestion some Lite reading, the acts of the apostles 
Michael william James
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 06:44 pm: |
|
Challenge me with what authority?
Is that all religion is to you a battle of the minds and knowledge of the scripture?! You could know the Bible back to front and still not be saved, Jesus made it quite clear that a true testamony is to live the faith. If you are so in touch with the scripture and open to Gods revelations you too will see the truth God has given us
Michael william James
|
zaheer - uddin (Zaheer)
Starlite Member
Username: Zaheer
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 05:22 pm: |
|
could you quote the verses of the scripture which teach Trinity i can challenge you there isn't a single verse of the bible that teaches the concept of trinity |
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 04:33 pm: |
|
The Theme of the old testament is not One partner only at all, time and again it mentions the Son of man to come, and the Holy spirit.
"Arian belief in One God - meant Jesus was not God or a part of God. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church could not accept this."
And how right they were the scripture is loaded with revelation in regards to the trinity. It would be a blind insight to not see that Jesus was Speaking from the Father and the Father speaking from the Son. It was not for pagan beliefs that the trinity was recordd down, which is what it looks like you were implying in that post. It is foolish to attack those beliefs of others when you should be living your own. If i see people live their beliefs and not just teach them; ITs ONLY then that i can Learn and grow in God.
Michael william James
|
zaheer - uddin (Zaheer)
Starlite Member
Username: Zaheer
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 10:42 pm: |
|
|Nicaea Council of 325 A.D.
What Was It All About? - How Did It Change Christianity?
Read what the Catholic Church Says About Itself
Many people today, even Catholics, do not know the Holy Roman Catholic Church was already in business several hundred years BEFORE Jesus, peace be upon him, was even born. It was a pagan church established by the Roman government in an effort to control the subjects of Rome by having them all participate at least to some extent, along with other Roman citizens in some kind of common worship practices and beliefs. The year was 325 A.D. according to the Roman calendar. A council was convened by order of Constantine, the Roman emperor. He had been a leader in the cult known as Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun) and now wanted to unite the Christian sects in the empire under his existing church; the Universal Church of Rome. Many changes to the religion of Christianity were about to take place at that council, including:
Formulation for wording concerning the Trinity based on Anthanias (description of the formulation is mentioned below)
Changing Verses of Bible
Eliminating certain verses and books from the Bible
Declaring Arian's "unitarian" (belief in the Unity of God) as heresy
Changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday
Changing the date of Jesus' birthday to December 25th
Introduction of Easter (pagan worship called "Feast of Ishtar")
Church of Roman "officially" became the "Universal Church of the Holy Roman Empire" (the word 'Catholic' means 'universal'
The Roman Catholic Church took on a new face.
What follows is a quote from the Roman Catholic Church. It is their explanation behind the many changes occurring during the Nicaea Council.
"Arian belief in One God - meant Jesus was not God or a part of God. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church could not accept this.
Easter needed to be added as well.
[Begin Quote]
Council of Nicaea, First Ecumenical Council - 325 A.D. (Christian Era)
The Nicene Council is considered by all as the first Ecumenical Council of the Church (Roman Catholic Church). It was occasioned by the Arian heresy which in effect denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. The major product of this council was the Creed, the "Nicene Creed"; but it also addressed the date of Easter, and the place of the Patriarch of Alexandria.
"Heresy" was the term now being used to describe what many fomer priests and bishops had been teaching.
"God is One, without partners" seems to be the theme throughout the Old Testament. But now suddenly when the pagan Romans are about to make Christianity the offical church of the Holy Empire, the need to rethink the concept of God arises.
A God-Man and Man-God seem to fit right in with the "former pagan" concept of their 'gods on earth.'
Could this explain the source for "Trinity?"
"Trinity" does not appear anywhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament.
Even the phrase, "And these two are one" (First Epistle of John, Chapter 5, verse 7) is fabricated and based on the verse prior to it.
[see: Revised Standard Version of the Bible, 1952 and History of Translations of Bible to the English Language, F. F. Bruce)
Occasion for the Council
The Arian heresy had infected parts of the Church all the way from Alexandria through Palestine, Syria, Asia minor to Greece. It was bad enough that it viciated the very heart of Christian doctrine from within, but there was also danger that it would weaken the Empire itself, and so Constantine, who was trying hard to consolidate the Empire, took an active part in trying to solve the matter. He called for a council of bishops of the Church. At first it appeared that he had in mind only the Eastern bishops since he first designated Ancyra in Galatia (Ankara in Turkey) as a place for the bishops to assemble. Arianism had particularly divided the Church there. But this would make it difficult for himself to attend, and besides it might be good for other bishops to attend, those not necessarily involved in the controversy. Hence Nicaea in Bithynia was finally selected; it was close to the sea making it easier for more bishops to attend, he had there a large palace compound, both to house the bishops and with a great hall in which they could assemble, and he could keep an eye on them from nearby Nicomedia.
Constantine himself was strongly influenced by certain Arian bishops, particularly by Bishop Eusebius of the capitol city of Nicomedia, and if he did not actually have Arian leanings himself, he had been informed by them that a council of the Church would show that the teaching of Arius was correct. It would be to Constantine's credit that when the bishops in council voted the opposite way, condemned Arianism and overwhelmingly affirmed the traditional doctrine, that he got behind them 100% and promulgated their decisions.
The Council Called
He announced the council (a command-performance for important bishops) by the imperial post, heretofore reserved for civil administration and urgent military matters. Of course the bishops wanted to settle matters too; the heresy and schism were tearing the Church apart, but Constantine's calling for a general council and the manner in which the council was conducted shows us to what great extent there was almost a union between church and state. Constantine put the imperial transportation system at the disposal of the bishops. This meant they could travel on his boats free, that they could go by cart or wagon, horse, whatever means the Empire had to offer, all under the protection of the Roman army (travel was not only difficult, but brigands made it dangerous). Constantine housed the bishops, fed them and provided his own palace as a place to meet.
The Council Assembled 300 bishops were present (Ambrose of Milan and Hilary of Poitier report 318, but this may be a symbolic number representing the 318 servants of Abraham, Gen 14:14) most of them from the East. Not a few of the bishops attending were maimed or their predecessors had been killed by the very soldiery which now guarded them; they winced as they paraded into the council chamber, the soldiers with their swords and shining armor now forming an honor guard on either side of their procession. There is no doubt but what the bishops had every freedom of discussion and vote (at this council at least) because that was the rule of the Roman senate after which a council is patterned, and yet to these bishops at least so shortly out of persecution, the soldiers who stood guard inside the chamber, both to assure good order and prevent any intrusion from outside, must have been a symbol of imperial power and influence, formerly unleashed against them.
Constantine himself opened the council with an impassioned plea for unity and peace, and his good friend Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (a suspected Arian or at least an Arian sympathizer) gave the opening address. According to the pattern of the Roman senate the council was actually presided over by another good friend of Constantine, Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, Spain, who had presided over a local council in Elvia, Spain, some 30 years before. Hosius was assisted by the delegates from Pope Sylvester, the simple priests, Vitus and Vicentius, all in true senatorial style. The history at the time does not explain why the delegates of the Bishop of Rome held such a prominent place in the Council. Catholics like to stress that it was because the pope has some position of authority or leadership over the other bishops. Others maintain it was because Rome was the seat of the civil government (but it had just been moved from there to Constantinople). Anyway this pattern would be followed at many succeeding councils.
The Nicene Creed
The big thing which happened was the Nicene Creed, but in this way:
Most held out at first for a Scriptural language and expression to make clear against the Arians what the catholic doctrine had been, but as the discussions progressed it became evident that there was no Scriptural vocabulary which would correctly express the orthodox teaching. They lighted on a philosophical term, homoosios (same substance as) to express what they meant and what had always been the catholic teaching, but there was still needed a formula to summarize and convey their meaning. Of all bishops, Eusebius of Caesarea, who had been clobbered by the synod at Antioch the year before, produced a creed he used in his church. As far as it went, it was acceptable to the rest of the bishops, but they made additions in order to make it very clear that Arius' position was not what they espoused. This creed would be further amended by the First Council of Constantinople, and hence is technically known as the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed", but maybe it should be known as the Caesarean-Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Here it is beneficial to explain something councils do, almost as a byproduct. Primarily a council's purpose, at least a dogmatic council, is to proclaim with unmistakable clarity a doctrine already a part of the teaching of the Church. But at Nicaea there were not a few bishops, well-intentioned and open to the Spirit, who actually would have been hard pressed themselves to give a clear explanation of the relationship of the Son to the Father. But because they had humility and good will they learned from the discussions of the Council, at the same time that they were a part of the council process. Hence a council can also teach bishops. All of the bishops present signed the Creed, except two, Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarica. Constantine banished them along with Arius (whom he later recalled).
Date of Easter
Among other things they also settled (they thought) was the date of Easter. While most celebrated Easter on a Sunday to commemorate the resurrection, there were a few who celebrated on weekdays (even Good Friday) according to a Jewish reckoning (the Quartodeciman controversy addressed by Pope Victor, 189-198), and those who did observe Sunday did not all observe on the same Sunday. Constantine wanted, as did most bishops, a universal observance. To this very day it is disputed what the council fathers meant by their decision, and Easter is still observed variously, but the points of their decree supposed by most are: 1) Easter should be celebrated on the same day by all (a point all agree was contained in the decree); 2) Jewish custom was not the criterion to be followed (a point which is not cited by the Greeks, but strongly mentioned both in the writings which preceded the council and in Eusebius' report of it); and 3) that the practice of Rome and Alexandria (then West and Egypt) should remain in force, namely the Sunday after the first full moon of the vernal equinox (the Creeks do not cite the first half of this point, only the second). But even Alexandria and Rome did not agree for a long time, due to calculations (miscalculations) as to the date of the vernal equinox. Rome celebrated the equinox on March 18, and Alexandria on March 23. Since this is something scientific, that is, half way between the shortest and the longest day of the year, it could be and was eventually solved by the devising of various cycles, so that a fixed day in the lunar calendar (14th of Nisan) would occur according to a predetermined pattern in the Julian calendar. Today Greeks and other Orthodox maintain that the Roman date of Easter is wrong, saying that the Nicene Council stipulated that the Resurrection must always be celebrated after the Jewish Passover.
Now it must be remembered that only incomplete records of canons and decrees exist from the Council at Nicaea. What we actually have is the Creed, the disciplinary action against the Arians, 20 disciplinary canons, a letter to the Alexandrian church, and a list of the bishops present (a list which varies from language to language).
The rest of the canons (if authentic at all) have been garnered from other sources, including Arabic writings. In thus citing Nicea about Easter coming after the Jewish Passover, the Greeks must have sources which are not commonly known, and stronger sources than the west is aware. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea writing just after the Council quotes from the letter of Emperor Constantine to all who were not present at the Council,
". . .relative to the sacred festival of Easter. . . it was declared to be particularly unworthy for this holiest of all festivals to follow the custom of the Jews. We ought not therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews. We desire to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews for it is surely shameful for us to hear the Jews boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. In their blindness, they frequently celebrate two Passovers in the same year. . . How then could we follow these Jews. . . for to celebrate the Passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible ."
Alexandrian Patriarchate
Another important question (Canon 6) the council took up was the position of the ancient see of Alexandria because there were problems of jurisdiction down there due to the Melitian schism. The Council's purpose was to bring order to the Church in Alexandria, but in so doing they gave evidence to something which was developing in the Church, namely, listing the metropolitan centers of Christianity and putting them in order of their importance. Not a few have seen this as a sort of ambitious clamoring on the part of some sees to "lord it over" less important places. Perhaps there was some of this (later there certainly was), but it would seem that the intention of Nicaea was merely to establish order and place responsibility of keeping order and orthodoxy on strong and capable centers of Christian teaching. In brief, the council stated that Alexandria had under its jurisdiction the whole of Egypt, Libya, and Pentopolis. But in solving this problem with regard to Alexandria, almost as a byproduct and as if it went without saying, they mentioned that Alexandria was second only to Rome which had similar rights in the West. It mentions Antioch being in the third place but does not define its territory.
They remind all, however (Canon 7) of the importance of the See of Jerusalem but still left it under the jurisdiction of Caesarea. (Remember Jerusalem had been destroyed in the year 70 by Titus and it took a while for Christians there to make a come-back.) Of course there was no Constantinople yet. We speak nowadays of the "Patriarchates" of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, as being established or recognized by the Council of Nicaea, but it is important to stress that at this juncture Nicaea doesn't use this term at all. It does use the term "Metropolitan", but mostly it just refers to the "Bishop of Alexandria", or the "Bishop of Rome" etc. (Canon VI). Of the remaining canons, all interesting, none really apply to the question of East-West relations or the church-state problem we are addressing. Constantine himself (who apparently had attended many sessions, though neither he nor the Roman presidents voted) brought the council to a close with another talk on unity but in it he calls himself a "fellow bishop", showing how closely he associated himself with the work of the Church.
[end quote]
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bible/NicaeaCouncil325.htm
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 07:44 pm: |
|
Your not even a starlite member and have no right to be posting on here, so please don't.
Michael william James
|
Ashleey NIKO (Ayisha)
Starlite Member
Username: Ayisha
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Jesus—A Godlike One; Divine
Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)”
Gr.,(kai the·os´ en ho lo´gos)
1808 “and the word was a god” The New Testament, in An
Improved Version, Upon the
Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s
New Translation: With a
Corrected Text, London.
1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21,
interlinear reading), by
Benjamin Wilson, New York and
London.
1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American
Translation, by J. M. P.
Smith and E. J. Goodspeed,
Chicago.
1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the
Christian Greek Scriptures,
Brooklyn.
1975 “and a god (or, of a divine Das Evangelium nach
kind) was the Word” Johannes, by Siegfried
Schulz,Göttingen, Germany.
1978 “and godlike sort was Das Evangelium nach
the Logos” Johannes,by Johannes
Schneider,Berlin.
1979 “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach
Johannes,by Jürgen Becker,
Würzburg, Germany.
These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word (the·os´) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. |
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 08:41 am: |
|
That particular scripture was about The Holy spirit and its promise to reveal God to man in time. Peter was testamony to this
You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make it drink, But your not even Horses!
Michael william James
|
Ashleey NIKO (Ayisha)
Starlite Member
Username: Ayisha
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 06:56 pm: |
|
There should be no apology for the Word of God as it "sets matters straight"
If you had read further on the Scripture Matt 16:15,16
” He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?” 16 In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
This much debated subject between you and Allianne. Jesus did say:" I am Gods Son" at Jphn 10:36
but I am also curious as well as to the whereabouts of the Scripture where
Jesus said:" I am God" . Where is that Scripture Michael? |
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 07:13 am: |
|
Matthew 16:13 sorry
Michael william James
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 06:37 am: |
|
Read Mark 16: 13
Michael william James
|
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 11:43 am: |
|
Or, “at unity.” Lit., “one (thing).” Gr., hen, neuter, to show oneness in cooperation. See 17:21 and 1Co 3:8 ftns.
JOHN 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?
JOHN 17:21 21 in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth.
(Romans 12:5) so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but members belonging individually to one another.
(1 Corinthians 1:10) Now I exhort YOU, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that YOU should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among YOU, but that YOU may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.
(Galatians 3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus.
1Co 3:88 Now he that plants and he that waters are one, but each [person] will receive his own reward according to his own labor |
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
JENNIFER: WHERE IS THE HOLY GHOST IN ALL THIS???
read from John 10:30 to John 10:40, You will see that Jesus means he is in union with His Father not God. He denies being God as the Jews think he says and he tells them he is only God's Son. |
Jennifer Maxwell (Jennifer03801)
Starlite Member
Username: Jennifer03801
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 09:19 am: |
|
John 10:30,
“I and the Father are one.”
|
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 10:48 pm: |
|
I never made this request and you have never furnished one of Jesus saying he was God. The reason I can be sure is that there is none |
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 08:23 pm: |
|
Forget it Alianne you keep bringing up this same argument all the time regardless of how many times i or someone else gives you scripture clearly stating the claim of Jesus divinity. All this is just a smoke screen for your own insecurities.
Michael william James
|
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Please give me the Scripture that Christ himself taught that he was God. In his 3 years of ministry he never once said that he was God. He told men and Satan that the Father Yahweh was to be worshipped only, never did he tell anyone to worship a trinity God of 3 persons. Men have many incorrect and foolish notions but the truth is to be found in the Bible, God's word. Plesa find me the scripture. |
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 09:28 pm: |
|
Kingship of Earth, heaven and hell? You've taken random passages from the scripture to explain how Jesus is not God..but obviously you know that this notion you draw from them overall questions the many other times the Bible clearly says Jesus is God.
Michael william James
|
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 02:38 pm: |
|
MICHAEL: Due to Jesus's perfect integrity to the true God unto his death, he was given Kingship of the Kingdom as well as being made High Priest and Judge. On earth he was anointed as the Messiah by God at his baptism (the reason he could then perform miracles) and was given the power to cure all types of illness and forgiveness of sin though the power of his Father and God Yahweh, Jehovah. |
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 02:27 pm: |
|
ZAHEER: Sacrifices for atonment have being going on since the time of Abel's first sacrifice, through the time of the Isrealites being God's chosen people and ended with the perfect human sacrife of Jesus human life which bought back eternal life for mankind and opened the way for reconciliation with the true God. |
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 09:26 pm: |
|
The opening sentence Zaheer gives absolutely no credit or informed view of the Bible at all. Why?> i know it sounds harsh for me to jump the bullet here. But there are plenty of passages that give insight into the Father in the Son, Son in the Father belief. No man has been given the key and authority of God..but yet Jesus time and time again forgives sin[it might be given a bit of a twist in your reply to understand this] but it leaves little to explain the other claims Jesus made while on this Earth..speaking as the Lord himself Jesus is quoted saying "I" etc He also gives authority to man to spread the word of God and build churches etc. He explains how he holds such authority over heavens and the earth and even hell itself. Such claims are not valid by a mere man.. The Jews crucified Jesus because they knew what he was claiming to be "God" and because they didn't believe he was this was blasphamey
Michael william James
|
|
|  |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page