Posted on 01/11/2005 6:18:33 PM PST by malakhi
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
After a nine month hiatus, The Neverending Story, the granddaddy of daily threads, has returned to Free Republic. Originally begun on March 24, 2001, as a religious discussion thread, the NES evolved over time into a daily thread spanning a wide variety of topics. The new and improved Neverending Story will feature conversation on religion, politics, culture, current events, business, sports, family, hobbies, general fellowship and more. We welcome you to hang your hat in our little corner of FR. We ask you to abide by the FR posting rules and, even in the midst of serious debate, to keep the discussion friendly and respectful. Those who wish to "duke it out" are asked to take it over to the Smoky Backroom. I placed this thread in "General/Chat" for a reason, so play nice and have fun! :o)
Constantine was not the elected president of a constitutional republic with separation between church and state. Constantine called the council. It was held at one of his imperial estates. The council was at all times firmly under his control. And Constantine did most certainly see himself as a religious leader as well as a civil leader.
He died well after the council concluded. Constantine had exiled him
Athanasius was exiled four times as well.
Well, for stopping the persecution of one faction of the church, and allowing it to grow, at any rate.
RE: " The Father and the Son are One. They are the same Divine Being, the Same Essence. They are One. And it is three persons in this one God, cause that's what He revealed to us. If He were 4 or 6 or 12, HE would have let us know."
Hey...look at what i just found! Read posts #16...and #17.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1345330/posts?page=16#16
Well I'll be damned, I figured you would get around to mind reading one day.
In my search over the last few years the ONLY thing I'm sure of is the simple gospel and what results if I believe it.
Its enough.
BigMack
No, that came way later.
The simple gospel was passed down word of mouth buy the first Christians, Josephus wrote about it and the plain fact is if it was never written in any books it would still have been known to us today because the everyday folks knew about it and passed it on, they didn't need any councils or sources to believe, they got it straight from Jesus at the time and passed it on.
BigMack
Yawn. Nobody's elevating Mary to divine status, no matter what hysterical people say on the internet. Get a grip.
SD
See!? I TOLD you that you didn't believe it! :-)
In my search over the last few years the ONLY thing I'm sure of is the simple gospel and what results if I believe it.
Its enough.
Oh... I agree.... You've just had a lot to say to people who 100% believe those things that SOUNDS like you don't think it's enough for THEM.
In fact... when I've made similar statements, you've called the adequacy in to question.
Do you really think Catholics don't belive Jesus died for our sins, was buried, was raised up the 3rd day?
I believe most do.
BigMack
You remember me saying that, I don't.
No it was passed by word of mouth they got it straight from Jesus at the time and passed it on. :-)
The simple gospel was passed down word of mouth buy the first Christians,
I have no doubt the Torah observant Jewish person had some kind of message that was passed down. Embellished as it was passed down.
Josephus wrote about it and the plain fact is if it was never written in any books it would still have been known to us today because the everyday folks knew about it and passed it on, they didn't need any councils or sources to believe, they got it straight from Jesus at the time and passed it on.
If you can buy that fine.
Is there someone else at your house posting for you? :-)
I could have sworn over the last few years you've been pretty clear that most Catholics are NOT saved?
But hey! Not wanting to look a gift horse(lifter) in the mouth... I'm willing to accept this newfound fellowship! I'm ready to take on the infidels! What part of the compound perimeter am I responsible for?
They have "The majority opposed the Nicene creed" under the column of "lies" where "Anti-trinitarians misrepresent facts of history". "But the opposition was over the use of specific words that could be misunderstood, not the deity of Christ." is precisely what I posted.
So, no... it isn't a "different story"
OK Mr. Officious Smartass, I realized full well I directed you to a site which strongly defended the "truth" of the Trinity.
I did so to show "easy" it is to change "majority" to "minority" by arguing that the jackasses simply didn't understand what they were opposing.
I was hoping, wrongly, that even one with your extreme prejudice would note the twisted logic involved.
We will grant, for argument sake that a majority opposed the Nicene creed. But the opposition was over the use of specific words that could be misunderstood, not the deity of Christ. (Even though the deity of Christ was the main purpose of the council)
The opposition was also from those who "misunderstood" what the creed was saying. In other words, they felt the creed could lend support to Sabellianism (modalism, as taught today by the United Pentecostal church UPCI) of which they were equally opposed, when in fact it did not! But again, although opposed to the creed, did not view Jesus as a creature.
You will notice that only a few bishops from the west (Ossius: Alexandrian party) were present and most of the bishops were from the east (Oregonian theology), but neither viewed Jesus as a creature! In addition to this there were a small number aligned with Arius who openly stated Jesus was a creature!
The majority who opposed the creed were not aligned with Arius! The "majority who disliked" firmly believed that Jesus was God, they didn’t like the Greek terms used to describe Jesus deity, not that they rejected the deity itself!
When Frend says "The great majority of the Eastern bishops found themselves in a false position" he tells us what that position is: "The great majority of the Eastern clergy were ultimately disciples of Origen. Future generations have tended to dub them "Semi-Arian." In fact they were simply concerned with maintaining the traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church"
"The Church had to face up to the Arian question and go on record for or against the Arian answer. It did this at Nicea. Though there may be doubt about the understanding of 'consubstantial' at Nicea, there can be no doubt about the historical and dogmatic importance of the Council itself. For there the Church definitively rejected the answer that Arius gave to the question he put: Is the Son God or creature? The Council firmly rejected Arius' contention that the Son was a creature, not eternal, and made out of nothing." (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)
Is the "majority" explained away to your satisfaction?
You think anyone's buying that? Ok. Can I borrow your spinningHobbes graphic?
I did so to show "easy" it is to change "majority" to "minority" by arguing that the jackasses simply didn't understand what they were opposing.
THEY understood what they were opposing... it's the anti-trinitarians who claim the majority supported their views that doesn't understand what they were opposing.
There were three basic camps at Nicea. Only the small Arian contingent believed that Jesus was not God.
Is the "majority" explained away to your satisfaction?
The statement in dispute was "Those that believed in the deity of Jesus at the counsel were in the minority." The site you posted does not support that position.
It didn't. The "tiny minority" was the Arians. And they only became tiny-er.
The "Pope" sent legates because he was old and weak?????? The Pope "assuredly" gave his consent?????? All baloney - retroative history. There is no evidence he was even invited.
Right...
And of course it's merely coincidence that the two legates signed approving the canons first. Happens all the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.