Posted on 11/28/2002 7:06:02 PM PST by TLBSHOW
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 ¶For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Translations of Qur'anic Verses by Abdullah Yusuf Ali:
Say: "Praise be to Allah Who begets no son and has no partner in (His) dominion: nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: Yea magnify Him for His greatness and glory!" 17: 111
Further that He may warn those (also) who say "Allah hath begotten a son": 18: 4
It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter He only says to it "Be" and it is. 19: 35
They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! 19: 88/89
For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. 19: 92
No son did Allah beget nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods) behold each god would have taken away what he had created and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him! 23: 91
He begetteth not nor is He begotten; 112: 3
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
John 1:1 ¶In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 ¶And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 ¶For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Translations of Qur'anic Verses by Abdullah Yusuf Ali:
Say: "Praise be to Allah Who begets no son and has no partner in (His) dominion: nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: Yea magnify Him for His greatness and glory!" 17: 111
Further that He may warn those (also) who say "Allah hath begotten a son": 18: 4
It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter He only says to it "Be" and it is. 19: 35
They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! 19: 88/89
For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. 19: 92
No son did Allah beget nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods) behold each god would have taken away what he had created and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him! 23: 91
He begetteth not nor is He begotten; 112: 3
Maybe I assumed too much about your knowledge of history, or even your desire to look it up--certainly your desire to discuss it. I will rerererereiterate. (Not that you're anymore likely to read or respond to it this time.)
The current interpretation of the trinity as being simultaneously ONE and THREE entities became the establishment view only after many many years of factional disagreement about scriptural interpretation among true believers of Christ and the gospels. These various disagreements were later to be called "heresies" by the established (Nicene) view. Various Roman emperors of the 4th century alternately adhered to at least two of these factions (the Nicenes, who interpret the trinity as you do, and the Arians, whose interpretation that Christ is in some way distinct from the Father). When an Arian emperor held power he persecuted the Nicenes and vica versa. Ultimately a series of Nicene emperors held power and used it to establish the view of the Trinity most Christians have today.
You needn't reply. I know your "response". It is something like: "I believe in the word of God and the Truth of Christ and there is no reason for me to study false doctrine and the Truth has nothing to do with what anybody thinks and you only need to read the bible to know the Truth and if you don't know the Truth as I do you are going to Hell..." or something just as relevent to the discussion.
You just enjoy empty debates.
I'd settle for ANY kind of debate over what you were giving me.
These early Christians relied upon letters written by Paul, James, Jude, John, etc., and their memories of Paul's visits to them and their in depth religious discussions at various places, as these letters were written to those churches at that time in Phillipi, Corinth, Thessalonica, Rome, etc. These same letters are in the Bible I read. But, I am sure, you know all of this.
What the early Christians believed is what Christ, Himself, either taught them directly, or the disciples, who spent three years in intense, spiritual and religious discussions with Him. The disciples/apostles, recorded these understandings (i.e., letters), specifically for the purpose of reminding, instructing, and encouraging, all the saints (those who believe in Christ), as to what to believe and how to practice their beliefs.
Enter next chapters:
ca. 250 - first systematic empire-wide persecutions of Christians under Emperor Decius; churches destroyed, books burned, leaders arrested
ca. 300 - worst empire-wide persecutions of Christians under Emperor Diocletian; wants to eradicate Christianity
313 - "Edict of Milan"; Emperor Constantine I makes Christianity a legally recognized religion; official imperial support allows Christians to build large churches, produce large durable Bibles, obtain more converts, develop structures, etc.
By this time, the early Catholic church began. Catholicism has many traditions that are corruptions from biblical truth; although Constantine favored the chrisitians, he was drawn to the catholic style of beliefs.
As I previously stated, Catholicism is a corruption from biblical truth; Martin Luther, as I earlier mentioned, saw problems with what had resulted in the catholic version of truth.
These diversions from Truth, as I mentioned at another post, are irrelevant as far as the Truth remaining constant. These various offshoots from the Truth were all labled as "christian" religions, some having completely false doctrines (i.e., their core having little to do with what Jesus, Paul, John, Jude, etc. said or wrote).
Case in point: the Crusades were hailed as being "God's will." Not true. This was an edict of certain religious leaders to political rulers. Nowhere in the New Testament could anyone construe Christ's words to mean that He would have us murder nonbelievers.
Another corruption of Truth: baptizing infants for salvation. This is clearly not scriptural. Nowhere can it be found that Christ says infants must be baptized or that baptism, itself, "saves you." He says to be saved you must believe in Him. Baptism is another area of dispute amongst Christians. Some believe that it is a requirement for salvation, while others believe it is the outward expression of your inward faith; having already received salvation. These arguments produced still more "christian" sects.
Point being: just because someone calls themself or labels a sect "christian" does not make them/it "Christian." This name have been falsely applied to many sects. Unfortunately, many people believe they are a "Christian" simply because they attend a "Christian" church. Believing a falsity does not make the false belief true.
The definition of a Christian, as found in Scripture: one who believes he is a sinner, that Christ died for his sin, who accepts Christ as his Savior, and believes in Him, who was sent by the Father, and who is then indwelled by the Holy Spirit. These are things Jesus said. If anything differs from His words, anything added or taken away as the basis of salvation, it is a corruption of the Truth. It then has become a belief in church dogma/doctrine rather than Christ.
And that is why I have kept harping (or as you claimed, preaching) on the Word of God. It is not my version, your version, a church's version; it is what is written in the Word and what is it that Christ says about who or what a Christian is.
I'm sure there is a reason why you are ignoring my main argument regarding the heresies. Once again, for clarity, I will rerererererereiterate. Specifically regarding the Arians and their notion of the Trinity...
The Arians were, of course, NOT "polytheistic". In fact, they would likely argue that the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities. The Arians differed from the Nicenes primarily in their interpretaion of the early gospels (not some later corrupted Catholic scriptures that you keep referring to, but the same gospels that you read) as being strictly monotheistic with one God, and the Holy Spirit and Christ being something less and different. The argument is made possible by the apparent conflict in interpretation as presented, for example, in Mark versus John.
I thank you for providing your definition of a Christian above. That certainly does advance the argument. Perhaps now, at long last, you will agree that Arians are indeed Christians.
Thanks for your brief chronology of some of the religious persecutions (though we could debate your interpration of them--lets not get diverted further), you still fail to recognize the imperial history as relevent to my argument--there were emperors who were alternately Nicene and Arian. Thus, you have Christians persecuting Christians. The Christians whose view of the Trinity dominates today are precisely those who won this historic political battle. Do you doubt that the emperors' efforts made a historical difference in the predominance of the Nicene view of the Trinity?
If the Arians, who believed they were Christians, and did not believe in the Trinity (3 beings co-equally God), but, instead, believed there was one God and believed that the Holy Spirit and Christ were something less and different, then what did they believe Christ was? "The Son of God" or a "Prophet," or something else? If they believed He was only a prophet, then that would have made Christ a liar, because He Himself admitted to being God when accused of such. If they only believed He was the "Son of God," (i.e., a mortal), then again they disbelieved who He claimed to be. He also referred back to Old Testament Scriptures used to describe Himself and His coming--the long-awaited Messiah.
The Christians whose view of the Trinity dominates today are precisely those who won this historic political battle. Do you doubt that the emperors' efforts made a historical difference in the predominance of the Nicene view of the Trinity?
No, I have no doubt that their efforts made a difference in many more people being taught that God is 3 co-equal beings. I would be foolish to say otherwise.
But I must clarify something here. Just because someone believes that God is three co-equal beings (the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit), does not automatically make that person a Christian, either. I was baptised and raised Catholic, taught to believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is/are God. But that did not make me a Christian. I became a Christian when I was 13, when I accepted Christ as my personal Savior.
I never said they did not believe in the Trinity, but why should I now expect you to show me the courtesy of reading my posts before "responding".
The Arians interpreted the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) differently. To them there was only one self-created entity--the Father. They believed that the Father created the Son so that the Son had a beginning and therefore was something less than the Father, but was still of similar substances, and was the source of redemption.
And it wasn't just the Arians who claimed belief in only one god, it is the Nicenes as well and, presumably, you. The Nicenes could also accuse the Arians of being polytheistic by creating a demigod out of Christ.
Don't ask me to make sense of it. I can't. But that is apparently what they believed. And if you read Mark, you see God speaking of Jesus as though he is a distinct entity. Christians typically visualize him sitting at the right hand of God--even in the spiritual world he is seen as a distinct entity. It is a contorted notion maybe, but so is the idea that the Trinity are simultaneously the same and different. Now that violates identity (a reference to another thread, sorry).
Look, don't take my word for it. Why not read up on the heresies yourself. It's just history. Maybe you'll find my facts are wrong and you'll then actually be able to form a counterargument.
Just because someone believes that God is three co-equal beings (the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit), does not automatically make that person a Christian, either.
Are you changing your definition of "Christian" now? The prior definition you gave was the one substantial comment made that furthered the debate (which remember hinges on Arians being Christian).
Your earliest remark regarding the Trinity: "The discussion I'm having stemmed from someone's remarks that unless one believes in the "Trinity of persons within the Godhead", one is not a Christian."
---------------
Then you went to "interpretation of the Trinity:"
"I never said they did not believe in the Trinity . . . The Arians interpreted the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) differently. To them there was only one self-created entity--the Father. They believed that the Father created the Son so that the Son had a beginning and therefore was something less than the Father, but was still of similar substances, and was the source of redemption.
----------------
"Should [they] be denied the right to be called Christian b/c they interpreted the trinity differently than the Nicenes."
-----------------
"the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities. The Arians differed from the Nicenes primarily in their interpretaion of the early gospels . . . as being strictly monotheistic with one God, and the Holy Spirit and Christ being something less and different"
-------------------
Many Arians may have had sincere beliefs in God. I do not question that (of course, there were probably many who used it against others, as some pastors or leaders do today, regardless of their faith). But it sounds to me that they had a great misunderstanding of who God is. They may have been sincere, but they were also sincerely wrong if they believed or interpreted in God as something other than there being co-equality amongst three beings Who are also one.
John 1:1-5 would refute Jesus being something less than equal to God, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not," as would John 10:30 "I and my Father are one," as would other Scripture. One could look to the passage of Pontius Pilate making declarations against Jesus claiming to be God, which He did not deny.
Are you changing your definition of "Christian" now? The prior definition you gave was the one substantial comment made that furthered the debate (which remember hinges on Arians being Christian).
No; I have not changed any definition of "Christian." To reiterate: A Christian believes in the Trinity (something I have said all along). A Christian believes that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, i.e., three co-equal beings yet one; the Father sent the Son to die for our sins; the Son sent the Holy Spirit to indwell the believer; for this to happen, there is a belief process required. There's lots of Scripture previously quoted on this thread (by me and others), and I'm sure you know of yet still others.
Belief in the Trinity does not make one a Christian; but a Christian believes in the Trinity. To believe otherwise is to disbelieve the Scriptures, and to disbelieve that Jesus is who He claimed He was. If He was the Word, and He was in the beginning with God, and if all things were made by Him, then He was never spiritually created, because He always was and because He and the Father are one. Now, I suppose, one could argue about whether Jesus even had a hand in creating Himself as a man, since Scripture says "without Him was not any thing made that was made."
I won't mind reading up on the Arians and what they thought; in fact, I just might do that.
So, of course, I never "went to interpretation". I started there and never left.
Then, you misquote me as writing:
"the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities."
when in fact I wrote:
"In fact, they would likely argue that the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities."
They may have been sincere, but they were also sincerely wrong if they believed or interpreted in God as something other than there being co-equality amongst three beings Who are also one.
...and around and around in circles we go. You even requote the same passages from John. You needn't assume that b/c you don't read my posts to you that I don't, foolishly, read yours. Shall I requote the same passages I previously quoted from Mark?
And so you again repeat what you already made deafeningly clear--that you believe the Nicene interpretation of the Trinity. Unfortunately, your personal beliefs in the Trinity have nothing to do with the argument. I'm not now nor have I been questioning or trying your faith which you seem intent on defending nontheless. You also again make clear that you will turn a blind eye to trying to understand scriptural interpretations that led others to different views on the Trinity.
No; I have not changed any definition of "Christian."
You had posted the following definition:
The definition of a Christian, as found in Scripture: one who believes he is a sinner, that Christ died for his sin, who accepts Christ as his Savior, and believes in Him, who was sent by the Father, and who is then indwelled by the Holy Spirit.
It was a marvellous advance that you did so, and so it was a great surprise to me. Now you alter this by adding
A Christian believes that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, i.e., three co-equal beings yet one
Which was not in your original definition above and effectively eliminates all non-Nicenes from the label of "Christian". Shall I again attempt to argue from this point only to have you change it again later? Hopeless.
I won't mind reading up on the Arians
You undid the one useful part of this whole debate--first defining Christian, then changing your definition and thus making debate with you a hopelessly moving target. Now you suggest another positive note. I wonder if you'll do it.
To understand how one gets dressed to go to work in the morning is similar: there are certain things one must do. Stating something simply like, "take a shower, get dressed, and drive" is simple. Being more specific and adding information about the shower, about the clothing, and then mentioning "putting on make up" or "putting on perfume," does not change the originally stated SIMPLE meaning. Nor would one have to continue to keep saying "get dressed," once it's already been stated---one assumes that the reader can follow along with the fact that that no longer needs to be reiterated.
Your words exactly from post 485:
The definition of a Christian, as found in Scripture: one who believes he is a sinner, that Christ died for his sin, who accepts Christ as his Savior, and believes in Him, who was sent by the Father, and who is then indwelled by the Holy Spirit.
You are insincere to tell me that this (which says nothing of the trinity being the same entity) is your definition of a Christian, and then later to deny it by requiring that a Christian believe that the trinity are the same entity.
My not accepting your wavering is not the same as spin. For that matter, just what in the world do you think my "spin" is? Do you even know what "spin" means? I merely presented historical facts, posited that a "Christian" need not believe the Nicene interpretation of the Trinity, and you go off into a boatload of repetitive irrlevencies about true and false doctrine, and how you know Jesus, and a plethora of other things not pertaining to my original point or any historical facts. You, sir, are clearly the spinmeister.
"You are insincere to tell me that this (which says nothing of the trinity being the same entity) is your definition of a Christian, and then later to deny it by requiring that a Christian believe that the trinity are the same entity."
You are a joke. How many times does one have to say Christians believe in the Trinity, as three equal beings? You debate for the sake of debating to win. I am finished trying to "educate" you, as your only goal is to spin, spin, spin, and by superbly spinning, you think you win. I feel sorry for you. Done.
Fine. So you lack the integrity to say that you change your mind about your other, explicitly stated, definition of a Christian, which clearly does not require the above.
I am finished trying to "educate" you
That's not presumptuous or anything. Don't feel you've failed as an educator to the same degree that you fail as a logician. I've learned something from you. Identify intractable irrationality, and get out fast.
You needn't be logical to be happy. Have a happy life.
P.S. Since you use the word so often, you might as well learn what it means.
I note that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you don’t have any interest in an honest discussion on this. I leave the field to you and your fantasy about what Christianity is. I’m done with this discussion.
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.