Halcyon said:
I never said they were inventions of Nicea, i said that it was not until Nicea that the Trinity became the official Church doctrine on the nature of God.
And yes i agree with you, they did hold such ecumenical meetings in response to the changing beliefs of the populace. Which just goes to show you that the beliefs on the nature of God at that time were diverse enough to warrent a council specifically designed to sort out, once and for all, what "real" Christians should believe God is.
So are you a "real" Christian? Or do defy the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth and accept heresy?
And i imagine Origen and those who thought like him, several of whom you quoted from, probably had enough followers and power in Rome to push their belief at that council.
They also had the guidance of the Holy Spirit guiding them as the leaders of the Church, and thus had an obvious advantage
.
Not early Church, early Christians.
Is not the Church composed of the worldwide body of Christians? What individuals may erroneously believe within the Church does not alter the authoritative declarations of the Magisterium.
They only claimed to be taught by the apostles, they offered no proof.
Why in the world would they need proof at the time they lived? The people they were teaching when they took up their offices would have known (or at least known of) the Apostles as well. If some guy randomly claimed to be taught by the Apostles, when he wasn't, the rest of the Church would have stood up and said, "Um...no you weren't" (kinda like the Church did with the Gnostic believers of the time who claimed to have "secret" knowledge from one or more Apostles).
They don't, they reflect their own beliefs which they then pushed onto the populace, often by force. They are authoritative now because their methods of teaching were "very persuasive".
When in the second generation of Christianity did the Church push its teachings onto the populace by physical force? If you don't recall, that generation of Christians were the ones
being persecuted , not the ones persecuting.
God is not an ignorant little child. He doesn't abandon anyone, ever. Especially just because they don't follow exactly the religious code of ignorant men.
I never claimed God was an ignorant little child, but if you actually claim that all men have equal access and spiritual insight into God, then I can't say you're thinking this through very thoroughly. Do you honestly believe that an atheist who completely denies that God exists, wants nothing to do with Him, and thinks that He's a huge jerk with an attitude problem if He does exist (sadly, this is a realistic view of many atheists), then God is not going to force Himself on them, and they don't and will not (if they continue in their disbelief and defiance) ever have anything to do with Him. Those sort of people obviously do not have the same level of spiritual insight or forgiveness from God that devout followers of God do.
Fine, i'll use person from now on to avoid confusion. I don't believe God is a person, but meh.
Thanks.
And you're a monotheist you say?
Yes, why do you ask?
He gave Peter the authority to found a Church in his name, what that church became was the result of man.
So if the Church was founded by Peter's and the other Apostles' apostolic authority, and was guided by God, then when exactly did it become something guided solely by men? God promised never to leave His Church and that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against it. A complete deviance of truth and spiritual guidance doesn't sound like something that God established and promised to preserve, as you say He did with the Church.
Excommunication is not from the Holy Spirit, that's just silly.
Really? Why?
It is convenient, the Chuch is wrong.
So again, the entire Church, established and promised to be sustained by God, was wrong, and a random guy who was branded a heretic got it all right? How much sense does that make, Halcyon?
Sorry, my bad, it wasn't Pope it was Bishop of Rome according to Wiki. Although i'm sure i heard it was Pope form another souce - but i guess that one was wrong.
The Bishop of Rome is/was the Pope (at least in the Catholic view), so you may not be wrong. I'll have to look into it more thoroughly.
Angels are the messangers of God. The Archangels are the first created and most beloved of God (so tradition says). Satan is an angel "employed" by God in the office of the adversary. All these beings are of God. The angels are even referred to as the Sons of God. They all do God's bidding, they are all one with God.
Being " messengers of God" or "employed by God" or "beloved of God" does not make something God. Rather, it denotes an obvious difference between those beings and God, unless you claim they were messengers/employees of themselves, and loved themselves (a quaint idea, but not one with seems to make much sense).
Yes, really. How could you ask for a more direct source for teaching on Cristology?
He wasn't called the beloved disciple, people just assume that it is him. Personally i am of the opinion, as are many others, that the beloved disciple was Lazarus
An interesting hypothesis, but hardly supported by Scripture or Tradition. In the end of the Gospel of John (Ch. 21), the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is discussed by Peter and Christ, and Jesus says of him, "If I will that he (the beloved disciple) may remain till I come, what is that to you?" (verse 23) Then the author of the Gospel says in verse 24, "This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." The author of the Gospel identifies himself as the beloved disciple, and also identifies his technique of referring to himself in the third person throughout his Gospel. Unless you're claiming that the Gospel of John was written by Lazarus, I don't see how you could claim he is the beloved disciple.
FerventGodSeeker
